Thank God for Glenn Beck! He is such a great and smart man>Obama,who is supposed to be highly educated,but no one can prove it,said we had 57 states in America during his run for president.Glenn could run this country alot better than obama,and he wouldn't have people that hate our country in control of everything.
I always thought of Glenn Beck as a comedian instead of a political commentator just to keep my own peace of mind... I didn't know he was ACTUALLY a comedian....
about the comments below: how lame when someone tries to sound smart by making a separation between labels and individuals. presupposing even what the individual is willing to label himself. "liberal," "conservative," your argument is both entirely semantic and pedantic, but not really saying anything. people use labels in order to sum up a range of ideas in order to discuss more complex ideas. of course you will counter with deconstructionism; even more academic drivel that still says nothing.
btw, you sound like you just took a philosophy 101, critical thinking class. it's all "defining our terms" this and "follows logic" that. study derrida to more fully get your head up your ass. this is why "philosophy" is no longer of any concern to the common man; the analytical hijacked it from the continental. just a bunch of kids scared of leaving the ivory tower, actually getting involved in life, taking a stand, and feeling anything; so life becomes one long math equation. boooorrriiinng.
well then we have run into the crux of the problem. people use adjectives and nouns to describe people's political persuasions. as you think one of the most commonly used one in america is 'without foundation' then you have showed us why discussion is not very useful if the terms we are using are not agreed upon.
come on lindsey, the rest of the main stream media thinks he's a messiah. Thank goodness for Fox for reporting what others won't.
I used to be a liberal until Obama came on the scene. He's so radically left he's dangerous for our country. I hope the people wise up about this guy soon.
if insofar a vast majority of his preferences, particularly on very important, contentious issues that cleave at the very character and future of our nation are those that are traditionally held by self described conservative politicians and voters, how is he not conservative? which of his policy preferences are those that a majority of self described liberals hold?
If you want to criticize someone then try using real words with real meaning. Instead of using sexual inuendoes and curse words try making a logical statement with facts to back it up. By talking the way you did it just makes you seem like an ignorant moron.
If you want to criticize someone then try using real words with real meaning. Instead of using sexual inuendoes and curse words. try making a logical statement with facts to back it up. By talking the way you did it just makes you seem like an ignorant moron.
Ok, at first I was like, would Glenn Beck show his actual views or would he still be a tool for fox? and just seeing this little trailer or whatever, I get the sense that I know who might be sponsoring this guy.
read the quote again you moron. beck argued the supreme court said "we don't have gitmo." and even if the quote was just about releasing terror suspects, that was not the decision, just that the government has to prove their guilt. if someone is not proven guilty then yes they are released. why should we take the government's word for it if they can't produce evidence? one could make your argument about every criminal case, arguing that the government wouldn't possibly abuse its power.
Now, in reference to something that matters, his views on Gitmo. You're attempting to paint this very black and white, like the government's rounding up random people from anywhere. No, these are individuals captured during military raids in war torn countries, from terrorist training camps and battles. Should we have had a search warrant? You are naive. How can we try these people in court? We are at war with terrorism. We can't prosecute them under the criminal code. What else SHOULD we do?
first of all, no, many are captured outside of war zones in places like thailand, indonesia, canada, and germany. second of all, countless terrorists have been tried and found guilty in criminal court, including those behind 9/11. murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attacking us property, conspiracy to attack us property are all offenses that can be prosecuted. we don't take the government's word for it. they can always prove guilt if the evidence permits. otherwise, what is the truth?
Unrelated question: you know the feeling you get from smashing your head repeatedly into a brick wall? Never mind. Let me try this just one more time. Maybe you could have your one of your little friends translate it from english to whatever you're more comfortable with. Beck's quote talked about RELEASING them. And that's what we were talking about. The quote. Not the case directly. I just don't know how else to put it. Holy tangential semantics! Help yourself to some fail.
Here's where I think you're confused: some SC case that said the detainees should be tried in the US. Ok, fine, now Glenn took that the next step and, in your quote, said that IF that happened, and IF they were released into the US, he, as the president, would just shoot them dead. It's what we in the business refer to as a hypothetical. Followed up with some facetiousness and hyperbole. So... fail.
yes, thus underlying the hyperbole, and incredible comedy, is his agreement with the government that everyone the government has accused and detained during the war on terror is guilty. ie, he assumes the government is so monstrous and bungling that it couldn't possibly handle giving food or healthcare to poor people but it can be trusted to capture people without trial or public proof, and if the accused are found not guilty, we should kill them.
The lot of you earn an epic fail. Glenn Beck = American hero. Keeping it in generalities, he stands for thinking for yourself, intellectual honesty, individual rights, individual sovereignty, individual self determination, basically plain individuals, the respect of law, the will of the people being upheld, honesty in our elected officials, and most of all, common sense. Boy, what childish, CRAZY ideals. If any of you bothered to actually listen to him openly, you'd recognize what he stood for.
but teh gayz marrying killz my individual sovreignty. all you conservatives talk about individual rights until someone else's exercise of their own, in a way that doesn't harm you in any way, reminds you of your deeply closeted urges.
also, remember when he asked that girl for nude photos, when he took us on a journey to bowel surgery, and he poured water on that hacky stand up that does red eye all the time? shure sounds like common sense ter me
Oh, woe is me for lack of space! First, I'm not familiar with the first two stories you reference. The water? A joke. Not alien to common sense. My apologies for your own lack of humor. Also, you bring up the one issue of gay marriage as if one, specific, isolated case can disprove or prove anything. You also arrogantly presume to know my stance on the issue. In short, a lot of that debate is based on semantics, and some believe that it does harm society... which is an entirely different debate.
does glenn beck believe that we should trust that the government is omniscient and anyone they accuse of terrorism is a terrorist and thus deserving indefinite detention regardless of a trial?
No, this kind of feeds back into what I said first, "If any of you bothered to actually listen to him openly, you'd recognize what he stood for." Beck has routinely criticized Bush for years, even when he was on CNN. In fact, once he even called for Bush to be impeached. He was against the war in Iraq, but also said that while we're there fighting a war, we had better fight to win. But you don't bother listening to the man that you love to hate. You're too busy hating him for made up reasons.
umm, i didn't talk about iraq or bush, i was talking about believing that the government's word is enough to imprison someone. or that believing that the government can't handle giving people insulin, but you can trust it to torture people. i'm asking if he believes any of that stuff, and if so, is he still a libertarian.
So, you think libertarianism is bad? That's the implication I got from that last sentence. As for torture, A) it's narrow minded at best to base your judgment of someone based on one single issue; and B) I'm not sure exactly of what his personal stance is on this recent torture debate. I do know that he is adamantly opposed to sending prisoners to other countries like the Saudis so they can do the torture for us, but off the top of my head I can't say any more.
i didn't punctuate correctly but if you see, i am saying "is he still a libertarian." I meant it as a question. And I am surprised that you think that habeas corpus rights, taking your government's word when it comes to guilt and innocence, and torture are single minor issues to you. If he doesn't want torture photos released, doesn't want torturers held accountable, and believes the government can take anyone and imprison them indefinitely, is he a libertarian?
Well, I would hazard a guess and say that no, he doesn't believe the gov can take and imprison anyone for no reason. Neither does anyone else. Habeas corpus rights, well, they apply to Americans, and they (Americans) are not being detained in Gitmo. It's a much narrower issue of how to treat someone resorting to illegal, terrorist tactics, yet also transcending conventional national boundaries. In response to your question, yes, especially when you look at domestic issues, he is a libertarian.
well seeing as many people in gitmo and bagram (our remaining no-rights prison) were detained far from war zones, then the presumption is that they are ACCUSED of "illegal tactics." Even you resort to assuming they all are guilty. And you guess wrong, glen talked about how we should kill every detainee, i.e. he bought the government's story that every detainee was guilty. So he does trust the government when it comes to imprisoning people and doesn't need proof. not libertarian.
Well Zang, those were just rife with error, but I'll point out the most egregious one. Glenn Beck never said that we should execute all the detainees. I assume you're referring to the time he remarked what a shame it was that we didn't just kill these people on the battlefield while they were combatants, so we wouldn't have to deal with all the crap that we are today. And that was in regards to very specific group that were captured during a raid on a terrorist training camp. So... fail.
"If I'm president of the US, I would go on National television and say---'ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court said that we don't have Gitmo so that is over. We're going to release all of them, but I want you to know from here on out our policy is to not have prisoners. We're going to shoot them all in the head."
it was not about a raid, but the supreme court decision. how did you confuse "all" with a "very specific group"
Well, I started that off with, 'I assume...' and then started talking about something else, the only case that I had ever heard him talking about killing detainees. That quote that you came up with, well, never heard it myself. Seems hyperbolic. I can only assume that he was suggesting that it would be better to kill the terrorists rather than release them into the US. Back to the whole lack of humor thing again. Sorry.
yeah, but this was in response to the supreme court decision, which said nothing about closing gitmo or bringing terrorists to live in the us, just that they should have an open trial. the supreme court has never said we don't have gitmo. you assumed wrong. google the quote it is amply reproduced. dodge the question much?
Well, lucky for you, I've got an answer for your question! No. I haven't dodged a single thing. I told you in english that I thought you were referring to something else, and that I hadn't heard what you WERE talking about. I don't know how else to say it unfortunately. Thank you for playing. Now, wrap your little mind around this: in your little quote that you provided, Glenn specifically talked about RELEASING the detainees, not putting them on trial. So.. notch up another fail for yourself.
yes king obvious, he talks about RELEASING the detainees, as a result of a SUPREME COURT DECISION. that is the problem as the SUPREME COURT DECISION has only said that the prisoners need to be tried in US courts. Read the quote you jackass. glen beck either didn't understand the decision or decided to make willfully alarmist strawmen arguments to justify jokes about killing a bunch of people, many of whom have been found not guilty of what they are accused of.
Glenn Beck doesn't need a TV show or a radio broadcast or a comedy tour, he needs some fucking help. Caring, intelligent people need to sit down with him and help him work out whatever's the matter before he hurts himself or someone else.
I watched that show last night. This video does not do it justice. The editors of this clip could have done a much better job. It seems corny in this video, but it was amazing.
Ok, thats better, you finally started to debate the actual issues here. And i never referred to myself as "supremely intelligent." Now the last part of your statement i would agree with except that I would put liberal or conservative politicians because no matter what, you're either conservative or liberal, even if its just a little bit. And thanks for cleaning up your language.
Wow, you're just amazing! Doing what liberals do best, avoid debating the ideas of the other person and just going straight into name calling and mudslinging. That really shows that you are just so much smarter than I am. Ohh and I'm glad to know that you can tell that I'm never EVER going to get laid, you must be psychic or something!
Only a conservative could believe that Glenn "crazy eyes" Beck warrants a serious debate. You go ahead and keep watching the man with the plastic gun feign incredulity at things he doesn't like, the grownups will talk about grown up things in the other room.
Well maybe if you saw the whole show, or even had somewhat of a sense of humor, you would see how this "talentless unfunny hack" has a tv show on cable and was the 3rd most watched program last month. And to answer your question on How he has his show, its because he actually uses common sense, the thing that most liberals flee from.
Or maybe he doesn't care what you or others think, again, using his amendment rights. You're the first between us to mention anything involving political ideology, not me. That implies you have an agenda to push and a clear opposition-- "conservative america".
That's why. Don't hate a man because he speaks his mind and is successful for doing so.
If you get all that from me saying "he just loves riding conservative America's nuts and doing all the things you love with his tongue" you are brilliant. My agenda? My agenda is to point out how big of a nutgobbler Beck is and just which ones he finds the most succulent. He says and does these things that you want to hear, not that any one in their right mind would actually believe.
It's ironic that you point things out, then claim to not have an agenda yet you keep personally attacking him like he killed your mother or something-- contradiction much?
ZANGZANGDANZ;
This is what we in philosophy call "guilt by association"-- a logical fallacy.
Both are personal attacks and would be rendered irrelevant in any rational debate.
It's ironic that people think Glenn Beck is funny when he is not.
It's ironic that you called it an 'agenda' when there is no agenda.
It's ironic that you call yourself TheGreatPrince when you are neither a prince or TheGreat.
There are alot of things that are ironic but my posts are not. If you want to keep calling out dick jokes like personal attacks we can continue to discuss if Glenn Beck likes it cowboy or missionary.
yeah, its such a ridiculous derail to describe glen as conservative, its not like he repeats conservative talking points, airs on a conservative network, or almost exclusively only says positive things about republicans. just because he is fairly hard line in his support for the repubs doesn't mean he isn't a conservative.
Yes, it is. You're trying to say that because he agrees with certain ideals, traits, etc., that he suddenly is grouped in with them-- this is as fallacious as it gets. Because he favors one group's ideals (which, he doesn't, he has mixed views), it's guilt by association. This black and white view (conservative or liberal) is self-defeating because no one is absolutely liberal or absolutely conservative.
on what issue has he agreed with the side that he would describe as "liberal." when conservative and liberal are used to describe a battery of ideals, traits, etc. and not strict party affiliation then the descriptor of conservative is appropriate if he fits those ideals. i know he says that he has mixed views, but which of those is liberal? as far as his feelings on the border, gitmo, abortion, welfare, progressive taxation, etc. he is conservative? when is he something else?
Hm, I honestly have no idea what you're asking in that last post, so I'll just ignore it. Read the quote? I did, the one that you provided. It talked about releasing detainees. You said, 'this was in response to the supreme court decision, which said nothing about closing gitmo or bringing terrorists to live in the us, just that they should have an open trial.' That was plain wrong, and now you're off on some other irrelevant tangent. I still don't know what your underlying problem with him is.
glad you admitted the decision wasn't about closing gitmo or releasing all accused terrorists. how is this an irrelevant tangent? the libertarian party and the main libertarian intellectuals, i.e. the people at reason and CATO think that indefinite detention and trusting the accusation of terrorism. my criticism of beck is that he isn't a libertarian when it comes to minority rights, domestic spying, and constraints on the government. beck's attitudes to government detentions is key to this.
Admit? This is what you've been doing the entire time: attempting to put words in my mouth indirectly. I never said what the case was or wasn't about. I said from the beginning that I didn't know of the particular case that you were talking about. Fail. Government constraint? Funny you should criticize Beck on that, as he's repeatedly called for ending the income tax so that we can starve our swollen government down to its proper size and function.
yes you failure, that's the point. he thinks the government is so massive and evil that we need to starve it, and yet has no problem when the government detains people indefinitely, tortures them, and refuses them court trials. rather, he assumes the government is correct, and argues that he would similarly not try to prove the guilt of suspects.
"You said, 'this was in response to the supreme court decision, which said nothing about closing gitmo or bringing terrorists to live in the us, just that they should have an open trial.' That was plain wrong, and now you're off on some other irrelevant tangent."
you said i was wrong, then in the next comment you admitted the case was about trial rights and not about closing gitmo.
Our government is totally oversized! The Congress just passed a 3.27 TRILLION dollar spending bill without reading it! President Obama says that the Stimulus package is going as planned but how can that be if we still have a 9.5% unemployment rate? If it was going as planned he wouldnt be trying to pass a 2nd Stimulus. Did you know about this or were you too busy criticizing everyone who has an opinion other than your own. Stop being closed minded and look at what is right in front of your face.
Again, you're trying to say that politics are black and white, when it's not. It's, a second time, I'll state this-- IMPOSSIBLE to be absolutely liberal or absolutely conservative. Beck agrees or is indifferent towards certain subjects such as homosexuality, he has the same stance as Obama does on it (what you do in your bedroom is your business), etc., He also rebuked conservatives for the Mark Sanford situation.
ridiculous. on homosexuality, that is the typical paint by numbers conservative position. gay people are allowed to have gay sex in their house but cannot get legal recognition of their equality relative to straight couples. also, getting butthurt about some dude having an affair is not moderate.
That's not the typical "paint by numbers conservative position", that's the position Obama holds and the majority consider him liberal, if he is, then there's a contradiction on what's liberal and what's not. Like I said, no one is absolutely liberal nor absolutely conservative, it's logically impossible-- you're limiting yourself by your severe mob mentality complex, i.e. if someone doesn't agree with you or your ideology, they are suddenly conservative.
continued-- And besides your obvious straw-man on the Mark Sanford stance, I'll quote John Stuart Mill here, "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." So, yes, by simple, rational inference-- he is moderate.
yes, thank you, insofar as no one is absolutely liberal or conservative, should we throw out those words? no, of course not. not all republicans are absolutely conservative and neither are all democrats absolutely liberal. however, if you looked at his positions across the issues, whether it comes to welfare, gun control, the war in iraq, habeas corpus rights, the torture debate, global warming, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. etc. the balance is strongly on the conservative side.
Should we throw the words out? With the way you're utilizing them, yes, we should. They hinder rational discussion. The flaw with your thinking is that because someone possesses certain traits that are socially defined as either liberal or conservative, they are automatically painted as such absolutely. (continued below)
This immediately sets up a bitter presupposition. How about instead of trying to group someone into a certain political ideology (ones that aren't very well defined-- most of the definitions contradict themselves), you instead focus on the issues the person agrees or disagrees with and why? You're passively using argumentum ad-hominem based on the presupposition that he is liberal this or conservative that therefore he's automatically (and absolutely) incorrect and the devil.
lol, social traits??? I'm saying the views he espouses. when he says that he doesn't want Democrats to get elected to the house in the 2008 elections, and when you look at a vast preponderance of his opinions, it is easy to conclude he is a conservative. These are not ad hom attacks, but rather attacks on the substance of his views.
Yes, social traits because conservative or liberal are socially defined ideologies with no absolute definitions to them, they are useless terms. They results from a mob mentality. And because he doesn't want the "democrats to get elected into the house in 2008 elections" does NOT equate to him automatically being Republican, it means just as is, he doesn't want Democrats to get elected into the house. He could be a Democrat and make that claim and STILL would mean the same.
And once again, I stated, he's not conservative, that's an absolute claim with no evidence. I proved that earlier. And yes, they are ad-hominem attacks, instead of wanting to discuss the actual issues you claim, you're too busy trying to group him as liberal or conservative, you're personally attacking him, not the issues he agrees or disagrees on because you not once mentioned any of them. In fact, earlier, you agreed with someone who irrationally started using sexual--
innuendos and other anti-rationalism tactics. I can simply infer that you're not interested in the issues, as the quote goes; if you can't refute the claims, discredit the source.
these are his espoused political preferences: he opposes the supreme court decision stating that detainees must be tried, he opposes welfare, he opposed global warming science for the longest of times, he is in favor of Bush's wiretapping program, opposes progressive taxation, and when he specifically mentions ideologies that he opposes, he criticizes "progressives" and "liberals" these match up with the preferences of most self described "conservative" voters and politicians. was this ad hom?
alright mr. linguistic scholar, almost every ideology, and almost every word for that matter, is a socially defined construct. a word's dictionary definition is only useful if we all agree to what that word means. as such, americans define liberal as a set of policy preferences. as with most ideologies there is a spectrum of belief to those who self describe as liberals and those who a majority of people describe as liberal.
Considering the context you used those political preferences under, yes, that's very much an ad hominem argument. Your very first response to me was pointing out that he agrees with a specific political affiliation's views, inferring that because he somehow agrees with said views, that makes him absolutely part of their alignment. I refuted this using Logic.
Then you continued to try to illogically align him with "them" (insert satire here) by ways of the guilt by association fallacy, I once again refuted this. You continue to try the same fallacious claims (without any evidence for the assertions because it's not possible), making this a circular dialect.
As much as I want to give you credit for your second post above, because it's partially true, in the context used (yes, cultures define certain terms differently), I can't. -- (continued below)
This is a rationalization for the aforementioned fallacies-- i.e. that because certain words are relative to the speaker (or culture), that makes them True, in the same context (to that speaker or culture) but this defies logic because if a word or term is relative, one person, in the same culture could reject that definition and the person who asserted it can do nothing because he's incapable of proving his assertion's absolute meaning--
i'm not making some Platonic truth claim. i am merely stating, that in america, we mostly agree on what conservativism means, socially, and economically: gun right support, pro life, traditional marriage, laissez-faire economics, a high correlation with American protestant christianity, but also including a significant minority of working class catholics and other denominations like mormons, strong defense etc. etc. I think glenn's views fit this to a t. are these not conservative positions?
I am not interested in absolute Platonic ideal Truth. I don't think we would agree on what that means. But I think we should come to linguistic agreement, in that we agree on definitions so we can discuss things reasonably. let's hammer out what we think conservative means, see if we can come to a general agreement, looking at what we see as aggregate conservative views on some of the most salient policy issues of today, and then we can argue about whether or not glenn fits the bill.
"I am not interested in absolute Platonic ideal Truth. I don't think we would agree on what that means."
That's consensus truth. I'm not interested in that either. I am interested in things according with reality, which is truth, or i.e. it is what it is. Without this basis, we can't come to an agreement on anything.
let's hammer out what we think conservative means, see if we can come to a general agreement, looking at what we see as aggregate conservative views on some of the most salient policy issues of today, and then we can argue about whether or not glenn fits the bill.
But it's here where I have to point out the contradiction; even if we agree to what the term means, and then we compare the term and its principles to Glenn Beck, does that make him a "conservative":
Glenn Beck is a conservative? Or does that mean Glenn Beck follows SOME of the supposed x principles? If Glenn Beck follows SOME of the x principles, it does not make him a conservative, therefore, by deduction, Glenn Beck is not a conservative. Do you disagree with that?
i guess this is where i think using absolutes in most any sense, particularly with respect to politics loses its viability. My counterpoint would be that let us say that if a large majority of Glenn's views are descriptively conservative, particularly ones that deal with very large cruxes in defining how a government should run, then it seems reasonable to describe him as a conservative. for clarity's sake, we could say he is vastly conservative, or predominantly conservative.
It doesn't follow. If you wish to label him "vastly conservative" or "predominantly conservative", then it's not logic based; Glenn Beck abides by SOME "conservative" principles, but he also does not abide by SOME "conservative" principles, therefore Glenn Beck is not a conservative.
ok, so you mean to say that there is a definition of conservative, only one that is based in 'reality' that you won't define. And that if one person who, lets say, of the 100 issues he has discussed, sides with the "conservative" view on 90 of the issues, you wouldn't say he is a conservative? What would you call them. under this definition almost no one is a conservative. who is a conservative then?
No. I said from the beginning that the political term 'conservative' is an arbitrary word with no definitive meaning. If I grant that 'conservative' means 'to conserve', what is the 'conservative' trying to 'conserve'? We run into another regression; what is there to 'conserve'? And who defines it? It has no basis, or foundation to appeal to.
"And that if one person who, lets say, of the 100 issues he has discussed, sides with the "conservative" view on 90 of the issues"
This presupposes that the political term 'conservative' has a defined meaning; it doesn't, so, whether this person agrees with certain 'sides' is irrelevant. The person is an individual; an individual who has views, opinions and so forth, not a 'conservative' this, or 'conservative' that. It should be individual this, and individual that.
No. As I demonstrated earlier, agreeing with certain consensus defined 'conservative' views does not make that person a 'conservative', it makes that person an individual who both agrees and disagrees with certain issues the multitudes deem 'conservative'.
"What would you call them. under this definition almost no one is a conservative. who is a conservative then?"
The person is what the person is; an individual who agrees with certain issues, and disagrees with others. The person is a PERSON, not a 'conservative'.
Do you even question these terms and where they came from?
ok, so your disagreement with my use of the word, used in dictionaries, scholarly work on the subject of political science, the news and numerous other sources is that you think it doesn't have a defined meaning. you've just showed why your absolutist arguments about how there is REALITY and nothing else is absurd as everyone percieves reality different and thus can only discuss things if they agree on what they see reality to be.
ok, but clearly, people disagree about things. ie. what they say something is or isn't. the best way for us to verify our perception of reality and go beyond that is if we have confirmation from each other. ie, if we agree as to what we see conservative as meaning. just tell me what you say conservative means. it doesn't seem like an unreasonable possibility.
"the best way for us to verify our perception of reality and go beyond that is if we have confirmation from each other."
This is a slippery assertion; if you need others to verify reality for you, it's consensus and consensus does not equate to truth. But let's say I granted this point; if you need another to verify your perception, then you also need another to verify that another's perception, then another to verify that another's perception, etc., it falls into an instant regress.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This trailer made me want to rip my eyes and puncture my ear drums with rusty screwdrivers. This was supposed to be funny? Glen Beck is a pompous douche
Thank God for Glenn Beck! He is such a great and smart man>Obama,who is supposed to be highly educated,but no one can prove it,said we had 57 states in America during his run for president.Glenn could run this country alot better than obama,and he wouldn't have people that hate our country in control of everything.
margaret30575 7 months ago
I like Beck. But I'd like him more if he didn't throw Andrew Breitbart and Geert Wilders under the bus.
TomerMMHA 8 months ago
Sad...
Antennahat 9 months ago
The only thing funny about this is what some of us might say in the comments.
ThePsychoguy 9 months ago
Were there any jokes in there? I honestly couldn't tell.
99konondrums 9 months ago
I hate that guy.. with a passion.
chadpopstar 1 year ago
Religious people are never funny because to be funny you have to be aware of absurdity.
DeimosSaturn 1 year ago
I always thought of Glenn Beck as a comedian instead of a political commentator just to keep my own peace of mind... I didn't know he was ACTUALLY a comedian....
evanhaynes64 1 year ago
@evanhaynes64
he is not.
1fedupjew 9 months ago
if Glenn Beck ever runs for office, get ready for the third red scare (in which case i'm getting my passport asap!).
eboyd32 1 year ago
@eboyd32 Why wait?! Go now!
imrnlil 1 year ago
@imrnlil wow, how original and witty......
eboyd32 1 year ago
@eboyd32 Rats. I meant to be sarcastic and insulting. The advice stands.
imrnlil 1 year ago
@imrnlil go be a dick on some other planet.
eboyd32 1 year ago
@eboyd32 Right back at ya.
imrnlil 1 year ago
@imrnlil once again, your wit is unparalleled.
eboyd32 1 year ago
@eboyd32 you're still here?
imrnlil 1 year ago
a former morning Zoo radio DJ...that about says it all.
Keyo717 1 year ago
the comments were funnier than he was!!!!!!!
xXTwIsTeDxAcEXx 1 year ago
fuck this guy RON PAUL 2012
wtfjaftw 1 year ago 2
Beck is a nigger!
Vetwolf13 1 year ago
The rednecks only liked him because he came out in hunting gear.
Connerisawesome 1 year ago
what a twat.
amarr1 1 year ago
Republicans have consistantly selected VPs who made the presidential canidate look brilliant by comparison. Sarah Palin: your VP running mate!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
@RadarKat73080 i disagree. Cheney was far more intelligent than Bush, though neither was particularly brilliant.
eboyd32 1 year ago
@eboyd32 Thought someone might bring that up. Cheney WAS the president though!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
@RadarKat73080 haha, pretty much!
eboyd32 1 year ago
Glenn Beck a comedian? No...
He is a much better propagandist and whiner.
j4unumber1 1 year ago
Beck is FOX's nigger!
unclelight 1 year ago
@unclelight wow how uncivillised are you?!?
bunce101 1 year ago
Is this supposed to be funny?
lancedance2 1 year ago
okay worshipping PoMo is also equally lame though yo.
YossarianTheMeerkat 1 year ago
about the comments below: how lame when someone tries to sound smart by making a separation between labels and individuals. presupposing even what the individual is willing to label himself. "liberal," "conservative," your argument is both entirely semantic and pedantic, but not really saying anything. people use labels in order to sum up a range of ideas in order to discuss more complex ideas. of course you will counter with deconstructionism; even more academic drivel that still says nothing.
avalanchesoul 2 years ago
btw, you sound like you just took a philosophy 101, critical thinking class. it's all "defining our terms" this and "follows logic" that. study derrida to more fully get your head up your ass. this is why "philosophy" is no longer of any concern to the common man; the analytical hijacked it from the continental. just a bunch of kids scared of leaving the ivory tower, actually getting involved in life, taking a stand, and feeling anything; so life becomes one long math equation. boooorrriiinng.
avalanchesoul 2 years ago
well then we have run into the crux of the problem. people use adjectives and nouns to describe people's political persuasions. as you think one of the most commonly used one in america is 'without foundation' then you have showed us why discussion is not very useful if the terms we are using are not agreed upon.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Beck is painfully unfunny.
Muchodelcrazy 2 years ago 9
I agree. I like him better on TV and radio.
csgforme 2 years ago
I'm sorry.
Muchodelcrazy 2 years ago
Its not your fault.... You've got nothing to do with it.
csgforme 2 years ago
He is the joke.
dougmanjones 2 years ago
I didn't hear any jokes... Did he make any?
Sentinen 2 years ago 13
@Sentinen Noooo!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
@Sentinen I think hes the joke
rickrude757 1 year ago 2
Thank God for Glenn Beck! He tells it like it is,and I pray for his safety,the obama thugs are too scarey!
margaret30575 2 years ago
You've omitted an 'n', an apostrophe, and a 't'
supermajo16 2 years ago
Thank you supermajo16,was in a hurry when I wrote my comment.Glenn is now one of my hero's.Jesus Christ is the top hero.
margaret30575 2 years ago
Comment removed
wickliffead 2 years ago
@margaret30575 yes the man who can't even spell oligarchy tells it like it is. retard.
fman40000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy should be on failblog....
TSRID 2 years ago
Ya'll notice how Beck acts rather, um, girly?
windew 2 years ago 3
Beck is cool... he would make a great next door neighbor
fstwrtr 2 years ago
come on lindsey, the rest of the main stream media thinks he's a messiah. Thank goodness for Fox for reporting what others won't.
I used to be a liberal until Obama came on the scene. He's so radically left he's dangerous for our country. I hope the people wise up about this guy soon.
xrayindy 2 years ago
"Reporting What others won't". You mean semi-facts with a heavy dose of opinion? Yeah, thank goodness.
mindfodder 2 years ago
hi, im indy, i was a liberal, but i also hate black people.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
i just want to say that glenn beck is a idiot he works for a very bias news network FOX NEWS =OBAMA HATERS
TheLindsey9 2 years ago
if insofar a vast majority of his preferences, particularly on very important, contentious issues that cleave at the very character and future of our nation are those that are traditionally held by self described conservative politicians and voters, how is he not conservative? which of his policy preferences are those that a majority of self described liberals hold?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
I think people will attack him for having an opposing view.
rudyskagirl 2 years ago
glen beck is a fucking idiot... hard to believe people watch his show
TheRealBiscuits 2 years ago
That was a very insightful and elegant criticism. I'm overwhelmed. I'm guessing your an Olbermann fan.
TomerMMHA 2 years ago
negative
TheRealBiscuits 2 years ago
ahhh, respond to one word critiques with non sequitur ad homs, very clever.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
TheRealBiscuits,
If you want to criticize someone then try using real words with real meaning. Instead of using sexual inuendoes and curse words try making a logical statement with facts to back it up. By talking the way you did it just makes you seem like an ignorant moron.
cabrel2316 2 years ago
If you want to criticize someone then try using real words with real meaning. Instead of using sexual inuendoes and curse words. try making a logical statement with facts to back it up. By talking the way you did it just makes you seem like an ignorant moron.
cabrel2316 2 years ago
Ok, at first I was like, would Glenn Beck show his actual views or would he still be a tool for fox? and just seeing this little trailer or whatever, I get the sense that I know who might be sponsoring this guy.
medallish 2 years ago
read the quote again you moron. beck argued the supreme court said "we don't have gitmo." and even if the quote was just about releasing terror suspects, that was not the decision, just that the government has to prove their guilt. if someone is not proven guilty then yes they are released. why should we take the government's word for it if they can't produce evidence? one could make your argument about every criminal case, arguing that the government wouldn't possibly abuse its power.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Now, in reference to something that matters, his views on Gitmo. You're attempting to paint this very black and white, like the government's rounding up random people from anywhere. No, these are individuals captured during military raids in war torn countries, from terrorist training camps and battles. Should we have had a search warrant? You are naive. How can we try these people in court? We are at war with terrorism. We can't prosecute them under the criminal code. What else SHOULD we do?
crazyassailant 2 years ago
first of all, no, many are captured outside of war zones in places like thailand, indonesia, canada, and germany. second of all, countless terrorists have been tried and found guilty in criminal court, including those behind 9/11. murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attacking us property, conspiracy to attack us property are all offenses that can be prosecuted. we don't take the government's word for it. they can always prove guilt if the evidence permits. otherwise, what is the truth?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Unrelated question: you know the feeling you get from smashing your head repeatedly into a brick wall? Never mind. Let me try this just one more time. Maybe you could have your one of your little friends translate it from english to whatever you're more comfortable with. Beck's quote talked about RELEASING them. And that's what we were talking about. The quote. Not the case directly. I just don't know how else to put it. Holy tangential semantics! Help yourself to some fail.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
Here's where I think you're confused: some SC case that said the detainees should be tried in the US. Ok, fine, now Glenn took that the next step and, in your quote, said that IF that happened, and IF they were released into the US, he, as the president, would just shoot them dead. It's what we in the business refer to as a hypothetical. Followed up with some facetiousness and hyperbole. So... fail.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
yes, thus underlying the hyperbole, and incredible comedy, is his agreement with the government that everyone the government has accused and detained during the war on terror is guilty. ie, he assumes the government is so monstrous and bungling that it couldn't possibly handle giving food or healthcare to poor people but it can be trusted to capture people without trial or public proof, and if the accused are found not guilty, we should kill them.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
The lot of you earn an epic fail. Glenn Beck = American hero. Keeping it in generalities, he stands for thinking for yourself, intellectual honesty, individual rights, individual sovereignty, individual self determination, basically plain individuals, the respect of law, the will of the people being upheld, honesty in our elected officials, and most of all, common sense. Boy, what childish, CRAZY ideals. If any of you bothered to actually listen to him openly, you'd recognize what he stood for.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
but teh gayz marrying killz my individual sovreignty. all you conservatives talk about individual rights until someone else's exercise of their own, in a way that doesn't harm you in any way, reminds you of your deeply closeted urges.
also, remember when he asked that girl for nude photos, when he took us on a journey to bowel surgery, and he poured water on that hacky stand up that does red eye all the time? shure sounds like common sense ter me
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Oh, woe is me for lack of space! First, I'm not familiar with the first two stories you reference. The water? A joke. Not alien to common sense. My apologies for your own lack of humor. Also, you bring up the one issue of gay marriage as if one, specific, isolated case can disprove or prove anything. You also arrogantly presume to know my stance on the issue. In short, a lot of that debate is based on semantics, and some believe that it does harm society... which is an entirely different debate.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
lol pouring water is funny. beck cries a lot. that is pretty funny too.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
does glenn beck believe that we should trust that the government is omniscient and anyone they accuse of terrorism is a terrorist and thus deserving indefinite detention regardless of a trial?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
No, this kind of feeds back into what I said first, "If any of you bothered to actually listen to him openly, you'd recognize what he stood for." Beck has routinely criticized Bush for years, even when he was on CNN. In fact, once he even called for Bush to be impeached. He was against the war in Iraq, but also said that while we're there fighting a war, we had better fight to win. But you don't bother listening to the man that you love to hate. You're too busy hating him for made up reasons.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
umm, i didn't talk about iraq or bush, i was talking about believing that the government's word is enough to imprison someone. or that believing that the government can't handle giving people insulin, but you can trust it to torture people. i'm asking if he believes any of that stuff, and if so, is he still a libertarian.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
"he is still a libertarian."
So, you think libertarianism is bad? That's the implication I got from that last sentence. As for torture, A) it's narrow minded at best to base your judgment of someone based on one single issue; and B) I'm not sure exactly of what his personal stance is on this recent torture debate. I do know that he is adamantly opposed to sending prisoners to other countries like the Saudis so they can do the torture for us, but off the top of my head I can't say any more.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
i didn't punctuate correctly but if you see, i am saying "is he still a libertarian." I meant it as a question. And I am surprised that you think that habeas corpus rights, taking your government's word when it comes to guilt and innocence, and torture are single minor issues to you. If he doesn't want torture photos released, doesn't want torturers held accountable, and believes the government can take anyone and imprison them indefinitely, is he a libertarian?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Well, I would hazard a guess and say that no, he doesn't believe the gov can take and imprison anyone for no reason. Neither does anyone else. Habeas corpus rights, well, they apply to Americans, and they (Americans) are not being detained in Gitmo. It's a much narrower issue of how to treat someone resorting to illegal, terrorist tactics, yet also transcending conventional national boundaries. In response to your question, yes, especially when you look at domestic issues, he is a libertarian.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
well seeing as many people in gitmo and bagram (our remaining no-rights prison) were detained far from war zones, then the presumption is that they are ACCUSED of "illegal tactics." Even you resort to assuming they all are guilty. And you guess wrong, glen talked about how we should kill every detainee, i.e. he bought the government's story that every detainee was guilty. So he does trust the government when it comes to imprisoning people and doesn't need proof. not libertarian.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Well Zang, those were just rife with error, but I'll point out the most egregious one. Glenn Beck never said that we should execute all the detainees. I assume you're referring to the time he remarked what a shame it was that we didn't just kill these people on the battlefield while they were combatants, so we wouldn't have to deal with all the crap that we are today. And that was in regards to very specific group that were captured during a raid on a terrorist training camp. So... fail.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
direct quote:
"If I'm president of the US, I would go on National television and say---'ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court said that we don't have Gitmo so that is over. We're going to release all of them, but I want you to know from here on out our policy is to not have prisoners. We're going to shoot them all in the head."
it was not about a raid, but the supreme court decision. how did you confuse "all" with a "very specific group"
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Well, I started that off with, 'I assume...' and then started talking about something else, the only case that I had ever heard him talking about killing detainees. That quote that you came up with, well, never heard it myself. Seems hyperbolic. I can only assume that he was suggesting that it would be better to kill the terrorists rather than release them into the US. Back to the whole lack of humor thing again. Sorry.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
yeah, but this was in response to the supreme court decision, which said nothing about closing gitmo or bringing terrorists to live in the us, just that they should have an open trial. the supreme court has never said we don't have gitmo. you assumed wrong. google the quote it is amply reproduced. dodge the question much?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Well, lucky for you, I've got an answer for your question! No. I haven't dodged a single thing. I told you in english that I thought you were referring to something else, and that I hadn't heard what you WERE talking about. I don't know how else to say it unfortunately. Thank you for playing. Now, wrap your little mind around this: in your little quote that you provided, Glenn specifically talked about RELEASING the detainees, not putting them on trial. So.. notch up another fail for yourself.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
yes king obvious, he talks about RELEASING the detainees, as a result of a SUPREME COURT DECISION. that is the problem as the SUPREME COURT DECISION has only said that the prisoners need to be tried in US courts. Read the quote you jackass. glen beck either didn't understand the decision or decided to make willfully alarmist strawmen arguments to justify jokes about killing a bunch of people, many of whom have been found not guilty of what they are accused of.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
"im proud 2 be an american were at lest i kno im free" -a good song w/ true lyric
dhead22 2 years ago
Glenn Beck doesn't need a TV show or a radio broadcast or a comedy tour, he needs some fucking help. Caring, intelligent people need to sit down with him and help him work out whatever's the matter before he hurts himself or someone else.
JDorsey2001 2 years ago 3
Thank u glenn beck for telling the truth about america and stopping socaelest obama evil plan
dhead22 2 years ago
Thank you for showing how stupid your neo-conservative conspiracies are.
JACOBSEN69 2 years ago
wow not cool. open your heart and open your mind
dhead22 2 years ago
I watched that show last night. This video does not do it justice. The editors of this clip could have done a much better job. It seems corny in this video, but it was amazing.
TomerMMHA 2 years ago
How does any American with a shred of dignity or self respect watch this garbage
kazr00 2 years ago 5
No dignity, way too much self respect.
DNI12333 2 years ago
that is some wacky, wild stuff
tiggstiggstiggs 2 years ago
This video is the epitome of :|
Laramas 2 years ago 2
Ok, thats better, you finally started to debate the actual issues here. And i never referred to myself as "supremely intelligent." Now the last part of your statement i would agree with except that I would put liberal or conservative politicians because no matter what, you're either conservative or liberal, even if its just a little bit. And thanks for cleaning up your language.
BlindWeasel26 2 years ago
watching glenn beck kills braincells so be careful if you plan on being smart into the future
ahabthewhaler 2 years ago 2
Ok, thanks for the warning, I'm just so happy you guys are looking out for me! I'm now totally convinced that you are absolutely right. hahaha
BlindWeasel26 2 years ago 3
Wow, you're just amazing! Doing what liberals do best, avoid debating the ideas of the other person and just going straight into name calling and mudslinging. That really shows that you are just so much smarter than I am. Ohh and I'm glad to know that you can tell that I'm never EVER going to get laid, you must be psychic or something!
BlindWeasel26 2 years ago
Only a conservative could believe that Glenn "crazy eyes" Beck warrants a serious debate. You go ahead and keep watching the man with the plastic gun feign incredulity at things he doesn't like, the grownups will talk about grown up things in the other room.
DNI12333 2 years ago
Well maybe if you saw the whole show, or even had somewhat of a sense of humor, you would see how this "talentless unfunny hack" has a tv show on cable and was the 3rd most watched program last month. And to answer your question on How he has his show, its because he actually uses common sense, the thing that most liberals flee from.
BlindWeasel26 2 years ago
good lord you are 17 and watching glenn beck?what the hell is wrong with you?go listen to led zeppelin or something.
headsosikk 2 years ago 2
I know, its crazy right? I'm about half your age and still smarter than you. Man, what has this world come to?
BlindWeasel26 2 years ago
Conservative ignorance.
JACOBSEN69 2 years ago
That just means alot of people are dumb as fuck. You can't take this guy seriously?
JACOBSEN69 2 years ago
he's a douche
gabe0083 2 years ago
Umm, where's the funny?
john32190 2 years ago
embarrassing.
HabitualNightOwl 2 years ago 4
yaaaaaawn...
tjtube65 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
glenn beck is a panic,bigot,racist and arrogant machine and not funny
federico00007 2 years ago
you're talking ironicly right?
NapoleonWinston 2 years ago
No. The funniest thing about him is that he doesn't care what you think-- thus why he is so successful.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
no it's because he just loves riding conservative America's nuts and doing all the things you love with his tongue.
That's why.
Ulfikedup 2 years ago 4
Ulfikedup;
Or maybe he doesn't care what you or others think, again, using his amendment rights. You're the first between us to mention anything involving political ideology, not me. That implies you have an agenda to push and a clear opposition-- "conservative america".
That's why. Don't hate a man because he speaks his mind and is successful for doing so.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
If you get all that from me saying "he just loves riding conservative America's nuts and doing all the things you love with his tongue" you are brilliant. My agenda? My agenda is to point out how big of a nutgobbler Beck is and just which ones he finds the most succulent. He says and does these things that you want to hear, not that any one in their right mind would actually believe.
Ulfikedup 2 years ago
Ulfikedup;
It's ironic that you point things out, then claim to not have an agenda yet you keep personally attacking him like he killed your mother or something-- contradiction much?
ZANGZANGDANZ;
This is what we in philosophy call "guilt by association"-- a logical fallacy.
Both are personal attacks and would be rendered irrelevant in any rational debate.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
its not fallacious if he congratulates them on their views and praises them. it isn't a personal attack if he advocates in favor of a certain group.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
The GreatPrince you ignorant slut.
It's ironic that people think Glenn Beck is funny when he is not.
It's ironic that you called it an 'agenda' when there is no agenda.
It's ironic that you call yourself TheGreatPrince when you are neither a prince or TheGreat.
There are alot of things that are ironic but my posts are not. If you want to keep calling out dick jokes like personal attacks we can continue to discuss if Glenn Beck likes it cowboy or missionary.
And Yes, I'm Ulfikedup ul the time.
Ulfikedup 2 years ago
Ulfikedup;
Not even worth a proper response. Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that kills intelligent online debate/discussions.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
Well, good thing this isn't one of those.
I say he likes it reverse cowboy, that way he doesn't have to look at anyone as he goes town.
Ulfikedup 2 years ago
Why dont you start by trying to make your point by saying a sentence without using the word nut. Your ignorant.
cabrel2316 2 years ago
yeah, its such a ridiculous derail to describe glen as conservative, its not like he repeats conservative talking points, airs on a conservative network, or almost exclusively only says positive things about republicans. just because he is fairly hard line in his support for the repubs doesn't mean he isn't a conservative.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
ZANGZANGDANZ;
Yes, it is. You're trying to say that because he agrees with certain ideals, traits, etc., that he suddenly is grouped in with them-- this is as fallacious as it gets. Because he favors one group's ideals (which, he doesn't, he has mixed views), it's guilt by association. This black and white view (conservative or liberal) is self-defeating because no one is absolutely liberal or absolutely conservative.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
on what issue has he agreed with the side that he would describe as "liberal." when conservative and liberal are used to describe a battery of ideals, traits, etc. and not strict party affiliation then the descriptor of conservative is appropriate if he fits those ideals. i know he says that he has mixed views, but which of those is liberal? as far as his feelings on the border, gitmo, abortion, welfare, progressive taxation, etc. he is conservative? when is he something else?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Hm, I honestly have no idea what you're asking in that last post, so I'll just ignore it. Read the quote? I did, the one that you provided. It talked about releasing detainees. You said, 'this was in response to the supreme court decision, which said nothing about closing gitmo or bringing terrorists to live in the us, just that they should have an open trial.' That was plain wrong, and now you're off on some other irrelevant tangent. I still don't know what your underlying problem with him is.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
glad you admitted the decision wasn't about closing gitmo or releasing all accused terrorists. how is this an irrelevant tangent? the libertarian party and the main libertarian intellectuals, i.e. the people at reason and CATO think that indefinite detention and trusting the accusation of terrorism. my criticism of beck is that he isn't a libertarian when it comes to minority rights, domestic spying, and constraints on the government. beck's attitudes to government detentions is key to this.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Admit? This is what you've been doing the entire time: attempting to put words in my mouth indirectly. I never said what the case was or wasn't about. I said from the beginning that I didn't know of the particular case that you were talking about. Fail. Government constraint? Funny you should criticize Beck on that, as he's repeatedly called for ending the income tax so that we can starve our swollen government down to its proper size and function.
crazyassailant 2 years ago
yes you failure, that's the point. he thinks the government is so massive and evil that we need to starve it, and yet has no problem when the government detains people indefinitely, tortures them, and refuses them court trials. rather, he assumes the government is correct, and argues that he would similarly not try to prove the guilt of suspects.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
direct quote from you:
"You said, 'this was in response to the supreme court decision, which said nothing about closing gitmo or bringing terrorists to live in the us, just that they should have an open trial.' That was plain wrong, and now you're off on some other irrelevant tangent."
you said i was wrong, then in the next comment you admitted the case was about trial rights and not about closing gitmo.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Our government is totally oversized! The Congress just passed a 3.27 TRILLION dollar spending bill without reading it! President Obama says that the Stimulus package is going as planned but how can that be if we still have a 9.5% unemployment rate? If it was going as planned he wouldnt be trying to pass a 2nd Stimulus. Did you know about this or were you too busy criticizing everyone who has an opinion other than your own. Stop being closed minded and look at what is right in front of your face.
cabrel2316 2 years ago
ZANGZANGDANZ;
Again, you're trying to say that politics are black and white, when it's not. It's, a second time, I'll state this-- IMPOSSIBLE to be absolutely liberal or absolutely conservative. Beck agrees or is indifferent towards certain subjects such as homosexuality, he has the same stance as Obama does on it (what you do in your bedroom is your business), etc., He also rebuked conservatives for the Mark Sanford situation.
By simple inference, he's moderate.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
ridiculous. on homosexuality, that is the typical paint by numbers conservative position. gay people are allowed to have gay sex in their house but cannot get legal recognition of their equality relative to straight couples. also, getting butthurt about some dude having an affair is not moderate.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
ZANGZANGDANZ;
That's not the typical "paint by numbers conservative position", that's the position Obama holds and the majority consider him liberal, if he is, then there's a contradiction on what's liberal and what's not. Like I said, no one is absolutely liberal nor absolutely conservative, it's logically impossible-- you're limiting yourself by your severe mob mentality complex, i.e. if someone doesn't agree with you or your ideology, they are suddenly conservative.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
continued-- And besides your obvious straw-man on the Mark Sanford stance, I'll quote John Stuart Mill here, "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." So, yes, by simple, rational inference-- he is moderate.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
yes, thank you, insofar as no one is absolutely liberal or conservative, should we throw out those words? no, of course not. not all republicans are absolutely conservative and neither are all democrats absolutely liberal. however, if you looked at his positions across the issues, whether it comes to welfare, gun control, the war in iraq, habeas corpus rights, the torture debate, global warming, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. etc. the balance is strongly on the conservative side.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
ZANGZANGDANZ
Should we throw the words out? With the way you're utilizing them, yes, we should. They hinder rational discussion. The flaw with your thinking is that because someone possesses certain traits that are socially defined as either liberal or conservative, they are automatically painted as such absolutely. (continued below)
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
This immediately sets up a bitter presupposition. How about instead of trying to group someone into a certain political ideology (ones that aren't very well defined-- most of the definitions contradict themselves), you instead focus on the issues the person agrees or disagrees with and why? You're passively using argumentum ad-hominem based on the presupposition that he is liberal this or conservative that therefore he's automatically (and absolutely) incorrect and the devil.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
lol, social traits??? I'm saying the views he espouses. when he says that he doesn't want Democrats to get elected to the house in the 2008 elections, and when you look at a vast preponderance of his opinions, it is easy to conclude he is a conservative. These are not ad hom attacks, but rather attacks on the substance of his views.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
ZANGZANGDANZ
Yes, social traits because conservative or liberal are socially defined ideologies with no absolute definitions to them, they are useless terms. They results from a mob mentality. And because he doesn't want the "democrats to get elected into the house in 2008 elections" does NOT equate to him automatically being Republican, it means just as is, he doesn't want Democrats to get elected into the house. He could be a Democrat and make that claim and STILL would mean the same.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
And once again, I stated, he's not conservative, that's an absolute claim with no evidence. I proved that earlier. And yes, they are ad-hominem attacks, instead of wanting to discuss the actual issues you claim, you're too busy trying to group him as liberal or conservative, you're personally attacking him, not the issues he agrees or disagrees on because you not once mentioned any of them. In fact, earlier, you agreed with someone who irrationally started using sexual--
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
innuendos and other anti-rationalism tactics. I can simply infer that you're not interested in the issues, as the quote goes; if you can't refute the claims, discredit the source.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
these are his espoused political preferences: he opposes the supreme court decision stating that detainees must be tried, he opposes welfare, he opposed global warming science for the longest of times, he is in favor of Bush's wiretapping program, opposes progressive taxation, and when he specifically mentions ideologies that he opposes, he criticizes "progressives" and "liberals" these match up with the preferences of most self described "conservative" voters and politicians. was this ad hom?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
alright mr. linguistic scholar, almost every ideology, and almost every word for that matter, is a socially defined construct. a word's dictionary definition is only useful if we all agree to what that word means. as such, americans define liberal as a set of policy preferences. as with most ideologies there is a spectrum of belief to those who self describe as liberals and those who a majority of people describe as liberal.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
ZANGZANGDANZ;
Considering the context you used those political preferences under, yes, that's very much an ad hominem argument. Your very first response to me was pointing out that he agrees with a specific political affiliation's views, inferring that because he somehow agrees with said views, that makes him absolutely part of their alignment. I refuted this using Logic.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
Then you continued to try to illogically align him with "them" (insert satire here) by ways of the guilt by association fallacy, I once again refuted this. You continue to try the same fallacious claims (without any evidence for the assertions because it's not possible), making this a circular dialect.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
As much as I want to give you credit for your second post above, because it's partially true, in the context used (yes, cultures define certain terms differently), I can't. -- (continued below)
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
This is a rationalization for the aforementioned fallacies-- i.e. that because certain words are relative to the speaker (or culture), that makes them True, in the same context (to that speaker or culture) but this defies logic because if a word or term is relative, one person, in the same culture could reject that definition and the person who asserted it can do nothing because he's incapable of proving his assertion's absolute meaning--
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
i'm not making some Platonic truth claim. i am merely stating, that in america, we mostly agree on what conservativism means, socially, and economically: gun right support, pro life, traditional marriage, laissez-faire economics, a high correlation with American protestant christianity, but also including a significant minority of working class catholics and other denominations like mormons, strong defense etc. etc. I think glenn's views fit this to a t. are these not conservative positions?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
I am not interested in absolute Platonic ideal Truth. I don't think we would agree on what that means. But I think we should come to linguistic agreement, in that we agree on definitions so we can discuss things reasonably. let's hammer out what we think conservative means, see if we can come to a general agreement, looking at what we see as aggregate conservative views on some of the most salient policy issues of today, and then we can argue about whether or not glenn fits the bill.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
"I am not interested in absolute Platonic ideal Truth. I don't think we would agree on what that means."
That's consensus truth. I'm not interested in that either. I am interested in things according with reality, which is truth, or i.e. it is what it is. Without this basis, we can't come to an agreement on anything.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
"But I think we should come to linguistic agreement, in that we agree on definitions so we can discuss things reasonably."
Yes. The first sign of a good logician is one who defines their terms clearly and unambiguously.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
let's hammer out what we think conservative means, see if we can come to a general agreement, looking at what we see as aggregate conservative views on some of the most salient policy issues of today, and then we can argue about whether or not glenn fits the bill.
But it's here where I have to point out the contradiction; even if we agree to what the term means, and then we compare the term and its principles to Glenn Beck, does that make him a "conservative":
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
Conservative means x.
X is what Glenn Beck's philosophy is.
Therefore, Glenn Beck is a conservative.
Glenn Beck is a conservative? Or does that mean Glenn Beck follows SOME of the supposed x principles? If Glenn Beck follows SOME of the x principles, it does not make him a conservative, therefore, by deduction, Glenn Beck is not a conservative. Do you disagree with that?
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
i guess this is where i think using absolutes in most any sense, particularly with respect to politics loses its viability. My counterpoint would be that let us say that if a large majority of Glenn's views are descriptively conservative, particularly ones that deal with very large cruxes in defining how a government should run, then it seems reasonable to describe him as a conservative. for clarity's sake, we could say he is vastly conservative, or predominantly conservative.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
It doesn't follow. If you wish to label him "vastly conservative" or "predominantly conservative", then it's not logic based; Glenn Beck abides by SOME "conservative" principles, but he also does not abide by SOME "conservative" principles, therefore Glenn Beck is not a conservative.
To deny this is denying reality.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
ok, so you mean to say that there is a definition of conservative, only one that is based in 'reality' that you won't define. And that if one person who, lets say, of the 100 issues he has discussed, sides with the "conservative" view on 90 of the issues, you wouldn't say he is a conservative? What would you call them. under this definition almost no one is a conservative. who is a conservative then?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
No. I said from the beginning that the political term 'conservative' is an arbitrary word with no definitive meaning. If I grant that 'conservative' means 'to conserve', what is the 'conservative' trying to 'conserve'? We run into another regression; what is there to 'conserve'? And who defines it? It has no basis, or foundation to appeal to.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
"And that if one person who, lets say, of the 100 issues he has discussed, sides with the "conservative" view on 90 of the issues"
This presupposes that the political term 'conservative' has a defined meaning; it doesn't, so, whether this person agrees with certain 'sides' is irrelevant. The person is an individual; an individual who has views, opinions and so forth, not a 'conservative' this, or 'conservative' that. It should be individual this, and individual that.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
"you wouldn't say he is a conservative?"
No. As I demonstrated earlier, agreeing with certain consensus defined 'conservative' views does not make that person a 'conservative', it makes that person an individual who both agrees and disagrees with certain issues the multitudes deem 'conservative'.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
"What would you call them. under this definition almost no one is a conservative. who is a conservative then?"
The person is what the person is; an individual who agrees with certain issues, and disagrees with others. The person is a PERSON, not a 'conservative'.
Do you even question these terms and where they came from?
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
ok, so your disagreement with my use of the word, used in dictionaries, scholarly work on the subject of political science, the news and numerous other sources is that you think it doesn't have a defined meaning. you've just showed why your absolutist arguments about how there is REALITY and nothing else is absurd as everyone percieves reality different and thus can only discuss things if they agree on what they see reality to be.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
ok, but clearly, people disagree about things. ie. what they say something is or isn't. the best way for us to verify our perception of reality and go beyond that is if we have confirmation from each other. ie, if we agree as to what we see conservative as meaning. just tell me what you say conservative means. it doesn't seem like an unreasonable possibility.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
"ok, but clearly, people disagree about things. ie. what they say something is or isn't."
Disagreement doesn't make it true. Reality speaks for itself; either something is, or it is not.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
"the best way for us to verify our perception of reality and go beyond that is if we have confirmation from each other."
This is a slippery assertion; if you need others to verify reality for you, it's consensus and consensus does not equate to truth. But let's say I granted this point; if you need another to verify your perception, then you also need another to verify that another's perception, then another to verify that another's perception, etc., it falls into an instant regress.
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
What do I say "conservative" means? That depends, do you mean the noun or adjective?
TheGreatPrince 2 years ago
we just got it today and we are watching it tomorrow. This is gonna be great
da11ascowboy 3 years ago
Hi, Glenn!
I went to this show and it was GREAT!!!! I flew to the US to visit family and saw this with them. It was soooo funny!
( :
Luv you, Glenn!
YG
YGYGYGYGYGYGYGYGYGYG 3 years ago
Ah, this was SUCH a great show. It never gets old. :D
LittleLotte1410 3 years ago
Buy this, it's worth it
joemichael 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This trailer made me want to rip my eyes and puncture my ear drums with rusty screwdrivers. This was supposed to be funny? Glen Beck is a pompous douche
oskorei123 3 years ago
feel free to do what you'retalking about.
jvnerio 3 years ago
I was in the audience at the Dallas show.
Prior to the show, I was one of the few people who got to visit with him.
A very warm, loving person, no uppity traits with Glenn. What you see is what you get.
GET THE VIDEO....you will laugh your backside off!!!
lilheavenranch 3 years ago