Why I hate Glenn Beck

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.

This entry was posted in Mike's Rambling Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

260 Responses to Why I hate Glenn Beck

  1. Ryan says:

    Mike Wrong

  2. Aapo says:

    You really think that was funny Ryan? Vitun idiootti.

  3. Aaron says:

    Ryan , message boards have a way of policing themselves by the respected participants establishing a mode of decorum and everyone else who visits must figure out on thier own the level of spirit , civility , and intellectual integrity that exists on the board . Why you insist on writing such….ummmm…..silliness speaks volumes on where you wish to reside in the pecking order. From what I can tell the majority of responders here have finely tuned educations and informed opinions of the world around them . They will not expect you now at this point (or maybe anytime) in the conversation to bring anything worthwhile to the table . Your only playing the part of interloper and need to decide wether or not you want to actually have these lowbrow exchanges in the middle of adults wanting to “hash it out”. Come on fella , get your game up.

  4. Schatten says:

    Ryan, you never answered my question, what part of the Constitution do you feel is being violated or subverted?

  5. Ryan says:

    Where I think the U.S Govt. has done wrong. 1.Govt. spends to much money, makes the people slaves to Govt. debt. We should not be having programs like, cash for clunkers, $8,000 for first time home buyers and health care. You don’t deserve anything, work hard for what you have and live within your means. The Govt. should not be able to make me charitable. Tax dollar money should not leave this country unless it is for national defense. Does it make sense that the tax code is 67,204 pages long (WTF). 2.The 2nd Amendment, Let me start with saying only law abiding citizen should own guns. Going back to 1994 Assault weapons ban, the U.S Govt. never had the right to implement such a law, I was happy to see it go away after 10 long years. It is only a matter of time before it comes back. How does that save lives or stop crime taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizen. Also hurricane Katrina, they were disarming people in there own homes. After the storm they had to pull teeth to get back the weapons that was wrongly taken. Shame on the U.S govt. The D.C gun ban was also wrong, it went on for about 33 years, people have the right to protect their selves.

  6. Ryan says:

    3. More govt control, they are taking over all loans for college. You are not allowed to get a private loan for school. Why do they have to put their hands on everything? 4.The Fairness Doctrine, to take control of the radio. It is a violation of our 1st amedment. Conservative radio companies will be forced to pay 100% of their income. The money is to go to public radio to make funding equal.5. Wickard vs. Filburn The govt. uses interstate commerce to do what ever they want. There was a farmer,growing 1 acre of wheat for his own use. The govt. told him NO, you must grow at least 12 acres. There was also a doctor in New York wanting to charge $79 flate rate for 1 month of service. The govt. steped in and and told him he must charge more. WRONG,WRONG,WRONG The proper role of the govt. is protect equal rights,not provide equal things.

  7. Ryan says:

    Obama’s health care plan will be:Written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it,passed by Congress that hasn’t read it,signed by a president who smokes,funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke. What possibly could go wrong?

  8. Mike says:

    Let’s look at your points:

    1. “Govt. spends to much money, makes the people slaves to Govt. debt.” – government spending has been high since Reagan. Nobody complains when it buys bombs and bullets for the military. It’s just outrageous when it’s used to help people instead of blowing them up. In any case, if you didn’t cut all those taxes, you would not be in so much debt. The last US president to understand that was George H.W. Bush, elected in 1988. He raised taxes.

    2. “The 2nd Amendment” – You Americans and your 2nd Amendment. It’s sooooo important to you, isn’t it? I imagine you’ll spout some party line about how the right to bear arms protects all of our other rights, as if that worked in Iraq where the people had the right to bear arms under Saddam.

    3. “More govt control, they are taking over all loans for college. You are not allowed to get a private loan for school.” – that sounds like bullshit to me. How would they stop someone from getting a private loan and using it for school?

    4. “The Fairness Doctrine, to take control of the radio. It is a violation of our 1st amedment. Conservative radio companies will be forced to pay 100% of their income.” – Funny how society worked fine before the 1980s when Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine. And why should there be “liberal radio companies” or “conservative radio companies” at all? Why wouldn’t it be better to have media companies which are required to give equal time?

    5. “The govt. uses interstate commerce to do what ever they want.” – Where did you get those supporting anecdotes from, and how do you know they are being accurately presented?

    6. “Obama’s health care plan will be:Written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it,passed by Congress that hasn’t read it,signed by a president who smokes,funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.” There are plenty of things wrong with the health care bill, but attacking the individuals involved is a childish way of criticizing it. The biggest problem is that it’s being written with too much corporate influence, and will result in a huge taxpayer giveaway to the big health insurance companies, who are the real problem with health care. Health care should be treated as a public service, like the police or the fire department, not a for-profit consumer product like a big-screen TV.

    And none of these canned right-wing talking points have anything at all to do with defending Glenn Beck, which is the subject that you came here to attack me on. Nor do they justify the earlier comments which you made and for which you ignored rebuttals. You just post canned talking points but you refuse to discuss what anyone else has to say.

  9. Mike says:

    Nice 404 error. But even if we correct that URL to one that actually works, we find that you are wrong and you fail Reading Comprehension 101. Did you not bother reading the entire article? Did you merely look at the headline and then generate a talking-point in your head?

    The government is not outlawing private loans for college students. They are simply stopping the practice of taxpayer-subsidized private loans; if you want a taxpayer-subsidized college loan, you’ll have to go to the government. The CBO estimates it would save $87 billion. It’s preposterous for the government to be subsidizing private bank loans to students at a cost of tens of billions of dollars so that banks can make more money.

  10. Ryan says:

    I am starting to think smoking crack is legal in Canada and don’t forget to watch Glenn Beck 5pm eastern

  11. Josh says:

    I also googled “I hate Glenn Beck” and got your blog as the first return, so I would like to add my congrats, that’s quite the accomplishment. Just finished up reading the 100+ responses as well. Getting back to the original topic, I despise Glenn Beck. Yes, I have watched him before. I agree with others on this posting that any educated decision demands that you view both sides. That’s why it’s called an “educated” decision. My biggest issue with Beck is that he wildly profits from loudly yelling opinions and “fears” without producing any substantial evidence to back them up or even a way to solve them. He convinces people that everyone and everything is out to get them, which breeds ignorant mistrust of anything you point the finger at. Conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, that’s just wrong. It makes people unable to listen to logical arguments; they are always guided by feelings rather than reason. The more you argue with them, the more fanatically entrenched they become.

    When closely questioned, Beck’s beliefs fly out the window. He has said that he AGREES that Obama made good decisions with key personnel choices. He’s said that “unless we trust each other, we’re not going to make it” (see his interview with TIME’s Kate Pickert). But he raked in over $23M last year contradicting himself over and over. If you’d like, I will send you a bajillion examples (that’s a real number, by the way).

    You see, the problem isn’t Beck. If you take away his voice, some other greedy bastard will just take his place. The problem is people like Ryan, who continue to give an audience to Beck, who spout all the injustices they feel, then point a finger and say “it’s YOUR fault!” without saying how. Someone says to them “Obama’s a socialist!” and they angrily believe it without asking what socialism is or what it has to do with Obama. Personally, I think that’s a shitty way to live, to constantly be a lemming. Yes, I like Obama. No, I don’t agree with all of his policies (i.e. guantanamo bay shut-down without a plan as to where the detainees would go). But you have to LISTEN before you make those decisions.

    So I ask the forum, because I truly don’t know the answer: how the hell do you make an army of fools listen, when honest debate just pushes them further from reason?

  12. Mike says:

    Ryan wrote: “I am starting to think smoking crack is legal in Canada and don’t forget to watch Glenn Beck 5pm eastern”
    _______________

    If I wanted to watch an uneducated blob pontificate on things he doesn’t understand, I’d watch Homer Simpson. He’s much more entertaining, and has the same level of education (seriously, that’s true; the fictional character Homer Simpson has only a high school diploma, just like Glenn Beck).

    And you totally ignored my point, as usual. If you’re trying to refute my accusations about Glenn Beck’s low-IQ audience, you’re doing a lousy job of it.

  13. Ryan says:

    It’s crazy, a man(Glenn Beck)with a high school diploma, is a millionare. He has made more money than you ever will. So who is smarter? You or Glenn?

  14. Mike says:

    By your childish reasoning, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears must be geniuses. And you are still refusing to answer any points. You don’t know how, do you?

  15. Mike says:

    Josh wrote: “So I ask the forum, because I truly don’t know the answer: how the hell do you make an army of fools listen, when honest debate just pushes them further from reason?”
    _______________

    You can’t. You can’t make a person engage in serious thought against his will. If he wants to stay in the shallow end of the intellectual pool forever, you can’t drag him anywhere else. Why would he want to analyze concepts, marshall arguments, address rebuttals, etc. when he can simply copy his shepherd’s opinions?

  16. Mike says:

    Interestingly enough, way back on June 25 of last year (when he was still pretending to be more centrist), Glenn Beck defined what it means to be a conservative in his view, on his column (then on CNN):

    A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

    A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.

    A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.

    A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.

    A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.

    A conservative believes that real compassion can’t be found in any government program.

    A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.

    A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it’s not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family’s needs than some faceless, soulless government program.

    A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else’s throat.

    A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.

    A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.

    A conservative believes that a child’s education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

    A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.

    A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.

    Let’s look at these, shall we? First, notice that he doesn’t really justify anything he says: it’s all pure opinion. But that’s the whole point of his show, after all.

    • “A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.” I like the way he equates healthcare to ostentatious luxury items like Hummers.

    • “A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.” Is he serious? The “pursuit of happiness” is a stupid right; it doesn’t mean anything. It’s so dumb that the people who wrote the Constitution could find no way to incorporate it, so it was left as boilerplate on the Declaration of Independence.

    • “A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.” Funny how he supported Sarah Palin, who punished oil companies in Alaska with a “windfall tax” and then doled out their profits to the people of her state, thus boosting her popularity with a classic “Robin Hood” maneuver. Not that I’m criticizing that particular action; I actually agree with it. But it’s clearly socialistic in nature. The fact is that taxes are not a “punishment” or “penalty”; they are simply a necessary function of a well-organized modern industrial society, and as a matter of principle, those who can pay them with the least personal hardship should do so.

    • “A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.” This from the same conservative movement that spent the last 30 years pushing absurdly generous farm subsidies and byzantine agricultural import regulations in order to “save family farms” and protect their voting blocs in the Midwest? Don’t make me laugh.

    • “A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.” Then why didn’t Bush or Cheney or anyone else in the entire administration accept responsibility for deceiving America into a war in Iraq with false claims of WMDs, or for authorizing torture? Why doesn’t he believe wealthy people have a social responsibility to help others, as per the ancient chivalric code of honour which men like Glenn Beck obviously do not believe in? Oh yeah, I forgot: in his mind, responsibility is only for poor people.

    • “A conservative believes that real compassion can’t be found in any government program.” Ah yes, the old “replace social programs with private charity” conservative argument (gee, I wonder how those programs got started; oh yeah, the Great Depression, when private charity utterly failed to do what government programs proved themselves able to do). Funny how the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is unpaid medical bills. If private charity steps in with “real compassion” wherever government is absent, then why are all of these uninsured people being bankrupted by medical bills? In Canada, we don’t have that problem, because our voters are compassionate enough to support medical care for their fellow citizens. That’s compassion. By the way Glenn, part of “compassion” is to take pity on people who are suffering and try to help them, like a Good Samaritan, rather than imperiously lecturing them that “there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure” (remember saying that, just two points ago?). Methinks you have no idea what the word “compassion” actually means.

    • “A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.” I wonder if Glenn Beck is even vaguely aware that it was a conservative government in charge at the time, which dropped the ball. Or the fact that in the end analysis, survivors ended up relying on the government for help more than any other entity. What does he think would have happened in New Orleans if there were no government assistance? People in New Orleans were furious about the lack of government assistance. They were not saying “Thank God there’s no public assistance here yet, so the people of America can come help us on their own”. And why was Communist China able to handle a subsequent natural disaster far more effectively, with its strong centralized government? Oops: another Glenn Beck sociological theory that is based on ideology rather than facts. In reality, big emergencies need strong central government. That’s why the US always reserves the right to declare martial law in a time of national emergency or war.

    • “A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it’s not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family’s needs than some faceless, soulless government program.” I love the way he uses terms like “faceless, soulless” here, as if there are not real human beings working in Child Protective Services. And how much money do you want to bet that Glenn Beck routinely complains about bad parenting too? Of course, when he does, he will say that the bad parents are “them”, not “us”. What about people who refuse to educate their kids, or who brainwash them into fanatical religious cults? Actually, he probably supports that, as long as he likes the cults in question. Sure, government agencies are not perfect, but the idea that all parents can be assumed to be good parents is incredibly easy to disprove through observation.

    • “A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else’s throat.” Ha! So says the guy who thinks the church should decide what is or isn’t a marriage, or for that matter, what is or isn’t a scientific theory.

    • “A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.” This guy’s penchant for unintended irony is amazing. He works on TV and what does he do? He constantly preaches at people! If only he followed his own advice, and left preaching to the pastors. Seriously, there seems to be a real problem with self-awareness among identity-politicking conservatives like Glenn Beck. He seems blithely unaware when he completely contradicts himself.

    • “A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.” Why did he figure this out only after supporting Bush through two terms of disastrous borrowing, even during an economic boom when one should normally be trying to save money for a rainy day? Beck has it exactly ass-backwards: he supported borrowing when the economy was healthy, and he opposes it now that the economy is in shambles. That’s not how you do it, Glenn: you save up when times are good, and you withdraw money on a rainy day. By the way, how could we have prevented the gigantic debt accumulation which almost torpedoed the global economy last year? Oh yeah, more regulation. Which you hate.

    • “A conservative believes that a child’s education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.” Is this imbecile serious? Name one country in the world which has become industrialized and successful without a public education system.

    • “A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.” So people have a right to life but not a right to healthcare? The contradictions are downright absurdly obvious here. And why should life start at conception, Glenn? Did you not know that the sperm and egg are both alive prior to conception? Why does an egg suddenly and magically become a human being at the precise moment it is fertilized? It still has no brain, no capacity to think, feel, or reason. It is no more “alive” than it was two seconds earlier (a friend pointed out that it has a different “trajectory” now, but somehow, “the right to trajectory” doesn’t sound nearly as catchy). And really, the idea of having a right to life until death is just meaningless; obviously, life stops at death, so saying that you have a right to life until death is utterly pointless. Or perhaps he might mean by this that he opposes war and the death penalty, except that we know he supports both.

    • “A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.” Does Glenn Beck think that further downsizing FEMA would have made it more effective at New Orleans? Or that private citizens would have rushed down there and done a better job of restoring order than the National Guard? Is he truly this deluded? And what’s this about “we know our history?” He has nothing but a high school education; he is no history expert. And in fact, the world’s most powerful and long-lived empires always had strong central governments. The British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire … all had strong central governments. None of them did this “deliberately skirt the edge of anarchy” thing. No one can name a single powerful long-lived empire which somehow survived without a strong central government.

    This is exactly the sort of mindless tripe that I have come to expect from Beck and his ilk. It’s a nice summation of the way they think, complete with the multiple irreconcilable self-contradictions which they never notice. And just for fun, here’s a link to a subsequent commentary in September 2008 where he defended the bank bailouts as necessary. Why the change of heart since September, Glenn? Oh yeah, your guy is no longer in the White House.

  17. Cyborgo says:

    “Smallest government you can get without anarchy” makes me crack up every time I hear it. Hmm, yeah, let’s consolidate the government’s power so that it’s overseen by as few people as possible. Hey! As few people as possible is…*counts on fingers*…ONE People! So, clearly, if one person has complete and total authority over the country…

    THERE WILL BE DEMOCRACY FOR ALL! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

    …Seriously, is a steady diet of paint-chips some kind of mandatory requirement to become a TV personality in the ‘States? Just curious.

  18. sarah says:

    glenn beck makes me sick! that doughy dough boy face.. who does he think he is trying to “clean up” washington!??! it’s fine the way it is

  19. Schatten says:

    1. Thaat’s Not unconstitutional
    2. The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms, it does not say we have the right to a 5.56 selective fire gas-operated service rifle with a thirty round magazine, pistol grip, bandolier, and bayonet. It just says arms, so through the literal interpretation of the Constitution those were legal.
    3. Nothing in the Constitution about that.
    4. Nothing in the Constitution about that.
    5. The Constitution says that the Government has the right to regulate interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

    Ryan, since none of those things you just posted are unconstituional I’m gonna ask again, what part of the Constitution in being violated.

    By the way did you know that Thomas Jefferson supported a system whereby we rewrite the Constitution to fit the nations current political situation. I’m not saying you should agree with him because he’s a Founder, they’re hardly infallable. (Civil Rights)

  20. Aaron says:

    Its fine the way it is?! ……wow

  21. Call Me Crazy says:

    This blog started with “Why I hate Glenn Beck.” That says a lot. I’m indifferent to a lot of people but I can’t say that I hate anyone. Even when I think I hate someone, my loathing of them fades to indifference. Anyone that carries hate for someone for years wants to hate. It’s not healthy and I recommend counseling.

    That said:

    Glenn is petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. This is his right. Glenn asks questions, people resign. Apparently, they don’t want to answer Glenn’s questions. If Glenn asks a question and someone resigns rather then explain themselves, I say a good outcome was achieved.

    Everyone has a right to their property. No one has a right to anyone else’s property. One person’s rights cannot infringe on another person’s rights. (No one has a right to health care.) No one has the right to take someone’s property and give it to a third party – regardless of their good intentions.

    The United States is not a democracy. The founding fathers did not think highly of democracies. They always fail and our country will fail if we continue to operate as a democracy.

    We now have a nation of “pet cats” that settle into the lap of the government that feeds them. If it is true that a large portion or our country cannot survive without government largesse, then we should cease to exist.

    Any legislator who votes ‘Yes’ on a bill he/she hasn’t read should be impeached.

    Organizations like ACORN should never receive federal funds.

    No one improves their lot in life by watching “The Price Is Right.” Compassion can be cruel.

    Some people have been educated beyond their intellect.

    Crooks in government are never good even if they are in my political party.

    The posts on this blog are typical of posts on most blogs – inane.

  22. Mike says:

    Funny how some people think the entirety of ethics is encapsulated in the word “rights”, and that “responsibility” is only for people who fail or do something bad. They’re actually treating responsibility as if it’s some sort of punishment, ie- something that is reserved for the unrighteous.

    That’s just plain wrong on so many levels: responsibility is for everyone; people who fail have a responsibility to get back on their feet and try again, people who hurt others have a responsibility to repay society and their victims, and people who succeed have a responsibility to use their position of strength to help others. Responsibility is not necessarily a form of punishment. One should be proud of living up to one’s social responsibilities. It is a natural part of adulthood, or at least it was, before the era of Eternal Adolescence.

  23. Ben (Alyrium) says:

    The posts on this blog are typical of posts on most blogs – inane.

    I would suggest looking in a mirror.

    Everyone has a right to their property. No one has a right to anyone else’s property. One person’s rights cannot infringe on another person’s rights. (No one has a right to health care.) No one has the right to take someone’s property and give it to a third party – regardless of their good intentions.

    You do realize that in ethics you need to justify all of these right? The notion of rights depends, frankly, on the concept of a creator deity to put them there. This cannot be supported, therefore Rights exist solely as a social and legal construct, the purpose of which is to create well ordered and secure society. If said well ordered and secure society is better served by violations of these rights, then so bet it.

    Moreover, property is entirely defined by the social contract in which individuals live. In this way, the money that you are taxed never belonged to you. It is the portion of the economic worth of what you do that is done explicitly for the public good. This is because you have a responsibility to the society in which you live (read: the collection of individuals that makes up said society and the structures put in place to regulate it which you take for granted) and damn it we have every right, and indeed the responsibility to enforce said responsibilities you hold and apparently selfishly reject.

    Considering basic healthcare as a human right has certain advantages. It decreases infant mortality, increases life span, and in fact decreases the per capita cost of healthcare, which increases efficiency and allows the money saved to be spent on other things. Wealth may not be a zero sum game, but it is when you look at money available to do a given number of things per unit time. All of those things actually slow population growth (because of a phenotypically plastic response to juvenile mortality rates and perceived life expectancy in humans).

    No one improves their lot in life by watching “The Price Is Right.” Compassion can be cruel.

    What a lovely strawman of most public programs. Public programs exist in order to do two things: Assist people who are having difficulty in the short term (For example, those who lose their jobs and have to deal with lag time finding a new one.), and assist those who are the victims of our social system. You might not understand this, so I will explain.

    Our system requires that some people be on the bottom rung of society. These are the individuals who do not earn much because they perform the tasks that while vital to our economy are not themselves worth much economically. Service workers are a good example. These jobs and these individuals will always exist, and even if they improve themselves one of two things will happen. Someone else will take their place, or the society as a whole will advance and the the mean of the giant bell curve that is our income distribution will shift and the economic status quo will be maintained.

    Because those people will always exist (regardless of who they are) and because they perform a vital service we owe it to them to make sure that if they or their kids get ill that we take care of them… Even more important because they make is often less than the local standard of living, we have a responsibility to make sure they dont starve to death, and that the children are not doomed to inherit their parents lot in life. We owe it to them to give them the option to move along the income distribution if they are able.

    And as a flat rebuttal to your asinine claim (which is valid because saying the words “no one” can be refuted by a single case). I am working on a Ph.D in the hard sciences (quantitative biology). My undergraduate degree was paid for primarily through public funds, my research is paid for via public funds, the University is publicly funded, and I pay my tuition and living expenses with a combination of grants, govt loans, and a paycheck from teaching that comes out of the public coffers.

    If getting a Ph.D is not self improvement, you need to work on your definitions.

    The empirical fact is, countries with better social/economic safety nets have better poverty turnover rates than we do. Meaning that if someone is in poverty (as defined by local standard of living) they are more able to actually get out of it than our poor people are.

    More than that: what you are doing is engaging in some pretty impressive doublespeak where compassion means letting someone starve to death to satisfy some silly “rugged individualsist” notion of self improvement. Either that or you want to say “I’ve got mine, so fuck the rest of you” but cant look at yourself in the mirror, and thus rationalize it away as some sort of fucked up compassionate act.

  24. Ryan says:

    Is the U.S.A a Republic or a Democracy? And by the way, you people really sound stupid when you swear.

  25. Mike says:

    I’m starting to think I should just flag Ryan as a spammer. It’s becoming pretty clear that he has no intention of involving himself in any kind of discussion.

    People make carefully detailed responses to his claims and he just casually blows them off with childish one-liners like he did just now. He’s been doing it since the beginning. His longest post is obviously just a copy-paste of “talking points”, and he simply ignored point-by-point responses in posts #108, #110, and #121. He sounds like he’s probably a high school kid.

  26. Schatten says:

    I’m gonna ask again, what do you see that is a violation of the Constitution?

    PS: Ryan, I actually disagree with the AWB and I’m actually looking for an NFA FN FNC at the moment, it’s just with your lousy grasp of the concept of a debate and incapability of holding up your side of the argument really isn’t worth the time to actually argue about the merits of the NFA and the AWB.
    PPS: The term Republic has a different meaning outside of the US, it’s called a a Representative Democracy a specific kind of Republic.

  27. Call Me Crazy says:

    So far so good. Only three of my assertions were challenged and I will now respond to those.

    I wrote:
    “Everyone has a right to their property. No one has a right to anyone else’s property. One person’s rights cannot infringe on another person’s rights. (No one has a right to health care.) No one has the right to take someone’s property and give it to a third party – regardless of their good intentions.”

    Ben (Alyrium) Wrote: (September 18th, 2009 at 8:05 PM)
    “You do realize that in ethics you need to justify all of these right? The notion of rights depends, frankly, on the concept of a creator deity to put them there. This cannot be supported, therefore Rights exist solely as a social and legal construct, the purpose of which is to create well ordered and secure society. If said well ordered and secure society is better served by violations of these rights, then so bet (sic) it.”

    My reply:
    Ben is correct (to a point). The notion of rights depends on the concept of a creator deity. Whether such a diety actually exists in the universe is arguable, but that argument is irrelevent with regard to the U.S. Constitution. The diety exists in the U.S. Constitution because the authors believed that God exists and that our rights as humans are given to us by God. Our rights are not bestowed upon us by our government. Therefore, the government cannot take these rights away. God exists in the constitution because the framers said He does. He IS a legal construct. Therefore, in the context of the Constitution, He is supported.

    The constitution is the rulebook for the United States. Ben asserts that it may be better to break the rules because he believes that society will be generally better if some rules are broken. He may be correct, but who gets to say which rules should be ignored? There are some rules that I’d sure like to ignore!
    —————————-
    I wrote:
    “No one improves their lot in life by watching “The Price Is Right.” Compassion can be cruel.”

    I’m not going to copy all of what Ben wrote. Readers are encouraged to read his response again. Ben did not disprove my assertion.
    Ben wrote:
    “And as a flat rebuttal to your asinine claim (which is valid because saying the words “no one” can be refuted by a single case).”

    My reply:
    His anecdote about his own experience warrants my respect and admiration. However, unless his Ph.D is T.V. game show watching related, it does not refute my point. I stand by my statement and am looking forward to his pointing out ONE example that exactly refutes it.

    In general, someone who receives assistance from the government (or anyone) should me moving toward a better life. If that life starts by taking a job at McDonalds or Walmart, so be it. We as a nation should help those in need, but we should not make them comfortable in poverty. I can cite examples of this from my own life experience. (Those that are truly unable to work due to physical or mental infirmity are excepted from this paragraph.)
    —————————-
    I wrote:
    “The posts on this blog are typical of posts on most blogs – inane.”
    Ben wrote:
    “I would suggest looking in a mirror.”
    and
    “More than that: what you are doing is engaging in some pretty impressive doublespeak where compassion means letting someone starve to death to satisfy some silly “rugged individualsist” notion of self improvement. Either that or you want to say “I’ve got mine, so fuck the rest of you” but cant look at yourself in the mirror, and thus rationalize it away as some sort of fucked up compassionate act.”
    My reply:
    Why not try to understand what I am saying? You read my words and then you respond as you please – to something that I did not write. Your last statement is a response to something you think that Sean Hannity might say. I’m not Sean Hannity. I’m not Glenn Beck. For all you know, I might have a Ph.D. I might be smarter than you. You really know nothing about me. My positions on most issues might surprise you.

    People think getting a college degree or an advanced degree makes them smart or makes them better thinkers. My experience is that this is not often the case.

    I’m hoping that the responses on this blog improve. No name calling. No vitriol. No invective. No tirades. We’ll see.

    Someday, we may even talk about the antics and merits of Glenn’s show, which is the stated purpose of this thread.

  28. Ben (Alyrium) says:

    Therefore, the government cannot take these rights away. God exists in the constitution because the framers said He does. He IS a legal construct. Therefore, in the context of the Constitution, He is supported.

    You are getting your documents confused. You are referring to the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document binding in the US, it was a piece of rhetoric that consisted of essentially telling King George III to go fuck himself.

    God is not mentioned anywhere in the US constitution, save to say that no religious test shall be used as a litmus for public office. Moreover, the “right to property” you mention does not apply to taxation which is explicitly allowed when you look at the powers specifically delegated to congress, those taxes being for the “defense and general welfare” of the United States, a fairly broad statement if I do say so. Seeing as transfer payments in the form of social programs (wealth redistribution) can be empirically demonstrated to be in a nation’s best interests (if one looks at little things like the Human Development Index and runs this little thing called a Linear Regression) it can be said that the violation of the Right to Property you refer to is not a violation under the US constitution because the US constitution explicitly allows it.

    Next time you try to “zing” me with mention of the US constitution, at least get the content of the document correct and do not confuse it with the Declaration.

    Therefore, your only option in order to support your argument (after I have utterly dismantled your ham-fisted attempt at shifting the goal posts…) that people have a “right to property” in any way that is relevant to this discussion is to justify it on philosophical grounds(arguing also that the constitution guarantees insufficient personal rights). This requires that you attempt to support the existence of an involved creator deity, as you have already conceded.

    Me, I was not arguing based upon the US constitution, but a firm understanding of the branches of philosophy known as normative ethics and meta-ethics.

    The constitution is the rulebook for the United States. Ben asserts that it may be better to break the rules because he believes that society will be generally better if some rules are broken.

    Good thing your argument has nothing to do with the US constitution which explicitly allows the very “violation” you are up in arms about.

    However, unless his Ph.D is T.V. game show watching related, it does not refute my point.

    Gee, and here I was thinking that your statement was something semi-intelligent, like using a game show windfall to characterize public assistance, the argument being that those sorts of programs don’t help anyone. Instead, you used it as a red-herring. Either that or you once again shifted your goal posts.

    We as a nation should help those in need, but we should not make them comfortable in poverty. I can cite examples of this from my own life experience.

    You may be able to do that, but you do not grasp the cause. The reason why people on government assistance (such as welfare or food stamps) dont get off of them in the US is because of 2 primary reasons.

    The first is that the threshold for getting on those programs in the US is so low that in many locations it is well below the local cost of living. What this means is that a person can make too much to qualify for assistance but not enough to pay the bills. This makes getting out a bit difficult, because as soon as they take even a shitty job, they are destitute again. This happens in a lot of large metro areas with a high local cost of living. The only sane solution for such people is to stay on public assistance. In the case of highly qualified people, this is not the case, because if they lose their job they are in high enough demand to get one good enough to get off the Dole. What about the people who are on the low tail of the distribution though? The ones not in high demand? They get trapped.

    The second reason, which would if fixed partially solve the first, is that these programs are binary. You either qualify for assistance or you dont, with no sliding scale. If a sliding scale existed (like it does in Europe), these problems would be ameliorated.

    For all you know, I might have a Ph.D. I might be smarter than you.

    Considering the fact that you have so far engaged in a rather impressive amount of intellectual dishonesty and cannot even get the premises of your own argument correct… I highly doubt that.

  29. Ben (Alyrium) says:

    Addendum: I did misread a prior statement

    No one improves their lot in life by watching “The Price Is Right.” Compassion can be cruel.

    I misread it to allude to game show windfall being equivalent to public assistance. This mistake however does not in fact alter the thrust of the argument, as both the actual meaning and my misread make essentially identical arguments regarding public assistance programs, and can be refuted in exactly the same way. By pointing out the utility of said programs, and how the programs in the US that exist have been crippled by incompetent or malicious construction/regulation designed to prove in self fulfilling fashion that such programs do not work.

  30. Edi says:

    There are a few interesting stories on Salon.com about the history of how and why Glenn Beck became what he is now and what he has done to get there. You can find them at
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/22/glenn_beck_two/
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/

    They explain a great deal and just enforce the points made in this blog about how the man operates.

    As well, there is an interesting opinion piece from Glenn Greenwald on how Beck seems to be drifting from his earlier professed ideology in pretty interesting ways:
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/22/beck/index.html

  31. Jesse says:

    GLENN BECK is a MORON, and I agree with Mike 100%! He is a Neocon Tool and so is all his followers..

  32. Isil`Zha says:

    In reply to this (I know it’s a week old:)

    Aaron Says:
    September 15th, 2009 at 1:50 PM
    “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.”

    —-

    Frankly, I’d rather that expense that my employer foots for my insurance coverage go to payroll, and my pocket.

  33. Mike says:

    I’d like to know how anyone in the US can be sure he really has “excellent care”. What he has so far are excellent promises. Given the fact that 80% of people who were forced into bankruptcy by medical bills actually had health insurance, I have to question the sincerity of those promises.

  34. Dean Jacobs says:

    I call them the limited gene pool, Beck, his followers and all the nut case types who still think Obama isn’t an American. You can’t expect them to have real conversations when they don’t mentally have the tools needed for such discourse. Nature short changed them and such is their lot in life.

    Time to go after Beck. I spent enough time in Rwanda to know the destruction fanning the flame of hate can lead to. For the limited gene pool group, Rwanda is in Africa, which is not a country but a continent no matter how much Palin wishes it were different. Eight years of setting the bar low with Bush was enough.

  35. Mike says:

    Glenn Beck is all about Identity Politics, by which I mean the politics of who you are, as opposed to the politics of competing material interests, socio-economic theories, and foreign policy debate.

    He’s considered “smart” by some people in the sense that he knows his demographic, but he’s stupid in the sense that he can’t do math, comprehend socio-economics, grasp foreign policy, attain a vague understanding of the scientific method, or even understand how a democracy is supposed to work (hint to Mr. Beck: the fact that your preferred side does not win every single election or always have its interests heard to the exclusion of all others is perfectly normal; it is not “the decline of America”).

    In other words, he doesn’t understand any of the things he pontificates about, but he does understand how to make his target audience identify with him. That’s why he spends so much time on ego-stroking of his preferred dumb-ass demographic, telling them how “real” they are, how much “common sense” they have for agreeing with him, and how much the country has failed them by allowing people unlike them to have any political power.

    That’s why he revels in the criticism of “the Left”, intellectuals, etc, regardless of how much merit those individual criticisms have. It only reaffirms his Identity Politics by proving that he is despised by the other side. A more intelligent person would be self-conscious about being caught saying so many stupid things or contradicting himself in so many ways (we’re talking about a man who famously said President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people” and then denied saying that Obama even dislikes white people minutes later), but Glenn Beck couldn’t care less.

    What is logical consistency to such a man? Why should he be embarrassed that he rants about the sanctity of “traditional marriage” despite having divorced his first wife (hint: “till death do us part” does not mean “till I get sick of you”), or that he rants about “socialist bailouts” despite having written an editorial supporting the bailouts last September, or that he speaks of “real compassion” while also ranting about the importance of forcing the unfortunate to suffer the unmitigated “hardship and heartache of failure”? Why should he be embarrassed about accusing liberals of racism for accusing him of racism … for declaring that Obama’s economic politics are “reparations” for slavery? Only intellectuals care about logical consistency, and he’s no intellectual. All that matters to Glenn is his identity politics, and on that score he’s “winning”, at least in his mind and the minds of his followers.

  36. Aaron says:

    “Frankly, I’d rather that expense that my employer foots for my insurance coverage go to payroll, and my pocket.”

    I agree.

    My opinion of my healthcare and how I considered it “excellent” is relative to the wicked car wreck I had in my 20′s. Chopper ride to the hospital and everything (I was bleeding out). My leg , as well as my life , were saved due to thier efforts and the only thing I had to pay for were the $54 crutches. Ive always thought of that as rather amusing considering the $123,000 bill my provider paid no questions asked, but all of the promises were kept in my case .

    I also agree in essence with you Mike , that healthcare should strive to become a not-for-profit humanitary science rather than , “hey I got this cure over here …..but it’ll cost yaaaaaa, bwaaaahhaahahahah”.
    How we go about separating the insurance companies from the teet of the everyday american will have to take carefull measures. Insurance should be something you purchace “in case of” and not be used every friggin time you visit the doctor.

    Damn what happened to Ryan? I was anticipating him wanting to debate bird law with someone next.

  37. Mike says:

    It’s good to hear that your insurer came through for you in that case, Aaron, but don’t get too confident. It’s not accidents (even severe ones like yours) that really hurt their bottom line; it is chronic care for long-term illnesses. That’s where they pay their cost reduction specialists to find creative ways to get rid of clients.

    PS. Ever heard of Wendell Potter? He’s a former executive with CIGNA, and he blew the whistle recently on increasingly aggressive insurance industry cost-cutting measures. As bad as insurance companies have historically been, they are quietly getting worse.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920893,00.html

    There’s also the whole “rescission” problem, which Obama’s critics are decrying as “overblown”, and which went largely ignored in the “health care debate” until Obama finally brought it up himself in a recent speech.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/begala.health.care/index.html

  38. Eleas says:

    The problem with the “in case of” equation is that you’ll be back to square one. The temptation to “tough it out” and save money naturally encourages patients to overlook easily treated, fairly trivial problems in the hope that they’ll go away. A month or two later, that trivial problem just might turn out to be a fully developed condition that now requires the services of multiple doctors, state of the art equipment and gobs of expensive treatment in order to cure, assuming it hasn’t gone chronic.

    As Ben Franklin observed, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” IMHO, a system that discourages prevention will be a failure regardless of how good it is in other respects.

  39. Isil`Zha says:

    I totally agree that health insurance should not be a for-profit venture. And hell, even I have noticed the ever increasing cost of it. In ~2000 or 2001 my co-pay for a visit was $5, and an ER visit was $25. Today, the premiums are much higher, and now the co-pay for a standard visit is $25, and an ER trip is $150.

    I’ve never had a major injury or needed to be hospitalized in my life, yet my costs have soared for something I rarely use (I only usually go to the doctor around spring time, to get allergy medicine for my terrible seasonal allergies.) Other than that, I almost never go to the doctor or use my insurance – not only do they try to drop the people that really need it, but then they drastically increase the cost for the people that *don’t use it* (and try to drop them if they need it “excessively” later in life.)

  40. Tara says:

    I have listened to Glenn Beck on the radio and have come to the conclusion he is a fear monger. I can not understand how people can take him seriously, he is an idiot. God help us and this country from people who think like Glenn Beck.

  41. Aaron says:

    I have been trying to find a voice on the “left” to listen to that can express a liberal point of view without all the crass and disrespectfull ugliness that comes from guys like Olberman and Ed Schultz. Maddow seems to want to reach out at times but she can be just as dissapointing by wanting to score a cheap shot rather than just reporting a story. I would love to hear a point of view from the left that isnt trying to be The Daily Show with its delivery. At a time in history when its crucial to bring people together without backhanding everyone you disagree with , its maddening to watch as these news organizations want to act like little kids on channel one. I get guys like Beck and Olberman, its not hard to see thier goals and why they do what they do , but come on guys , I just want the freaking story!

    What really cracks me up is I will hear Beck say something early that day only to hear Olberman ,without fail, edit out the context of his statement and pound away on him just to try and get some laughs. Strangely enough though I hardly ever hear talkers on the right go after talkers on the left as frequently as MSNBC does. I must assume its a divide and conquer type thing but they are preaching to their own audiences. Why would they want to waste so much airtime just to tear down personalities that thier audience isnt listening to anyway? The whole damn thing makes me just shake my head and switch it to the discovery channel.

  42. Mike says:

    If you just want the news, why are you watching a “news commentary” show at all?

    This is all a matter of ratios. Cable news sucks because the ratio of “commentary” to actual news is so high. In the old days of newspapers, you had an entire newspaper full of news and maybe one page (or less) of editorial commentary. Now you have hours and hours of commentary, and only a handful of short news stories which are repeated twenty times during the day, to make it seem as if it’s a 24 hour news network. In reality, it’s a one hour news network, with the same news repeated over and over and mixed with copious “commentary” to fill out their schedule.

  43. Aaron says:

    I read when I want my news , I watch T.V. when I want to be entertained. What sucks is that you cant go just one place for news anymore. You have to admit that all news organizations are not playing the game neutral anymore and to get the whole picture one is forced to read alot of opinionated crap. This is where guys like Beck and Olberman come in , listen to us and we will condense it down into nice chewable nuggets of partisan hate , easily digestable, and we all get paid . I dont like having to resort to any of these jokers but damn…..hello…Acorn anyone?

  44. Robert says:

    I posted note #24 back in August, and saved the link. Just looked back and am amazed at the conversation since. Mike, I appreciate your intellect. Your refutation to Beck’s conservative beliefs was a joy to read.

    Years ago, I was debating my very conservative Mormon family members in a MyFamily.com discussion like this one, and I made the following point. The entire conservative philosophy holds humanity back from progression. One cannot point to a single program or idea that actually helps others as being created or promoted by conservatives. They fought social security. They fought Medicare. They fought unemployment insurance. They fought family leave. They fight every attempt to raise the minimum wage. They fight any attempt to provide security through universal healthcare for all.

    One may also look at some not-so-current history to make the same point. During the Revolution, the conservatives were called Monarchists, and opposed the liberal (revolutionary) movement. Needed to keep everything just as it had always been. And like today’s counterparts, their agenda was to protect the interests of the powerful and wealthy, not the common man. Even during the civil war, when Democrats were the conservatives and Republicans the liberals, one can see a liberal Lincoln fighting to change what the Democrats (backed heavily by the Catholic Church) argued was God’s will. That slavery was a biblical institution and it ‘had always existed.’ Women’s rights, gay rights… Conservatism has not done a thing to assist the downtrodden. It has done nothing to better the lives of the common people.

    In the Christian story of the New Testament, it was Christ who was the liberal/radical who spoke of being your brother’s keeper and doing unto others. It was the conservatives of his day (the Pharisees) who opposed that message and crucifed him….

    In all ages, it is conservatives who yield to the fear of the unknown, and the security of ‘how it’s always been.’

    Someone talked about being enslaved to the government. How? We now have a form of wage slavery with the Capatilistic system we have. I am convinced that Capitalism, with all it’s greed is one of the worst systems around. Socialism, in the right form, is a healthy mix. And it provides security and protection not just for the individual, but an entire nation.

    I have for many years wanted to move to Canada. I LOVE Canada. Spent much of my youth there. But 4 years ago I agreed to be ‘grandpa’ to a little boy, and now the bond is so strong I couldn’t leave him. I have tried to persuade his father to go too, but without success. He fears it would be too cold (he’s from South America). So, I stay. But I still hope one day to get up there for good.

  45. Jilo says:

    “Beck supports individual gun ownership rights and is against gun control legislation.[18] He has suggested that President Barack Obama’s health care reform agenda is a means by which Obama can effect reparations for slavery.[19] Beck believes that there is a lack of evidence that human activity is the main cause of global warming,[20] views the American Clean Energy and Security Act as a form of wealth redistribution, and has promoted a petition rejecting the Kyoto Protocol.[21]”

    You don’t even need to watch the show to know the guy is a jerk. Wikipedia make the point.

  46. Hey, Mike…

    You sound like the kind of person who could help me by venting your input into my website, http://www.GlennBeckReport.com

    I am with ya on the whole thing about Faux, Glenn, please drop by and see if you think you could write a few lines in one of the many unfinished articles or pages that you could suggest!

    Cheers,

    Wexler

  47. Bobby says:

    You are an idiot! I see you also advertise porn on your blog…. Now that is high class. You are a true American gem.

  48. Mike says:

    Well, “Bobby”, let’s see. First, I’m not American at all. I’m Canadian, as it says right on the front page of this website and also several times in the comments right here on this page, but you obviously aren’t the sort of person who bothers reading something before attacking it. I guess that helps you maintain your sense of certainty in your own righteousness. Why read things that would only confuse your clarity, eh?

    Second, I do not actually advertise porn here, although I do point out that I like it and I list some favourites. I suppose you’re one of those people who thinks porn is evil and that nobody with “class” likes it, eh? Are you a virgin, or are you just so uptight that you might as well be one?

  49. Guadalupe Ferreira says:

    ok first of all u must be like Chris Matthews who gets chills going up his spin over obama because u listen 2 CNN which is basically owned by obama if u look at the facts u will see that obama basically owns CNN so there all obama lovers u cant just look at one news station u got 2 give others a chance its fustrating on how people dont give fox news a chance because they tell the unwanted truth! u may not wana hear it but as Glenn Beck Said obama is not a good president but u obama lovers just dont wana hear it. Your first sentence bothered me so much because u said “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.” this bothered me so much because u listened 2 these people because they make things seem perfect well fine believe what u want but glenn beck and everyone else from Fox News who report the truth and there beliefs are Patroits to me not people like you who judge because someone said it will be bad! What ever happened to freedom of speech and beliefs? You ask yourself that question before u judge someone for what they say or believe.

  50. Mike says:

    Can someone please translate the above post from RetardSpeak into English?

  51. Formless says:

    It looks like he’s accusing you of not respecting free speech. As if that makes Glenn Beck immune to criticism.

  52. Robert says:

    I’m not exactly sure, but it seems to imply the following…. If you hate Glen Beck, then you must obviously adore Obama (not necessarily true), who ‘owns’ CNN (really!). That our criticism of Glen Beck somehow infringes upon his right to free speech (it doesn’t), and therefore, we should not exercise our own rights to free speech (we should).

    It appears Guadalupe considers Beck a patriot. I hope that is correct, because ‘Patroit’ sounds like a real dumb goon, which is what I consider Beck to be.

    There you have it, we have a new word for him: Patroit.

  53. Mike says:

    Yes, that looks about right, Robert (BTW, thanks for your earlier compliments). A lot of people on the right-wing seem to think that the word “patriot” means “someone who agrees with my political views”. They don’t think fellow citizens are patriots if they disagree with right-wing politics.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. A patriot is someone who loves his country, but what is love if not a willingness to sacrifice for the good of whatever it is that you love? If I run around waving a picture of my wife, that does not prove that I love her. If I run around saying that my wife is the greatest wife in the world, that does not prove that I love her either. What proves that I love her is the fact that I will stick by her through thick and thin, that I care for her when she’s sick (no small statement; she was nearly bedridden for two years and I took care of her), and that I am willing to make sacrifices for her sake.

    How do these self-indulgent right-wing pseudo-patriots sacrifice for the sake of the nation? Their number one complaint is that taxes are too high, which is all about their own interests. Military people sacrifice years of their lives in service to the nation, but what do the rest of us sacrifice? Nothing really, except for taxes, but taxes are the one thing these so-called “patriots” hate most!

    If they’re such “patriots”, then what exactly do they gladly give up for the nation? What are they willing to do? How do they help the nation, apart from trying to alter it so that it makes them happier, which is a rather selfish form of “help”? They seem to complain endlessly about the fact that their nation demands anything of them at all. Their ideal world has zero taxation, which would result in no real government and no real “nation” at all, save whatever local warlord manages to bully others into submission.

  54. Aapo says:

    I`m sorry for my ignorance, but why do they hate taxes so much?

  55. Mike says:

    Because they have ADHD and they only paid attention to the first two words of the Revolutionary War slogan of “No Taxation Without Representation”.

  56. Eleas says:

    As an ADHD person, I feel I must question that. No matter how severe a syndrome we have, we’re usually utterly focused, assuming we’re interested in what’s actually said.

    …[i]oh[/i]. Never mind, then.

  57. Michelle says:

    Mike thank you for the insight! I’m investigating Glenn Beck as I need some ammo for the family meal at Thanksgiving time. I’m looking for info on the WHO (World Heath Organization) and how they ranked the developed countries in terms of “their individual health care ratings.” France came out number 1 and America was dead last at 37. I have some Glenn Beck lovers in the family that state the WHO allows the countries to make up their own info and that they are soooo envious of the “American’s” that of course they’ll lie. Why do these morons believe that our for profit insurance companies are what other countries want?

  58. Mike says:

    Generally speaking, the kind of person you’re talking about knows absolutely NOTHING about life outside the United States. That’s how FOXNews is able to convince them that America is some sort of shining beacon to the rest of the world, and that everyone else in the world envies everything about America.

    In reality, while there are certain things we can find to admire about America, your health care system is NOT one of them. The truth is that we pity you for your lousy health care system, which provides excellent care as long as you can pay the bills and will dump you on Skid Row if you can’t.

    The rest of us may have flaws in our own health care systems (although nowhere near as bad as they are portrayed on FOXNews), but the fact is when a Canadian loses his job, he doesn’t have to think “How will I get health care for my family?” Moreover, our system actually has far less administrative overhead than yours, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    By the way, my Ontario insurance plan has zero co-pays, zero deductible, no lifetime benefits limit, guaranteed enrollment for all citizens, and yes, I can choose my own doctor. I don’t even fill out any insurance forms when I visit the doctor; I just show him my Ontario health card and that’s it. I got my H1N1 flu shot on Saturday, at my family doctor’s office. I had to wait for about an hour.

    It takes a special kind of delusion for an American to think someone in my situation would actually envy him for his insurance companies with their pre-existing condition exclusions, co-pays, deductibles, rescission clauses, contractual fine print, and of course, the fact that all of it disappears the moment you lose your job or can’t pay your insurance premiums.

  59. Tyler says:

    Congratulations Mike! I, like a number of other people who have posted thus far, looked up “I hate Glenn Beck” on google and came across this. I stayed up way too late reading the threads last night and actually missed my class this morning.

    Anyhow, I find it ironic that the general consensus of those who are in favor of Glenn Beck have and his idiocy have a) generally used poorly worded b) ridiculously lacking in any verifiable substance. That guy Ryan is almost a caricature of what I expect from the conservative argument. (Also, I live in Texas. So I encounter this sort of incoherent, blindly nationalist hate speech on an everyday basis.

    I have enjoyed reading succinct, logical arguments against Glenn Beck and his asinine statements and opinions. I have a roommate who, while educated and fairly open minded, tends to dismiss my sentiments against Fox News, Tea Baggers, Glenn Beck and other elements (which I hesitate to classify as “Neo-conservative” as their arguments do not necessarily fall in line with Neo-cons). He generally uses the straw man argument that I’m “just a college kid who’s towing the liberal line.” It can be frustrating, and it was nice to find some substantive ammo against this fat fuck.

  60. Mike says:

    I find that a lot of FOXNews fans use the argument that “FOXNews is merely biased right, just as MSNBC is biased left”. Leaving aside the unstated assumption that the amount of bias is equal in both cases, this ignores the fact that FOXNews has gone far beyond mere “bias”. With the so-called “Tea Party protests”, they actually went and organized political rallies for one side. That cannot be overstated: they literally organized political rallies. That is far, far beyond mere “bias”.

    That incident also highlighted the dishonest nature of the FOXNews argument that their “opinion” shows and their “news” shows are not related. Their “opinion” shows (particularly Glenn Beck) organized the rallies and their “news” shoes reported on them as if they were “grass-roots” events even though their own network organized them. In that case, FOXNews literally manufactured its own news.

  61. Dark says:

    A lot of U.S. “News” Stations have moved to more of a commentary format, instead of the standard “wallter Cronkite” style of actual news back in the day. Of course, this not to say that they didn’t leave things out, alter information or get fed disinformation.

    TV News today is often no better then the scripted “Reality” Shows we’ve had for a number of years in the U.S.

    The sad reality to “freedom” is a rather small group of very loud people Glenn Beck, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, etc. have rather free reign to “commentate” on a broad range of subjects they may or may not have a solid grasp on, or any grasp at all for that matter, while the folks that have spent a large amount of time studying or working on subjects are relegated to the crazy left or right if their information doesn’t pass “muster” with the “opinion” of someone not in a position to actually judge.

    Do we we have the right to make decesions for our own lives, most certainely.

    Certain realities however must take precedent.

    I would not ask my mechanic to diagnosis a physical ailment anymore then I would ask my doctor about a knock in my engine.

    Both of them are educated men in their particular careers and if i asked them about global warming I would receive their “opinion” on the subject, I would however not take it as fact as neither of them is qualified to give me facts.

    For that, I would go to a qualified climatologist who has studied the facts.

    It’s a sad day when a loud, obnxious, individual or group with no grasp of actual facts (whether liberal or conservative) is given more weight by a majority of people, who are simply to lazy or to ignorant to find the information out themselves, instead of those qualified to give facts and even “commentate” on there reality.

  62. kuandio says:

    I’m very glad you have made this website and effort to counter the delusions and lies being insidiously spread by Fox News. There should be a nationwide effort made to educate people about that channel. It is straight up evil. I remember while Bush was president, for 8 years Fox tried to defend everything he did, they simply could not criticize him,, and they went after democrats whenever they could,, but they never questioned the republican party despite what was going on!,,,, so now they attack Obama day and night? G Beck putting his picture on chalkboards with photos of Hitler, Fidel, Stalin, Mao, etc,,….WTF! I knew the channel had an agenda in the past,, but I didn’t think they would try and push it in such an obvious manner as they are now, that’s all I needed to realize just how disgusting they really are. But I don’t think there are enough ignorant people out there, I think most have, and will see this hypocrisy, because they are insulting our memory and intelligence,, however, I think before old backwards institutions and belief systems die, is when there is the most hysteria and noise coming from them.

  63. AphroditeBull says:

    As a registered Democrat, and a woman of color

    THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE BLACK CONSERVATIVES ON GLENN BECK’S SHOW…

    I found this episode of Glenn Beck more ‘comical’ than watching the Joe Biden vs Sarah Palin debate.
    I have never witnessed a group of uneducated minorities make inaccurate historical facts regarding politics.
    Please learn to distinguish the difference between Communism and Socialism. They’re two separate political ideologies.
    Not all Democrats are liberals. Not all Republicans are right wing conservatives.
    Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not liberals. They’re demagogues. There are more White liberals than Black liberals. Proposition 8 in the state of California proved that!
    You will NEVER be successful at promoting conservative ideologies through grassroot campaigns. Why? Throughout this spectacle of a show, I did not hear ONE valid Republican stance. As a registered Democrat, I would have done a better job defending the Republican Party.
    As for the reference, ” The Republican Party is the political party of our ancestors.” Another dumb Palin comment. The ideologies of political parties have changed over the years. Times change, so do ideologies. { The Federalist Party, The Whig Party, The Republican Party, and the Democratic Party}. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were one of the first Presidents to address the indecent morality of slavery. Did you know they embraced both political parties, Republican and Democrat?
    Becks conservative ideologies lean more towards Ron Paul than John Mc Cain. Unfortunately the ‘idiots’ on the show were not politically sophisticated enough to understand this.
    Next time you attempt to ‘ridicule’ African-American Democrats for supporting Obama, The Black Republican Party needs to be more successful at defending their own premise.
    I have many friends who are Republicans. We have CONSTRUCTIVE debates. Race was never the topic of discussion. Just the issues! But of course, Beck found a way to exploit minorties so that he would not be labeled a ‘racist.’ I have never heard such ‘useless’ politics before.

  64. Andrew says:

    I just found your blogs tonite will researching an anti-Glenn Beck forum. To the author of this site. Well done, Sir. I, as a active duty Army Soldier, am on a daily basis surrounded by the Glenn Beck “fans”. You cannot imagine the opinions of others as to why Glenn Beck is so great. I may be a little more crude and abrasive than your other posters and readers, but let me tell you what I think. I am completely middle of the road. I base my decisions on the merits of my feelings of an issue rather than others, Republican or Democrat. I voted for Obama for two reason. 1. I did not want Palin anywhere near the Whitehouse. 2. I too am hoping for change. That said, Beck O’Rielly, Hannity, Rush, Rove and Cheney can all go to hell and I would only be too glad to pull the switch. What they do to America with the fear mongering, the down right lies that the naive Americans believe is unfathomable. It disgusts me that I serve this great nation to protect their right to spread such venom. But when I took my oath, it was not with clauses. So I will due my best to protect the freedoms of all Americans at the same time curse those who spread villainous talk along our airwaves that only divide our country.

  65. Steven says:

    I remain convinced that Glenn Beck is an insane member of one of those underground militias (in Michigan or something) ranting into a camcorder in his basement. The raw footage is taken to a lab, where they clean it up, put in the sets and backgrounds and graphics, and call it a show.

  66. Rob says:

    Wow not one actual fact on this site, I thought surely when I watched Becks show he was lying about the left bashing him but not offering debate backed by facts but sure enough. Sad when someone wants someone else to go to hell. Thats pretty bitter “Andrew” you would have thought your mother would have taught you better. I just wonder which part of Beck you hate the most, the side that bashes the republicans like Bush (who was a progressive bad guy!) or just when he shows actual video footage of people like Van Jones (a pretty radical guy)? Sorry I dont want anyone forcing me to “Share the wealth” not that I am rich. I want to give to others based off of my freedom to choose to do so. I dont see how that makes me evil, but I bet that type of view would not be condoned here. PS, calling people knuckle draggers, hating people, etc. isnt very nice and if you are “better” than your opponent you would not stoop to such talk. Cant we just all agree to disagree?

    Hey dark, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html that should at least raise some questions dont you think? By they way its freezing where I am at (below normal temps at that). But I am sure you will have a response since you are probably smarter than me. I have learned that because I think America is great, Politicians are not, you need to earn your own way, and God is the true measure of Goodness, I am one of those evil haters who watch fox and are stupid. This really truly saddens me. I wish you didnt think that way, and I think all of you are special and in a good way. I believe (we are still free to do that right?) that you and I were created in God’s image and God put his own special touch in each of us! Love you all and I hope you can look past all the hate and negativity and have a great day!

  67. Mike says:

    Wow, that’s one of the most incoherently written rants I’ve ever seen. Obviously, you set out to prove that not all Beck’s supporters are semi-literate poorly educated knuckle draggers and failed miserably.

    On charity, it’s a right-wing lie that it would rise up to replace government social programs if needed. We can prove that by simply looking at universal health care. America does not have universal health care, so according to right-wing dogma, private charity should have sprung up to fill the gap and provide health care for everyone. Has it done that? Nope. Sorry, but you lose, you’re wrong, and your mother dresses you funny.

    It is also most definitely a fact that Glenn Beck is uneducated. You can look it up; he never completed any postsecondary education, and is eminently unqualified to discuss any of the issues he routinely pontificates on. You know, just like you are obviously uneducated, judging by your atrocious abuse of the English language.

    PS. Of all the ways to criticize global warming theory, “it’s freezing where I am” is probably the dumbest possible one. It’s like saying that you can disprove the concept of the stock market gaining over the long term by showing that the Dow Jones industrial average dropped yesterday.

  68. Rob says:

    Sorry you feel that way. You sound a little like a popinjay when you slam me like that. I do have a college degree as well as many certifications and make a pretty decent salary. I dont feel that I need to boast about stupid degrees as most of what I learned in college was crap which most figure out when they get a little experience under their belt. I would like to try one more time to say stop hating and slamming people, this benefits no one and makes you look bad. I still love you and hope the best for you.

    May God Bless you all.

  69. Mike says:

    If your college degree taught you nothing that most people can’t figure out on their own, then it was obviously one of those bird-course degrees. Most people don’t naturally figure out things like partial differential equations or thermodynamics or anything else which requires a genuinely difficult university education. Moreover, it doesn’t excuse your near-incomprehensible prior message, or its abysmal leaps in logic, or its bizarre accusations of missing facts when Beck’s lack of post-secondary education has never been denied by anyone, even himself.

    You seem to think that portraying yourself as a nice guy automatically makes your points more reasonable. It doesn’t. Hell, you didn’t even bother trying to defend them; you just reiterated that childish “I’m a nicer guy than you” ploy, as if politeness makes up for dishonesty.

  70. Rob says:

    Wow, you are really bitter. Sorry to hear. If you would please cease with the slamming of my opinions, education, grammer, etc. maybe we could just agree to disagree. Doesnt that sound like a better thing to do rather than be so harsh? You will get an ulcer. By the way I dont think I am a nice guy, I really am. Nothing childish about being nice, the world would be so much better if we all tried to be a little nicer. :)

    Thanks for your time.

  71. Rob says:

    By the way I see this site is powered by Mandriva Linux. Very Cool! Linux has come quite a ways over the last decade hasnt it! :)

  72. Mike says:

    I love the way you respond to a demand to back up your point with “Wow, you are really bitter”. That’s all you’ve got, isn’t it? Attack the person’s personality, while trying to play the nice guy.

    Sorry, but I already have a mother-in-law. I don’t need more passive/aggressive bullshit from you.

  73. Rob says:

    Uh ok. Sorry your mother in law is so mean? Hope things work out better this year for you. :)

  74. Mike says:

    Do you really think you can use these childish tactics to distract readers from noticing that you never answered my challenge to back up your claims?

  75. Winnie says:

    I grew up in Minnesota with stalwart Democrat parents. I received my degree from the U of M. I work in the computer industry. I have to say that Beck is a sensationalist, but is really onto something. I agree with a good number of his opinions and hope that he can be a factor in slowing the progressive agenda that is rotting our country at its core. When we as Americans can finally see the scam perpetrated by progressives like Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama clearly maybe we can assume a more libertarian course and all of America will benefit. I don’t really watch or listen to Beck frequently, but I hope he keeps doing what he is doing.

  76. Mike says:

    If Beck is a libertarian, why did he support George W. Bush? Why did he support the PATRIOT Act? Why did he support the bank bailouts in September 2009, only to reverse course once a Democrat got back into office?

    He’s no libertarian; he is simply a Republican cheerleader who pretends to be independent but who consistently kowtows to the mainstream Republican viewpoint when the chips are down. You can bet that he will become a fan of big central government again if the Republicans get back into office, and frankly, anyone who actually buys his act must be incredible naïve.

    You’re talking about a guy who is paid by gold companies, tells everyone on his show that they should invest in gold, and doesn’t mention the obvious potential conflict of interest. Seriously, how gullible do you have to be, in order to believe his play-acting or the absurd notion that he’s crusading for any principle other than his own material self-interest? What kind of attention span deficit do you need to have in order to be oblivious to his massive turn-around from big government fan to foaming-at-the-mouth libertarian the moment Obama took office?

  77. Winnie says:

    I never said he was a libertarian. He is a vital counterbalance to the runaway progressive agenda funded by the likes of George Soros and his ilk. Our government is most beneficial to the people when they can not get anything done. The less legislation to come out of Washington the better. Anything that gums up the system is good for everyone who is independant, hardworking, confident and can do for themselves.

  78. Mike says:

    Actually, governmental gridlock is precisely the reason why your government is actually MORE wasteful than most governments. Just look at your monstrous >2000 page health care bill: Republicans claim that its massive bulk is due to Democratic wastefulness, but the fact is that these huge bills become so large because so many compromises are required in order to secure passage. That is a direct result of the gridlock concept.

    Canada’s government does not employ this “gum up the system” philosophy, and guess how long our federal universal health care law is: 14 pages. And our national health care expenditures are much lower than yours, despite covering everyone and achieving overall outcomes equal to those in your system.

    It’s so tragic that so many Americans have completely bought into this “gridlock is good” stupidity. It’s actually the single worst thing about your government. It’s the reason it’s so incredibly inefficient, and it’s the reason there’s so much pork-barrel spending. Where do you think that pork-barreling comes from? It comes from the need to satisfy so many regional interests in order to get anything passed in a gridlock system.

  79. Winnie says:

    We have NO gridlock right now. The democrats have an uncontestable super majority throughout the house, senate and the executive branch. They currently run the entire law making machine. The 2000 pages are not a result of gumming up the system, they are a result of corruption.

  80. Mike says:

    Are you really this naive? There is plenty of gridlock, because the Democrats have lousy party unity. Max Baucus is completely in the pocket of the insurance companies, as is Reid. Anyone can look at financial contributions and see that they’ve been paid off handsomely. Hell, some of the strongest opposition to a public option (never mind single payer) has come from Democrats.

    That’s the nature of your system: you can hold up legislation by paying off or otherwise influencing a small number of people. You think it’s a great idea, but it isn’t. Calling it “corruption” completely sidesteps the point; people are always subject to corruption, but your system is set up in such a way that the corruption actually exerts the most influence.

    Nobody in his right mind would run a company this way. What the hell makes you think it’s a good idea for a government?

  81. Winnie says:

    The 90% of us who are completetly happy with our healthcare as it is are more than happy that the public option and single payer are being held up by these democrats. Our government is so sadly inefficient, as you point out, why would we ever want them involved in healthcare?

  82. Mike says:

    You are only happy with your health care because you have never experienced anything else. It’s like a meat-and-potatoes man who has never tried ethnic food. How does he know he won’t like it? In Canada, by contrast, we have plenty of experience with insurance companies, and we know all too well what it’s like to deal with them.

    In any case, if American government-run health care is so bad, then why are elderly Americans up in arms about the possibility of any changes to Medicare? They obviously like it just the way it is, and it’s a government-run program. The thing is, its efficiency is not related to the efficiency of the legislative branch of government.

    The American government is incredibly inefficient at the legislative level, ie- your politicians and their idiotic “gridlock” system which you think is so great. That doesn’t necessarily apply to people who actually work for a living, like government health care workers.

    I say again: Canada’s socialist health-care act is a mere 14 pages (including both French and English versions!). If the problem is “big government”, why was our big socialist government able to accomplish in 14 pages what yours can’t accomplish in over 2000? Why is our big socialist government able to provide health care at a one third lower per capita cost than your private industry system?

    Let me explain something to you about basic economics: private industry is excellent at providing wants. It’s not so good at equitably providing needs, and health care is not a want. It’s a need. No one in a humane society should be denied it, and yet private industry is based on the ability to deny service to those who can’t pay.

  83. Winnie says:

    I guess Canadians will just never understand Americans and our independence and desire to do for ourselves and our disdain for government. Your system may work well with your tiny population and relatively meager infrastructure. That is good for you. We a a very large country with a much more complex system. In addition our healthcare system is not government run. It may in part be government funded and therein lies most the problems. It is true our seniors were handed an entitlement program that they have become addicted to. We do not want it to advance any further. Fortunately no one in America is denied any emergency service. The rest we leave to ourselves and our level of commitment to ones own personal health. Health care is not a right, but a priviledge to be earned and maintained.

  84. Formless says:

    So apparently people have a right to live, but good health is a privilege (and an expensive one at that)?

    You really haven’t thought this out, have you?

  85. rob says:

    Why did he support the PATRIOT Act? –He actually stated he regrets that. I like a man who can admit he made a bad call. :)
    The only reason I refuse to argue with you is no matter what I say (like how Shona Holmes came here because Canada was to slow and would have probably lost her eyesight had she stayed with her system) how many facts I have (or have not) won’t change your mind. So what’s the point?
    Can’t we as Americans Agree to Disagree and be friends? I thought that was a better course of action.
    Besides I thought we could talk about your Linux Knowledge as I think that is something we can agreee on…
    :)

  86. Mike says:

    I love Winnie’s combination of condescending attitude and massive ignorance. In reality, Canada does not have “relatively meager” infrastructure; our huge land area means that our ratio of infrastructure to population is actually higher than that of the United States. Also, she’s demonstrating her ignorance when she says that the US has “government funded” health care rather than “government run” like Canada’s health care system. In reality, Canada’s health care system is just a funding system as well, with a government single-payer providing basic health insurance. The difference is that we provide it for everyone, not just the elderly (who are the most expensive to care for anyway).

    And then she says “fortunately no one in America is denied any emergency service”, which is a ridiculous defense of the system because ER services are vastly more expensive than family doctors and clinics, which means that the use of ER as a last resort is an extraordinarily wasteful way to do things, and guess what: they will still bill you afterwards.

    The fact is that at the end of the day, every other first-world nation can make universal health care work, but Americans have their heads so far up their own asses that they think they’re soooooooo special, and what works for every other first-world nation would never work for them.

    What they sell as a culture of “independence” is actually a culture of selfishness; they aren’t moved at all by the suffering endured by the people left behind in their so-called health care “system”. They just shrug and dismiss it by saying that these people should have worked harder, earned more, and taken care of themselves. And their kids? Well, too bad for them, I guess they should have been born to better parents. In America, there’s no such thing as “falling on hard times”; if you run into hard times it must be due to some moral failing on your part, and so you and your family deserve to suffer.

  87. Mike says:

    rob also needs to do some learning. Shona Holmes is an idiot who had a benign cyst removed because she personally felt that she would lose her eyesight even though no doctor ever confirmed this unqualified self-diagnosis. Then she went around the United States calling it a “tumour” even though it was just a cyst, and insisting that her life was in danger. Even more ridiculously, she would have gotten her surgery taken care of for free in Canada, if she was just willing to wait a few months.

    What, you people don’t have stupid panicky hypochondriacs in America? It didn’t occur to you that other countries have stupid panicky hypochondriacs too? What’s amazing is how American conservatives bought it all, and of course, completely ignored rebuttals from north of the border, because you only hear what you want to hear. Countless Canadians glad to have universal health care were ignored in favour of one hypochondriac who self-diagnosed the severity of her own condition without the benefit of any medical training.

    Best of all, everyone ignored the fact that Shona Holmes had a long history of health problems, and so American health insurers would have denied her coverage because of pre-existing conditions. So much for Shona Holmes proving the benefits of your health care system. The fact that anyone continues to cite her as a supporting example just goes to show us (again) that American conservatives have their heads up their own asses.

    Mind you, I would expect that from anyone who thinks Glenn Beck is worth watching. It’s like the morons who cite affluent Canadians crossing the border for faster health care in America, and think this proves that Canada’s health care system is broken. No, it just means that America’s health care system works great if you’re affluent. Frankly, it’s stupid to design a health care system for the benefit of the affluent; the affluent don’t need anyone’s help.

  88. rob says:

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html No offense but sounds like it wasnt a walk in the park to me..
    Where are your facts from experts?

  89. Mike says:

    Oh for Bob’s sake, you do realize that’s literally a Mayo Clinic advertisement, right? Right at the bottom of the page they actually warn people not to use it as ammunition for health care debates, as you are attempting to do.

    Moreover, if you actually read it carefully and strip away the advertising rhetoric, the article actually says the same thing I said: that it was a cyst, not a tumour. And it is conspicuously vague about how much danger she was actually in, or how long she could have realistically waited without consequence. Does it explicitly say anywhere in that article that she would have lost her sight if she stayed in Canada? No. But I guess reading isn’t your strong suit.

  90. rob says:

    You are correct. It is vague, looks like maybe headaches and vision issues could be. Not fun but not gonna kill you. :)

    I still dont get the whole thing though, pretty sure millions still wont be insured and it looks expensive. Was looking at this http://src.senate.gov/files/OACTMemorandumonFinancialImpactofPPAA(HR3590)(12-10-09).pdf

    If they “save” that kind of money I think it will be an all time first LOL…
    Have a great day!

  91. Mike says:

    The biggest problem with the health care bill is that it does not go far enough. This scheme of subsidizing private insurance with taxpayer dollars is entirely idiotic because it does absolutely nothing about the gouging and massive cost overruns inherent to the way the system is being run today.

    Start with public enemy #1: the insurance companies. They are the single biggest problem in the system but nobody will get rid of them, or even harm them in the slightest way. Why? Because all of the politicians in both parties are in their pockets, of course.

    America has by far the most expensive health care system in the world, but nobody will do anything about it because the religion of America is not really Christianity: it is money. And the fact is that the people who already have money are in firm control of the entire system. The health industry is a for-profit industry: they literally make money on peoples’ health. It’s no exaggeration or joke to say that the quintessential motto of the American health care industry is “your money or your life”.

  92. Erin says:

    A “commi” canadian with an opinion, that’s like the funniest shit I’ve read, all day aye! Hahaha don’t cha know. I find all of you communist/socialist bigets, quite ammusing. Its people like you that keep Glenn Beck in business, and I want to extend a hearty thank you. But if you really don’t like his views, or the truth, then I can point you in the direction of a very tall bridge, and you can do us all a favor and jump. Oh I’m sorry that’s vulgar…damn..just being honest, don’t ya know. Totally off subject, my husband is currently deployed to Afganistan, try to wrap your tiny canadian, socialist brain around that. He is there with a bunch of canadians.. oh the odds. But its to my knowledge that, they were in a firefight and as my husband is risking his life, for YOUR freedom to sit here and talk about absolutly nothing constructive, your brother the canadian coward was hiding behind a truck cring his beady little eyes out mommy mommy. Hmmm the irony. Now, try and validate anything you’ve said to any true American. Your men that so called fight for this country absolutly mirror what kind of people you are, pussies, liars, and no good to society. There is no true validity in any of your statements. They might be facts, but coming from a canadian, who thinks he’s making a difference in government or defend your opinions your very brother sits at war with his tail between his legs, so your opinions hold no water. Period. Show me some valor and I will retort, but I don’t think your “kind” is capable. I hope you realize one day that there is more to life than having a standing opinion in government bullshit, I bet you hate your life, wife and kids. Because you have no true standing on what it means to live. Only like a coward, liar, and a loser with no true knowledge of what respect and honor truely is. I’m ashamed my husband has to fight for freedom for people like you. Your disgusting in everyway and I hope you realize your words are worthless, and its sad to say maybe you will see that when your brother in arms is sent back in a body bag. That YOUR so called, beloved government put him there.

  93. Mike says:

    Wow. A Glenn Beck supporter who also happens to be a flag-waving knee-jerk militarist. What a shock. I like the way you think that any socio-political argument I make is automatically invalidated by my Canadian citizenship and lack of military service, as if that isn’t a textbook logic fallacy.

    I was amused by your horrendous assault upon the dignity of the English language as well: are you actually trying to live down to the stereotype of semi-literate FOXNews fans? Your entire explosion of verbal diarrhea can be condensed down to the summary: “My husband is a soldier and you’re a Canadian, therefore you’re wrong and I’m right.” As if that has anything to do with health-care or anything else we’re talking about, apart from the irony that your husband has government-run health care even though Glenn Beck decries the concept.

    You are precisely the kind of person that Glenn Beck caters to: the sort of flag-waving fool who will believe any false political ideology as long as it’s served up with a dose of nationalism, and who dismisses any criticism of that ideology with raving spittle-flecked declarations of America’s superiority to the rest of the world.

  94. rob says:

    What are you 10 years old? No one I know, including liberals talks like you and I am glad. My Liberal friends at least can open their mouth without inserting their foot in it. You really do not have to slam every person with a differing opinion you know.

  95. rob says:

    Wait for it… insert progressive “You are so stupid” remarks here… LOL

  96. rob says:

    Wow that is one of the most incoherent comments I have ever heard. Glenn Beck is such a Poser, All Americans that don’t subscribe to the Uber Left Progressive agenda are all like so not cool like us Lefties! You all suck unless you are super smart like Mike! LOL
    :)

  97. Formless says:

    “No one I know, including liberals talks like you and I am glad.”

    What, do you mean intelligently? For the love of Satan, the man isn’t even cussing. How sheltered are you?

    Obviously you have not even read the blog post you’re supposedly discussing, because what you are doing now is the EXACT kind of appeal to political correctness that he derides in it. That you have stopped even trying to argue the facts is very telling in ways that Mr. Wong’s snark never can be: you have no argument or criticism to present in your defense, so you mentally shut down and resort to channeling your mother who told you not to use “dirty language” and attacking his intelligence. Here’s a pro-tip for you: if you don’t want to be called stupid, never, EVER attack someone for being smart. It impresses no one BUT stupid people.

    Really, THINK before you comment. How hard is that?

  98. rob says:

    You will understand one day…PS No I havent, if you argue with a fool you will only look foolish. I debate my liberal friends who are truly liberal and are not Koolaid drinkers. Once I saw how hot and he was I figured we could talk about something else. Dont fret bud it will be ok.
    Go Scott Brown.

    Anyway, so no comment on your likes/dislikes with Linux?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>