Poll: Glenn Beck has hitler tourette's

[dietpeachsnapple]

I am happy that comedy central has such avid free advertisement.

The saddest part is that the Comedy Channel is the loudest voice actually challenging any of this garbage masquerading as "political analysis", on the left or the right.

Not very sad in my opinion. Almost predictable really. Satire has classically been used to lampoon those with varying levels of power or responsibility. Back in an age where doing so was necessary, lest ye insult the incorrect noble, and have one's self excommunicated or executed. Now, it is an avid mechanism of avant-garde pontification.

 

[Starke]

TBC

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Nazism, however, rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.

Root, you can probably extract Socialism a little further and discribe it as "a political philosophy that encompases various theories of economic organiziation based on the ideals of the communal good." Public or dirrect worker ownership tends to get specifically into Marxism and its various offshoots.

I've seen Nazi operationalized a couple times as: a form of Fascism that introduces a racial conflict to aid in consolidation of power, OR a form of Fascism that includes a racial hierarchy in its core ideology based on eugenics.

Anyway, my 2 cents on political definitions.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

?Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free health care. You?re thinking of Jesus.? - John Fugelsang

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Glenn Beck is a genius in the fact that he is using commonsense to show how we will lose our freedoms if we don't stand up to the socialist agenda and show them that they can't tell us what to do.

We are Americans, we are free. We don't answer to the government, the government is to answer to us.

The problem that people have with Beck, is that they can't refute what he says because he has the facts on his side.

are you being sarcastic (betting yes)

Nope, I'm completely serious.

 

[arcticphoenix95]

Hitler isn't funny.

He was a mean little man.

with a cool mustache

 

[Haagrum]

Not very sad in my opinion. Almost predictable really. Satire has classically been used to lampoon those with varying levels of power or responsibility. Back in an age where doing so was necessary, lest ye insult the incorrect noble, and have one's self excommunicated or executed. Now, it is an avid mechanism of avant-garde pontification.

The jester could always tell the king what no-one else could. If Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and the others weren't so ideologically motivated and transparently anti-Obama, I could take them for a comedy act as well. Ad hominem attacks and comparisons to Nazi Germany demonstrate either a lack of actual substantive criticism (in which case, they're just trumpeting their prejudices), their anger and dogmatic aggression against a world that's changing around them (in which case, they're anachronistic and probably racist) or both. Funny how little (if anything) the previous administration did was such a problem for these guys. The radical left is no better in many ways, but at least they're consistent about hating government and don't have a large-scale media platform dedicated to pushing their personal grievances so transparently.

What bothers me is that it seems (from where I'm sitting across the Pacific) no-one else has the huevos to challenge the echo chamber at Fox - or at least, not on the same scale as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. People like Beck seem to have managed to recast debates by placing themselves in the middle of the political spectrum "on the side of the American people", when by their actions they demonstrate that they couldn't give a toss about anything except market share and getting things their own way. "That's business!" isn't a satisfactory response when you're peddling conspiracy theories and using spurious correlations to compare health-care reform (which, aside from anything else, is a financial necessity) to eugenics and genocide policies in totalitarian regimes. The saddest part is that anyone actually swallows this tripe.

 

[arcticphoenix95]

Glenn Beck is a genius in the fact that he is using commonsense to show how we will lose our freedoms if we don't stand up to the socialist agenda and show them that they can't tell us what to do.

We are Americans, we are free. We don't answer to the government, the government is to answer to us.

The problem that people have with Beck, is that they can't refute what he says because he has the facts on his side.

are you being sarcastic (betting yes)

Nope, I'm completely serious.

what facts?

 

[MinishArcticFox]

I saw this on the Daily Show the other day I almost cried.

Also if you said Glenn Beck wasn't a moron I hope you either have brain trauma or just thought moron wasn't a strong enough word.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I'm certainly not rich, I can't even find a job for the summer, but the whole attacking the rich and pity the poor is a dead horse that has been beat on time and time again.

I have maybe sixty dollars left in my account to live off of for the rest of the month, and I despise how people attack the rich and successful. I probably could be more successful but over the years I haven't tried my hardest to see if I can be successful, but that is because I am and I admit it, lazy. I am opposite to the hordes of lazy people that attack the rich and successful because they have actually tried and used their skills to become successful.

People just have a problem with what they have, they also need to learn to manage their lives better. People will complain about how hard they work in their jobs and get nowhere, then you find out that they still spend their money on wants, instead of concentrating on needs. If people would just concentrate on needs, and save their little extra income, in time they will have saved enough to do something with that money to change their circumstances, by investing the money, or getting a better education. The problem people have is they think because they've worked a crummy job for so long that they deserve something special that they should have stuff handed to them, to be shown the way out. The truth is they deserve jack crap except for the basic freedoms of the Constitution. If they want something, they have to make the proper decisions in their lives to get it themselves.

That is the problem with socialism, the vast majority of the people it might help, are people that are lazy sacks of crap that won't get off their asses and make their futures the way they wanted it. Socialism will just hand them things and say, "now you be happy little sheep and let us take care of you and control every aspect of your life." The sheep will be too happy to realize the whole controlling part until it is too late.

First of all, in what age range are you exactly?

Second, that emboldened section right there is the basis of the theory of social Darwinism. It was a popular belief in the nineteenth century which basically says that if you work hard, you will succeed, and the only reason you fail to make money and be successful is that you aren't working hard enough at it. It's an outdated, disproven theory that relied on assumptions, the most important of which being that America was very socially mobile - in other words, it was very easy to move from one class to another (lower to middle class, middle to upper class, and so on) and the truth of the matter is that it wasn't. It was also based on the misconception of Charles Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest." People in that time period thought, "If the weak die out and the strong survive in nature, then the same must be true for economics and social status." Andrew Carnegie was a notorious example of social Darwinism - his story of rags-to-riches inspired many and furthered the social Darwinist belief. The belief was challenged in the post-Reconstruction period when unions and trusts came to blows. The Progressive Era in the pre-WWI period signified the decline of social Darwinism.

Basically, it's not as simple as "work hard and you will succeed," escpecially if you are a minority or disabled person and have to suffer discrimination and lower wages than other co-workers

Age range, I am 24, you would know that if you looked at my profile.

There is also the point that depending on the situation, people have to accept lot they were dealt in life. This mentality that people deserve more than basic Constitutional rights, has to stop. In this world you have to take care of yourself, the government is not a babysitting/charity service that will take care of your every need. The system has already been thrown off balance with this whole government health care crap. Yes the private sector health care has problems, but as I have said before on other threads, what the government is doing by making people pay for other peoples' health care, is forced charity. Charity is something that should be given by free will, that is a major point of life, free will. If the government wants people to put money into the system to help people in need of health care, they need to make something like a government health fund.

The fund would be a charity based incentive driven collection. Let's just say that you donate 100 dollars to the charity, you then will get 200 dollars knocked off your taxes. Yes the government will lose tax money, but it will force them to find ways to cut spending, like spending on pork projects. There is also another big money saver, example: When a Congress member leaves office, they are still paid their salary each year until they die. The obvious choice is there, cut that act. It is insane to keep paying when they are out of office most likely doing jack crap. What we should do is tell them if they want to keep making a living, they should do what every regular citizen of this country has to do, find work if they want to get paid. With that, we would save at least 50 million dollars a year, most likely more.

To end this, the whole Progressive Era, the progressives where the worst thing to happen to this country. Progressives are destroying the rightful freedoms that were set up by our great Founding Fathers. Individual freedom is one of the major things that has made this country great(No.1 just over Capitalism and the Free Market), and that is what socialism and progressives seek to destroy, because if they can't remove our freedoms, they can't force us to do the things they want. That goes for Democrats,Republicans, and anybody else that are on the doomed path of pushing the progressive socialist agenda.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

super snip

You do realize the Nazis were fascist and not socialist, right? completely different things. And just because its socialist doesn't mean its bad.

I really shouldn't respond because you don't even know what fascism is. Any form of government can be fascist. Read your history, Hitler was big on social programs. Fascism is control, it is neither left nor right wing.

Socialism cannot work with out taking away personal freedoms that are rightfully given to us by our Constitution. The whole basic idea of socialism is take away from the individual to give to the many. It is financial freedom restriction to the successful, and people that run their own businesses.

The individual has the freedom to help or not help people. Nobody should be forced to be charitable, charity is something that falls in the realm of free will. If people want to keep their extra money and profits for themselves, then they can, because they earned it, nobody else. There is way too much emphasis on the collective society. If we remove the individual aspect of life, then we will lose creativity and the strive to be better, we will lose humanity.

 

[Pegghead]

Wow, that Lewis Black guy was hilarious!

This glen Beck character does seem to segue onto the topic of Nazi Germany a fair bit.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Now I don't agree with everything Beck says but I do like listening to him in the morning, he probably does more research on what he talks about then most other people(even if he does deliver it in a semi-moronic manner). Now I also don't agree with how he handles callers who don't agree with him(he basically talks over them/yells then hangs up), but damn his news segments are good.

-snip-

Well this being a mostly liberal thread I think you might need this:
[sub]I think I may need one as well since I actually agree with some of what both Beck and Rush say[/sub]

because most the people who talk about politics on here are asses if you disagree with them.

I do my best not to insult people, because that gets the argument nowhere. But, I laughed when I came back to the site today and saw that I had 15 "you have been quoted" messages, the majority of which where insulting attacks and totally messed up ideas on what the actual definition of socialism and long term effects it will have. By definition, socialism takes away freedoms. It definition doesn't say it outright, but a socialist government has to kill many individual freedoms in order to take care of the many. Mainly because their are many people like me that believe that nobody else deserves what I worked for, I earn the money (when I have a job) and it is my money. In order for the government to get money to help the many, they have to force me to be charitable, and take my money. I don't mind the government taking tax money from me for national defense. But in the case of health care and poor people, if don't want to be charitable and instead use my money to buy a new TV or go on vacation, then that is my choice.

 

[Phoenixlight]

It wouldn't let me view the video because I'm from England

 

[Dudemeister]

Now I don't agree with everything Beck says but I do like listening to him in the morning, he probably does more research on what he talks about then most other people(even if he does deliver it in a semi-moronic manner). Now I also don't agree with how he handles callers who don't agree with him(he basically talks over them/yells then hangs up), but damn his news segments are good.

-snip-

Well this being a mostly liberal thread I think you might need this:
[sub]I think I may need one as well since I actually agree with some of what both Beck and Rush say[/sub]

because most the people who talk about politics on here are asses if you disagree with them.

I do my best not to insult people, because that gets the argument nowhere. But, I laughed when I came back to the site today and saw that I had 15 "you have been quoted" messages, the majority of which where insulting attacks and totally messed up ideas on what the actual definition of socialism and long term effects it will have. By definition, socialism takes away freedoms. It definition doesn't say it outright, but a socialist government has to kill many individual freedoms in order to take care of the many. Mainly because their are many people like me that believe that nobody else deserves what I worked for, I earn the money (when I have a job) and it is my money. In order for the government to get money to help the many, they have to force me to be charitable, and take my money. I don't mind the government taking tax money from me for national defense. But in the case of health care and poor people, if don't want to be charitable and instead use my money to buy a new TV or go on vacation, then that is my choice.

Well to be fair, in the case of Healthcare, the taxes you pay are balanced out by the fact that you don't have to pay an insurance company for health insurance so you're not actually losing money there.
Also, I live in the UK and we don't have a huge problem with people not working just because they can get state benefits. The money people can get from the government is kept low enough that they can't afford any kind of luxury unless they get a job.
Plus, you have to admit, sometimes, people genuinely need some help, like in the case of disabled people or people that have been injured in a way that prevents them from being able to work.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

To end this, the whole Progressive Era, the progressives where the worst thing to happen to this country. Progressives are destroying the rightful freedoms that were set up by our great Founding Fathers. Individual freedom is one of the major things that has made this country great(No.1 just over Capitalism and the Free Market), and that is what socialism and progressives seek to destroy, because if they can't remove our freedoms, they can't force us to do the things they want. That goes for Democrats,Republicans, and anybody else that are on the doomed path of pushing the progressive socialist agenda.

You're right. Progressives were the worst. You know what was awesome? Child labor. Child labor was awesome. And when we could work those damn poor people as long as we wanted because they basically had no worker rights. That was cool, and giving poor people, women, and non-whites equal rights and freedoms is bad. You know what else sucked about Progressivism? That it was an alternative and in opposition to socialsim. Because socialism is AMAZING.

Sorry for the heavy sarcasm, but it was the only way I could keep myself from outright verbal abuse.

 

[ottenni]

This all confuses me. So anyone who is a nationalist and a socialist is a nazi?

Wait, doesn't that make the army Nazi's?

A state owned and run organisation devoted to the preservation and protection of a nation. Yep, they are nazis.

Or am i still confused.

 

[Revolutionary]

complete dickweed

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Glenn Beck is a genius in the fact that he is using commonsense to show how we will lose our freedoms if we don't stand up to the socialist agenda and show them that they can't tell us what to do.

We are Americans, we are free. We don't answer to the government, the government is to answer to us.

The problem that people have with Beck, is that they can't refute what he says because he has the facts on his side.

Believe me, i get all of what your saying, but still, you have to see that he cant just slap hitler and nazi in front of everything that is bad, can he?

I think he can since what this government is already halfway down the track towards is socialist totalitarianism. What the socialists and progressives in our government want to do is to tell us exactly what we should do. They are forcing the private sector into government control, health care for example. Eventually the private sector health insurance will be gone and the government will have the monopoly and will tell us what we can and can not do. "We won't insure you because you want to actually have life and eat what you want." I mean come on, they already want to impose higher and higher taxes on soda and juice and other things that "Are not good for our health."
Oh and should I mention that Obama wants to make community service mandatory for high school graduation. That is forcing people to do something against their. If that happens, then when I have kids they will be home schooled. I will be the parent and if my kids don't want to do community service then they don't have too. Community service is for people that actually have the time to help other people and for people that are criminals that are being made to do the service as punishment.

So forcing kids to do the right thing is bad? Just like forcing people to follow laws and forcing people to wear clothes is also bad...

The fact is, people have been saying that about the country almost every single time a democrat gets elected, and it has yet to happen at all.

You missed the target completely on what I was saying.

Yes, people doing community service is a good thing. The point is that community service is a charity. To do community service, people take their personal time to help other people; those people are charitably donating their time to help others. If you make someone do it, it isn't charity, it is forced labor.

That is the problem with the whole school system. The government keeps adding more and more requirements for students to pass grades and graduate, that kids are having less and less time to be kids. Going through college, I have heard time and time again from professors that are distressed that many of their students still have problems with the basics of their classes. They have said that some students still write papers like they are still in middle school, and don't know the fundamentals of grammar or what a complete sentence is or the logical make-up of a paragraph.

The problem is that the school system is being crammed with requirements for graduation. These requirements I am pointing out are of the idea of the core curriculum. The core curriculum of schools gets bigger and bigger, the idea is that students should know the basics just a little more about every single subject. The problem with this is that it removes room for students to find what they actually want to do in life, they are pulled in so many directions, they don't know how to choose. The core curriculum removes the ability for teachers to help students refine and develop there skills more narrowly and professionally. The core curriculum focuses on general knowledge, and since general knowledge in each field grows each year, the core curriculum grows to try and keep up.

This core curriculum idea has started to infest colleges and universities as well. Colleges and universities are places where people are suppose to perfect and refine their knowledge in the areas in which they want to find a career. It is getting harder and harder for that to happen, because the core curriculum in colleges and universities is getting bigger like in grade schools.

At my university I am an English major. I have counted all the classes that I have taken over the years and adding the classes I will be taking in my last semester next fall; I need 124 credits to graduate with a Bachelors degree in English, 64 of those credits are from classes that have nothing to do with English or don't actually further my knowledge of English. With that being said, that would make my English major a minor. On this fact, I would point out the most idiotic of requirements for college graduation, and that is the physical education requirement grouping. That grouping is a health class with an activity class. I understand this requirement in grade school, but by the time a people reach college, they are adults. Adults make their own choices, and if that point a person doesn't want to exercise regularly or eat healthy, that is their choice. Making those classes requirements for college graduation for all degrees is pointless. Since it takes up two class slots, it takes away the space and time that could be used by people to take classes that actually deal with their majors.

The core curriculum in grade schools needs to be slimmed down to make room for professional refinement. The core curriculum in colleges and universities needs to have three-fourths of it cut out. It would free up at least a whole year of time that would normally be wasted for students. I will also add the point that foreign language requirements should be removed from Arts degrees, unless it is a degree that has to do with a foreign language or languages. It is the whole reason why the majority of English majors at my university aren't in English: Creative Writing Emphasis major program like they want to be, because they know that learning a foreign language will be a waste of time and has nothing to do with what they want to do.
I want to be a successful novelist and story writer, and seriously, if I become famous enough that I have some kind of book tour in another country, at that point I will be rich enough to hire an interpreter.

Sorry about that, I tend to ramble when it comes to the idiotic structure of the U.S. school systems.