Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested
Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!
TheBlaze TV
Outspoken Provocateur Penn Jillette to Glenn Beck: Every Problem We Have Should Be Solved With More Freedom, Not Less
On his Thursday evening broadcast, Glenn Beck hosted multi-media personality, magician (and proud libertarian), Penn Jillette, to discuss a myriad topics that everyday Americans can relate to.
Following the defeat of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election, some believe the GOP needs to adopt policies that will bring the party closer to the left-wing of the political spectrum in order to expand its base. Others, meanwhile, believe that Republicans need to up the ante, with a greater embrace of limited government, fiscally reserved principles.
Beck believes there is a vast contingent of Americans who believe in small government, the Constitution, libertarianism. Of course hot-button issues including same-sex marriage, legalization of drugs and other social issues abound, but the outspoken media figure believes that the future of conservatism depends on Americans uniting on common ideas of freedom and liberty as prescribed by the Founders in the Constitution.
With a debate partner who is as outspoken as Beck and with strong and well-informed views on personal freedom, the Constitution, faith and the government’s role in society, the discussion was dynamic as it was informative. Jillette proves that he is more than just an entertainer and provocateur, but a knowledgeable and thoughtful student of politics, history and yes — even as an Atheist — faith.
The fascinating discussions are featured below. The first focuses on deism, Atheism and how people’s beliefs changed following the Theory of Evolution. Are spiritual belief systems compatible with true freedom? :
Beck and Jillette also discuss Occupy Wall Street, with Jillette placing them on the pathway to favoring authoritarianism:
The two savvy politicos also dissected same-sex marriage as it relates to the constitution:
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’ 590 Comments
Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members 520 Comments
Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’ 497 Comments
Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep? 390 Comments
Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’ 336 Comments
Faith
-
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor
321 Comments
- Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 275 Comments
-
MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’
151 Comments
-
Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech?
Read More
-
Dem. Rep. Apologizes for Attending ‘Racist, Anti-Semitic and Homophobic’ Speech
Read More
Business
-
Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol
Read More
-
Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich
Read More
-
This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years
Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
-
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
117 Comments
Technology
-
LOOK: Woman Claims to Have Photographed UFO in California
Read More
-
Lion Named ‘Bonedigger’ and Small Dog Make Most Unlikely Companions
Read More
-
Rocket Bike Sets Land Speed Record — and Uses a Fuel You Wouldn’t Expect
Read More
-
How 3D Printing Technology Created a Special Part for Baby’s Windpipe and Saved His Life
Read More
-
6 Fascinating Spy Gadgets You’ll Probably Want (and Can Have) After Seeing
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (238)
Confounding Father
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:04pmPenn & Glenn need Ravi Zacharias to keep their atheistic/agnostic discussion philosophically and logically sound. That should be the next show.
Report this comment
Native54
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:23am>>Penn & Glenn need Ravi Zacharias to keep their atheistic/agnostic discussion philosophically and logically sound. That should be the next show.<<
Amen Confounding Father!!
Report this comment
John in Jackson
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:38amI respect Penn’s opinions and find him a very intelligent man, but not in the class of Mr. Zacharias. Ravi can give me more to think about in 15 minutes than either Penn or Glenn can in a week.
Report this comment
SendTheMeteors
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 1:47amWhat a kook. Evolution is wrong. For one, it’s just an unproven theory, like the idea that Martians built the Pyramids, or that the U.N. Disability Rights Treaty was a step toward the US giving over it’s sovereignty to the UN and eventually becoming enslaved by Muslims.
Second, my great grandfather wasn’t a monkey. And besides, if the human race descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Try explaining that evolutionists!
Third, bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex. Nuff said.
Fourth, evolution would take millions of years – pretending for a minute it’s even possible – but the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Fifth, were it not for Noah’s ark, there’s no way all those kangaroos and other marsupials could have hopped, walked and swam to Australia.
Sixth, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is a Law, not a theory. Need I say more?
Only God can explain the variety of life on Earth, and how each of the billion or so species on Earth are so well adapted to their environments. Is that the random chance of evolution? The random changes in evolutionary theory could no more explain that than it could an explosion in a rust yard resulting in the creation of a 747 jetliner.
The theory of evolution is yet another way that the liberal elites are trying to degrade humankind to the point where they control them and dominate the world. And forsake God.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:27am@ SENDTHEMETEORS Excellent response. A great sadness is the immature, misguided efforts of non-believers who think they either can or must solve the world’s problems and not understand the the “world” (as we know it now) is nothing more than a training ground – a test – to determine our character and let us exhibit our CHOICE because GOD gave us FREE WILL. Without problems there would be no need for us to make a choice.
As we grow up, we understand that the world is NOT about US (me the individual) but about coming to know GOD and understanding that we are all connected. It’s a big subject, of course, and it takes
a whole lot of reading, thinking and studying to comprehend, but ‘the unexamined life is not worth living ‘ (supposedly Aristotle said that).
I feel sorry for JILLETTE. ALL that brainpower and feeling he is ‘alone’…and even with all the brainpower, he’s still only using 1% of the brain GOD gave us. Today, when people ask me about GOD I ask them: When you are praying to GOD, thinking of GOD, reading about GOD are you happier and more peaceful, more productive than when you aren’t? That usually explains the value of God in our lives.
As far as the “PUBLIC” land not being used for Nativity: PUBLIC is you and me. IF the majority of this PUBLIC wants to see Nativity Scenes then that’s how we should roll. IT is OUR land. IF they don’t like it, THEY can move to areas where more people believe as they do. My opinion.
Report this comment
mauijonny
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:30amSEND: 90% of all the critters that have been here are now extinct = “perfect adaptation” not so perfect = the one’s who make it through the big events (like sudden climate change) are the one’s who move to “the next level” meaning that your observation that evolution would take millions of yars correct – regardless of your probable troll, perhaps honest statement that you believe the world is 6000 years old. That said, if you believe that our current world was presented as is, you may as well believe in man-made global warming…
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:37amWhat I do think is that it is becoming MORE and MORE clear that the AMAZING RIGIDITY that Liberals are showing is not shared by Conservatives!! LIBERALS are the ones who don’t want to allow for 1st Amendment rights; THEY are the ones who fear differences; THEY are the ones who have near -0- tolerance.
NO one would have believed this about LIBERALS even 10 years ago.
Again and Again I come back to: “ALL THINGS WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD FOR THOSE WHO LOVE GOD” Romans 8:28
….so no matter what the results of this past election were, it will all work for good. (THE GOOD meaning GOD’S plans for us… Since He is the Top of the food chain, the best of the best, there is nothing more, nothing better than GOD – He created us all and everything in existence and His plans for us are better by far than anything we could ever begin to come up with).
Report this comment
moreoilplease
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:19amsendinthemeteor
Uh…., hmm.
“…or that the U.N. Disability Rights Treaty was a step toward the US giving over it’s sovereignty to the UN and eventually becoming enslaved by Muslims”. False opposing claim.
Those that voted against this treaty did so because the language was too broad. It was wise not to ratify this treaty. Individuals with disabilities already have the same rights as everyone else under the constitution of the United States of America. When Harry brings it up again we will shoot it down again.
You wrote a lot a words just to get that in.
I mean come on, thermal dynamics? Marsupials?
Sadly, some like Pattie will applaud your comments and you will get a chortle from the “dumb god people” but it doesn’t change your false claim. I suspect you really don’t know what the treaty means, it’s just got a couple of shinny words in the title that you can’t resist. Oooh, disability….and rights. It must be good!
Report this comment
mauijonny
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:33amLet me expand on that thought (and apologize for the sticky keys – ants in my keyboard – fer real): If you believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, then, A) you must believe that the ages of those stated in the Bible are true. Well, for Pete’s sake, with as long as they all “lived” back then, that would make their lives and the lives of your ancestors pass the 6000 year mark. B) Additionally, man-made global warming is supposedly via our rampant CO2 – well, that’s what we all breath out, fart out, and release when we die. If the progs. believe in evolution then, surely, they understand that all of the critters, who have lived throughout all time (billions of years), would have added TONS of CO2 to the point of Earth’s exhaustion. But that’s not the case. Point being that the progs are being dishonest, but so are Christians who call old Earth and evolution hocus-pocus…Either way it’s explained – Bible or dee time, it’s hocus-pocus. The only way we’ll ever get to the truth is to stop ALL the bolshevics ;) – the Bible is not a literal translation of morality and evolution is not a literal translation of all science. Both get pretzelied to the point of non-coherence, but both are so very relevant, but it all just gets lost and ab-used. I know I haven’t explained this well, but I hope you get the gist.
Report this comment
GETLIFE
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:01amSENDTHEMETEORS did a nice job of getting everyone off track.
Two religiously different minds were put together to illustrate that freedom is
the most effective problem solver.
Progressives are motivated by the concept of freedom,
but they are fooled into thinking that progressivism is somehow a vehicle for it.
Conservatives do not help this misundertstanding with their constant vocabulary of Christianity and “hard work.” The truth is that in a context of freedom and choice, individuals have more of an effect on the construction of their society, and hard work can be exhilarating and fulfilling– a very attractive message for youth.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:39amActually farts are ‘methane’.
Report this comment
louise
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 8:05amLiberty without God will destroy. True Liberty is where the Spirit of God is. Our founding fathers understood that unless God and morality is the foundation of liberty, immoral people would use freedom for destructive and evil pursuits.
Report this comment
ApolloLou
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:47amPattyH.: Let’s think everything through for a minute.
1. It’s not that without problems there would be no need for choice, it’s that without Christ, there would be no choice.
2. As believers in Christ, I know there are differences in each of our beliefs where I could say you were misguided and you could say I was misguided. Immature?
3. Our choice and our free will means PattyHenry can choose, ApolloLou can choose and Penn can choose.
4. Don’t feel sorry for Penn. He now has someone in his life who believes in Jesus and said he was fine with Glenn talking to him about faith. So rejoice, he will now see and hear all about the power and forgiveness of a loving Father.
5. So, public land belongs to PattyHenry and ApolloLou? That’s you and me, right? Wow, Patty and Lou can roll anywhere we want, woohoo.
6. Where do you want to roll to first?
Report this comment
00100111
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:59amHey look, sendthemeteors doing what he does best, being a useless troll.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:18amSendTheMeteors:
“What a kook. Evolution is wrong. For one, it’s just an unproven theory, like the idea that Martians built the Pyramids, or that the U.N. Disability Rights Treaty was a step toward the US giving over it’s sovereignty to the UN and eventually becoming enslaved by Muslims. ”
You are completely wrong here. You, like most of the general public, don’t seem to know what evolution is. Evolution is not a theory. It’s a demonstrable fact. Evolution is simply change over time in any given system in response to external pressures. That is all it is. Simple change. Evolution isn’t about one species becoming another. That’s what Darwin’s theory on the Origin of Species is about. Two different things. Darwin hypothesized that given enough time and the right pressures once species can become a new one. This is the theory of Speciation and still very much a theory. We have yet to find an example of speciation in the lab that all scientists agree on. So Evolution is a proven fact. Speciation is still a debated theory int eh scientific community.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:38amSome nerves were struck eh? Who has any ‘agenda’ other than GOD? Here are some points: Evolution has never been ‘proven’. Darwin was prove to be a phony with the same type of phony science as Gore’s Global Warming “experts” a couple of years back. The Bible is a living book. When you finally decide that you, yourself, did not create the universe, did not control when you were born and that there IS a HIGHER POWER who LOVES us into existence and HE did send HIS SON to
die for our sins and when you open your heart to GOD instead of some silly, man-made explanation of existence…then the BIBLE will read as the best book of CURRENT instructions making all of the other self-help, inspirational and exciting books out today pale in comparison.
IF you don’t open your heart to GOD then you keep believing the 1%-use-of-your-brain you have now.
On PUBLIC LAND. Just who do YOU think owns that land? “The GOBMENT” ? Who do you think is this GOBMENT? IT IS WE THE PEOPLE. We the people can collectively decide that we will have a public park for all to enjoy. We might even build a band-stand. Once a year some of us would be happy seeing our Main Holiday Display. Other times we can enjoy other people’s Main Holiday Display or we can enjoy them ALL together at same time if they come at same time of year!!!
That’s why we wanted a park…for ALL of us. As long as we have the permits… continued
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:46amContinued: As long as we have the permits which we, the people, have decided we need (to insure
safety of our display, appropriateness for all ages since it’s a community park etc) then we should be able to display our scenes ! We can all participate in this PUBLIC LAND display. We learn from each other. It goes without saying, however, that my display should not be one to ridicule your display and vice versa. This PUBLIC PARK is one of the things we use in society to CELEBRATE LIFE. We can have musical and theatrical events there – we can gather to learn things from and about each other or have invited speakers in. It is a “people-catching-place” that we’ve set up because most of us realize that we are not in existence alone and only for ourselves.
The alternative is to claim: This is PUBLIC LAND and no one can display anything that could exclude anyone. First of all: The fact that someone would even feel excluded is their own personal problem. Instead of being interested to see the other’s POV (point of view) they take it personally. That’s their problem, that indicates the serious mentally ill problem of needing total control. Here’s a clue: You are not in control of anything except how you respond to events/information. God is the control and it’s a very good thing that HE loves us more than a father loves his children and that He is the top of the ladder in Goodness. Share the Joy of Christmas!! Open your Hearts!!!
Report this comment
ltb
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:01pmI love Ravi Zacharias. He’s one of the wisest men alive today.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:15pmI have to look up who Ravi Zacharias is. Why would anyone think this guy is any more intelligent than Penn or Glenn? Or is that only something only said by people who tend to agree with the guy?
Report this comment
TomSawyer
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:29pmI dislike Penn’s definition of atheism. 9 out 10 atheist i talk to say there is no god and they think they know there is no god. Penn’s definition is not representative of the whole. We need new words to describe the 3 equal primary possible beliefs:
1) There is no god.
2) I do not know if there is a god.
3) There is a God.
It would be logical to have subcategories:
I do not know if god exists, but I think he might not exist.
I do not know if god exists, but I think he might exist.
I think God exists but I am against Him.
I think God exists and I trust Him.
Report this comment
SendTheMeteors
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 2:17pmsearcher619, your satire detector must be turned too low. Actually it must be turned off. Either that, or you’ve become jaded by the posts you read here.
Report this comment
bobball
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 2:17pmRoger that Father.
Report this comment
ComeTakeIt
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 2:48pm@SEARCHER
That sounds more like adaptation vs evolution.
I don’t believe in evolution. I do believe we were designed with enough complexities to adapt to different environments, but not that over long periods of time we become something different than we once were.
From what you’re saying, it sounds like evolution is just adaptation, which may be some newspeak that is trying to be passed off now if evolution is being disproven, but they emphasized the difference (between evolution and adaptation) when i was in school (3-5 years ago).
Report this comment
YouCantExplainThat
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:15pm@TomSawyer
I would amend your categories:
1. There are no gods.
2. I don’t know if there are any gods.
3. There are gods.
Report this comment
davidkachel
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:17pmSendthemeteors,
That has to be one of the most ignorant responses I’ve seen on any subject in a long time.
Your misunderstanding of evolution and your lack of understanding of other sciences is astounding!
“My grandfather wasn’t a monkey.”
Wow!
Here’s something I bet you never considered…
I am a person of strong faith and I am certain the theory of evolution is correct. They are NOT incompatible, except in the tiniest of minds.
Report this comment
SendTheMeteors
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:31pmdavidkachel you, like searcher619, have your satire detectors set too low.
Report this comment
Biene
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:36pmI think Ravi is busy at the WH.
Report this comment
SquareHead
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:04pmRavi Zacharias would be great. I think that would be to intimidating for both of them.
Click on this link to find out more about him:
http://tunein.com/radio/Just-Thinking-p66274/
Report this comment
TooMuchSense
Posted on December 8, 2012 at 1:19amSendthemeteors, still up to your “my crap don’t stink” game. For everything is a game with you. I will give you your due. Some here don’t get it, or should I say, understand who you are. But those with a moderate IQ, or a measure of common sense, see you quite will. It’s not pretty. Your crap does stink, and your skin has to hurt when you are alone and there are no distractions to prevent self-revelation.
You are entertainment, Sendthemeteors. But in a sick, turn your head at the wreck as you pass by way.
I won’t ask you to leave, or not write. But you are not really who you think you are. Much lower, more pitiful, and one to feel sorry for.
Report this comment
TomSawyer
Posted on December 8, 2012 at 12:31pm@YouCantExplainThat, Your categories fail to describe the beliefs of 2/3rds of the world’s population (that a single god exists). I suspect the number of people that believe in more than one god are very few. So I think your categories are inadequate.
Report this comment
jasonsmommy
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:38pmWatched this earlier and it was a really good show. It was nice to see other peoples views.
Report this comment
danglnbagsatea
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:26pmLove the show and Glenn is back on track! I like the kind of shows he is having lately, he’s getting back to his roots where he was really GOOD!! I love this kind of discussion! Thnks, Glenn and I really want to see Jilett on the Blaze roster…
Report this comment
mauijonny
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:35am*Like* This kind of convo is one reason why I luv Glenn. Don’t always agree with him, but he takes honest approaches to the truth…The Penn is mightier than the sword ;)
Report this comment
Danielle Ohliger
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:00amI agree! I think this is one of Glenn’s BEST shows! It good to see that two intelligent individuals can sit down to discuss what they believe and think individually and just how much they believe overlaps one another!
Report this comment
california_red
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:10pmthis is what we need more of. Intelligent debate and discussion. It doesn’t happen often enough.
Goon on Beck. Good on Penn.
PS. I agree that more freedom is the answer to all our problems.
Report this comment
ltb
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:09pmFreedom without personal responsibility is anarchy. In today’s society, being as corrupt as it is, oppressive laws are not only to be expected, they are a necessity. The people of the Soviet Union were ruled by an iron fist because they lacked the inward morality to govern themselves. Likewise, the further away America gets from God, the more oppressive our government will become.
—–
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
“If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.” — William Penn
Report this comment
TMOverbeck
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 2:19pmWe can encourage personal responsibility without having to ban things adults ingest or outlawing actions that consenting adults do in private. And hate gay marriage all you want, it’s still two adults making a commitment to each other and assuming the responsibility of someday birthing/adopting and raising kids.
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:08pmYou know, there IS something that all the American electorate, Right, Left, and everything in between, should be able to agree on–this 1.5 party system of lowest common denominator politics SUCKS. Is there ANYONE who is happy with it and its results?
I’m fairly certain we can get cross-spectrum agreement on this issue and actually get something done on it if we find a way to organize and focus on our common ground on it. I disagree greatly with most on this site–I’m an atheist anarcho-syndicalist. But, from what I’ve heard and seen here and elsewhere, it would seem that almost NO ONE in the American electorate is satisfied with our national electoral politics. I think this is a very large part of our inability at the federal level to choose between real and substantive differences in policies and hold political parties accountable electorally for their competing policy offerings on the basis of which are successful and which not. I think we would ALL benefit and prefer a system of greater diversity of choice in policies, with meaningful difference to the choice and clear lines of accountability for policy.
Report this comment
brother_ed
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:27pm@THE THIRD ARCHON
Well said.
Imagine the power we could have if we accepted our differences and concentrated on the things we can all agree on.
I stand with you, though we may not see eye to eye on all issues.
Our path should be mitual respect. Our guide should be the Constitution. Our goal should be maximum freedom.
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:50pmI think that simple change (not easy, but not terribly complicated policy-wise) would work wonders for our electoral politics. The libertarians could vote libertarian and actually have a party that won seats, the cultural conservatives could have a Christian Union party (or something like that), the constitutional conservatives could have a Constitution party, the liberals could vote for Liberal Party (not too creative, but whatever–in all likelihood, actually, the Democrat and Republican parties would still be around just smaller with a more coherent platform as a result) and the further Leftists could vote for the Progressive Party or the Socialist Party. And they could all form coalitions with each other based upon the seats they hold, and there would be clearer policy goals of each, and substantive compromise among the coalition, and each coalition could be held accountable for the quality of the policies that came about from its internal composition–and it would be just great. No more having to pick between a party that’s representative of your views, and a party that actually has ANY chance of representing your vote–a devilish choice to thrust upon a voter.
Report this comment
louise
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 8:13amOur guide should be the intent of our founders who wrote the Constitution. Their intent was based on principles in scripture. I like what John Adams said.
” Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government. ~~ John Adams October 11, 1798.”
Report this comment
00100111
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:59amA bit of advice, if you’d post like this more often you’d get more respect. Every other post I see from you is intentionally derisive, offensive, and vengeful. If you’d post like a grown up more often, people would take you seriously. I understand you’re young and idealistic, that much is obvious, but attacking those who disagree with you in the disgusting manner you usually do will not get you any meaningful dialogue. There’s a reason we treat you the way we treat you. Behave like an adult more often, and you won’t get treated like a troll.
Report this comment
Centurian
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:05am@THETHIRDARCHON:
I didn’t think it would happen, since we have butted horns before on various topics, but I do agree with you on this one (I will now wait and see if the sun stops shining, since we both agree on something -heh).
But truthfully, the largest complaint I have had about a number of people that I have spoken with has been the same:
The core belief that one political party is ALWAYS better than the opposing political party. This was, and always is, very apparent when speaking with different people where I live. Too many times, I have heard someone say that “Democrats are for the working man, and Republicans only care about the rich.” And trouble really sets in if you should be not from either of these two parties. I absolutely abhor stupidity. And there is no greater stupidity than walking into the voting booth and pulling the level to vote for a single party without AT LEAST studying the issues and candidates.
I believe in states’ rights (as mentioned in the 10th amendment) and believe the best thing that could happen to this country is to abolish political parties, forcing each candidate to run on their merits, not the letter appearing behind their name (be it R, D, or I…).
Report this comment
Izzy383
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:03pmEver since the election I’ve been bouncing around from the Blaze to the Huffington Post, from Breitbart to MSN, and posting the following trying to get people to pay attention.
During the 2012 Presidential Election 60% of Americans voted. 52% of those people voted for Obama and 48% voted for Romney. Which means 32% of Americans voted for Democrats and 28% voted Republican. And this doesn’t even figure in those that voted not to get someone in, but just to keep the other side out.
Why do we keep switching control of this country between these two groups, when neither one is backed by even a full third of the citizens of this nation.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:05pmKnow this…
The realization of the relevance of your faith will increase dramatically as your liberty wanes.
Report this comment
RaydocX
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:02pmPenn and Glenn are much closer than either likely thinks…
Penn tries not to suffer from the pervasive impression the MSM creates about what the Right wants.
Glenn tries to get small government to simultaneously step in against personal choice issues like abortion and same sex marriage.
I don’t oppose glenns position on either… Well, at least not abortion, but in point of fact,bin order to be small government needs to be out of the social engineering business… Weed, abortion, same sex marriage, should be states rights and not funded or cgoverned in Washington.
Report this comment
The Silversmith
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:48pmI don’t believe in Atheism.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:06pmNeither do I.
Report this comment
dealer@678
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:18pmTo me Beck is grasping at straws
Report this comment
John in Jackson
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:45amIt is a non-Prophet belief!
Report this comment
Centurian
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:07am“I don’t believe in atheism”
–Isn’t that sort of an oxymoron?
Report this comment
YouCantExplainThat
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:19pmI’m also against a-fairy-ists, a-unicorn-ists and a-santaclaus-ists. You can’t prove they don’t exist!
Report this comment
smv803
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:07pmWe are born knowing there is a God…I believe Romans 1.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:47pmI can dig that bit of advice.
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:35pmLibertarianism may SOUND nice, but the problem is the same as with ANY belief that there IS a one categorical principle that one can adhere to absolutely in every situation that will yield the most net beneficial solution–I’ve never seen any such a thing, for any such normative rule ALWAYS has exceptions, situations which the rule fails to yield the most net benefit (i.e. leaves the greatest number of people the greatest amount better off). Saying “we should always maximize individual liberty” SOUNDS nice, but what happens when you hit prisoners dilemmas, or collective action problems, were the aggregation of disorganized individual choice leaves EVERYONE worse off? I can’t accept that there’s any value in service to some abstract ideal of “liberty”–if the policy, such as maximizing individual liberty, doesn’t yield the most tangible consequences of value to individuals, then it is not the most USEFUL policy for them.
For example, take Jillette’s pharmacy example where each pharmacist has the freedom of conscience to decline prescriptions they find offensive to fill. That SOUNDS nice at first blush, but what if its the only pharmacy in town, and it’s run by Christian Scientists (or just make up a religion with the following beliefs) who refuse on “conscience rights” to fill life-sustaining prescriptions? If the whole pharmacy reflects that view, and it happens to be the only one, the WHOLE town loses–and for what?
Report this comment
TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:40pmThe town doesn’t own the pharmacy. Respect your idea, but with all due respect, a bad example.
Report this comment
truthnstuff
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:38pmThat’s BS. Today you can get prescriptions from anywhere in the world. You could certainly get them anywhere in the country and if needed immediately at the hospital. Also I am sure that the capitalist system woudl solve that problem by competition.
Report this comment
moreoilplease
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:29amMaybe you just go to another pharmacy. Or maybe that pharmacy go’s out of business. Or maybe business increases. Maximum individual freedom.
Report this comment
Centurian
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:26amWhat you speak of is one of the main concepts behind the 10th amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In the argument that you have set forward, the United States has no jurisdiction to force the pharmacist to sell the product against his religious beliefs. The Federal Government does have the right, though, to alter payments to the pharmacy for not doing so (such as revoking the pharmacy’s ability to receive federal funds, such as not being able to receive Medicaid/Medicare payments).
Simply put, the pharmacy has the right to refuse, but must be willing to accept the ramifications of doing so.
Report this comment
Dudemau
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:14pmGod forbid you take some resposibility and move to or hang with people who give you the greatest chance of survival. You are the one who will wait for someone else to take care of you. In other words, a loser.
Report this comment
MarieC
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:29pmI just finished watching the show, it was good, very good.
Report this comment
paultard
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:27pmGlenn… It’s about F**king time.. You’re FINALLY getting it!
Report this comment
Trompello
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:31pmAgreed man Im starting to like him again now. He needs to realize we Atheist Libertarians are allies.
Report this comment
pantokrator
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:06pmIt’s incredible how clear you can think when you have nothing else to lose, referring to the election. Myself, and Glenn, and others like us, are guilty of allowing personal bias get in the way of reason and the truth. But after this loss, there is nothing left to lose, and as a result, we are all thinking more clearly.
Report this comment
Ballot_Box_Revolution
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:27pmChristians AND Atheists can learn something from this conversation…..
Report this comment
SBCrusader
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:21pmDenying them their right to get all they can…that is a good thing?
Rights was the word, correct?
Denying rights…that is the new conservatism..i.e. fascism?
From what I understand the Nazis were pretty moral, if you take away the fact they were mindless murderers.
Just a trifle intolerant of other people’s libertine desires. they kept most of their pandering secret.
The camps took care of the problem of not keeping libertine desires secret.
You want to open the camps again? Who should be put in them?
Lets take a vote
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:30pmSo conservatives deny rights……? Conservatives open the gates of individuality. Progressives herd sheep. Grow up or enjoy your penn
Report this comment
RisetovotesiR
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:17pmThe constitution being divinely inspired is the major topic missed here. I don’t believe the bible was divinely inspired let alone the constitution or any other book. By giving such power to an object subverts my opinion and many others. Why is the constitution amendable if god wrote/inspired it? Beck with his theology believes america and all it encompasses is divine and a gift from some god. That is his right but it should never hinder nor compel anything that happens in the government. I have my right to my beliefs, and you to yours, but the moment it enters the “public square” it infringes on the rights of someone.
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:54pm“Why is the constitution amendable if god wrote/inspired it?”
Yeah, they always neglect talking about that bit. I suppose you could say “God inspired each amendment”…becomes a little problematic as a theory in application though, when you have one amendment (the Eighteenth) which was explicitly repealed shortly thereafter by another amendment (the Twenty-first).
Report this comment
Confounding Father
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:32pm“Should?” “Should Never?” Where did that ought come from? Your philosophical feet are planted firmly in mid-air. Ah, the illusion of neutrality.
Report this comment
TMOverbeck
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:49amIf God wrote the constitution, how the eff did the Establishment & Free Exercise clauses make it on there?
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:13pm“Beck and Jillette also discuss Occupy Wall Street, with Jillette placing them on the pathway to favoring authoritarianism:”
Jillette, do you understand anarchist political philosophy…at all? Did you actually VISIT an Occupy Wall Street camp? I don’t think so, because if so you’d know there was a lot more ideological diversity than “oh, they’re all a bunch of authoritarians!” Your simplistic idea of freedom is a joke–true freedom necessarily entails empowerment of the maximum number of individuals, not just a laissez-faire, “let it go and pray it works” policy. That kind of lazy definition of “freedom” is MORE like your childish understanding of anarchistic philosophy than ANYTHING OWS has suggested. What, a, tool.
As for the whole “same-sex marriage discussion”–there wasn’t one! There was a whole bunch of ********, a lot of uses of the word “Constitution,” and a “freedom” wank-fest. But was all of about two-minutes of talk about marriage. And Jillette completely undermined his “government stay out” argument when he ADMITTED he took advantage of the VERY SAME benefits he argues against. Yes Mr. Jillette, and do you know WHY? Because that’s USEFUL to you, you dolt–that’s why your “government stay out of marriage” is nothing but a red herring; NO ONE is satisfied with that argument, and you KNOW it! THAT’S why we can’t just “sidestep” the issue, and at least the conservatives face up to that.
Report this comment
moreoilplease
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:57amOver complicated, bushwah non-sense. Anarchy is not some fantastic philosophy that is misunderstood. It’s destructive. It’s what happens when society breaks down. Not something glorious you read in the pages of a book with fantastic new ideas that a young mind is attracted to.
“Your simplistic idea of freedom is a joke–true freedom necessarily entails empowerment of the maximum number of individuals, not just a laissez-faire, “let it go and pray it works” policy”.
Freedom is simple. It’s just not that complicated. In no way did Pen say freedom is only for the few. Nobody believes that. On the individual basis, freedom includes everyone. The least amount of government possible is maximum freedom.
And finally gay marriage. A perfect example of less government more freedom. Remove government from marriage and both gay and religious liberty is respected.
Clearly you are intelligent. Clearly we don’t agree. But I understand, at least generally, your point of view. I soaked up all the philosophy books like Huxley and such and I am richer for it but it wasn’t until much later in life that I could objectively contrast my life experience with my earlier ideological, utopian views. Just hadn’t lived enough. Quite frankly, a lot of it was pseudo intellectual non-sense. Maybe that’s not you but I recognize similar concepts.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:26am@3rd
Actually, anarchist thought is not monolithic. There’s leftist anarchy, which is violent and based on deconstruction, and then there’s right wing anarchy, which has traditionally been criticized as being pacifist and unwilling to “go out and take what it wants” by the leftists. The Amish, for example, are “right wing anarchists”. There was a huge debate in the late 1800′s where the leftist anarchists essentially took the mantel of anarchy and discredited the pacifistic right wing anarchy movement as being irrelevant.
History is our friend. :)
Report this comment
00100111
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 10:02amOk I take it back, you only posted maturely once, now you’re back to your usual filth.
Report this comment
YouCantExplainThat
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:25pmAmish are anarchists? Hold on, I can’t stop laughing.
Report this comment
checkingbothsides
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:19pm@GHOSTOFJEFFERSON I think even the leftist anarchy definition can be even further subdivided. Amongst those groups you have the Revolutionary Anarchists, who are closer to Marxists, and the Libertarian Socialists (among who I count myself owing some allegiance too.) They believe in the destruction of hierarchy, but through voluntary association. Noam Chomsky is a great example of this line of thought. Basically, the exercise of power by either the oppressor or the oppressed is damaging to both.
Now Penn claims to be an Anarcho Capitalist. From what I’ve read, that’s Libertarianism that removes the need for a state. Absolute laissez faire Capitalism. I don’t see that working.
Report this comment
Dudemau
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:22pmHe USED the gubmnt to protect his kids. You are the tool with no sound solutions, just rants.
Report this comment
macpappy
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:13pmHe does tricks too.
Report this comment
auntmoxie.com
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:08pmThey’re on the right track, Glenn and Penn (hey… I like that). The key is the individual. THAT is the argument to bring to every debate and every situation: Asking “How is it your neighbor’s business?” would elicit an “It’s not” on most things. Thus ends the debate about Uncle Sam’s role in it.
Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:07pmProvocateur indeed.
Report this comment
Canyouhearus
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:42pmWell, some of you might have enjoyed this man but I did not! I was surprised to even see Glenn have this man on the program and then sit there agreeing with him!. He is a big time Atheist and Liberal. THAT is NOT what our Founding Fathers were all about.. or what the founding of this nation was about. How can Glenn balance having this man and his views on one day and then David Barton and Pastors and Rabbis on the next? Who is he trying to pander tor I watched for 1/2 the show and then turned it off. Glenn was gone 3 days, filling in with nothing but Pat and Stu and then comes back with this? Along with our Constitution our Founders had morals… and they didn’t include accepting sin… homosexuality or abortion. Have to rethink even watching Glenn. Sorry Glenn. Thought you was better than this!
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:52pmYes, the closed mind is the wisest. We should never discuss differences of opinions because that would lead to……………
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:54pmThe bottom line for many libertarians is that they simply want their various ‘pleasures’ and they don’t want anyone denying them their right to get all they can. For many libertarians, talk of freedom of speech and other red herrings are used to justify a life of self-indulgence and hedonism.
Libertarians… or rather, libertines (Bill Maher and Penn Jillette are very similar IMO) want no restraints on their appetites, no constraints on their lusts, and no checks on their selfishness.
No nation can long last that gives in to such irresponsible and reckless behaviour.
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:00pmTime 2…….I’m not a libertarian, but I also don’t want people…..ie Government telling me what to do, think or act upon. Again, The closed mind is the wisest…….Yes?
Report this comment
SBCrusader
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:07pmMany of the founding fathers were Freemasons and not even Christian. They were protecting THEIR beliefs by safeguarding everyone else’s belifs.
What I like is my business and as long as I am the only person affected then it is not anyone else’s business. The government got this massive because control is a 2 sided sword. You don’t want the government in YOUR business,then don’t try to stick it in somebody else’s.
Report this comment
macpappy
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:10pmYeah, it’s all that “Well, he is a good guy but he don’t believe in the same sky god I do so screw him” attitude that has the conservatives divided up and staying home at election time as it is. Even Christians have to be open minded, at least enough to realize that everyone has different views, and we still have to live together.
It is going to be a very lonely world for you if you set such benchmarks that have to be met just to get your civil respect.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:23pmNot all freemasons are christian, but they have to all have to ‘believe in a monotheistic god’ as a prerequisite to be a member. So there are no athiest freemasons, at least ones ‘out of the closet’.
Report this comment
Ballot_Box_Revolution
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:24pmyou probably stopped watching the moment Penn started talking about his beliefs, because it made you feel all knotted up inside…..Ignorance….I was going to say is bliss….but it really just makes one ignorant.
/thumbs up on this message then Glenn presented.
Report this comment
Trompello
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:35pmWho says you have to believe in god to be moral? And how is he a liberal? He doesnt believe at ALL in using the government force against or for anybody. Thats just plain ridiculous. The founding Fathers were about freedom and many didnt like organized religion..
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. ” -Thomas Jefferson
Report this comment
Needing_To_Vent
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:44pmDid you watch the show… They discussed the fact that Washington and others were very devout yet Thomas Payne was much more atheist. (at least for that time) Penn gave a pretty good explanation of Atheism and I respect that though they agree on much they do agree on freedom. In fact Penn said it best when he said that freedom will move them together a long way before their disagreements become an issue… (Paraphrased) I liked both prior to the show… I now respect both more after the show… It encourages me to speak to more people in order to better understand them… but mostly we agree on freedom, and in that we become friends.
Report this comment
Canyouhearus
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:25pm@Stelex… You are so right! We should never discuss differences of opinions because that would lead to … what….? I posted what you don’t agree with and “I” have a closed mind! Interesting thought! Amazing that those who call for tolerance are so unwilling to be tolerant of the thoughts of others. I think they call that hypocritical… but that would be an assumption, eh?
I still did not like this man, I didn’t like what he believes and I don’t have to. The same as you can like him. That’s called tolerance!
Report this comment
Canyouhearus
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:37pmRe-posting:
@Stelex… You are so right! We should never discuss differences of opinions because that would lead to … what….? I posted what you don’t agree with and “I” have a closed mind! Interesting thought! Amazing that those who call for tolerance are so unwilling to be tolerant of the thoughts of others. I think they call that hypocritical… but that would be an assumption, eh?
I still did not like this man, I didn’t like what he believes and I don’t have to. The same as you can like him. That’s called tolerance!
Report this comment
mpoconnor7
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:09pmPenn is not a liberal, he is a Libertarian. The concept of Libertarianism makes a lot of sense, but it is something that most people would not be able to accept as it involves a huge amount of personal responsibility and in our current society, as nobody takes responsibility for anything because it’s always somebody else’s fault. It wasn’t my fault I spilled hot coffee on myself, it is the fault of the fast food restaurant because they did not have a warning on the cup specifically stating that the coffee would be scalding hot, so I should sue them and get rich because it is their fault, not mine.
According to Libertarians, drugs should be legalized, but if you take them and get addicted to them, it’s your problem because you should have been responsible enough to know better, and you should have to pay for rehab to get off them. I’m not a Libertarian, and I understand the place of compassion in such a situation, but I agree that if you are stupid enough to get strung out on something, it’s your fault unless you can prove that somebody held you down and forced you to get addicted against your will.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:07am“Penn is not a liberal, he is a Libertarian.”
You’re kidding right? Liberal-tarians are half man… half horse’s… @ss.
Shape-shifters. Thrifty-Liberals.
Report this comment
liltexasgal
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:28amI’m so torn on this issue. I feel the same way you do, but I still like Mr. Jillette as a human being. He seems nice and less judgemental than I can sometimes be. I don’t want to compomise on my values, but it does seem that we are surrounded. If we don’t find a way to compromise with people like these, we are going to be killed by them. The problem is, the atheists don’t seem to want to compromise with us. It’s always their way or the highway.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:28am@Cany
Penn is not a liberal. Do you even know what libertarianism means?
@Paul
You’ve never actually been right about anything, and you clearly have no idea what libertarianism is, outside of what is fed to you by your neoconservative leaders. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Report this comment
obscurity
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:22pmThe founding fathers didn’t know radios would ever exist. It’s a little crazy to be grandiosely comparing this one conversation, and friendship, to “what the founding fathers would have wanted!”. I’m pretty sure they would’ve wanted people of all opinions to get along.
Report this comment
checkingbothsides
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:24pmPenn Jilette is a liberal? Are you insane? Penn is a Anarcho-Capitalist, and doesn’t even believe in a state, much less a social welfare state.
Also, yes, it’s terrible that Glenn has people of different viewpoints on his show. What will happen to your precious echo chamber if that keeps happening?
Report this comment
Psychosis
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:41pmgreat show more like it please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report this comment
toomuchgovt
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:39pmI enjoyed this very much. The only problem I had with his arguments about religious symbols was the constitution states the government can’t stop people from expressing their religion. Does Penn want all muslim woman to stop wearing burka’s? This is an outright display of a religious belief, they walk on Public property? They use public Schools, roads, sidewalks. This is a display of religion. Doesn’t this have to go to – if we are going to be intolerant to one we must be intolerant to all.
I’m sure we won’t hear atheists or the left asking Muslims to take off their Burka’s if they want to use public sidewalks or parks.
Report this comment
justangry
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:56pmI’m an atheist and Libertarian and don’t really agree with Penn on that either. I say put the stuff out there. Seems contradictory to what he was saying about not having the right not to be offended later in the clip. For what it’s worth.
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:25pmJillette’s point was that public property shouldn’t be used for religious displays, not that people who happen to wear religious garb (whatever it may be–crosses, stars of David, the hijab, all that uncomfortable looking get-up orthodox Jews dress up in, etc.) shouldn’t be permitted to use public thoroughfares and places.
Also the religious dress codes of Muslim women AREN’T quite the same thing as wearing one’s religious symbols, because most Muslims women aren’t ASKED if they want to comply with the religion they are born into’s dress code prescribed for them–they are TOLD what it is and that they must comply with it, and never PRESENTED an alternative. Of course there are some exceptions–and most of them are probably living OUTSIDE Muslim majority cultures. The point though is that I, a Leftist atheist, quite contrary to what you seem to assume could actually understand why there might be a ban on forms of dress which are compulsory for Muslim women and not on other kinds of worn religious symbols/dress–I PERSONALLY wouldn’t be for it, not only because I think these should be personal decisions in general (some would probably still chose the religious garb IF given an informed choice and even IF they would be stigmatized for choosing not to), but also because I don’t think it would HELP Muslim women get a choice, rather it would most likely result in them being barred from public life completely. But I understand the policy rationale.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:01pmApocalyptic predictions of climate change?
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:33pmLiberal-tarians and atheists…. a dangerous mix.
As the Apostle Paul so rightly warned, “in the last days perilous times shall come. For men will be lovers of their own selves … lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:1-4).
Report this comment
justangry
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:04pmDid the Greeks write about lovers of themselves before Apostle Paul? If it’s God’s will, why try to prevent it? And you never answered me how your love of MURDERING people is worse than smoking weed according to your lord. I think you just called me a candy ass.
Report this comment
ANTISOCIAL-IST
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:06pmi cannot believe you of all people are quoting the Bible. i thought maybe before you came back, with a little time for introspection, you would have gotten a clue. but as usual, you’re, well, you.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:15pmJUST. Yes, I DID call you a “candy-@ss”…. you are correct.
ANTI. I’m a Christian… am I NOT allowed to quote the Bible in defense of my Christian and moral values? Now that’s JUST ANGRY crazy talk…
Report this comment
ANTISOCIAL-IST
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:16pmoh, yeah, @time, good job doing a deep internet search to try to find something i have said in the past two years to throw at me, as there wasn’t anything in the 10 most-recent comments, instead of maybe looking at yourself in the mirror, like a normal person.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:24pmNowwww I remember who you are ANTI. You’re the guy who I never read before, told me to lighten up and stop antagonizing the fine upstanding liberal-tarians here.
So, because I DO my research… I went to your last two 10 comments on that particular day (’cause you were not a memorable figure) and found 3 out 10 comments from you that were rather antagonizing, crude, rude and disrespectful to Conservatives.
Calling the kettle black…
Report this comment
resme
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:27pm” “in the last days perilous times shall come. For men will be lovers of their own selves … lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God””
Reckon if there was a person who loved himself more than his fellow countrymen, It’d be you.
Have a blessed Christmas/holidays. :)
Report this comment
justangry
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:29pmBut you can’t tell me how “Thou shall not kill” and your love of state sponsored murder and calls, on this site, for genocide of Muslims doesn’t make you a f**king hypocrite? And a douche bag. Turn the other cheek? Love thy enemy? Was he a “candy ass”? Wasn’t Jesus a pacifist? See the thing is you just pick and chose which passages you like and disregard the rest.
Report this comment
ANTISOCIAL-IST
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:33pm@timetogetaclue: sorry i haven’t achieved a satisfactory level of hyerarcy on the popularity ladder here at theblaze for you, even though i’ve been here double the time you’ve been here, and, unfortunately, having to read post after post of yours attacking regulars here, who are not trolls, but are not deadwood republicans like you.
i also responded to every attack you threw at me, even though they were baseless, and having no direct correlation for the reason i called you out, which someone with some b a ll s should have done a long time ago. child.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:34pmRESME. Meh.
JUST. I was a killer of Commies and Radical Muslames for my country. May God have mercy on my soul. And you young Code-Pink activist… are still a candy-@ss.
Report this comment
ANTISOCIAL-IST
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:35pmoh, yeah, @time, don’t play that pacive-aggressive nonsense with me. you knew exactly who i was, as you didn’t an internet search to try to throw something at me, versus looking at the reason i was calling you out, which was for being a douche nozzle.
Report this comment
resme
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:43pm“even though i’ve been here double the time you’ve been here”
He’s/she’s had multiple names, something with “conservative”, etc. He/she made time2end just to troll, 99% of his/her post are meant to antagonize.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:44pmANTI. Popularity and slaps on the back are not what brought me here. Don’t want them, never get them and could care less.
Conservative and Republican bashing Ron Paul, his idgits, liberal-tarians and alledged libertarians are what brought me here. Ron Paul is gone… but his Conservative and Republican bashing and disegenuous Obama enabling idgits remain. So I remain.
Report this comment
ANTISOCIAL-IST
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:56pm@time: republican, no doubt. conservative, hardly. bully, exactly.
you’re just what g.b. pointed out tonight with his chart. you are much closer to the marxist in chief than you are to the constitution or the founders’ gift.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:00pm@justangry: Your words indicate you need to take a closer look at Jesus. He may be less of the pacifist you appear to think he is. In a rather stressful moment he told his disciples… “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” You can read about it in Luke 22. Verse 36 to be specific.
He came first as “The Lamb”, and will return as “The Lion”.
I don’t think passiveness will be strong on His mind when He returns.
Report this comment
justangry
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:01pmWell first of all I don’t believe an old washed up lifer engineer was killing anyone in the desert, and Iraqis weren’t radical. I guess you get that lying from your time as a recruiter?
Second, the Lord will only have mercy on your soul if you repent. Doesn’t sound like you’re repenting if you call for more of the same or mock people that believe what Jesus said about all that. Besides, “Thou shall not murder” didn’t come with any exceptions. If you’re right, and I’m wrong about there being a God, you better hope he’ll have mercy on you based on your stupidity.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:22pmJUST wrote…”Well first of all I don’t believe an old washed up lifer engineer was killing anyone in the desert, and Iraqis weren’t radical. I guess you get that lying from your time as a recruiter?”
That’s because you know nothing of Combat Engineers JUST (same with Seabees I imagine) and that we “train and re-organize and fight as Infantry (my previous MOS), you called the NCO’s on your ship just a bunch fat, know-nothing, sweaty men (that description kills me still, sweaty men… lmao).
One thing worse that a civilian candy-@ss that wouldn’t lift a finger for his country? A former Vet in the style of John Kerry or John Murtha who served (kinda’) and loathed those he served with and continues that nonsense into civilian life because he was may have really been a coward to begin with…. and was probably identified as such by those NCO’s he berates…
JUST like that atheist puke from the West Point story earlier…
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:32pmYou really don’t have any political pragmatism do you?
I’m an atheist Radical, so trust me when I say I want nothing but electoral defeat for your ideology–but I must say, there’s nothing I could do that would be more successful at undermining your electoral prospects than the very attitude you yourself adopt towards your fellow Rightists. There ARE conservative atheists (I know, it surprises me too), and the libertarians ARE Rightists–you should embrace them; they’re the ONLY allies you’re going to get. If you alienate EVERYONE who isn’t up to your standards of ideological purity, you are going to make this CHILD’S PLAY for the Left–and I like a challenge, the resistance makes the conquest all the more savory. So PLEASE remember what a very wise man once said “the perfect is the enemy of the good” and don’t make things TOO easy for us.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:34pmBtw JUST…. did your Recruiter lie to you sweetie? I know all you candy-@sses start with those lying Recruiters and work your way up the chain when the whining begins. DAMN those lying Recruiters !!
You mean you didn’t get a condo and a car Ms Benjamin? Lmao.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:38pmPi$$ off THIRD. You’re an anarchist. I don’t have time for your drivel. Dealing with the rest of the leftist nimrods on here who gleefully enabled Obama is taking up all my TIME.
Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:57pm“You’re an anarchist.”
Among other things, yes–you really are DETERMINED to make this all too easy. Have it your way then.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:07pmtime- you’re being quite rude to just. He is trying to be nice and you throw out the name calling. Youre not making yourself look good especially as a supposed Christian. You’re completely wrong about libertarians. I really don’t understand how you can argue against people having more freedom
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:40pmAwwww geeeeze DLV. Didn’t I read somewhere that you suggested to an atheist on here that they could move out of the country? VOX-somethingorother?
I’m not looking for JUST to move out of this country. I did however state that his shipmates should have thrown him overboard, some Seabees probably should have steamrolled him, and he’s a candy-@ss ta’boot. Yes, tough love for my ol’ friend JUST ANGRY.
He’s a big boy… he gives as good as he gets. PLUS… he’s the only Ron Paul guy on here who body slammed one of his own back awhile ago that I saw. He earned a point or two then. But has since lost 20…. maybe 30.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:44amtime- As a matter of fact I did because Vox was being a militant atheist. @Just however isn’t bashing Christianity or anything and is being pretty easy to get along with. I just don’t understand why you have to call him a candy ass etc etc etc going out of your way to be rude. That’s not giving Christians a good name. It’s certainly not helping your case.
Also, what…? This is the internet how do you know who Just Angry is? How do you know if you saw him a video ever? Other Conservatives on this site like Monk talk about people being paid trolls and having a time limit and I’m just thinking how the H E L L do they know?
Lastly, you explained why you don’t like Paul but you never explained why you don’t like the more freedom philosophy aka libertarians. This country was founded on freedom, small government and the like. Our founders were like that. If you don’t like our constitution go to Europe or something.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:35am“But you can’t tell me how “Thou shall not kill” and your love of state sponsored murder and calls, on this site, for genocide of Muslims doesn’t make you a f**king hypocrite? And a douche bag. Turn the other cheek? Love thy enemy? Was he a “candy ass”? Wasn’t Jesus a pacifistt”
Just Angry, actually the translation is closer to ‘thou shalt not ‘murder’”. Killing in ‘self-defense’ was permitted throughout the bible. Death penality is even supported in the bible. Although by today’s standards, and by constitutional law, obviously Society isn’t going to allow many of the things death penalty was applied to in the bible. Even jefferson never applied ‘death penalty’ to homosexuals for example, he passed a law in Virginia that they were to be ‘castrated’. But you won’t see laws like that today.
Of course one mans murder accusation, is another man’s self defense plea I suppose? I agree, if someone is calling for complete genocide of all muslims including peaceful ones there is probably ‘murderous’ intent. Bubba effect mentality. However, if going to war with people who have gone to war against America for purpose of self defense is not technically ‘genocide’. If it was Jefferson would have been a murderer. It is true that one of the first Koran’s published in United States by government support, includes a warning against Islam in the forward. It was published so that they could learn their enemy.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:36amAlso even Jesus attacked money changers and businesses that opened up shop in the temple. Although he didn’t kill anyone, its an example that proves he wasn’t a complete ‘pacifist’. Unless you accuse him of being a ‘hypocrite’. However, he also believed he had to ‘die’ for prophecy to be fulfilled, therefore he forbade others from jumping in to defend him when the magistrates came for him.
Report this comment
justangry
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:40amSacredHonor, I wouldn’t call him a hypocrite, but I do believe he was human. A great human whose teachings I admire a great deal, but a human nonetheless. So while there are examples of him not necessarily being a pacifist, his overall disposition and teachings were of a pacifist nature, no?
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 1:56pmAngry, while I can see where you are coming from. He definitely spoke alot about peace. But his message and actions weren’t always peaceful.
First we must define what ‘pacifism’ means? In general, a pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose, often accompanied by the refusal to bear arms by reason of conscience or religious conviction.
Then there are the messages attributed to him, such as.
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” (Matthew 10:34-36). “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it” (Matthew 11:12).
I’ll continue on in my next post.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 2:03pmHowever, there are several actions that are not pacifist or peaceful in nature. Where he is portayed as taking extraordinary measures or vandalism or curses if you will. He was not peacefull to the demoniacs, and destructive to private property, destroying the herder’s pigs. The fig tree issue. The temple outburst, etc. If one goes to some of the early historians, gnostic or eithopian ‘gospels’ he was shown to have other ‘outbursts’ in his life as well. For example in one gnostic, story, he was said to have killed another person in anger, and then resurrected him. This was intended to show his ‘human side’ but also his divine side as well. But you certainly understand why those choosing which books to include in the standard bible, and which to leave out would choose to leave out those ‘gospels’.
Of course one could take Jefferson’s approach that man ‘inserted’ these stories into the mix, and ‘corrupted” Jesus message. Thus why some argue that he removed the miracles and christ’s resurrection from his paraphrases of the bible (mind you Jefferson never removed all the miracles, and he himself if you read through his writings, believed in some kind of afterlife. He just never necessarily believed Christ as divine). Or one could look the other way that Jesus was full of human nature, and not such the nice guy later religions tried to say he was. Either way he’s considered ‘human’ rather than ‘divine’ in these viewpoints.
Report this comment
YouCantExplainThat
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:21pmThe end of the world has been coming since the start of any religion. You keep thinking that like everyone else who did before you, and the rest of the world will keep moving without even noticing you exist.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 8, 2012 at 9:01amApocalyptic revelations of the church of climate change?
Report this comment
betsyyoung
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:22pmPenn Gillette was excellent on the show! He made more sense than any politician I have heard in eons!
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:20pmLimited government is the answer,sadly we’re very very far from that and we’re racing to a dictatorship cheered on by uneducated freaks who are more than willing to make us all slaves to government. The anarchists,socialists and communists in government are rearranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic.
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:36pmThe UN is calling the shots…….most in government have already sold there souls to the beast. Slayer…..read this article, spread it around……it spells out the American situation better than I’ve seen anyone explain it.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=43582
Nails it dead on…….
Report this comment
taxpro4u03
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:00pmPainful as it is for most to ‘grasp,’ – the passage of the 14th amendment to the CORPORATE constitution simply created another CLASS of citizenship. — ALL ‘citizens’ are ‘corporate SUBJECTS..’ or — are they? YOU decide….
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:24pmTax……from what I’ve read….yes legally. But the individual decides when the time comes. I am me, knowbody owns me and I’ll die that way. No matter who sold us out.
Report this comment