The Stupidest Man on Television

David Williamson

Never mind, the ice is melting, so you should be farming before long... careful, your elitism is showing.

Craig Strachan

Beck's no libertarian.

But then neither was the 2008 presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party.

Dave Weeden

As a Brit, I'm really glad to see that the US is importing our comedies. I only wonder why it took them 15 years to appreciate 'The Day Today'. I believe that Steve Carrell does a pretty good job in the Ricky Gervais role in the American version of 'The Office.' Now, at last, we have Alan Partridge across the pond. Does he do sport too?

Rhoda Klapp

It is frequently observe that some people would rather make a personal attack on someone than engage in argument with their position. That is what you are doing here. If Beck is so stupid, it should be easy to base you attack on what he says, not some ad hominem remark and a video, so we don't even know what your position is.

What's the definition of shoddy journalism? Journalism.

Conservative Cabbie

Glenn Beck is a pillock - but can I suggest Chris "thrill up my leg" Matthews.

Not only is he stupid, argumentitive but judging by his latest comments about Bobby Jindal, he's a racist too. The GOP "outsourced" the SOTU reply to Bobby Jindal. What a strange word to use except in the context of Jindal being Indian.

just say not to more government!

I assume Beck's views differ from yours......calling a man stupid because of this is silly.
America is spending twice as much in proposed "bailouts" then it receives in taxes. So, tell me, what is stupid?

Wilhelm

Mr Shouty Kieith Olbermann, liebour dalek, screeeming harpy Kirsty Squawk, patronising sneering, pompous snob Jeremy Paxman, buffoonish clown Jeremy Clarkson.

And guess what Alex, we are paying Squawks, Paxmann and Clarksons wages.

David

Good gravy, what an idiot. Is his employment part of an outreach programme?

Rhoda Klapp

Beck was on Fox this AM discussing his position. That you can't talk about taxing dope until you have the discussion about legalizing it. How you can't address legalizing it without a position on responsibility. If you plan to take recreational drugs for fun, you must take responsibility for whatever happens. If nothing, fine. But if the drugs do turn out to have a long-term effect, why should you get free health care to which others have contributed? Which all seems to me to be the classic Libertarian position. Expressed by Beck as 'Will I be allowed to just step over junkies in the street, as they chose their own fate and must take responsibility for it?'

Now, you may identify with that position or not, and make your arguments accordingly. To call the man names means he is the journalist, and you are not.

Pot Head

Rhoda Klapp

"But if the drugs do turn out to have a long-term effect why should you get free health care to which others have contributed?:

Why won't must drug users will have contributed too - I bet I pay more tax than you.

While we're at it why don't we refuse to treat people involved in car accidents who we're speeding or pissed and why not refuse to treat the health effects of alcohol, smoking, over eating and STD's like the Klapp after all they are self induced. Bound to save the NHS billions.

ben

You're right. Glenn Beck isn't a true Scotsman -- er, Libertarian. You wouldn't want a movement that led by the likes of Lew Rockwell and Alex Jones to be sullied by association with some moronic raving batshit insane racist loon.

Rhoda Klapp

Pot Head, I'm not taking a poition on the arguments. I'm stating the Beck, and classic libertarian, case. And what he's saying is that you have to have this debate when you legalise drugs (and I didn't specify any drug) in a country with universal health care. Already the NHS has been making moises about giving care to alcoholics and smokers. I believe they are wrong, it's the ones who live into old age who cost the country more, those who kill themselves by their own actions don't cost much for long. Self-inflicted wounds, as it were.

And the fact that you didn't appreciate that I was stating the arguments but not making them means you ought to look at the long-term damage a bit harder. (Yes, I know people who've smoked pot for years and no harm, and others who have had severe psych effects. Two teen suicides in this area, both pot smokers.)

Glen Beck is a libertarian. Alex Massie resorts to name-calling without making his case.

Pot Head

Rhoda- Point taken, now I understand your position make sense. Did you see Alex's earlier post that statistically speaking peanuts we're for more dangerous than E's, that made me LOL.

I take a very libertarian attitude to drugs legalize the lot PDQ and lets use some of the tax money to treat those that go to far just we do with legal like alcohol & fags. Prohibition will never ever work how much more evidence do we need!

Rhoda Klapp

Something I've always wondered about legalising. If drugs were legal, the criminal aspect of their supply would presumably disappear. So they would be supplied and marketed by either pharma companies or new legit firms specialising in fun drugs, rather tham medical ones. Will there be a quality/testing/purity standard. The FDA looking after your drugs to avoid the impurity problem which is one of the arguments of the legalise it crowd? If so, will the company owing the brand of the drug be as liable for the effects as SmithKline or BAT are for their drugs? Will we end up with schizophrenics sueing big corporations for what their pot did (or did not do, doesn't matter) just as lung cancer victims have been trying to do with the tobacco companies? We ought to clear this one up before we start.

But the tax question has me baffled too. If we can't stop illegal drugs now, how are we going to enforce the tax rules? If we could enforce the tax rules, why can't we stop illegal drugs?

Wilhelm

Glenn Beck, Mr Shouty is just a mini me of Sean Hannity. He's a clown.