Posted on 01/09/2013 1:04:38 PM PST by Nachum
Glenn Beck announced plans Tuesday during his online television program to expand the news operation in his media company, The Blaze, and refocus it as a libertarian network, opening three foreign bureaus, debuting a nightly newsmagazine show, and relocating his New York staff to showy new offices. Beck introduced his ambitious plans by standing in front of a split screen with MSNBC´s Chris Matthews on one side and Fox News´s Sean Hannity on the other, and bemoaning the fact that cable news has devolved into the "far left [and] far right... yelling at each other." "We´re not gonna play
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
Oh yeah, I hope Beck is successful. I thought he was great TV on Fox when he first started. In my opinion he just got too conspiratorial and then preachy near the end. Anyway, I still count Beck as one of the good guys
You know I do find it a little odd that Beck is going Libertarian considering how he detoured off into the spiritual thing after his big rally on the mall. For awhile he really sounded far more like a social conservative preacher in many ways.
Most of them (myself included) believe in conservative values, just not enforcing them at gunpoint. As far as political affinity goes, we also believe that even the most rock-ribbed conservatives can be reasoned with or at least peacefully coexisted with, and know that’s not possible with liberals.
I hear you. I think your position is going to be on the ascendency in conservative circles. I believe traditional conservatives and libertarian leaning folks are going to have to find common ground and band together as best as possible. We are in serious trouble here. The right is badly divided and the left is unified behind, much as I hate to say it, a very charismatic leader who really is fundamentally transforming the nation. We are losing ground fast on things conservatives and many libertarians care about.
You have a valid point there. Hard to envision a candidate running for office in the towns and hamlets of our Founding Fathers coming out and running on issues like pro-dope, pro-fag marriage, pro-hookers, pro-third world invasion, pro-pornography. They’d be appropriately tarred, feathered, and run out of town (if not worse) for being such moral degenerates.
I wouldn’t read too much into this Libertarian angle. It’s just a way to set himself apart from the right and left. He’s angling for an audience, pretending to be something completely different. An alternative, if you will, to the right or left.
It is a marketing ploy, nothing more.
HEY, I’M GLENN, I’M DIFFERENT, WATCH ME!
Hmmmmmm you might be onto something here. Hnuntsman senior is filthy rich.
They would not be agreeing with you.
A lot of truth to what you say here. Libertarians make some good arguments, but I do think it's fair to say that the people who helped build this country would never have supported something like normalizing gay marriage. I understand the libertarian points about government staying out of these issues, but I suspect the founders, even as committed to personal freedom as they often were, would not have been willing to give up the culture to this sort of thing.
Then again, the country would probably have also strung up a party that wanted to free blacks or give women the right to vote in 1790 too. There is an argument that the times have always changed and we have to be willing to change with them. To me though the issue is this - if we lose the culture to total degeneracy, is there really anything left fighting for? And if the government starts walking away from these social issues on all fronts (which may be the road we are on), where does it end? Will libertarians be okay with people marrying and having sexual relations with their pets? How about polygamy? How about incest between consenting adults? Where does it end?
Technology is, and will be continually changing the way we get news. This will allow a whole lot more people to have an opportunity to be a provider of news content. You can already see that happening in baby steps with blogs, Youtube, Twitter, etc.
While I applaud anyone that wants to seriously compete in the field of journalism, applying an ideological label to the network is a mistake IMHO.
If I were Beck, I would get the corporate and news offices out of New York and DC. Build my base in a more conservative/patriotic state (in my case Texas), with intelligent, passionate, moral, small government types. I would avoid hiring folks who are ideologically brainwashed, or have been in DC/NY too long. The average newsreader at CNN is not that far away from the ones at Fox. Same goes for the producers, crew and management. That is the problem. They all socialize together, went to the same schools, are in the same unions, and share the same corrupt values. Truth will not come from anyone who has no moral foundation.
Frankly, I don’t want ideological news. I want truth from the news folks. That is a very rare commodity these days. I want investigative journalism that isn’t afraid to slay some sacred cows in the pursuit of truth. I don’t even want fair and balanced either. Since as I have said elsewhere, the mainstream media has been so far left, so corrupt and immoral for so long, that a slightly more moderate Fox appears far right. Fox is hardly a “Conservative” network. Its certainly better than the alternatives at present.
On the Conservative/libertarian debate:
I think Conservatism has been so vilified by the media that some may not even know what it means anymore, only what the newsreaders say about it.
Conservatism to me is classical liberalism, as exemplified by our Founding Fathers. That’s why I detest the term liberal used for the left. Call them socialists, marxists, statists, progressives (most of those names they have called themselves through the years), or whatever - they are not liberals in the classical sense. And that term is far too mild for the evil that they have unleashed through their policies. Do democrats believe in liberty, freedom of religion, private property, free trade, natural law and rights etc - absolutely not. Their belief system has proven time and again to be the scourge of humanity. Give them no cover, and no benefit of the doubt.
Conservatism, or Classical Liberalism of the John Locke persuasion - each person has a natural right to life, liberty and property, is the antidote to all forms of tyranny. If libertarians can agree with that basic premise, we will get along fine.
Did he really say he has 600K subscribers? I did a search and I can find no information to support that. Everything I found, including a December 2012 article from rightscoop.com., says he has only 300,000.
Oh, well, it wouldn't be the first time he stretched the truth.
That is just my memory, could be mistaken.
Glenn has been a terrific foot soldier but he’s leapt into the mouth of obscurity I’m afraid.
you realize you’re frothing
you can make whatever claims you want, that doesn’t mean libertarians would agree with you or your miss-classification of the ideology
as for the founders, they would be 100% in agreement with my ideals. far more then your GOP stance, as the GOP is actually ok with abortion... otherwise they would do SOMETHING to reduce the number killed per year
These are all great issues for the states to consider, NOT the federal government. That role was clearly and unambiguously given to the states.
Where in the Constitution do you find the federal government given the power to define marriage? The states were given that authority. That the feds have claimed unconstitutional power over things affected by the definition of marriage makes no difference. The federal government does not have the authority to do it.
I understand that you would find it easier to grant the federal government the power to define marriage, so long as that definition is agreeable to you. But then, with you claiming they have that power, the feds change the definition to one that is clearly ridiculous. But YOU gave that power to the feds. THAT is the libertarian complaint.
Has anyone read his “Agenda 21” book? If so, what is your opinion of it?
“Has anyone read his “Agenda 21” book? If so, what is your opinion of it?”
Not yet. Only pieces of it. What I know of, it is informative.
You may find this useful until you do-
http://www.nachumlist.com/agenda21.htm
No it is more complicated than that:
Conservatives should be Patriots.
The problem is, a whole lot of would-be Patriots are more anti-Union than they are pro-American.
So we have a solid portion of otherwise patriotic Americans who have sold themselves without question, to foreign business interests.
That is a (huge) problem, and America must find a way to get back American customers.
Soon.
Or else, America will simply cease to exist.
No not frothing at all, that would be your activity, I’m just pointing out how absurd and dishonest and obscene your nonsense is.
Conservatives are against abortion and you libertarians actually wrote into your party platform that libertarianism calls for zero limitations or hindrances to abortion, any abortion, for whatever reason, at whatever point or stage, zero.
Your radical leftist agenda/homosexual agenda/abortion agenda/anti-American agenda, would have had you lynched by the original Americans.
i have no idea what you’re going on about. i have no offical political party as Constitutional libertarians have no party.
you’re the gop follower... the same guys that push massive spending, massive taxes, and pro choice. nice work.
The libertarians formed a party to put their beliefs into government and into law.
The libertarian agenda in in post 66.
Constitutional libertarians did form a party... then created the country. since then, it’s been splintered
Eff Glen Beck
No, conservatives usually end up being anti-union because unions tend to devolve into radical liberal organizations that funnel massive amounts of money to far left political parties (in this country that would be the Democrats). Unions usually start with a noble purpose, to protect workers rights in an environment where business has all the leverage, but the leadership quickly becomes corrupt and allies itself with the far left. This is the same pattern that has played itself out pretty much everywhere. In South America, Asia, Europe, etc, the trade unions typically align themselves with the far left and usually become their single biggest financial supporter.
Cringing, your positions on trade are no different than Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vermont), Ed Schultz (whackadoodle, MSNBC), etc. Liberals don't like competition, and you agree with them. Conservatives know our workers and companies can compete successfully in most areas, if only we remove the barriers such as high tax rates, over regulation, forced unionization, etc. Were it up to you and the leftwingers who share your views, the we would still be stuck with the big 3 automakers turning out unreliable garbage. The only reason they've improved at all is through competition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.