Even though I had no idea who Glenn Beck was, I had a feeling I would hate his show as soon as CNN started advertising for it. Call it a bad vibe, or a premonition, or just the fact that something about the short clips in the ads struck me as worthless. But it would be unfair to actually dismiss it without viewing his show, right? So I did watch his show, and as I expected, I hated it. But why? I suppose it could be his particular views, but I’ve known plenty of people with views like that in real-life, and I got along with them.
So what was it about his show that pissed me off and made me hate it? Curious, I tried watching a second show. Once again, I hated it. What’s more, I even started hating the commercials themselves, and even any mention of his show. When the vapid news anchors started spouting ads for his show at every turn, it set my teeth on edge. “Watch the Glenn Beck show for his unique take on current events”, they would say.
“Unique take”, eh? I heard that phrase a few times and I think I figured out why I hate his show. When I watch regular news, I want to see information I would not be able to easily get on my own, or that I wouldn’t bother seeking out. Or I want to see footage from foreign correspondents who are on the scene and can show me things that I obviously couldn’t see on my own. When I read Businessweek Magazine, I’m expecting them to offer insights and information that are new and interesting, and which I couldn’t pick up casually if I hadn’t read it there.
But what does Glenn Beck’s “unique take” on life offer? That’s the problem: there’s nothing “unique” about it at all. Instead, he offers the same kind of useless half-assed unresearched blue-collar opinions that I heard countless times at the cafeteria table when I used to work in tool-and-die shops. In short, there are millions of Glenn Becks out there; he represents the voice of the Guy In Overalls. But I’ve worked with plenty of guys in overalls; I don’t see any fucking reason to turn on CNN to watch a whole show devoted to one particular example of the breed. He doesn’t offer any special background or knowledge to offer any particular insight into the news, and he doesn’t offer news itself. All he offers is the opinion of the Guy In Overalls demographic, and that is anything but unique.
You know, you can call me an elitist, but I figure that if some guy gets a national TV show to discuss current events, he should be able to offer some special credentials to make his opinion more interesting or well-informed than mine. Otherwise, why should I watch it? To hear the kind of half-assed knee-jerk opinions that I could easily get from my mailman? No thanks. There’s something wrong with news channels when guys get TV shows precisely because they don’t have any special background by education or experience to cover the news. Of course, there’s also Glenn Beck’s belief that he’s genuinely funny; that’s yet another thing he shares with far too many guys in overalls.
_____________
EDIT: Today is September 13 2009. It has been three years since I wrote the above post. Interestingly, I notice that criticism tends to be what conservatives would call “politically correct” complaints about my lack of respect for people who aren’t qualified experts in a field, as compared to people who are. It’s not that I think they necessarily know nothing, but blue-collar workers should stick to pontificating on subjects they are qualified in; if I want to know which type of cutter to use when milling Stavax tool steel, I won’t hesitate to ask a milling machine operator. But they should quite frankly shut up when they feel the urge to explain why all the experts are wrong about some subject outside their particular oily expertise. And yes, I do think that people who can’t do calculus are not as smart as people who can. Boo hoo.
According to FOXNews’ commentators who defend knuckle-draggers like Joe The Plumber (and ironically love to use the term “politically correct” on others), it is wrong to treat uneducated people any differently than educated people. Of course, no rational argument can be advanced for this position, so the critics tend to use the tactic of moral righteousness: my statements about uneducated people must mean that I’m a terrible person, a sad person, an angry person, a hostile person, a vicious person, etc. It doesn’t even matter whether a statement is true; according to the thought police, the truth or untruth of the statement has nothing to do with the question of whether I should dare say it. Welcome to the idiocracy.
I’ve actually read his political/autobiographical book, and it is pretty much like you said. He basically gives a standard not-too-extreme conservative position that I could just as easily find from my mom, and talks about how he became a Mormon.
Frankly, I’m surprised they allowed him at all on CNN, unless CNN is bending over backwards to prove that they are friendly to the illiterate, good ol’boy demographic.
I received an E-mail a while ago from someone urging me to watch Glenn Beck again because his show had improved. Well, I watched his show again tonight. That makes three times that I’ve watched this show; I think I’ve given it a pretty fair shake. And no, my impression of the show has not changed.
Tonight is October 5, 2006. On Glenn Beck’s show, he just interviewed the author of a book which claims that university professors are “brainwashing” students because the majority of professors (some 80% of them) identify themselves as liberal. That’s an interesting leap in logic (it’s interesting how, if the most educated people in the country tend to be liberal, some people blame education rather than wondering if there’s something to this whole “liberal” idea), but here’s the kicker: Mr. Beck spent 5 minutes assailing them for not giving both sides of every story. And then, when he interviewed the author, his idea of an interview question was “You are so smart” and “How did you get such a big brain” (I’m not kidding; he actually said these things). Isn’t Mr. Beck at least obligated to make even a token attempt to present the other side of this argument, after just having spent five straight minutes ranting about how professors are all brainwashers because they don’t present both sides of every story?
Glenn Beck tries (with limited success) to be funny and accessible, but he uses his down-home ordinary-guy persona to get away with presenting arguments that have the intellectual quality of spam. Leaving aside the laughably obvious self-contradiction above, he spends a lot of time talking about how he is neither Republican or Democrat. That’s a good thing to say, and I’m certainly not going to attack him for that, and then he went on to say that both the Republicans and Democrats have their loony extremist elements. OK, that’s a pretty fair statement too, but then he gave an example of a “loony extremist” position within the Democratic party: opposing the war in Iraq. How the fuck is that a “loony extremist” position, when polls show that a huge chunk of America agrees with it?
You often run into people who claim to be moderates but who in fact aren’t, and one of the ways you can often tell is the fact that they try so hard to convince you that they’re moderate. Glenn Beck seems to fall into this category. Maybe he doesn’t even intend to; maybe he really does believe he’s moderate. But when you are describing a position held by around half the country as “loony extremist”, maybe you are the extremist, Beck.
I completely agree with you, Mike. He is a Christian Extremist.
Today is February 3, 2007. The UN’s IPCC (inter-governmental panel on climate change) just released a report showing that climate change is real, and that there is a 90% probability that human activities are a primary cause. Out of curiosity, and against my better judgment, I tuned into Glenn Beck again to see what he’d be saying.
Naturally, he was skeptical. This is only to be expected. After all, he’s stuck his neck out in public saying that global warming was bullshit, so he can’t very well change his mind now because that would be an admission of error. So how does he debunk this report? The report is based on peer-reviewed scientific literature, so does he call upon a scientific research group? Does he even call upon any scientist at all? Nope, he interviews a Republican senator, who explains that the report is “fiction”.
Why the fuck would anyone in his right mind interview a senator for expert opinions on a matter of climatology? Gee, why don’t we interview auto mechanics for opinions on neurosurgery, or bus drivers for opinions on cancer research? It’s not as if the senator produced his own detailed scientific report; he simply spouted some opinions about it, and tried to identify what he viewed as “contradictions” in the report without giving any indication that he’d even bothered reading it (Glenn Beck did not indicate that he’d bothered reading it either).
Seriously, I can’t believe Beck has the gall to keep saying that he’s a moderate. Unless “moderate” in the US means “shill for one side”.
I am a conservative, and a former Glenn Beck Listener and a former “Insider”(member) of his website. I don’t like Glenn anymore, and most of the members of his website are crackpots – although there was a actually a much wider variety of crackpots than I expected. I agree on several points and disagree on mainly two:
1. It’s not SUPPOSED to be News. It’s commentary. He and other radio hosts are ALL commentary. What that means is that they often read news articles, and then RESPOND to those articles with their OPINION. Tuning into ANY of these shows looking for news makes as much sense as turning on the Cartoon Network to get the news. BTW, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is likewise NOT news it is comedic commentary, also known as satire, presented in a “news report” format.
2. Your comment about “Guys in Overalls” is the PRECISE reason why most conservatives consider liberals to be ELITIST. It clearly implies:
a. Guys in overalls are uneducated; which may be, and generally IS true.
b. Guys in overalls are, moreover, stupid; which is not necessarily true even in a “general” sense.
c. All, or most, opinions held by “Guys in Overalls” is uneducated, stupid, and false; which cannot possibly be true.
d. Most listeners of Glenn Beck are “Guys in Overalls”, which, I will tell you (whether you believe me or not) is not true – AND, that they are mostly uneducated or unintelligent, or both. AND
e. MOST OF ALL, it not only implies…. it SCREAMS, that you are superior to guys in overalls, and, not only that, but (based on your prior work experience) that you are INHERENTLY superior to such people and it merely took a little time for other people to recognize your greatness.
Now,
IF you just read point (e.) and thought to yourself, “Well, maybe I AM better than those people. ‘I’ think that I’m better than they. I’m smarter, better educated, more thoughtful, more well-read, (probably) wealthier, etc, etc. That’s FINE, I don’t know you – maybe you ARE better.
But for YOU to say so… for YOU to let it ooze through every sentence… for you to not just believe it, but to KNOW it so AUTOMATICALLY, that every thought and opinion of YOURS is INHERENTLY better than their’s —– IS what it means to be “ELITIST”
Even IF you are more intelligent.
Even IF you are more educated.
BUT ESPECIALLY IF if part of your “inherent” superiority is based on the fact that they may make less money than you.
That being said; this is not a personal attack on you, your intelligence/education/etc.. it IS an attack on the way you PRESENT yourself and your arguments.
Also, I didn’t mean to SHOUT. I wanted to “bold” or “underline” but couldn’t get it to work. Sorry.
I think you missed the point. I’m saying that a political commentator should know more about the subject matter than me, and he obviously doesn’t. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether I’m superior to him; the point is that he clearly has no special qualifications to discuss the subject matter, so why does he have a TV show? He brings absolutely nothing to the table that you couldn’t get from any guy off the street.
Having said that, I am an elitist, in the sense that I think people without education should shut up about subjects they’ve never studied. Idiots like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly routinely talk about matters that are far beyond their comprehension, like climatology or evolution science. The term “elitist” has been unfairly demonized by the right. There’s nothing wrong with elitism in moderation; the idea that there should be no elitism at all is simply brain-damaged. The whole point of higher education is to create an intellectual elite, which knows more about certain things than everybody else. Glenn Beck exemplifies the anti-intellectualism which is endemic in certain circles: people who resent and attack qualified experts for thinking they’re superior even though they are superior.
At the end of the day, if your best criticism of an idea is that it’s “elitist”, then all you’re doing is arguing by slapping labels on things, which is a lousy argument.
As I said, it wasn’t a criticism of ANY idea – merely the way in which you presented it; but if you’re happy being an elitist, o.k.. You’re right, though; slapping labels on things IS a lousy argument. Labels like, “Guys in Overalls”, or “Blue-Collar opinions”.
Either way, I actually agree with your assessment of Glenn Beck. As I said, I USED to be a fan/listener. He used to stick more to things he knew – or, at least, to things which he knew about as much as anyone else. Since he got his TV show, he’s started talking about things which he doesn’t even have a basic grasp of. The worst, in my opinion, is when he starts talking about the economy, when it’s painfully obvious he’s never even taken an intro micro- or macro- economics course. It’s embarrassing, really. Kind of like those certain episodes of Seinfeld where George would find himself in some situation that, though funny, was almost too embarrassing to watch.
Beck was never rolling on the floor, piss-your-pants funny; but there were moments of humor that sort of came out of nowhere. He’s also less funny since his TV show began.
As for O’Reilly, I watched his show for about a month or two several years ago. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it soon became clear that he was quite simply THE stupidest man on the planet. I would listen to him make a halfway decent argument, or draw a conclusion that I’d agree with – BUT, then he would elaborate on the twisted, anti-logic that HE used to reach that conclusion & I realized that all of his arguments and conclusions were Logically arrived at by SOMEONE ELSE, and that he adopted those views without understanding them. I do believe that watching O’Reilly can actually MAKE viewers less intelligent and/or insane.
The difference between labeling something “elitist” and labeling something “blue-collar” is that I can come up with a good explanation why blue-collar opinions on matters such as economics and science are not worth consideration: they come from an uninformed background. Blue-collar workers, if you recall, are generally people who have never studied these kinds of subjects at the university level. What’s wrong with being “elitist”, and respecting only the arguments of people who have actually studied the subjects they’re pontificating about? As I said, if the label is the ONLY argument you’ve got, then you’ve got nothing.
As for Beck, I suppose the difference between us is that it was never enough for me that he talked about subjects where he had an average level of knowledge; when I watch news or news commentary about some subject, I want someone who’s actually an expert, otherwise there’s no reason why he should be on TV talking about it.
And of course, Bill O’Reilly is a walking joke. Did you know that according to MSNBC, the median age of his audience is 71? His entire shtick is appealing to the elderly demographic’s rose-coloured memory of a bygone era, when everyone supposedly laughed and danced and played in the meadows with gummy-gumdrop flowers and rainbows in the background. Ah, the good old days …
The postings on Glenn Beck prompted me to gather material for an academic journal article on Beck’s accuracy and inaccuracy in stating verifiable facts and on his use and misuse of logical principles. Also, several posts noted the lack of credibility of sources Beck relies on in his TV show. I will, of course, monitor Beck and read and analyze his book, but I would like to gather examples of Beck’s factual, logical, and credibility of sources lapses–from viewers other than myself. Also, if anyone has read An Inconvenient Book and has a comment about it, I’d like to hear from you. If you want to communicate with me directly, please do so: earlhanks2000@yahoo.com Thanks Wm.Hanks
I agree that Glenn Beck is a typical doughy-in-the-middle republican with little or know actual knowledge of what’s he’s talking about. It’s so infuriating to see these people spreading their disinformation over the airwaves. I can only read his articles, the sight of the man makes me so angry I want to hurl my television into a ravine. His article of Che Guevera was such a propaganda piece, it was unbelievable. Say what you want about the man, but he was no failure, he successfully orchestrated the overthrow of Batista and resisted the American amphibious invasion, that takes some skill and courage, infinitely more than that quivering blob of human excrement Beck, who wouldn’t last 2 seconds in a bolivian jungle. Of course neither would I but I don’t go around calling Che Guevera a loser!
You made an interesting point about his claims of political neutrality and being “non extremist”. He does in fact represent the republican right but likes to pretend that he’s just a regular joe. That’s how they recruit people, that’s how Hitler did it (okay sorry for the overused Hitler analogy), you suck them in with your ah shucks simplicity then – surprise! We’re invading China!
The problem with people like Beck is that they think they know everything, but their only “facts” come from “the gut”, and Stephen Colbert lampooned this brilliantly at the Bush press conference thing he attended. If you study statistics at all, it’s amazing how much we think is true is the opposite, that commonly held beliefs are usually incredibly biased and half the time it’s some dumb shit somebody made up. For instance, a lot of my friends were convinced that Kentucky Fried Chicken changed their name to KFC because they weren’t using real chickens any more, that they were using some genetically modified blob of protein pretending to be chicken. What crap. I remember in University, when “Pepsi Max” came out, I purposely made up a fact and told everyone that it was “1/3 the calories, 4x the caffeine”. Nobody questioned this and by the end of the day, it was being repeated all over the place. And that’s all you have to do, because most people are too lazy to verify things for themselves. It’s much easier to believe things that “sound right” without really analyzing it. Thankfully we have things like wikipedia.org and snopes.com now, although they are not perfect by any means, they’re close to the truth than network television.
There is definitely class warfare going on in the U.S., and it is not republican and liberal, it is educated and uneducated, the open minded and the ignorant,simple as that. Religion can be boiled down to education as well, since most christians are not well educated and most liberals are agnostic or atheist. Basically the replublicans only have the ignorant and the greedy left, and the greedy don’t need recruiting, but they have to keep the ignorant in their camp or else they’re screwed. That’s Glenn’s job!
I find it extremely that comments here make statements such as, “…another thing he shares with far too many guys in overalls.” This is a not too subtle swipe at the “great unwashed” as they were called in my father’s generation. Comments such as this simply bears out what people like Beck are saying, that liberalism in America has become an elitist philosophy, not representative of the vast majority of Americans. Now if you want to point out inaccuracies in his rants, I’m more than willing to listen. He is, for example, inaccurate in his portrayal of the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Versailles. America did not, with France, push for reparation to be levied against Germany. Wilson resisted reparations but in the end rolled over to get the Brits and French to agree to his notion of the League of Nations. But many of the comments here simply reinforce the conservative stereotype of liberals.
Well of course I’m an elitist when it comes to education. Why is that a bad thing? I think morons with no education should accept their limitations and not do stupid things like declaring that every major scientific association in the world is wrong about some scientific subject such as evolution or the CO2 greenhouse gas effect, based on a bit of web searching and ignorant nonsense about “dissident scientists”.
Glenn Beck has precisely the worst possible mixture of populism and elitism: he’s an economic elitist and an intellectual populist. He thinks the rich are better than the poor, but that the knowledgeable and educated are no better than the ignorant and uneducated. He looks at the fact that university graduates are less likely to believe in conservative religious beliefs and concludes that there’s something wrong with “liberal” universities, rather than something wrong with conservative religious beliefs.
I’m the opposite: I’m an economic populist and an intellectual elitist. I think that ignorant and uneducated people should not think themselves the equals of knowledgeable and educated people, but that rich people have a social responsibility to help the poor.
Everyone’s an elitist about something. Christians, for example, are elitist about their beliefs: they think that people who share their beliefs (or at least something similar) are better than people who don’t. Why don’t you ask yourself what you are elitist about, and then ask whether that’s a good thing, rather than taking this ridiculous stance of pretending that you oppose elitism in any form?
I think being elitist is always a bad thing. You shouldn’t be elitist because it means you won’t even consider a non-elite’s opinion. That being said, you are free to recognize that one guy might have a master’s degree in climatology and the other guy never finished high school. That doesn’t make you elitist. I think elitist goes to the extent of not even listening to the guy who finished high school. As long as you listen to him and actually consider his opinion, then you are not elitist, you just disagree with him. Being elitist is discounting someone’s opinion precisely because he never finished high school. That shouldn’t really matter if you are open-minded. But if you listen to his opinion and you think it’s wrong because you don’t agree with his argument and logic then you are simply disagreeing with him, not being elitist.
I’m glad I graduated from college, but many times I thought I wouldn’t make it past high school because of social pressures, personal reasons, etc. If I didn’t finish it wouldn’t make me any less smart, there are many things besides intelligence that determine success in school. What if I was very anti-social and never finished high school but dedicated most of my free time to studying climatology and was able to make good logical arguments about climate change? If you discounted them for me being uneducated, that would be elitist and wrong. If I just made illogical poorly researched arguments, then you could rightly disagree on the merits of my actual arguments…
THAT BEING SAID,
I really hate Glenn Beck. His commentary is treacherous at best and genocidal at worst. And I just can’t stand how much he toots his own horn… “I warned you about socialism! I warned you about Obama! I warned you about the stock market crashing! I did this, I know that!” Half of his ranting is just rambling about it’s taken for granted that he is awesome.
Makes me want to vomit… If I was braver I would kill him knowing full well I would be caught. I’m pretty sure his death would make the world a much better place than my life ever could.
I think you’re being overly black and white about this. An education elitist does not say that every uneducated person is necessarily wrong. He just puts less weight on their opinions than he does on people who have education and experience in the field. After all, how much weight do you place on “self-study” when the person in question has never written a single exam, completed a single assignment, or done a single day of internship or apprenticeship in the field?
There’s a reason I get a medical diagnosis from a qualified doctor, not a guy who says he’s spent a lot of time studying medicine on the Internet.
As for that last bit you wrote, I would say that Beck’s personal style has become even more aggravating and insane over time. I honestly think he’s undergoing some kind of mental collapse.
You may be interested in this recent clip from Harold Hill’s- er, Glenn Beck’s radio program [/Olbermann] that’s making the rounds throughout the left-leaning side of the internets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/15/caller-reduces-glenn-beck_n_233846.html
It’s so cute the way he tirelessly defends the oh-so-oppressed wealthy businessman. And I checked, it indeed is from the other day, and not 2nd grade.
he’s a freaking idiot! Has anyone seen his recent tyrade on a lady from Mass. over healthcare? My goodness – google it. He is truly an unstable individual…
Mike, I agree with everything you’ve written! You’ve nailed the problems with Glenn Beck! He’s Everyman…and it’s difficult to watch Everyman pretend to be an expert on every subject. The ONLY thing he really can tell us is how a troubled, arrogant, egotistical alcoholic was able to convince two cable networks to give him his own TV show. Amazing accomplishment!!!
For hating him so much, you sure do watch him a lot…so keep adding to his ratings. They’re much appreciated, especially from you liberals =D
Brooke, you may not be aware of this, but we have this thing called “Youtube” here. I don’t need to watch Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing propaganda network in order to see Glenn Beck spout his paranoid idiocy. I don’t know why anybody actually watches FOXNews; it’s as if it’s run by children. They keep “accidentally” putting a “D” next to a politician’s name whenever he gets involved in a scandal, even if he’s actually “R”. You might say it’s harmless, and maybe it is, but it indicates a childish fratboy mentality in their offices at best, not professionalism.
Thanks for the comment and affirmation of how stupid some people can be, though. It’s much appreciated, especially from you conservatives :D
Glenn Beck only speaks the truth, wake up people we are losing are FREEDOM.
Brooke, I personally think it’s a good thing Mike watches clips from people he doesn’t like. You see, that’s what educated people do, they form their opinion based upon things they have actually seen and/or investigated. So if you are implying you never watch any liberal side of view whatsoever, then that says a lot about you and your open-mindedness (and thus capability of rational discussion).
Hector, i think you mean socially awkward, or something similar, because being anti-social basically makes you a psychopath, like bundy and dahmer. And Bavo, i’m not sure if i agree with that, i consider myself educated, but at times cannot watch programs with people i don’t like, usually meaning conservatives, because the things they say and views they have often affect me personally, so i’d rather not watch or read what they’re saying because it just makes me angry and upset, so does that make me uneducated? I also consider myself open-minded, but for some things that are so crazy i just can’t keep an open mind for them. And Ryan you’re just plain crazy, although i do agree that we’re losing our freedom, but don’t blame the liberals.
Glen Beck is a total moron. I detest him, and can tell Brook I’ve never tuned into his show so his ratings aren’t helped by me. I’ve seen plenty of him on other shows to know what a hypocrit he is.
For example, he is now carrying on about how we have the ‘best’ healcare system in the world, etc. and etc… and how we are in danger of losing it over the reforms Obama is pushing. But he sang an entirely different toon a year ago when he bashed the US healthcare system. Here is a clip of John Steward exposing this fraud – from the Truthdig website: http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20090814_changing_channels_on_health_care/
I mean, did he think nobody would find the clips of his past opinions?
I don’t like Olbermann’s style, though I agree with much of what he says. I hate it when he changes his voice when quoting people he doesn’t like. IMO, the best newscaster out there today is Rachel Maddow. She does her homework, and calls it as it is. And she is always polite to guests.
I used to watch Glenn Beck about a year and a half ago. He just thought he was untouchable, got to big for his britches and all he does is rant; no news. There is nothing informative about his program. Unique only because it’s garbage. He need to get a grip befere CNN drops him. I can’t even stand to watch him on Fox News in the Morning. UGH!!
Mike has hit it square on the head. I am happily an intellectual elitist too. This BS all started with Ronald Regan, who worked very hard to demonize Democrats. After many months of careful market research and opinion polls within the constituency, Regan made his famous quote about crazy liberals flashing old ladies in the streets. This was so popular and worked so well with the knuckle-dragging crowds, that it was expanded-upon many times. In its first iteration, it was certainly a clever and funny way to throw a barb at his opponents and derail the meaningful debate (not in his favor). However, since that time, the Regan-lemmings have repeated this tactic over and over again, to the point that it is just sad.
Its like watching a young child that says something funny, eliciting a raucous response from a room full of people. Proud of their accomplishment, they endlessly repeat the same joke, each time getting a somewhat less boisterous response, till it is limited to a few uncomfortable charity-chuckles.
This is my basic problem with the Republican party. Their ideas, their challenges, their debates, their platforms, are all built around this played-out concept of derailing true debate with silly glib put-offs. Liberals put pressure on Regan for his many disastrous policies, and he demonizes liberals. Media organizations pick up and do the fact-checking that the dems were affraid to do, and “poof” we have the “Liberal Media”, so scientists and researchers pick up the ball and do what the media is now afraid to do, and “poof” we have the “Intellectual Elitists”. Slap a ridiculous label on anything and you instantly and effortlessly marginalize it.
The latest one to make it back into favor is “socialist”. I’ll bet a crisp $100 bill right now, that 90%+ of the ignorant hoards that toss out this term, could not provide even the most basic definition of what it is. Nor could they come up with any kind of intellectual argument as to why its bad. I hate to tell all of you intentionally-ignorant, average-Joes out there, but Socialism is the logical and inevitable end-game of capitalism. Anyone who has done the thought, the research, and run the numbers, would know this. Capitalism, will by its own mechanisms, force socialism on the world. And this is a good thing. If anyone is curious, let me know, and I will spell it out. For you Beck fans, I’ll use really small words, and big pretty pictures.
i think it is sad day for America when people actually believe some of the totally ill informed, dangerous nonsense that people like Glenn Beck and Hannity, OReilly etc spout every day. How does anyone think this is factual news.
Does anyone on this site actually believe in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? How can you say Fox News is not factual. What they just make it all up for fun. Don’t forget if it was not for are ForeFathers you would be living in a socialist state, Oh but thats what we already have.
I actually searched out a I hate Glenn Beck website just to see how many people such as myself totally any completely think that this man needs to be locked up. He is completely unstable, irrational, uninformed and poisonous. I can’t believe that he is even allowed to say the things that he says on national TV. I am a firm believer in all things American and a firm believer in freedom of speech, but this man has gone way to far, is there anyone else out there that would like to see this man taken off television? What is even worse is that there are people out there who actually believe him and I really wonder about the state of our great nation if these poor uninformed sponges are actually out there watching Glenn Beck tear our country apart with false claims and questionable media practices. The FCC needs to look into this man’s practices and I personally would like to see him taken off radio and TV permanently.
Ryan is obviously one of those idiots who thinks that FOXNews would not commit fraud just because they have “News” in the name. If that’s the case, then why did they actually secure the legal right to lie on-air? Ever heard of the case of FOXNews vs Jane Akre?
Also, stop wanking about your aristocrat slave-owning native-killing “ForeFathers”. You can’t prove something is right or wrong just because of what those dinosaurs thought.
PS. “Socialism” is not evil, nor is it the same thing as communism. Open a book sometime. I know books may be strange and unfamiliar to a typical FOXNews follower, but please make the effort. In reality (as opposed to your idiot FOXNews world where socialism = totalitarianism), it was the French socialist revolution which brought democracy to the modern world. Socialism is also responsible for worker safety laws, public education, public safety nets, and all kinds of other things you take for granted. Pure capitalism is good for encouraging people to work hard and produce greater wealth, but it is absolutely terrible at creating social equity or even justice. That’s why all modern first-world nations employ some combination of socialism and capitalism. If you want pure unfettered deregulated capitalism, go to Somalia.
Regardless of what I think about Glenn Beck, there is one theme I find absolutely hysterical. For being an “educated” elitist, Mike, you sure do resort to name calling quite often. I wish I had a penny for everytime you called someone an idiot. Oh, let’s not forget the f-bomb you dropped, that is a highly educated use of language.
I am still laughing. I guess Glenn is not the only unstable commentator out there, lol.
I hate to break it to you, but many men of good education have insulted others in the past. Albert Einstein once insulted militarists by saying that their complex brains are a waste, and that they need only unprotected brain stems.
But of course, someone like you would no doubt judge a man’s education by his use of insults, and not by the logical validity of his statements. It’s so convenient, especially when you have no idea how real educated people talk. Engineers on the job will drop the “f-bomb” as you call it many, many times throughout a day. Grow up. This is not kiddies-world where you run and complain to a teacher if someone uses a naughty word.
Glenn Beck disgusts me. Why anyone would watch his show is beyond me. He at times seems mentally ill and or at the very least severely emotionally distressed.
Replying to post 26 Robert Says:
I find it amusing when a person belittles others, yet they can’t even spell a persons name correctly. “Regan”??? It’s “Ronald Reagan”.
..and for the rest of you. You needed to get your “Elitist” head out of the clouds (or your ass) and come back down to Earth with the rest of us common folks.
“Common folk” are morons. That’s why infomercials work, that’s why the average adult can’t even do basic algebra or trigonometry, and that’s why Glenn Beck has an audience.
PS. A word of advice to “Brad”: if you’re going to fallaciously dismiss someone’s point by nitpicking his spelling of Reagan’s name and ignoring the rest of his post, don’t make yourself look like an idiot by repeatedly butchering your own punctuation and grammar in only two sentences. It’s “a person’s name”, not “a persons name” (incorrect use of the apostrophe is one of the most common failings of the semi-literate), the second sentence should start with a capital letter, and the correct tense for a demand to a group of people is present plural, not past singular. It should be: “You need to get your heads out of the clouds”, not “You needed to get your head out of the clouds”.
out of couriosity i typed “i hate glenn beck” into google and you were at the top , so congrats I guess..that being said , I guess you could classify me as one of those “overall ” types but I dont really take it as an insult. Its so easy to throw people you have disdain for into little groups of safe and distant leper colonies to keep outside your personal space but what are we really saying about how we view others. Is it so painfull to listen to an opinion other than yours? What is this deranged need for people to dismiss others so easily these days? I really dont understand it myself . Even as I watch all the networks and read what articles I can to further my knowledge of the world around me I find it harder each day to stay even keeled. The polarizing of America only seems to get worse with all this “hate” and to what end? I suppose Mike wears a suit and tie or something to the effect but is that an automatic pass for enlightenment? Do I get to start a blog about how much I “hate” guys in suits and ties and Keith Olberman? You have your little corner of the net and the desire to share your thoughts but at the same time insult those who might want to gain insight from your views. It is a strange and dark time we live in , I only hope something changes all this for the better.
I love the way you casually condense my entire argument on Glenn Beck into the caricature “It’s painful to listen to an opinion other than mine”, and then in the same breath, bemoan the way some people are too quick to dismiss others. That’s some rich irony there, my friend.
Could it be that I dismiss him because he’s an uneducated moron, with a personal history of alcoholism and no education greater than high school? Or the fact that he’s a flaming hypocrite who rants about “traditional marriage” but divorced his first wife? Oh no, it must be entirely because his opinion differs from mine! Of course! Why consider the obvious when we can make up something which suits you instead? You’re a genius!
I was talking about the hate. Wether or not you wish to actually see Glenn Beck die or suffer or shutup is entirely up to you . I’m only trying to get a feel for why people “hate “things. Judging by your response I can probably be safe in assuming you hate me now . Great
but hey, its your corner , blast away
Any time you feel like actually answering a point, feel free. If you’re up to it.
You dont strike me as someone who actually wants to engage in conversation that generates good points. Quick to judge and throw about insults. But I guess thats safe to assume considering your reaction to some of the posters above. I stumbled onto this page and others because of a google search in an attempt to find out why people hate others with a different viewpoint than their own. Sadly its moving along about how I figured it would. Why I want to think of you as an angry kid with enough education to be dangerous is slightly humorous to me. I just want to pat you on the back and say “there there lad , things will get better”.
You wrote: “You dont strike me as someone who actually wants to engage in conversation that generates good points.” That’s an interesting excuse for refusing to answer any points. Did you hope I wouldn’t notice?
You still haven’t answered my earlier point, and it’s pretty obvious that you aren’t capable of doing so. Let’s restate it, shall we? I do not have much respect for uneducated people like Glenn Beck, who never went any farther than high school. If you’re sore about that, too bad.
In FOXNewsLand, educated people are not allowed to openly express their contempt for uneducated people. This is FOXNews’ version of political correctness, and I quite frankly have no intention of being cowed by it. And frankly, all you’re doing is whining about it. Oh no, Mike Wong is a terrible person because he doesn’t think uneducated people are just as smart as educated people! Oh boo hoo! What a terrible man!!!!
Grow up. It’s pretty obvious your only argument is “if you dare speak the truth instead of being “politically correct” (to use a popular right-wing perjorative) about uneducated people, then you’re a bad person”. It’s also obvious you can’t think of anything else to say, so your next response (if you make one) will probably be exactly the same thing again, just slightly reworded.
MIKE DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE U.S CONSTITUTION?
Ryan, Mike is a citizen of Canada. He believes it exists, but that is about as far as it goes.
Ryan, just so you know, Mike is a Canadian. Do you believe in the Canadian Constitution Ryan?
Also, the US Constitution is a great document for its day, but never forget that it was written by a group of people who thought that black should be slaves, the only role for women was that of housewife, natives were subhuman, gays were abominations, and the poor should know their goddamn place. If the US can’t progress beyond its origins, then we’re fucked.
To Ryan: If you weren’t a functionally retarded wingnut, you’d have done a cursory glance around his site and noticed that Mike’s Canadian. So no, he doesn’t believe in it as an American does. I however do, so do you have a point in asking that question?
Ryan:
Mike is Canadian. He does not believe in the US constitution. As a matter of fact I am fairly certain that he is thankful to not have been subject to US law, because of a smallpox outbreak among the Colonial Regulars and Militia during their attempted takeover of Canada during the Revolutionary War.
You ask him if he believes in it. I would ask if you have ever even read it. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about what economic system we should operate on, save that it gives Congress the power to levy taxes (including income tax) which it does, and regulate interstate trade. These taxes are to be uniform (IE not selectively applied by state) and shall be used to provide for the defense and “General Welfare” of the united states.
Your most likely definition of “socialism” is in fact expressly allowed by the Constitution.
Oh, and let us not forget that yes, Fox News has been documented to flat out lie on the air. They even won the right to do so in court during a federal Whistle-blower investigation a few years ago.
To Ryan: Of course he doesn’t. He’s Canadian. However, I’ll bet a thousand dollars vs a bucket of pigshit Mike probably has a better understanding of it then you do.
To Ryan: Seeing as he is Canadian I don’t see why he would.
Response to Post 42: Ryan
MIKE DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE U.S CONSTITUTION?
-Why the fuck would he Ryan? Mike’s a Canuck, so am I. Why would we give a hoot about your Constitution?
P.S.: Yes it had good points and was quite the thing back int he day it was written, I doubt however that the writers intended it to be a biblesque document that folks could wank over, rather then a guideline and legal framework.
“Ryan” is a pretty darn good troll. I have to believe he’s a troll because the alternative, that someone with the right to vote is really that stupid, is just too horrifying to comprehend.
If it was not for the U.S Constitution, I would not be able to live free the way Americans do. I just believe in FREEDOM and it seems like most of you don’t. Mike that is why I love America,if you don’t like a certain program on t.v, pick up a remote and change the channel. Also why do you Canuck’s care so much what is on U.S t.v?
Point number one, what does the US Constitution have to do with not liking Beck? His personal interpretation of it is largely a fabrication of the centre-right mythos the American people have created around the Founding Fathers.
Point two, the United States of America is currently the worlds only super power and the reigning global hegemon, as such we wield a stupendous amount of influence in international politics even when we aren’t attempting to do so. Especially Canada, considering we make up the largest percentage of their international trade as their closest neighbor, share a national air defense network, and are both currently members of the same mutual defense pact.
Ryan:
You think we Americans live free because we can change the TV channel when we want to? How about the civil liberties that have been, frankly, raped for the past 9 years? The suspension of Habeus Corpus, Illegal Torture, warrantless wiretaps. You mistake the trappings of freedom for the substance. One more of many signs that you are in fact a blithering sub-literate moron.
Funny you should mention the Constitution. You know, that document that was written by the ex-colonial upper crust, who considered the masses to be savage and barbaric to the degree that they actually barred them from voting rights if they didn’t own sufficient property, and set up all kinds of constitutional protections against mass rule?
“Also why do you Canuck’s care so much what is on U.S t.v?”
Because it’s generally a good idea to keep an eye on a neighbor who can potentially turn your country into a parking lot several times over.
So watch Glenn Beck, he will keep you informed and up to date.
Ryan, I don’t believe in your constitution at all. I suspect it is just a figment of your deranged imagination. What are you going to do about it?
Honestly, I had very little exposure to this kind of Conservitard rhetoric until recent years, and I have to thank SD.net at least in part for the (dubious?) honour (Well, that is to say that I hadn’t seen how mainstream it was in US media, being a Canadian who never bothered with FOX to begin with). I really think Mike hits the nail squarely on the the head concerning the whole anti-intellectualism angle that pervades modern society these days. It’s not just that the Overalls set doesn’t know what it’s talking about in cases like these, more so that they don’t even WANT to know.
Because, like, research is scary and hard and stuffs. I hear that if you research too hard, you could turn into a witch! And then your friends will have to BURN you!
The fact that Beck pretends to be ‘balanced’ is probably the part that annoys me the most, as this is the perfect tactic for swaying America’s politically apathetic; much like the folks who take ‘The Bible Is About Peace and Love and Sunshine’ at face value without ever reading the damn thing.
Give them a quick, pat explanation, and they’ll be satisfied. Even if it’s wrong. Because finding out more takes effort.
And, of course, the armchair commentators who get TV shows know how to work this.
It’s like Conservative pundits think that knowledge is the disease that spreads Liberalism.
….
Okay, that last sentence makes my brain hurt. I’ll shut up and go back to lurking the forums now.
The ironic thing about the ‘elitism’ conservatives love to spout off about is that it rhetorically positions conservatives as “men of the people”; when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The conservative knows that the majority of commoners are not, by nature, conservative (at least certainly not economically), and if they weren’t so easily led by the nose, they could become a threat to his economic station. So, rather than confront this head-on, he adopts pseudo-populist overtones to his rhetoric, in an effort to string the working-man alone. This is how a conservative can, on one hand, denounce ‘elitism’, while on the other championing economic policies that prop up the economic positions of the genuinely elite – the owners of big business.
Ryan, Glenn Beck is one of the worst people to look for factual information from rivaled only by O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Dobbs, and Hannity.
Schatten, back that up with some facts. Isn’t Dobbs on CNN, they would never lie.
Dobbs subscribes to the Birther Movement and that puts him at odds with reality, O’Reilly has his head so far up his ass he’s defamed the Soldiers killed at Malmedy twice in addition to being a bigot, Hannity & Beck are blatant fear mongerers whom on numerous occassions have attempted to paint liberals as closet communists destroying the nation, and Limbaugh is a hateful pig who has encouraged conservatives to cause a riot at the DNC.
“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but the newspaper” Thomas Jefferson
Ryan, what a useless quote. Would you be posting on the computer had the scientists and engineers not studied? Would you still be alive without the benefit of modern medecine? Or how about the car you drive. Your an anti-education ignorant fool. Quoting Thomas Jefferson as if that proves your point. Appeal to Authority.
Not only that, but you are insulting Schatten for doing what you asked. You demanded proof, Schatten provided it. You then insult him for having posted it by saying he is an idiot for daring to be intelligent enough to read. Go crawl back into your hole Ryan.
I really do love how Ryan tries play the Drawing Room Intellectual.
“I’m Right, because *FAMOUS PERSON*. Suck it.”
Real salt of the Earth sentiment thar, kid…Assuming you’re not just some kind of very patriotic Spambot.
I expect a GOD BLESS AMERICA in 3….2….
I must be the only AMERICAN here, the world would not be the same if it was not for the U.S.A. Where does everyone go to have the best of everything? I know it is not Canada. People from Canada go to the U.S.A when they need health care, when they want to live. You guys must have been picked on alot when you were little, because you sure like the name calling. If you live in U.S.A, you know you can leave anytime if you don’t like it here. Don’t let me know how it works out for you.
I`m starting to see a pattern in Ryan´s comments…
“We should reject big government and look inside ourselves for all the things that built this country into what is was” Glenn Beck
Hmmm … (checking IP address) … they must make the Republitards unusually stubborn in Livonia Michigan.
In any case, you’re wrong. Big government built your country into what it was.
I found some of Mikes fans
http://peopleofwalmart.com/
Don’t you have a trailer park to go home to?
Oh come on now Migel , you have to apprieciate that site , just a little.
Yes, as a reminder of where the average Glenn Beck fan can be found. I hear they sell overalls for cheap there.
Oh come on now Migel , you have to apprieciate that site , just a little.
and I suppose I should answer your above retort , response , whatever….like I originally said I came here to read why people say they hate such and such a thing . Mike you have answered this for me quite well and I appreiciate the edit . To be fair , it was an old bit of yours and to your credit your pretty much the same guy . Most of the time fellas say they hate shit and just blather on not getting to the meat of the animal . You hate stupid people and only wish to be engaged with those of equal and if possible greater intellectual gifts. I dont think I tried to insult you for your views or rattle your cage but I was just wondering if you could elaborate a few points , why you took it as a flame should have been addressed better on my part. If guys like Ryan want to come here and insist on bringing to the argument “Im proud to be an American” I dont know if that will work toooo well here but hey , you kids have fun. Play nice now
Not to veer this thread to far away (lol) but I noticed that your Canadian ? Whats your take on your healthcare system up there. I would appreiciate a patron’s opinion of the services rather than all the crap I gatta read.
My view on the Canadian health-care system is the same as that of most Canadians: I’m glad to have it and I’m glad my kids have it. Americans see a handful of Canadians who agree with the Republicans (as if you Americans couldn’t cherry-pick a handful of people in your own country to support pretty much any agenda you want) and they leap to the preposterous assumption that this carefully selected group must be representative of the entire country, even though no politician here would dare propose privatizing our health care system for fear of instantly being annihilated at the polls.
A good example is that Ontario woman Shona Holmes who became the darling of the US right-wing media by claiming she needed to go to the US to get treatment for a “brain tumour” which she believed to be a life or death situation. The problem is that even the Mayo Clinic which treated her in the US does not confirm her story: they say that it was a benign Rathke’s Cleft Cyst, not a malignant brain tumour. She would have had it removed in a few months for free if she had allowed the Canadian system to do its job, and the reason there was a few months delay is because the Canadian system prioritizes patients based on their medical need, not their ability to pay. In other words, she got pushed down the priority list because her growth was not malignant.
That’s a perfectly valid rationale; it is in fact the basis of triage medicine. And the US health care system would not have prevented a scenario like that: can you name a single health insurer which would happily pay extra to expedite surgery for a benign cyst just because the patient (who is not qualified to assess such things) believes it to be a malignant tumour? For that matter, what makes anyone think she could even get insurance at all if she was living in the US? It would be a pre-existing condition, so she would get rejected.
Here’s a list of a few annoying myths that idiots like Glenn Beck subscribe to:
They believe “there is a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor” in the Canadian health care system. That’s totally false. I call my doctor’s receptionist to get an appointment, I go to his office, I get care, I show him my Ontario Health card, and I leave. No muss, no fuss, no forms to fill out, no government bureaucrat.
They believe there are long delays for everything. As mentioned above, delays are dictated by priority. Lower-priority cases get longer delays, while higher priority cases get pushed to the top. This can frustrate lower-priority patients (especially since they can get repeatedly bumped if new high-priority cases come in) and make good ammunition for American right-wing pundits, but if you were a doctor and you had to treat a group of people, wouldn’t you do it the same way?
They believe it is extremely difficult to get a doctor. The reality here is the same as it is in the US: it’s easy to get a doctor if you live in a big city like Toronto, but it’s hard if you live in a remote rural area. That’s not the fault of the socialized health care system: that’s just a reality of life. Doctors will gravitate toward population centres; it’s silly to blame this on the socialized health care system.
They believe Canadian doctors are all government employees. That is not the case; the government is the sole insurer, not the sole employer. In other words, the government replaces your panoply of over 1300 for-profit health insurance companies with a single non-profit health insurance government agency.
They believe there is a Canadian federal health care system. There is no such beast. Instead, there is a Canadian federal health care law, and each of the provinces has its own health care system which is obligated to meet the requirements of that law, with the assistance of transfer payments from the federal government. The federal government does not actually run health care in any of the provinces.
They believe it is inherently less efficient. In fact, Canada’s health care system has only one third the per-capita administration overhead costs of the US system, which means it is far more efficient. The New England Journal of Medicine even did a study on this; you can look it up. The saddest thing about this belief is the fact that on some level, they must know it’s not true: they fear that a public insurer would drive private insurers out of business if allowed to compete on a level playing field, so they must recognize that a public insurer is actually more efficient (the fact that it need not generate any profit or do any marketing obviously makes it more efficient, since marketing and profit are both effectively waste as far as the consumer is concerned).
They believe a government non-profit health insurer would exert greater pressure to cut costs than a for-profit insurance company, so they raise the spectre of the government “pulling the plug on grandma”. I must ask: have these people ever actually dealt with an insurance company? Or any other kind of company for that matter? For-profit companies are absolutely ruthless when it comes to cutting costs. In fact, one of their most common complaints about government is that it does a poor job of cutting costs, so why do they suddenly turn around and complain that government-run health care would be so ruthless in cutting costs? They can’t keep their logic straight, and the whole thing stinks of rampant dishonesty.
Frankly, American political discussion of the Canadian health care system is such an incredible circus of lies that it beggars description, and completely destroys the credibility of your media and particularly the right-wing politicians who are spreading most of these lies and misconceptions. The motive is obvious: nobody wants to hurt the health insurance companies, who contribute a lot of money to both the Republican and Democrat parties. That’s your country’s knee-jerk pro-business attitude once again, but don’t expect the health insurance companies to return the favour: they will not hesitate to hurt you.
PS. Don’t take the above to mean that I think our system is perfect as-is. Like any realistic and complex system, it requires constant adjustment and has its flaws. However, the idea of switching to a US-style for-profit corporate-driven health insurance system would be absolutely horrifying to me, as it would be to most Canadians. Even our Conservative Party wouldn’t propose such a thing.
Alot of the rational concern here is HOW it will get paid for . Our system is so rife with corruption right now it begs the question of who will try to benefit from the transistion (if at all). Whenever our government systems and programs are refered to in dollars its always billions. I think people forget a billion numerically is alot of zeros , just asking any mathmatician how big a billion translates to in tactile things and not come away with some respect is quite ignorant . Just rounding the totals up sometimes makes me wonder if these people who write the checks have a foothold on reality.
That is only a “rational concern” because you reject single-payer health care, which would eliminate marketing, massive administrative redundancy, and the profit motive from health insurance: three gigantic money pits in your existing system.
Your country needs to get over its obsession with always being as capitalist as possible. Not everything should be capitalist. No one in your country seriously advocates for-profit police forces or fire departments, for example. Health-care is a public service, not a luxury item. It should not be a for-profit enterprise. Let people profit on cars and computers and houses, but not peoples’ lives.
If you can’t pay your house payment. Do you go out and buy a new car? Fix medicare and your debt, than discuss national healthcare.
If you’re dying, do you skip going to the doctor so you can pay down your mortgage?
Mike,Have some common sense
“Common sense” and “accepted wisdom” are nothing more than social consensus. It is quite possible for “common sense” to be wrong. Logic is superior. Mankind has had “common sense” for thousands of years, but it has only had the Scientific Method for a few hundred. Notice how rapidly we have progressed during those few hundred years, armed with logic and empiricism instead of mere “common sense”.
Wasn`t there some guy(who`s name I don`t remember) who said that “common sense isn`t so common”?
Probably, although if he defines common sense as something which is uncommon, then one could say it’s not really common sense. I would prefer the very uncommon sense of an Albert Einstein over the half-wit “common sense” being promoted by an uneducated doughboy like Glenn Beck.
“Common sense” is the first thing you learn in life. It should not be the only thing you learn in life.
Aapo, “Judge a person by their questions,rather than their anwser”.Voltaire
But Ryan, your questions are stupid, like asking a Canadian whether he “believes in the US Constitution”, as if that’s even vaguely relevant to Glenn Beck’s glaring intellectual inadequacies. Whoever said that “there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers” was apparently not thinking of the rhetorical question, which is quite often stupid.
By the way, here are some amusing quotes on common sense:
Alot of people like myself who have excellent care paid for by our employers are the ones who want to know the particulars of all these “plans” our wonderfull congress is working on. No one I know rejects any plan that says on the brochere that it will brings costs down , improve care , and simplifies things . Hell if theres a better way of doin things Id much perfer the easy way but I dont get to make those decision . The devil is in the details as they say , and alot of people who are trying to digest all this information can’t get our questions properly answered . So what IS wrong with Canada’s healthcare system?
Mike, you seem like a smart guy, so you should read the book 5000 Year Leap. Everyone should read this book, if you want to understand freedom and how to keep it.
Aaron, what is wrong with Medicare and Medicade?
I dont have ,nor do I know anyone who has, medicare or medicaid . My parents are gone and my friends are well off or kept at a safe distance . My plan is 100% paid for except for the co-pays and yearly deductable so I dont have a way to correctly judge the system. From what I do hear is that medicare is a money pit and will be bankrupt in 2018 if , of course , we dont “stop this crisis now!” lol
I don’t know this story is factual , but it kinda fuels my skepticism of our government being trusted with 1/6 of the economy……http://gizmodo.com/5359831/medicare-would-rather-buy-8000-computer-than-150-iphone-app
Don’t forget to watch Glenn Beck tonite at 5 pm eastern.
Ryan, you are a little deluded.
“I must be the only AMERICAN here”
This is not true. I was born and raised in Alaska. I’ve spent the last 15 years of my life in Montana. I am very much an American. Mike would consider me quite conservative. I have a large collection of firearms, several dating back to WW2. I live in one of the more conservative states in the US. I like small towns, I live in a city of just 60,000 people, and its a two hour drive on the Interstate to anything remotely near where I live.
And for all that, I voted Obama. I have my priorities straight. Medical care is an important right that everyone deserves. People should not live their lives under an umbrella of fear.
“the world would not be the same if it was not for the U.S.A.”
This is true. If it weren’t for the United States, 5 million people would not have died in Vietnam. If it weren’t for the United States, Iran might be a democratic country. The United States has done great things, but they have done horrible things. We must face the reality such that it is and accept responsibility for our mistakes.
“Where does everyone go to have the best of everything?”
Japan makes good cars. Taiwan makes great computers. Europe has the best guns (FN, Beretta, H&K, Walther, etc). French airplanes are pretty good. Norway has the best oil rigs. Some of the best computer games game from the United Kingdom and Canada. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada produce some very good movies and TV shows.
We live in an International World. Take your hand off your dick and stop masturbating to the US flag.
If you voted for Obama, you are not a conservative.
Aaron asked: “So what IS wrong with Canada’s healthcare system?” Primarily, the problem is budget. We spend only 10% of our GDP on health care, while the US spends 16% of its GDP on health care. That’s a huge difference; most of the problems people complain about relate to the ease with which you can get service, and that would be improved by increasing our funding even if we stayed well below the US level of spending. But it begs the question of how much we want to spend. Unlike the US, Canada has its debt relatively under control, and we want to stay that way.
____________________
Ryan says: “Mike, you seem like a smart guy, so you should read the book 5000 Year Leap. Everyone should read this book, if you want to understand freedom and how to keep it.” This is a very cheap pseudo-intellectual method of argument, known popularly as “name-dropping”. It is not a valid form of argument; it is all well and good to recommend people read a book if they’re intrigued by your argument and want to know more, but name-dropping is not a valid substitute for an argument, and Ryan has so far failed to provide an argument, or even the semblance of one. All he does is thump his chest about his tribal allegiance to conservatives.
Ryan also says: “If you voted for Obama, you are not a conservative.” Tell me Ryan, how do you define “conservative”? Do you even know how to define a political position? Or do you view the two sides only in terms of whether the people in them resemble you?
Aaron says: “I don’t know this story is factual , but it kinda fuels my skepticism of our government being trusted with 1/6 of the economy……http://gizmodo.com/5359831/medicare-would-rather-buy-8000-computer-than-150-iphone-app”
________________
News flash: large organizations sometimes do stupid things and waste money. But why do you wish to continue trusting insurance companies with this money instead? Do you assume that large for-profit corporations never do stupid or wasteful things? Surely you’ve been watching the news for the last year.
If you wish to show that A is worse than B, it’s not enough to show that A is imperfect.
Thats it? You dont spend enough money? Our congress could help you guys with that ya know.
I dont have a beef with insurance companies right now. Like I have said before , my situation is not comparable to alot of what you hear and read. What it is with alot americans like myself is that our healthcare isn’t in a “crisis” . Im not blind , I can see that changes need to be made for the good of the country , I just cant see this congress making the right choices. It really boils down to trust , I have to gather the right info and come to best conclusion I possibly can . Im not there yet.
Everything is relative Ryan. I never said I was conservative. I said Mike would consider me conservative. By American politics I am Liberal. But according to the rest of the Western World, I am very much Conservative. BTW, nice job completely ignoring every other part of my post.
Q:How many Canadians does it take to change a light bulb? A:None,Canadians don’t change light bulbs, We accept them as they are. Everyone needs to lighten up a little. I do have a sence of humor,it’s only a joke.
From what I’ve seen here, nobody doubts that you have a sense of humor, Ryan. It’s if you have a fully functional brain that seems to be in question.
His “humour” is nothing more than an evasion tactic. Have you noticed that he’s never really replied to anyone’s points or defended any of his moronic statements when challenged? I remember back in high school when kids would do this: they’d say something monumentally stupid and then try to weasel out of it by pretending they were just kidding around.