Skip to content

Glenn Beck is so stupid he calls himself a terrorist

According to Beck, if you hate the American government you are a terrorist, and especially if you stir up hatred against the American government you are a terrorist. He was talking about Muslims of course, but what does that make Glenn Beck?



  1. Mad Hatter wrote:

    What that makes Glenn Beck is…!! With this Obama “compromise” on taxes, he’ll be even richer. Is this a great country or what??

    Sunday, December 12, 2010 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
  2. Don wrote:

    What an air head (or as my friend Peter would say “dumbhead”)!! I can no longer take him seriously as a thinking human being. He and Limbaugh have evolved into something else and I’m not sure what it is. Oh well, at least he provides a bit of comic relief now and again. 157,000,000 Muslim terrorists? Damn!

    Sunday, December 12, 2010 at 8:18 pm | Permalink
  3. No u wrote:

    Ugh…I(and many others I’m sure) really use to like Beck, but ever since the tea party thing…he’s gone off the deep end…Palin too, she had a good point every once and awhile before, but when the tea party came alive…its just downhill

    Monday, December 13, 2010 at 4:56 am | Permalink
  4. Jeff wrote:

    Glenn Beck’s response today on his radio show was that Mr. Zakaria was lying and taking things out of context. He went on to say that Mr. Zakaria called him out on a “technicality”, in this case the dictionary definition of “terrorist”. Unfortunately, his website doesn’t have his transcript yet. It was very humorous.

    Monday, December 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
  5. Iron Knee wrote:

    Yeah, a “technicality”. Like, technically, Beck is a lying bag of self-righteous and self-pitying crap?

    Monday, December 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
  6. Mad Hatter wrote:

    I’d say that technically you hit the nail square on the head, IK.

    No U…I became aware of and listened to Beck probably around the time he left CNN. I’ve never heard anything useful or meaningful leave his mouth in that time. When did you like Beck and why??

    Monday, December 13, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
  7. patriotsgt wrote:

    Don’t hold back now IK, let it all out!

    Monday, December 13, 2010 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
  8. starluna wrote:

    Have you ever read Harry Frankfurt’s book “Bullshit”? He is a philosopher who wrote this tiny little book after he retired. I highly recommend it and it is a very short (the book is only 4X6 written double spaced in 12 point font) and very readable. He argues that there is an important difference between the liar and the bullshitter. The key difference is that the liar actually does care about the truth that he is attempting to deceive you about. “A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it.” The bullshitter, on the other hand, does not care about the truth at all. He only cares about the outcome of his intentional deceptions. “[The bullshitter] does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.” He concludes that bullshitters are in fact more dangerous than liars because of this sociopathic (my term, not his) element to the intent behind the deception.

    On this basis, I believe that Beck is a bullshitter. He does not seem to care whether there are facts or whether something is even knowable. He is just saying bullshit to give some kind of impression in the pursuit of profit and maybe ego. Maybe he was not hugged enough as a child.

    Monday, December 13, 2010 at 8:11 pm | Permalink
  9. Iron Knee wrote:

    PatriotSgt, note that I was not actually saying that Beck is a lying bag of self-righteous and self-pitying crap, I was just using that phrase as an example of a “technicality” in the same way that Beck was using it.

    I have plausible deniability.

    Monday, December 13, 2010 at 9:04 pm | Permalink
  10. patriotsgt wrote:

    IK, Have you ever considered politics or working for the gov? LOL

    Starluna, right on with the bullshit!

    Get the boots out everyone cause its deep. What are you guys doing watching Beck. I don’t even watch Beck, he and Hannity give me a headache like Olberman and Matthews do. They’re polar twins to each other. See, thats how these idiots keep their ratings up. People who agree with them and the people who disagree all tune in and they laugh all the way to the bank. They probably play golf together and give each other high fives.

    Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 6:56 am | Permalink
  11. Bert wrote:

    IK, you don’t get deniability, your news organization isn’t politically biased enough.

    Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
  12. Dan wrote:

    PatriotSgt, Let’s not get started with the false equivalence again. Olbermann and Matthews and Beck and Hannity may all give you headaches, but not everything that seems similar is.

    There is a very significant difference between Olbermann and Hannity, and the distinction is not entirely unrelated to Frankfurter’s concept of Bullshit. Namely, Olbermann’s deeply held views are supported by evidence, while Hannity is quite happy to support his views by (equally deeply held) faith.

    I wager that any sensible measure of belief based of evidence versus belief based on faith will show that Fox News has a preponderance of the latter.

    PS: I can’t stand Matthews either, but even his style is not similar to Beck of Hannity…

    Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
  13. patriotsgt wrote:

    I mostly agree with you Dan, but I believe Matthews/Olberman do some one sided rants and ignore the other half of the argument to make their point.

    What I’d really enjoy is seeing the 4 of them locked in a room with 3 chairs and food for one and kept there until they could agree that none of them has any business calling themselves reporters or journalists. To get out they’d need to be able to say 5 positive things about each of their opposites. Now that would be a reality show I’d watch. 🙂

    Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
  14. starluna wrote:

    Dan – I don’t know that Olbermann’s views are entirely based on evidence. I would argue that such a thing isn’t even possible. The meaning of facts can only be made through interpretations based on values.

    The problem for me is because the means by which all four men get their message out is very similar, it is difficult to determine whether their views are bullshit, elaborate intentional deception, or are based on facts and values.

    Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 8:39 am | Permalink
  15. Dan wrote:

    Starluna, I would go one step further: the separation of “fact”, “opinion”, “value” is all non-existent. Even so-called facts are based on interpretation.

    Two points:
    1. It’s not so much if Olbermann gets his evidence right all the time, or if he has all the necessary evidence for every conclusion. (Very rare that anyone should fully achieve that to everyone’s satisfaction.) It’s that he cares about the evidence. (Hence the tangential reference to “On Bullshit”.) I’m sure Hannity would say he does too. I simply wager there’s significantly less. One simple measure would be to count the number of self-contradictions. I my view, self-consistency is a virtue on a similar footing to rationality and evidence-based argument.

    2. PatriotSgt, I agree that Olbermann does polemicise frequently. As a scientist, I find polemic to be unhelpful and irritating. But I concede that in the greater public discourse there are occasional spaces for the polemic style, as long as it is clearly labelled.

    Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 7:53 am | Permalink
  16. starluna wrote:

    Dan – I think this is where style and substance get mixed up. Olbermann’s polemic style does not facilitate assessment of evidence by viewers. ThoughtDancer had a post on this recently in her blog about how all of the elements of rhetoric can either help or hurt the transmission of the message. And while I would agree that a little less “neutrality” can be a welcome thing, if it is the normal style of someone who puts himself out to be a newsman, it makes me skeptical about the content of the message.

    Remember that one of the characteristics of bullshit isn’t just that the bullshitter doesn’t care about facts and will make stuff up. It is also that they will cherrypick their evidence to meet their own needs. For what it’s worth, to the extent that PolitiFact’s assessments are more or less accurate, in the seven statements made by Olbermann that they have evaluated, only two (29%) have been found to be mostly true. Three (43%) were half true and 2 (29%) were false.

    This contrasts to Beck’s 47% False and Pants on Fire assessments, but that only goes to show what we all know: Beck is full of shit.

    Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 8:16 am | Permalink