Moving this video to ToastyBuffoon's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by wormwood.

It appears that neither one of them bothered to actually Google "anarchism" prior to the show. Also, their generalization of the Occupy movement was shameful. You may disagree with their presentation but they have legitimate concerns.

that blackboard is pathetically hilarious!

because yes, it's possible to diagram the complexities of the human condition as it pertains to politics and governance so simply.

And even if it were possible. Glen Beck is the one that's got it figured out? yeah right.

He, and to a lesser degree, Jillette are both pretending they're these deep intellectuals, when reality they're both just personalities performing mutual masturbation of their egos.

I'm tired of these people constantly treating the gov't as the enemy.

Government is......YOU.

Gov't is a reflection of the people it governs. So if gov't does poorly, that means we as a people did poorly. People of all political leanings work in gov't Doesn't matter if the Legislature/Executive/Judicial lean left or right, the vast bulk of the gov't and it's functions are made up of people just like you and me.

so if you don't like it, it's your duty to vote or to run for office. stop being an armchair politician and participate. It's easy to sit from afar and point fingers. It's hard to actually be involved.

This idea that each person is a nation unto itself is absurd. It's ego run amok. You don't know everything, you can't do everything. We are better together than we are apart.

I'm also fed up with how people like to put the Constitution on this pedestal as this divine document. Yes, it's a very good document. It serves a very useful purpose. But it is not this infallible, divine creation some people seem to think it is. If it was so great, we wouldn't need Amendments.

The history of human governance can be summed up in one sentence: "Well, we thought it was a good idea at the time." Guess what, in the future, someone is going to come up with a better idea, and further down the road, someone's going to come up with something better than that...and so on and so on. Each future generation is going to look back at us us and say "what the hell were you idiots thinking?!" Just like we look at our previous generations and say the same thing.

It is curious where Penn Jillette draws the line on protecting people's rights. On one hand, he will protect the minority-of-one in the case of a nativity scene on public property... but on the other, he will not protect the minority who is looking for a morning-after pill in an area that is so religious that pharmacists will not carry or sell it. (or the nurse from a Catholic hospital having abortion coverage)

Surely the minority's right is to be protected as well? It's unfortunate that both of these men haven't figured out that most civil rights wedge-issues come from an argument of X's rights are more important than Y's.

The right already co-opted the term 'libertarian' from the left. 'Anarchism' seems to be the next term they want to redefine in their own image. I think they are trying to create a conservative 'left wing', so that when they officially lose the culture war, they have a fall back position.

This was a great act of outreach for understanding atheism.

Jillette illustrates how there's an effort to change the definition of the word atheism to encompass basically anyone who isn't religious, which I really don't agree with.

definitions matter, but then again, language is fluid.

Yes they were nice to each other, but both are still idiots politically. While Glenn is an evil fuck grifter, Penn is yet another Randroid asshole.