Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Idle Politics

Glen Beck Warns Viewers Not To Use Google 1276

An anonymous reader writes "Glenn Beck has told his viewers to do research, but to not use Google, because 'Google is pretty deeply in bed with the government.' He points to the fact that Google is having some problems overseas, as well as Jared Cohen. Cohen is Director of Google Ideas, has worked with the State Department, and has played a role in the 2009 unrest in Iran. He also mentions social networking in sinister undertones, asking if it's government propaganda."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Glen Beck Warns Viewers Not To Use Google

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:30AM (#35209106)

    Seriously, this guy is about one step away from saving his urine in jars and going all David Koresh on a compound somewhere. Anyone who still takes that clown seriously is either already a paranoid schizophrenic or too stupid to be reasoned with anyway. You would have more luck arguing with a religious fanatic.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:34AM (#35209142)

    You would have more luck arguing with a religious fanatic.

    I thought Glen Beck and his viewers were already religious fanatics, on top of their rampant paranoia.

  • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:34AM (#35209146)

    is the best way to guarantee future Republicans.

  • by Attack DAWWG ( 997171 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:35AM (#35209158)

    If someone does a Google search, they may, just possibly, find out the truth about something.

    And that possibility is what people like Glenn Beck find the most frightening.

  • From his rant:

    I would look into all the people the State Department are working with; MSNBC, CBS, gosh, MTV.

    Just say it, every news outlet but Fox, right? It's the only thing stopping you from busting out the "trust no one" hyperbole, right?

    Maybe we should start watching those networks a little bit and seeing what their news coverage is like.

    Why don't we watch all of them and judge them fairly against each other? Or do you just want scrutiny only on the networks you're not on?

    Who are these groups? Who are they? Are they right, are they left, are they clean, are they dirty, are they front groups? I don't know.

    Wait, wait, wait, so what are you accusing them of? Absolutely nothing? And if you don't know then why are you telling us to investigate them? Maybe because you know nobody will do it and instead they'll just continue listening to you? "Is Glenn Beck, good, bad, is he left, is he right, is he clean, is he dirty? I don't know. Maybe you should keep your eye on him?"

    May I recommend, if you're doing your own homework, don't do a Google search. Seems to me that Google is pretty deeply in bed with the government. Maybe this is explaining why Google is being kicked out of all the other countries?

    My god, would you please just make a statement instead of repeated leading questions?! How is Google any more "in bed" with the government than Microsoft or Yahoo?

    Are they just a shill now for the United States government? Who is Jared Cohen? Is he private citizen or government operative? And isn't this the second Google guy we've found? This is the second Google executive now being exposed as an instigator of a revolution.

    Your little pointer stick and board didn't do much to lead to conclusive evidence that Cohen has "instigated a revolution."

    I couldn't get the MM site to load but the Youtube version worked for me [youtube.com] and holy crap what a load of horseshit. I saw Glenn Beck on TV in a waiting room once and thought it was a joke. The amount of faulty, leading, incomplete logic here is just staggering, even in this video. Instead of wasting my time itemizing everything wrong about what he's saying and pointing out the obvious, I should have just taken Salon's advice and done something more constructive [salon.com].

  • by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:39AM (#35209218) Homepage

    Well, it is kindof true. Google is very big brother in the way they gather data about their users.

    For that matter, just about any large internet company is going to be in bed with whatever governments whose jurisdiction they operate within. It's called "compliance with law enforcement". It's very patriotic for corporations to work with governments. Of course, if you have nothing to hide, it's fine, right?

    The other reason Beck might hate the internet, of course, is that the internet is just an outgrowth of yet another giant government project. We all remember ARPA and DARPA, right?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:40AM (#35209228)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:41AM (#35209248)
    In other words, Glenn Beck is a professional troll?
  • by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:41AM (#35209256)
    The reason /. has a left leaning bias is because most honest and intelligent people are left leaning. It used to be that most honest and intelligent people were "centrist" however what occurred over the years has skewed the extremes to the right. Republicans are now either Neo-cons, Tea-party or simply bat-shit crazy religious fanatics.
  • by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:45AM (#35209296)

    No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money. Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

    Anyone who still takes that clown seriously is either already a paranoid schizophrenic or too stupid to be reasoned with anyway.

    Yes, but by saying that, *you* have taken him seriously! The attacks on him just make his supporters circle the wagons, and maybe even gain him followers from the stupid "Well, if he's pissing people off he must be doing something right!" crowd.

    I'm thinking of writing a crazy book, and shopping it to one of these neo-con publishers, all to get me some early retirement on the backs of the ideological loons. I'm not sure yet if I should invent a new angle, or tie together multiple existing memes in a new way.

  • by piripiri ( 1476949 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:45AM (#35209300) Journal

    In other words, Glenn Beck is a professional troll?

    Yes.

  • by eples ( 239989 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:47AM (#35209342)

    "[...] Are you comfortable with the government partnering covertly with media organizations, search engines, social networking, so they can bring change that the Washington elites have designed?

    Didn't he just describe Fox News? That is what they do over at Fox News, is it not?

  • by twoallbeefpatties ( 615632 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:54AM (#35209438)
    Do other countries have conspiracy theorists with such depth and wide-reaching audiences that have radio or television programs?
  • by oodaloop ( 1229816 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:01AM (#35209494)
    Pot, meet kettle. Have you not listened to Democrats? The extreme left is just as crazy as the extreme right, and each side underestimates just how far to the extreme the other one goes, while painting themselves as moderates.
  • by Old97 ( 1341297 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:01AM (#35209502)
    Wow! You certainly demonstrated your ability to think, reason and communicate. Well done! You are a fine representative of what the GP was referring to. If you want respect, you might try something other than angry insults or at least append some reasoning and a few facts to them once you've finished venting..
  • by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:01AM (#35209504) Journal

    The reason /. has a left leaning bias is because most honest and intelligent people are left leaning.

    I can see you're not a true Scotsman.

  • by tophermeyer ( 1573841 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:02AM (#35209506)

    Well its all an act / business to him.

    Boom, right there. Glenn Beck plays a character on TV, named Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck's character is a huge douchebag. And I presume that if Glenn Beck the actor can play as ridiculous a character as Glenn Beck on TV, he must also be a fairly big douche himself.

    But his character is fabulously successful. So maybe he's got some things figured out.

  • by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:04AM (#35209542)

    No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money.

    This is the way a lot of psychopaths make a living.

    Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

    I've read this exact sentence many times on this site. Whether or not Beck is schizophrenic is his own dirty secret. He manifestly lacks a sense of compassion for anyone else; whether that's "crazy" or not is irrelevant.

  • Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:05AM (#35209556)

    Either he's right, and Google is also actively trying to discredit him, or he's an idiot.

    From the sages of Monty Python . . .

    "Well I feel very keenly that the idiot is a part of the old village system, and as such has a vital role to play in a modern rural society, because you see ... There is this very real need in society for someone whom almost anyone can look down on and ridicule. And this is the role that ... this is the role that I and members of my family have fulfilled in this village for the past four hundred years... "

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:05AM (#35209560)

    Which market is better to exploit / market fear? A young, highly educated market or a older less-educated market?

    I think /. regularly shows the young, "highly educated" market is plenty susceptible to fear & paranoia.

  • by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:08AM (#35209596)
    Ok. Clinton, and FDR are two people who came in power, who are left leaning, and who did not destroy the economy. You can hardly call a dictator "left-leaning" because that isn't even in the principal of the "left" so you can already scratch off numerous people from your argument. Whatever that syndrome's name, its been my experience that the majority of now-a-days Republicans fall under the "dumb but think they are smarter" category. Why else would they want to put "intelligent design" into schools? Why else did they sponsor a war in Iraq that literally has no worthwhile outcome for our nation? Why else has the disparity in wealth been getting worse since Reagan? It has also been my experience that Republicans make a mess of things for short term gains and then Democrats have to clean it up for the long term ones (FDR). Look, Im not even a Democrat, this is just an observation from a relatively centrist person. Wait to fulfill Godwin's law BTW, even though it was a little half-way.
  • No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money. Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

    Anyone who sacrifices their honor and dignity, and encourages others to not just abandon rational thinking but to engage in acts of violence [mediamatters.org], all in order to pad their bank account, is crazy.

    In other words, Beck has to be one sort of crazy (some sort of personality disorder) in order to pretend to be the sort of crazy (sort of paranoid schizophrenia) that he does.

  • Re:Facts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:11AM (#35209632) Homepage

    It's not facts that are the problem. It's the illogical leaps from facts into craziness that are the problem, and stating opinion as fact. If you do that, you need a good reputation.

    I pretty much *guarantee* that Google has to do whatever the federal enforcement says. It's called the law. To make the leap from that to "use another search engine" is an irrelevant and illogical conclusion unless you can provide facts that other search engines aren't similar affected by any government whose jurisdiction they operate in. And in terms of things this guy has said, it's nothing.

    The only thing you can take away from someone else's opinion is reliant on their reputation. This guy believes and has said a lot of crap, quite publicly, and not denounced it until months after it's caused him a lot of trouble - including having to backtrack on quite clearly calling someone (the US president) a racist.

    He has a self-confessed history of severe, long-term alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, he's used miscarriage as a joke to play off the mother, he's had several high profile firings, several arrests, several cities, organisations, churches and advertisers have rushed to disassociate themselves with him and he has more conspiracy theories of his own than an X-Files fan club.

    And, personally, he claims to have been saved from professional obscurity (and several other things) by God, and belongs to the church of latter-day-saints, which kinda rules him out of my personal "might have an brain in there somewhere" list.

    Nobody really cares if the facts are wrong or right. It's his interpretation of them that leads him into ridicule. I *know* that if I drop my laptop, it will hit the floor. I don't explain it away as a government conspiracy that all laptops are subject to gravity in order that the US can drill holes in the Earth's crust and steal my laptop. The *fact* I stated is true, the opinion / explanation is almost certainly 100% bullshit and as "unproveable" as any other.

    Seriously, from not knowing anything of the guy, within about 20 minutes of independent research, I've put him on my personal "Ignore anything he says" blacklist.

  • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:14AM (#35209684) Journal

    It's not like his schtick is new. See: Joseph McCarthy.

  • by FatherOfONe ( 515801 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:15AM (#35209688)

    The current liberal market is younger and college level educated.

    Bzzzt Wrong! The VAST liberal base is Union workers and low income minorities.

    The conservative market are older and although contains college level educated individuals its not as high as the liberal market.

    This is funny. I assume you mean doctorate level education. I certainly hope you are including theology doctorates in your statement.... I bet you are not.

    As for the act, The Daily Show showed 2 clips, one from his CNN show and one from his FOX NEWS show, they were separated by about 18 months. On CNN he was saying the USA had the worst health care system in the world, but 18 months later he is on FOX NEWS saying its the best health care system in the world. So somehow the USA went from the worst to the best in 18 months with no legislation, reform, or any anything.

    As for a fact the Daily show.... Ok guy you first need to stop getting your "news" from the Daily show. Last time I checked Stewart isn't exactly a news guy, but humor you a bit:
    CNN said one thing....
    time passed
    Fox New said the opposite.

    You don't need to wait 18 months, just turn on the news today and you will see opposite news. CNN use to be very liberal and Fox is conservative. Now to your specific point. Have you been around the world to actually see the difference. I have been around a bit, and have stayed in quite a few countries. I can say that CNN is so far wrong on this issue it isn't even funny. However, I challenge you to not trust either Fox or CNN but actually do some of your own research and find out. Then again there are some things you can just use your common sense on and see that people are not flooding in to Mexico from the U.S.A. People from Florida don't get in small boats and risk their lives to was ashore at Haiti and or Cuba. However, people do go to Canada for their prescription medications. Why? Because it is cheaper, and the Canadians pay for it with large taxes. What exactly happens when a flood of people from the U.S.A. start abusing this? For now we can just thank the Canadians for paying for U.S.A. drugs.. Thank you Canada, I guess we are even for letting you win the gold in hockey last time :-)

  • by NotAGoodNickname ( 1925512 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:21AM (#35209816)
    This is a very insightful post. You guys need to understand that Beck/Limbaugh/Maddows/whomever are all alike. They are exploiting your fear of people you see as "opposite" to you in order to make millions of dollars off of their show, books, speaking fees, etc. None of these commentators believe what they are saying no matter what "side" they are on. The truth is that none of them are on "your side". They are interested in their ego and the big bucks. I find it amazing that people spend so much time raging against them. Ignore them and they will go away.
  • by Skarecrow77 ( 1714214 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:23AM (#35209840)

    So, having a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and generally libertarian viewpoint on government otherwise (i.e. I don't fit into a neat little political "color"), I felt the need to comment:

    1. I agree.
    2. I agree, although taxes punish everybody (Except those who don't pay any of course).
    3. I'd say that a good number of problems we have in society today came from religion(s) in the first place. That said, I agree that government should not be attempting to legislate morality or good behavior. Their job is to enact and execute laws within the scope of their charter necessary to the function of society, and then provide for justice when such laws are broken.
    4. Whose god? any specific one? Zeus? Allah? Odin? Jehova? Vishnu? Paladine? I am of the opinion that "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" basically translates in modern speech to "These rights are present from birth, by virtue of being a human being, and not given or privlidged by the government, thus not capible of being controlled by them". Given the religious freedom bent of early colonists, as well as the founding father's belief in a strong seperation of church and state, I have a had time believing that they'd be referencing any specific god when they mention "creator", which is of course probably why they used that exact phrase.
    5. Once again, whose god, whose morality, and doesn't this contradict what you just said in point #3?
    6. It's funny you quote that specific line, since it was originally "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". Really it was, look it up. It was changed to "happiness" to be more general.
    7. That is true, but as much as it sucks to admit it, the vast majority of them have a pretty good reason for hating us. We're dicks, really we are.. Sure there a few loonies that have been whipped into a fervor by charismatic madmen and by the media, but the real truth is that the US has used it's position of power in the world to basically be giant assholes when we want to be? Example. Did you know that after the Iran-contra affair, the US was convicted of war crimes against Nicaragua, but we used our position as a permanent member of the UN security council to veto every attempt to punish us after that conviction? That's just one example. Really a lot of the people in the world who are pissed off at us have a legitimate gripe. I'm not an apologist, I'm simply saying don't turn a blind eye to the complaints of the rest of the world just because they're not on your team.

  • by paiute ( 550198 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:24AM (#35209856)

    CNN said one thing....
    time passed
    Fox New said the opposite.

    No, Glen Beck said one thing.
    18 months passed.
    Glen Beck said the opposite.

  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:25AM (#35209876)

    but exploiting fear in liberals is difficult compared to exploiting fear in conservatives

    You have heard of Al Gore, yes? Or Michael Moore?

    What about the recent campaign by MoveOn.org to "save public broadcasting" because of Republicans moving to cut off funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite the fact that public broadcasting as a whole gets only a small portion of its financing from the government?

    People from across the political spectrum are open to FUD. The only real difference is which buttons you have to push.

  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:26AM (#35209888)

    "he doesn't want to you read about what he might have done back in 1990"

    I googled this... it was a sex change operation. He used to be a man.

    No No No .. you aren't doing this right. You can't come out and make a statement of absolute fact that can be checked. You need to allude to it and let your audience ASSUME that it was a fact. This is simple Beckism 101. What you should have said is:

    I googled Beck looking to see if he had a sex change. Did he lose his balls in the past? I don't know. But you have to admit he acts pretty strange all the time, and I haven't seen him deny not losing his balls. But don't believe anything I say .. you have to make up your own mind over this.

    And while you are pondering that let me tell you about [Fear mongering sponsor de jour] whose products I have been buying for years. If you don't have this [end of the world survival product] then you don't [love your family] ...

  • by paiute ( 550198 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:27AM (#35209918)

    The majority of atheists are left-leaning because the right doesn't really play nice with atheism.

    The majority of atheists are progressive/liberal because that is where the evidence takes you.

  • Insulting as news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lttlordfault ( 1561315 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:33AM (#35210032)
    As a UK citizen I only ever see Glen Beck in satire shows, the first thing that struck me after watching this was how insulting the spinning fox news icon in the corner of the screen was. Could anyone point out a single factual piece of news in that entire piece? Everything he said was qualified with clauses like "it seems to me" or simply forming his babble in questions.

    How on earth can this tripe be paraded on a news channel, giving it a faux sense of authority over the facts.

    I have no problem with political opinion pieces on tv but don't try masquerade it as news as that simply insults my intelligence.

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:39AM (#35210130)

    It still amazes me that other Christian groups will laugh at the silliness of Joseph Smith's Moroni story and then turn around with a straight face and talk about a first-century illiterate peasant revolutionary (killed by the Romans, no less) being the "son" of a omniscient, omnipresent being and flying up to heaven.

    It's all stupid shit to an outsider.

  • by Ereth ( 194013 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:41AM (#35210160) Homepage

    The Daily Show is a COMEDY Show. Jon Stewart doesn't pretend otherwise. His job is to skewer the news.

    Beck (and Fox) pretend otherwise.

  • by I8TheWorm ( 645702 ) * on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:43AM (#35210198) Journal

    Meh, I don't think he's really any of those. Just a guy looking for shock value to sell viewership/listenership, and it works.

    Either way I can't stand to listen to anything he says, or Amy Goodman for that matter. People who push their agenda through "news" irritate the crap out of me.

  • by gtbritishskull ( 1435843 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:44AM (#35210208)

    Steven Colbert plays a self-serving narcissistic douche on Comedy Central. His show is about making the news funny, not about portraying it accurately. He would be justified in not taking responsibility for anyone taking what he says seriously because his show is on a comedy channel.

    Glenn Beck ?plays? a douche on Fox News. It claims to be a News channel. It is supposed to, and does not claim not to, have accurate and trustworthy information. As such, he is responsible for people taking what he says seriously (and they do). So, whether or not he tries to play a douche on TV, he is still a douche because he claims to be a pundit, not an actor.

  • by Evtim ( 1022085 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:45AM (#35210228)

    You know, I was expecting your post to be modded up, but no. Alas, I spent my mod points yesterday.

    Anyway, here is a funny thing. My country (Bulgaria) was building for many years a second nuclear power plant. The first one was almost completely closed because EU would not accept us with it (the reactors were dangerous bla bla..). So, since few years a massive debate about the second one rages across the media. Over time the two major opinions settled as such:

    The so-called progressive, right wing, pro-western people are against it, because, they say it will need the Russians for the fuel and processing the waste. So we will INCRESE our energy dependence from Russia.

    The left-leaning, pro-Russian crowd is for it. As you can guess their motives are exactly like the one above, only in their book this is a good thing.

    There was of course the infinitely small minority of realists and nerds who were always for it, because of reality (let’s not go deeper into this – why nuclear power is back in the world and why did it take 50 years to realize the obvious)

    And then Wikileaks came around. And one of the cables was dealing exactly with this power station. Now, pay attention:

    According to the American diplomats in Bulgaria building the station DECREASES our energy dependence from Russia and Russian oil and gas tycoons intentionally crafted the anti- power station propaganda. The cable explains the logic behind this statement at length; I won’t reproduce it here.

    I almost fell from the chair reading this cable. Why, oh why I don’t have the possibility to high jack all the media in BG and just shout, “Go read the cable, you idiots!”
    The people still argue like crazy about the issue and none has read the wikileaks. What a bunch of idiots we humans are, no?

  • by The Hatchet ( 1766306 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:48AM (#35210274)

    That is not about fear, it is about anger and outrage at the actions of certain wealthy, rich people in America destroying the things we hold most dear as a country, and have since the days of our founding.

  • by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @11:49AM (#35210292) Homepage Journal
    The current liberal market is younger and college level educated. The conservative market are older and although contains college level educated individuals its not as high as the liberal market.
    Statistics show that there are percentage wise more college educated republicans than democrats. Statistics also show that there are percentage-wise for more high school dropouts among democrats than among republicans. The only statistic which shows higher education among democrats is the slightly higher percentage of post graduate among democrats
    I hate to point this out, but those same fearful old conservatives 40 years ago were probably young educated liberals, and 40 years from now, today's young educated liberals will be fearful old conservatives. That's just the way it works. When we are young and essentially have not much money money and little responsibility and are getting supported more or less by the government through the education system, we selfishly want the government to continue those social and educational benefit programs which benefit us, then when we get older, get a job, get responsibilities, get taxed, we tend to selfishly want to keep the money which we have been working so hard to get. Looking out for number one is the name of the game in both cases, but don't feel bad, because if it weren't for looking out for number one, then we wouldn't be here today.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:13PM (#35210646)

    Beck could say the same thing, substituting buzzwords like "limousine liberals" or "champagne socialists" in place of "wealthy, rich". The "destroying America" meme is universal. Beck says "the liberals are destroying America - be angry and outraged!", you say "the wealthy rich are destroying America - be angry and outraged!".

    It's quite clear. Either both of you are using fear, or neither of you are. So which is it?

  • by mangu ( 126918 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:13PM (#35210648)

    What amazes me is that people feel they are somewhat superior to others because they believe in Bronze Age legends and take part in symbolic cannibalism rituals.

  • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo ( 1000167 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:16PM (#35210718)
    You're right and you're wrong (at least in my anecdotal case). I am a Christian and stopped going to church a few years back. There were a number of reasons, I didn't like constantly defending myself against what other crazier Christians were doing, and I didn't like wasting my time going to church every week when 99% of what they preached didn't make any sense or didn't apply to me. My faith is still there, I just learned that organized religion does nothing but puts up barriers. For the record I believe in evolution, questioning the bible, and tolerance for everybody, be they black, white, gay, Klingon, or even woman.
  • by gtbritishskull ( 1435843 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:28PM (#35210912)

    Public Broadcasting? Really? Is that the best you can come up with?

    You are comparing defunding of a public service to "the muslims are gonna kill us".

    You know us liberals, if we don't have public broadcasting then our life isn't worth anything. We might just all commit suicide.

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:36PM (#35211058) Journal

    exploiting fear in liberals is difficult compared to exploiting fear in conservatives

    I WISH someone would try to exploit my fears. If there were more people out there afraid of over reaching police powers and corporate control of the justice system, this country would be a much better place.

    The difference between conservative fears and liberal fears is that conservative fears are based in fantasy, liberal fears are based in reality. No, there are not, nor will there ever be Death Panels. On the other hand, yes the US government does actually spend over a billion dollars a year imprisoning its own citizens for doing nothing more than growing plants and consuming them.

  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:43PM (#35211160)

    The Christian god is like a Druid in WoW, three forms, tree for healing, feral cat for DPS and bear for tanking.

    The Mormon idea is that God has three alts.

    Jews say G-d doesn't heal or DPS and doesn't play alts, but sometimes trolls trade with a burning bush, wtf is up with that?

    Muslims say Allah doesn't log in, but runs the guild through the forums. - "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. God is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things"

  • Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:53PM (#35211322) Journal

    That is not about fear, it is about anger and outrage at the actions of certain wealthy, rich people in America destroying the things we hold most dear as a country, and have since the days of our founding.

    Government funding for media has been something we hold dear since our founding? Really? Shows like Sesame Street make millions of dollars in merchandise and licensing alone [wikipedia.org], but cutting off the small portion of their budget that comes from tax dollars is stabbing George Washington in the back?

    NPR states on one hand how government funding makes up such a small portion of their budget... combined government support is 5.8% of their budget [npr.org]... yet when someone suggests cutting off taxpayer support, their listeners act as if Hitler were back banning newspapers. That isn't hypocritical fearmongering?

  • by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:17PM (#35211652)

    I grew up in small town (population ~500) midwest. My teachers would ride me over reading comic books in middle school/high school. I was wasting my time with figments of my imagination.

    I saw these same people leaving the church each Sunday. It did not at all instill a sense of respect for them.

  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:18PM (#35211674) Journal

    Well it depends on how you look at it. And what you consider a conspiracy theorist/nutter. The BBC has a clear agenda of promoting a multicultural society while being run by the oxford elite and including very little of the multicultural society and villifying anyone who dares question this.

    Does that count? Probably not to someone who agrees with this point of view. Moron is such a subjective label after all. It always seems to apply to people you disagree with.

    Media tends to be owned by someone and that someone doesn't always have to be a single person. But overtime any company or group tends to hire like-minded individuals turning it more and more into a singular voice because you don't hire someone who disagrees with you.

    An example? In holland the Labour party PvDA (Partij van de Arbeid) is being called the (Partij van de Allochtonen/Immigrants) because of its soft stance. BUT this is a left leaning WORKER party, didn't they use to be dead against immigrants being used to take jobs away from local people and drive minimum wages down? Wasn't it in fact right wing parties that wanted immigrant labour from Turkey in europes to do jobs the companies didn't want to pay local workers for?

    Ah yes! So how can a party AGAINST immigration become labelled as PRO-immigration?

    Because over the years the leadership changed. From worker background/union to highly educated bleeding hearts. Some people think union and bleeding hearts are both left wing but that just goes to show the sillyness of trying to represent the whole political spectrum on a single axis. You wouldn't call Stalin a bleeding heart would you?

    But at the same time, how comes the dutch VVD (Right wing by dutch standards, commies by US standards) is now leading a government with a so-called strong anti-immigration agenda and even spawned Geert Wilders whose whole agenda is anti-immigration? Did they forget who championed the whole immigration move from Turkey in the first place?

    Yes, we got our nutters, but it depends on who you ask as to who is pointed out as the nutter. Geert Wilders and Job Cohen (leader of the PvDA) are BOTH considered insane by their opposition.

    Really, we had the queens speech a while ago, a person with her own far reaching audience and a guaranteed tv spot and half the nation hailed her speech and half condemned it.

    Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorists in your eyes, not in the eyes of his followers. Conspiracy is in the eye of the beholder. So it makes no sense to ask this question if you want an honest answer.

  • by IICV ( 652597 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:40PM (#35212014)

    However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity. I repeat, "God is One". Assuming God is all powerful, is it not feasible for him/her to manifest himself/herself in as many ways as he/she wishes? ...
      You should really learn just a wee bit about what you are spouting out before you look like a complete idiot.

    Maybe you should learn a bit more about the history of the Church before you go all-out on someone like that? The whole point of the the Trinity is that it's a compromise - in the Church's history, there was a powerful group of people who were convinced that God really did have three separate forms, and there was a group of people (who currently had official power) who were convinced that God having three separate forms was a polytheistic heresy.

    In order to prevent a giant schism, they essentially made a compromise by fiat - God is three separate things (to appease the first group), but God is also one thing (to appease the second group). It makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever in any way, like many compromises do; and in fact, every logical way of explaining the concept of the Trinity has been deemed heretical, because by definition it will either fall on the side of God is one thing, or God is three things - and by definition, He must be both. It's like trying to straddle the line between 1 and 0 in discrete binary, there exists no correct middle ground. It's so bad that the Catholic Church officially considers the Trinity a "Mystery", which is code for "don't try to explain this or else you'll figure out the whole thing is kind of a scam".

  • by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @02:18PM (#35212572) Journal

    That's just a rehashing of the "don't be a dick" argument. The basic premise is pragmatic and sensible, but it's easily stretched to the point where pragmatism gives way to pandering. I can safely say that my morality is superior to anyones whose morality relies on divine edict and eternal punishments/rewards. It doesn't make me superior in general. The Pope might be a fine golfer, in which case he's certainly my superior on the driving range. I reckon though I can prove myself more ethical than he, and certainly more modest in that only a criminal, or someone afflicted with phenomenal egomaniacal delusion, would place themselves as the go-to guy of the most powerful being in all creation.

    A mixture of honey and vinegar is what's needed. Your comments, being generalisations from the other end of the spectrum, seem a little on the sour side.

  • by Beelzebud ( 1361137 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @04:11PM (#35214042)
    I wish he'd finally have his Lonesome Rhodes moment, and get it over with.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...