Posted in Hypocrisy, National Politics, Those Kooky Conservatives!

Two Peas in a Pod – Glenn Beck & Paul Ryan

   April 13, 2010

Paul Ryan, GOP representative WI-01 was a guest on Glenn Beck’s radio show – where Glenn said “I love you” to Paul Ryan as they both agreed on progressivism being a cancer on America. This profession of love from the much-ridiculed Glenn Beck, in and of itself, should be enough for the people of Janesville and his District to recognize what a dangerous right wing well spoken wacko they have representing them. In this audio from the show, Paul Ryan attacks progressivism saying that it is a cancer and the source for attacks on the American idea.  He says it is all about government rationing, redistribution and regulation – obviously three R’s that he feels are better managed by his antiquated Republicanism and Conservatism vs. the well-meaning Progressivism.  He calls for “flushing” progressivism out while conveniently tarnishing Madison and the University of Wisconsin at the same time.

hat tip to Crooks & Liars

Share:

Related Articles

34 thoughts on “Two Peas in a Pod – Glenn Beck & Paul Ryan”

  1. God versus the government as a source of rights and freedoms? Paul Ryan wouldn’t last one minute in an undergraduate political science course at UW-Madison.

    1. DJ, I would argue we have rights and freedoms IN SPITE of government. No matter what that almighty UW-Madison professor says.

  2. It’s funny how Ryan’s hometown GOP establishment supporters and campaign donors (Forward Janesville, etc.) run to big government first for job zone tax credits and a $1.5 billion interstate expansion tax hike to spur private sector economic development. Biggest phonies on Earth – next to the rodeo clown.

  3. So going on the Glenn Beck show makes Paul Ryan a wacko? Two peas in a pod: Barack Obama and Rev. Wright. Explain to me why you think it applies in the first instance and not the second.

    And I agree. Progressivism, or whatever you want to call it, is a cancer. And they keep on proving it. “well meaning” it may be, but a lot of good intentions have very harmful effects.

      1. I was thinking equal rights and women’s suffrage.

        Or how about pre-tax contributions to 401(k)?

        Or airbags.

        Or seatbelts.

          1. How much progress is too much? So your ultimate goal of “progress” is that the government dictates and controls everything?

              1. Well then care to elaborate and answer your own question? If all of the examples of “progress” you list involve government intervention or program in some form or another, then how much IS too much?

        2. Wow the 40 hour work week and women’s suffrage. Care to mention anything worthy that happened in the last half century? Your examples are like me trying to convince you to become a Republican because Lincoln won the Civil War.

          2. apparently the equal rights act of 1964 was omitted in your comment?

            Or 401(K) contributions?

            Or seatbelts?

            Or airbags?

            Or state minimum wage laws?

            Don’t cherry pick one part of my comment and forget the others.

            1. Ok the equal rights act of 1964 was was almost 50 years ago.

              401(k), seatbelts, airbags are not exactly recent phenomena either. I didn’t know I was required to specifically address every word of your statement. I also didn’t say I had anything against any of these things. But you are the one cherry picking these few examples, which hardly define modern progresivism/liberalism anyway.

              Unless of course by “seatbelts” you mean government mandating we wear them and pulling us over to ticket us for not doing so. Yeah that’s pretty indicative of how progressives would like government telling us which way to turn in our lives. I’m betting the soda and hamburger sin taxes are not far behind.

              So you were good at mentioning 5 things from the 20th century, what do you hope the legacy of progressives will be for the 21st Century?

              1. So air bags in cars starting in 73/74 is not recent enough. Of course its not. If it didn’t happen in the last ten years it is no longer relevent? How exactly does that make sense? Here, how about protections for homosexuals in hiring. That is fairly recent.

                Two words. Gay rights insofar as marriage, insurance benefits, adoption…

            2. LSTW, you also “cherry picked” my original post by not answering this question:

              “So going on the Glenn Beck show makes Paul Ryan a wacko? Two peas in a pod: Barack Obama and Rev. Wright. Explain to me why you think it applies in the first instance and not the second.”

              1. Yes. How many people were included in the broadcast of these “supposed” evil preachings by wright. And we have seen in (hilarious) videos of people saying they got their “info” from beck.

                I haven’t seen to many people out and about because wright gave them bogus info.

                1. Wow you have to use “supposed”? You can’t even admit BHO’s pastor was a hateful bigot who stirred up more hate in his congregation? Really?

            1. You guys are something else. I didn’t say they were irrelevant because they were old. I am saying if you have to go back that far you are hardly talking about a modern progressive movement. What have you done lately? What are you planning to do for the future that is so darn good?

              You mention a few consumer protection type stuff back at the turn of the century and some over 30 years ago as evidence that today’s progressivism is the way to go. Wait, weren’t progressives back in the day also strong proponents of prohibition? Or did you overlook that one.

                1. Dig a little deeper, with the internet these days it’s not that hard.

                  Many progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power based in saloons. They also supported women’s suffrage, and a good deal of those same women’s groups supported prohibition. These progressives out to cure social ills thought alcohol to be the root of crime and poverty, so let’s ban it! Plus they could control or eliminate “big liquor” special interests. Sound familiar?

                  Progressives also gave us the recall and referndum, two things that more often than not seem to be despised by you guys today (and in some cases rightfully so).

                    1. I am not denying that religious groups were in favor of prohibition. They were part of the larger progressive movement that helped pass it.

                      It also serves as a good example of progressives meddling and intervention. They think that just by passing a law it becomes so, when in reality the law banning alcohol only made things worse.

  4. Paul Ryan was a wacko before he went on the Glenn Beck Show. Only now, his wackiness has been flushed out. Thank you Beck!

  5. There’s a huge difference. Obama attended Wright’s church as an audience member. Paul Ryan did more than attend, he became an interacting stagehand and member of the clergy, Beck’s clergy that is.

    1. Hi Lou,
      Thanks for making this point. This is a huge difference. Not only was he a stagehand and member of the clergy, but he told Glenn Beck that he agreed with him.

      Now if we could only get his District to see how far out his views are and what a corporate shill he is, we should be able to retire this man.

      Thanks for commenting.

      Paul

    2. Obama was not simply an “audience member” as you say. Don’t attempt to minimize it in that way. He did much more than happen to attend Wright’s church — for years by the way.

      Rev. Wright officiated at the wedding ceremony of Barack and Michelle Obama and also their children’s baptisms. Obama said his book “The Audacity of Hope” was inspired by one of Wright’s sermons and Wright was often his spiritual advisor and mentor.

      According to the Reverend Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from, just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

      He only disavowed Wright when it became politically convienient and was backed into a corner.

      Because Ryan is a guest on a talk show and agreed with a statement, doesn’t mean he is seeking the counsel of Beck on important decisions, in the way BHO did with Wright. And when did Beck ever say “G– D— America!”?

  6. So because a third party said it, it must be true? Really? Obama actually spoke out against Wright before he left that church. So no, he wasn’t backed into a corner or politically convenient.

    I went to church with my mother after I no longer believed in God. But, if I follow your logic, because I attended means I believe in God and everything the pastor said. This is flawed logic.

    When did Obama ever agree with wright when he said “G-D- America” like when Ryan agreed with beck?

  7. You’re right, having the guy marry you and baptize your kids or be your mentor and advisor doesn’t mean anything at all! I think he probably attended the church for political convenience to rise in Chicago politics — which is even more attrotious that you would use a church for that reason and have to use one that spews hatred — and then ditched Wright when he had to for the national stage. But that’s no excuse for sitting in the pew week after week and listening to that man. If you are there and a member it is right to conclude you share a good majority of that organization’s beliefs.

Comments are closed.