Ummm.... noooo, mean the same Beck that kept speaking positively about Ron Paul and said he sounded like the only one that supported the constitution. So he invites Ron Paul to speak on his show..... 5 minutes before airtime Ron Paul cancels. Beck keeps trying to get in touch with Ron Paul for months and nothing. Had all the other major candidates on. Finally Ron Paul agrees to come on his TV show, saying there had been a misunderstanding. Ron Paul comes on and says he would do away with all taxes. Beck asks him "well would you replace it with a flat tax, you gotta fund it somehow." Paul just said "no taxes." He asks "local state taxes?" Paul again, "no taxes." After that, yeah, Beck wasn't so much a fan. Either way, thats the way I remember it.chabouk wrote:You mean the same "libertarian" Glenn Beck who was foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to Ron Paul, right up until he was no longer a candidate, then he started loving the guy?wgoforth wrote:I also listen to Beck almost daily. He is a libertarian so he was sympathetic towards her.
BTW, is it possible to be a libertarian and not support Ron Paul? We do that with every party don't we?
Anyway, I don't think that Beck was opposed to Medina when he invited her. She could have simply said that muslim terrorists hit the WTC as she did on her website and it would have been a non-issue. Nobody put the words in her mouth.
Again, the only explanations I can see is:
(1) She didn't know what the term "truther" meant and went along as though she did, afraid of looking stupid. She gets off the phone and then learns what it meant and writes her blog.
(2) That she knew what it meant but didn't want to ostracize the truthers who may vote for her.
Maybe there are other explanations, but I have racked my brain trying to think of why she would answer 2 different ways.
To copy another's sig line, ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW! I voted early and don't feel like my vote was 'wasted'. I am no dead fishy.