Comments

1
And I care about anything he says because...?
2
I hope Satan has a very warm coat. He's going to need it.
3
Mission accomplished.
4
Facts have a liberal bias.
5
"But we should FIX the mistakes we made the first time and GET IN THERE AGAIN."
6
Take your allies where you can.
You don't have to agree with everything that Beck says.
Seize upon his POV and welcome him on that issue.
Make common cause with him.

Shorter: grow up.
7

Have to wonder if the rebellions in Egypt, Libya, would have happened without a large standing US Army ready to swoop in, as well as with the destruction of the largest authoritarian regime around, Iraq.

No we shouldn't go back. But should we have gone in in the first place? Seems like a lot has changed for the better from 2003 to 2013.

8
hey let's sing a song!
WAR (huh!) WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING except a chance to show a photo of a nasty war wound.
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/…
Glenn Beck. Paul Constant. Glenn Beck. Paul Constant SAY IT AGAIN and again and again. We're the American Media, we don't fight, we just love ourselves!


9
100,000 people dead, billions of dollars lost....
ooops, my bad...all is forgiven.
10
I wanted to say something about a stopped clock, except Glenn Beck is more broken than one. He's like a clock running on some other planet's time, which is almost never right on Earth.

11
Focus on what is important.

Making fun of Beck is not important.
12
In fact I will say it more directly.

If you care about this country and yourself, don't waste time by making fun of or feeling superior about Beck.

Beck is a potential ally when it comes to preventing Iraq 3. There are many people who still follow him.

To the extent it makes sense, work with him where we can.

13
And Conservatives were wrong on Iraq and so many other issues. Still are.
14
Thank you for that breath of reality and vision @6
15
Glenn Beck is an asshole, and this once again proves it. Was he wrong about Iraq? Yes. But guess what? SO WHERE LIBERALS! The liberals in the Senate/Congress all voted for the war, including Hillary. It was a handful of real progressives (like Kucinich) libertarians (like Ron Paul) and old-school conservatives (like Buchanan) who were against it.
He should have said "neo-cons suck and I'm sorry I supported them."
16
Funny, considering not one publication to the left of The New York Times was shilling harder for invading Iraq than The Stranger was ten years ago. Dan Savage sucked off Donald Rumsfeld with such animal-like ferocity that he couldn't talk for weeks.
17
@6 The man has been mentally ill for several years. Just because his latest bout of psychosis has an element of truth to it doesn't change his condition.
18
@16: christ do we have to go through this every-fucking time the Iraq comes up?

No, The Stranger was not shilling for the war. There were pieces in the paper (thanks Josh) that were eloquently and vehemently against the invasion. Yes, Dan was for it. An opinion that he has apologized for repeatedly over the years.

I swear, it seems like any Slog piece on Iraq ought to come with a footnote saying "before you comment and say something stupid read these..." with links to relevant articles/posts.
19
@17
I didn't suggest marrying Beck.

It's P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.

You work with people where you can and you don't work where you don't agree.

Politics is not a purity test.

20
@9 has my opinion nailed down.

"Oops, my bad" is not good policy when it comes to war.
21
@19 Beck has nothing to offer as an ally. Ergo your argument is moot.
22
Glenn Beck says whatever gets him the most attention at that moment. Nothing he says is anything more than an attempt at more dollars, and should be treated as such.

God knows what the man actually believes, but he is a fucking genius in that he has found out how to become one of the richest entertainers in the world without having any talent, saying nothing of substance or taking responsibility for anything.
23
@19,

Punditry is not politics, it's entertainment.
24
@22
"STFU"
I'm quoting you, asshole.
25
@22: Actually, only a minority of humans are not in sync with their beliefs and are espousing "beliefs" for a contorted or Machiavellian purpose. No, people, particularly in the media, believe their viewpoints and convey them with all the passion and vigor they can muster.
And then, folks change their minds. So their audience can question their sincerity but without empirical evidence of other factors, there's really no purpose in making the case of insincerity.
26
@25: Like you and your lot care about empirical evidence, Mr. I-Don't-Think-Climate-Change-Is-Real-And-I'm-Gonna-Quote-April-Fools-Jokes-To-Prove-It.
27
@19 You work with crazy and you get crazy results. Other than urging him to get help, he should be ignored.
28
@26: You can let that go now, as it was only an inadvertent research citation inaccuracy.
29
@28: You wouldn't run into those issues if you looked for reliable evidence regardless of its implications rather than just cherry-picking evidence that you think backs up your opinions.
Hey, remember when you were posting under the name "Gay Dude for Romney" and you called yourself a "suckputter"? I SURE DO.
30
@29 That was an awesome thread, sorry I missed the party, thanks for the link.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.