"Hire this man!"
-Fox Exec

*quality find

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

It amazes me how this stupid fuckin nut job is still on TeleVision(tm).

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

its an important metric... of something important... like intelligence of a society or intentions of a newscorp or something.. but we already know people are dumb assholes... so i guess its just a resulting paradigm... an example of a pattern.

It's true! When compared to Glen Beck, everyone else is slanted.

>> ^bobknight33:

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

>> ^bobknight33:

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc


I'm not gonna defend MSNBC because they're stupid. But how could you think that anything Glenn Beck says is correct or in anyway good? He's a complete moron, anyone can see that you don't need any sort of degree he's just stupid.

>> ^bobknight33:

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc


Yeeee Geet naw yea hear. Great furr target practice. hiiiiIIIIIi yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Glenn Beck is mentally ill, I'll bet my liver on it. To not be able to notice that he's paranoid and deluded, both in dangerous amounts, reveals something quite worrying about you.

He makes a lot of money doing something that he's good at, and it just happens to be preaching crazy to susceptible ears.

And I bet its hard for him to even tell what is "pushing it too far", because he doesn't really care,... he's just playing a role.

If he talked about something that actually interested him, like Mormonism, he'd probably seem like a different person.

He's a shock jock just taking a paycheck to do exactly that...shock people.

He was whining about health care being sucky too until the left wanted to actually do something about it. Then suddenly out of nowhere US health care was the greatest thing in the world and you were a terrorist for suggesting otherwise.

He's nothing more than a paid hitman. I'm sure he'd change his gears in a second if someone paid him enough.

Theres also the argument that his power is really in his ability to make listeners think he is giving them access to hidden dealings and secret histories that the 'others' are keeping from them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03beck-t.html

Good article about Glenn there.

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.

Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?

There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'? Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.

Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.

Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it*.

*Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing




>> ^bobknight33:

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right?



Noam holds many conservative views actually. Most of his conservative views line up with the majority of society.

I hear ad hominems get upvotes.

The "Left" and "Center" better start buying up mega-media corporations if anyone wants to stop this kind of drivel. It's designed to go nowhere, just as illustrated by bobknight33. Beck is ridiculous to all but an ignorant borderline nutcase.

only one person is responsible... the shooter. beck is a master troll but "shoot them in the head" != shoot them in the head

You can take anyone out of context, from Jesus Christ to your mother.

You won't find the truth that way.

TL;DR version - my team is better than your team.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.
Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?
There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.
Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.
Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.
Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it .
Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing


>> ^bobknight33:
Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
... What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? ...

I'd buy that for a dollar!

>> ^waynef100:

only one person is responsible... the shooter. beck is a master troll but "shoot them in the head" != shoot them in the head

I guess you missed the "I’m not arguing that Glenn Beck is responsible for the Tucson shooting spree..." part of the description.

Glenn Beck:

"I could give a flying crap about the political process."... "We're an entertainment company."

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/entertainment-fox-news-simon-schuster-glenn-beck-inc.html?boxes=Homepagechannels


And on another note:

http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/if-rappers-can-take-heat-for-inflammatory-words-why-cant-sarah-palin/

In the interest of fostering a proper discussion instead of a focus on a cherry-picked selection...

"But what the politicians don't understand, the ones who have co-opted these revolutionaries and brought them in the process, is they are dangerous. Why? Well, because a lot of them have called for violent revolution in the past and they never distanced themselves from it…

Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. You will need to shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you. They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about."

I don't condone over the top rhetoric. If I had a TV show, I probably would not be using a phrase like 'shoot in the head'. Just isn't the way I roll. However, it is a patently false accusation to say that Beck was telling people to shoot "his opponents" in the head.

Quite clearly the context of his quote dismisses such an interpretation.

1. He's talking about left-wing "radicals" and "revolutionaries" - people who are determined, dyed-in-the-wool left extremists who have and still have never renounced their proclaimed determination to bring about a revolution, by violence if necessary. Guys like Van Jones and Bill Ayers and their ilk.

2. Then he's talking about conservatives like himself that you are going to have to shoot in the head to stop them from speaking about the founders & conservative ideals.

3. Then he's talking about Democrats who have supposedly 'co-opted' these radicals as allies in order to advance leftist, liberal causes. And he gives them a warning that - like conservatives - you're going to have to shoot them in the head before the stop fighting for what they believe in - or they just might turn on their former allies and shoot them when 'the revolution' comes as the radicals define it.

If you're going to bring up a topic, at least do it accurately.

I see no difference between Glen and the radical Muslims in the middle east. well, except for the fact that he shaves his beard and wears a suit. The message is still the same - 2 hour monologues about why your life sucks and how you should kill the other guys.

Fools, you guys hear what you want from this clip. Clearly what he is talk about is not literal "shoot them in the head" but but rather a call for a particular party to distance themselves from extremist peoples actions. I hate Glenn Beck but I also have a brain. A 20 second clip is not enough to base a whole argument on left/right and "no better then" flames at the bottom of a video. I thought the sift was smarter then youtubbers, but I guess not.

Be objective.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, you left out some opinion in there.

Is this kind of rhetoric a defensible use of speech, something he deserves to be criticized for, or something that possibly constitutes a crime?

By comparison, what's your opinion of the historical use of blood libel against Jews? In your opinion, was that a defensible use of speech, something to be merely criticized, or something serious enough to consider a criminal act?

I mean, after all, the blood libel was just a warning to people to keep an eye on their children if they associate with Jews, right?

I dislike Glenn Beck and deep down I really want him out of the limelight. But, this is America - let him say whatever he wants; maybe, if enough people take him serious and enough whack jobs come out of the woodwork utilizing his "inspiration" the right will try to distance themselves, then, give themselves a long hard review in the mirror and shit out another rough-draft of the "conservative" movement. All I can hope for is that the right wakes up with a movement that actually cares about the people of America and not the 1% who own 60+% of all capital in the US who would continue to screw everyone over.

Is this kind of rhetoric a defensible use of speech, something he deserves to be criticized for, or something that possibly constitutes a crime?

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime. I believe in freedom. I would never dare to try to make it a crime for a person to speak their mind on an issue. Such censorship is repulsive to me, and antithetical to a free society. Do I think he 'deserves' criticism? Only in the same sense that anyone 'deserves' to be criticized in a free society for having an opinion.

By comparison, what's your opinion of the historical use of blood libel against Jews? In your opinion, was that a defensible use of speech, something to be merely criticized, or something serious enough to consider a criminal act?

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

All I can hope for is that the right wakes up with a movement that actually cares about the people of America and not the 1% who own 60+% of all capital in the US who would continue to screw everyone over.

I suggest you locate the closest chapter of the Tea Party movement.

Seriously though - what government plan (Democrat OR Republican) has ever resulted in moving that "1% richest" needle? People who get rich get rich, and by definition that means they have tons more money than the average guy. Rich liberals don't give 95% of their wealth to the poor, or gift it to the government for 'fair redistribution' (which means government gets it and the people don't) any more than rich Republicans do. So it is meaningless to blame wealth inequity on 'the right'. Wealth inequality is a factor of the human condition - not any particular political philosophy.

Words fail to describe how awesome this paragraph is.

I think the issue with the word "bias" is that people have forgotten the real meaning of the word. Arguments are only "bias" because it's become synonymous with "expresses a view I don't share".

The tragedy of this is kind of thinking is that it actually ends up causing a real bias: confirmation bias (or what you called "echo chamber syndrome"). This new definition of "bias" encourages people to tune out information that doesn't fit neatly into their own viewpoint because -- by definition -- it's "biased." As a result they wind up seeing only the things that confirm their preconceived notions, hence the name confirmation bias.

In my opinion, the key to living in modern society is being ever vigilant for confirmation bias in yourself, and doing your best to try to remember that no one holds a viewpoint that they themselves think is untrue.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

<blushes> Thank you for the kind words, NetRunner. >> ^NetRunner:

Words fail to describe how awesome this paragraph is.
I think the issue with the word "bias" is that people have forgotten the real meaning of the word. Arguments are only "bias" because it's become synonymous with "expresses a view I don't share".
The tragedy of this is kind of thinking is that it actually ends up causing a real bias: confirmation bias (or what you called "echo chamber syndrome"). This new definition of "bias" encourages people to tune out information that doesn't fit neatly into their own viewpoint because -- by definition -- it's "biased." As a result they wind up seeing only the things that confirm their preconceived notions, hence the name confirmation bias.
In my opinion, the key to living in modern society is being ever vigilant for confirmation bias in yourself, and doing your best to try to remember that no one holds a viewpoint that they themselves think is untrue.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

Oh look, @NetRunner and @dystopianfuturetoday just sucked each other off. I've never seen them do that before on her. Oh wait, yes I have, like every damn day.

Never!
With Glen, rational thinking and objectivity went out a long time ago. He's a fucking idiot and no amount of reconciliation or spin will bring back his birth-given dignity.


>> ^v1k1n6:

Fools, you guys hear what you want from this clip. Clearly what he is talk about is not literal "shoot them in the head" but but rather a call for a particular party to distance themselves from extremist peoples actions. I hate Glenn Beck but I also have a brain. A 20 second clip is not enough to base a whole argument on left/right and "no better then" flames at the bottom of a video. I thought the sift was smarter then youtubbers, but I guess not.
Be objective.

This is basically what religions have been doing for thousands of years - drowning out the other voices. We have the one true word, so sayeth Rachel Maddow/Glenn Beck/Ron Paul/Mohammed/Jesus/dag/etc.
>> ^NetRunner:

Words fail to describe how awesome this paragraph is.
I think the issue with the word "bias" is that people have forgotten the real meaning of the word. Arguments are only "bias" because it's become synonymous with "expresses a view I don't share".
The tragedy of this is kind of thinking is that it actually ends up causing a real bias: confirmation bias (or what you called "echo chamber syndrome"). This new definition of "bias" encourages people to tune out information that doesn't fit neatly into their own viewpoint because -- by definition -- it's "biased." As a result they wind up seeing only the things that confirm their preconceived notions, hence the name confirmation bias.
In my opinion, the key to living in modern society is being ever vigilant for confirmation bias in yourself, and doing your best to try to remember that no one holds a viewpoint that they themselves think is untrue.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

@dystopianfuturetoday @NetRunner

I think Sam Harris (in this) is closest to the mark you're both going for when he says "Very few people are comfortable to being enemies of reason."

I think you can stretch that statement a long way. By using, as he suggests, words like evidence and reason, you can push people into admitting they are being unreasonable or at least concede that their arguments don't have evidentiary support. These two argument techniques should already be the basis for intellectual conversation and debate. Unfortunately that isn't always the case.

People easily fall into logical fallacies because they're ignorant of what they are and of how decieving they can be. People also are very unwilling to change their minds once made up, as you pointed out. Beyond that though, majority of the population is ill-equipped when it comes to critical thinking skills.

Dystopianfuture is right to admit faults, and (not to simply follow suit with an unoriginal idea but hey it's a Catch-22) let me join in in admitting that I am guilty of bad/emotional rhetoric but I try my best to provide evidence when called for and to be a rational person in general.

I hope others will do the same lest we end up like Idiocracy (though remember intelligence is not a prerequisite for reproduction, oh shit nevermind, looks like we're fucked, exibit 1, exibit 2)

Better get used to Beck as MSNBC will be out once Comcast starts running things.

Out of genuine curiosity, can anyone tell me the name of the last non-conservative person to go on a shooting spree in efforts to make his or her point? Thank you.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Glenn, Beck, Shoot, Them, In, the, Head' to 'Glenn, Beck, Shoot Them In the Head, liberals, communism' - edited by xxovercastxx

WTF's a "youtubber???" LOL! Foo!

>> ^v1k1n6:

Fools, you guys hear what you want from this clip. Clearly what he is talk about is not literal "shoot them in the head" but but rather a call for a particular party to distance themselves from extremist peoples actions. I hate Glenn Beck but I also have a brain. A 20 second clip is not enough to base a whole argument on left/right and "no better then" flames at the bottom of a video. I thought the sift was smarter then youtubbers, but I guess not.
Be objective.

actually Beck here is referring to Nancy Pelosi having to shoot communists in the head to keep American office safe. [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f5r9c/glenn_beck_61010_youre_going_to_have_to_shoot/c1dhop2] It's not better; actually i think it's worse. it's a means of veiling violent "shoot xperson in the head" rhetoric that is inflammatory, divisive, and from my own personal "slant," as it were, seems completely lacking in research or connection to reality. I listen to all sides and I find that the more I listen the more I hear baseless arguments on either side of media that I would call Disinformation with a capital D. The simple fact is that nobody in a news outlet is willing to step up and brave the political ramifications of digging into some real fact and actually changing the tides. I think Assange's current work has people scared of consequences... not to mention what may happen if all of the sudden some truth got leaked into American homes. Truths like "The Cold War is over" or "Communism was never really a threat in the first place," perhaps with the exception of the Cuban Missle Crisis- which was a total SNAFU. I guess point being that anyone who says if you find a communist in the US government, shoot them in the head- is either completely insane or is playing a part that pays very, very well. /end rant

O snap, I think everyone just got pwned! Who can we take out of context next!

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:

actually Beck here is referring to Nancy Pelosi having to shoot communists in the head to keep American office safe. [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments
/f5r9c/glenn_beck_61010_youre_going_to_have_to_shoot/c1dhop2] It's not better; actually i think it's worse. it's a means of veiling violent "shoot xperson in the head" rhetoric that is inflammatory, divisive, and from my own personal "slant," as it were, seems completely lacking in research or connection to reality. I listen to all sides and I find that the more I listen the more I hear baseless arguments on either side of media that I would call Disinformation with a capital D. The simple fact is that nobody in a news outlet is willing to step up and brave the political ramifications of digging into some real fact and actually changing the tides. I think Assange's current work has people scared of consequences... not to mention what may happen if all of the sudden some truth got leaked into American homes. Truths like "The Cold War is over" or "Communism was never really a threat in the first place," perhaps with the exception of the Cuban Missle Crisis- which was a total SNAFU. I guess point being that anyone who says if you find a communist in the US government, shoot them in the head- is either completely insane or is playing a part that pays very, very well. /end rant

I don't know about 'the last', but Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist.


>> ^bookface:

Out of genuine curiosity, can anyone tell me the name of the last non-conservative person to go on a shooting spree in efforts to make his or her point? Thank you.

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime.

Not really. Incitement to violence is illegal.

Hell, even libel and slander are still technically illegal.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

Sorry, but you're doing it again -- asserting conclusions without making an argument. You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent.

Beck's is more explicitly violent than actual blood libel (though perhaps quite a bit less visceral and imaginative) because he's talking about shooting people in the head.

Here's your own paraphrase of Beck:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[H]e gives them a warning that - like conservatives - you're going to have to shoot them in the head before the stop fighting for what they believe in - or they just might turn on their former allies and shoot them when 'the revolution' comes as the radicals define it.

What's the moral difference between this, and "the liberal Jews are stealing the blood of Christian babies for their rituals, and they're such total zealots for their religion that the only way you, Nancy Pelosi, can stop them from doing this is to put a bullet in their head. And you better do that before they put a knife in your children"?

All I'm really changing is adding a gratuitous mention of Jews, and changing "violent communist revolution" into "uses the blood of Christian babies for rituals", which I think are close substitutes in terms of the kind of effect on their audience.

Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who's distributing it. Lies that dehumanize people, and make them sound like a direct threat to your safety are at best laying groundwork for justifying violence, and at worst are an explicit incitement to violent acts.

If the idea of blood libel bothers you, so should Beck libel.

*backup=[]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by NetRunner.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@dystopianfuturetoday @NetRunner
... Beyond that though, majority of the population is ill-equipped when it comes to critical thinking skills.

You're far too kind...the vast majority of the population is not only ill-equipped for critical thinking, they're completely unarmed in -any- battle of wits. Worse, most of them take pride in that very fact.

Not really. Incitement to violence is illegal. Hell, even libel and slander are still technically illegal.

I said "criticize". Moving the goalpost to incitement to violence, libel, and slander is the application of a completely different subject. I said in the US you can criticize anyone you want about anything you want. Switching targets to inciting violence, libel, and slander makes a discussion on criticism implausible, as the terms have clear legal definitions - none of which are applicable to a discussion about generic 'criticism'. If that's what you wanted to talk about, then that's what you should have said in the first place, and I am not responsible that inaccuracy.

You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent.

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

What's the moral difference between this, and "the liberal Jews are stealing the blood of Christian babies for their rituals, and they're such total zealots for their religion that the only way you, Nancy Pelosi, can stop them from doing this is to put a bullet in their head. And you better do that before they put a knife in your children"?

I said what the difference was quite clearly above. One is a falsehood about a genetic race inspired by a government pogrom. The other is an opinion in a public forum by a private individual. The blood libel issue was a falsehood meant to be taken as a literal description of Jewish religious practice. Bombastic political rhetoric in a free society does NOT in any way equate to blood libel. If it did, then you'd have to shut down every political rally, every newspaper, every news broadcast, every radio station, or personal discussion in the nation. That includes the Videosift - including this very thread. I ask you... What is the moral difference between blood libel and the mischaracterization of what Beck's statement as a call for actual violence? Is not your attempt to falsely equate Beck's comment with actual violence against others just another form of blood libel or 'propoganda'?

Lies that dehumanize people, and make them sound like a direct threat to your safety are at best laying groundwork for justifying violence, and at worst are an explicit incitement to violent acts.

Does that mean you are comfortable with censoring speech and thought in the name of the greater good? Does that apply to the political left and thier "contextually violent" rhetoric as well? And who gets to make the decisions about what is or isn't crossing the line?

Nope - I reject the soft totalitariansim of censorship in the name of subjective, whimsical, biased political correctness. Freedom of speech trumps other concerns. The only time freedom of speech becomes dangerous is when it is limited by government, or self-appointed arbiters.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker I think I'm just about ready to write you off as someone worth replying to.

I asked how you thought what Beck said compared to blood libel, and you said:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

When I challenge you on your assertion, you deny the assertion:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

(emphasis in both is mine)

This is the fundamental problem I have with you. Whatever fact someone uses as the basis of a conclusion, you accuse the speaker of fabricating that fact, even if it's trivially and incontrovertibly validated.

It's just not conducive to civil discourse to casually accuse people of lying. Assume I misunderstood, and just try making your point more explicitly.

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

It's a two way street Netrunner. I made my position very clear. Most political speech in the US - including Beck's - is non-violent and in no way relates to blood libel. I made no bones about my position in that regard.

My initial post made no comment about whether Beck used violent or non-violent speech. It was just a full-context description of the Beck quote. I referred back to that initial post because that's what I thought you were talking about. I was mistaken in my understanding of what you were referring too. No need to go all drama-queen about it.

But on to the subtance rather than the pointless. You said, "You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent."

Your whole position seems to be that Beck's whole "you're going to have to shoot me in the head" schtick is the equivalent of Nazi blood libel... You've asked several times 'what's the difference'? I explained the difference. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to accept the explanation. The only possible reason is that you reject the idea that what Beck said is 'not violent', but that you actually in fact and all reality believe that there is no difference.

I've said it afore in the Daily Show thread, and I'll say it again. I do not consider political bombast to be violent, nor is is a 'call' for violence, and it does not inspire or 'gin up' violence either. When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech. When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech. When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech. When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.

No right-minded person who hears these things construes them as actual calls for real-world violence. These are political phrases, passionate rhetoric, 'metaphors' (as you once said), or stupid exaggerations. Bachman does not actually expect people to go around armed and dangerous. Obama does not really expect people to bring guns. Beck does not expect people to get shot in the head (himself or others).

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

I didn't have Beck in mind specifically, but he is certainly included under the same rubrik. No one believes Beck was either calling for himself to be shot in the head, or for others to be actually shot in the head. Would I have used the phrase if I had a TV show? Highly unlikely. However, I defend the right of dummies to run off the mouth. It helps you see who they are. So when right wing bombasts like Beck flap their yaps, I applaud it. Much like when I applaud it when left wing bombasts like Maddow or Maher vomit out the true landscape of their minds.

So let's take each of those in turn.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech.
"Target demographics" isn't even remotely violent, since "target" can also mean "goal", and not just something you shoot at.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.
With the "We will keep a boot on the throat" quote, context matters. For one, Gibbs was quoting Ken Salazar, and for another it's clear from context it's a metaphor for "keep pressure on BP", and not meaning that Ken Salazar plans on literally putting a boot on someone's neck, especially since BP, as a corporation, doesn't actually have a neck.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech.
This one is in another category. It isn't really a metaphor; we're supposed to take it to literally mean he's never going to voluntarily surrender his guns under any circumstance short of, or even including, lethal force. But it's not coupled with statements that people will likely be coming to threaten to kill you if you don't give up your guns. He's not saying that only violence will stop gun control advocates. It's a colorful and bombastic expression of a deeply held belief, but he's also explicitly trying to have a conversation with the other side, not saying that talk will never work.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech.
Now, this one in isolation would be very similar to the above. But it's not in isolation. It's followed by this:

They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
...
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.