We don't have YMMV sections about real people. Especially someone as controversial as Glenn Beck.

That's bullshit. Not the real people part, that i'm fine with. I wouldn't want someone putting a YMMV tab on Obama or Bush or Hitler. But this article isn't really about Glenn Beck, not entirely, its about his talk show. Proved by the fact that its under "radio" and that its crowning moment of funny tab mentions things that happened on his show. hell, the second half of his description is about his show, not him personally. This page should either be about Glenn Beck or about Glenn Beck's talk show. if its about the latter, it should have a YMMV tab.

If it's a work page about the show, then yes it should have a YMMV tab. However, the page and trope list are written as about Glenn Beck who was a talk show host, not a talk show that was hosted by Glenn Beck. It should really be in the Creator/ namespace. If you would like to make and curate a YMMV tab relating to the show, ask for a page unlock here.

When Beck was running on CNN, he was a lot more comedy-minded and very light-hearted in his conduct. The same with his radio show.

After 9/11, though, he's become more and more geared toward very serious matters.

Glenn's radio show started as comedy and focusing on more odd news stories rather than politics. The 2000 election caused more of a political shift and 9/11 caused him to stay there through the '04 election. For the next couple years he went back to his old format (often claiming to have "twice the comedy, half the politics"). It was during this time that the CNN show started, BTW. It was throughout '07 that he started noticing the socialist/progressive movements in our country and his show has gotten more political and serious since.

That all said, I'd say Cerebus Syndrome would probably be a better trope.

The "Barrak Obama hates white people" fiasco is still in the article under Never Live It Down. It was also listed under Unfortunate Implications, a subjective trope that shouldn't even be in this article.

Other than that, I can't think of anything that Beck has said that's been considered racist.

I had listed a mediamatters recording of Beck saying "slavery started with innocent intentions," and claiming that when it first came to America, it wasn't evil because the government hadn't put regulation on it. That's not hyperbole on my part, either. Here's the clip.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010010026

Now, I for one am getting tired of people trying to edit this article to make Beck look better than he is. As for the whole "subjective trope" thing, personally I think that rule is kind of dumb, since so called "subjective tropes" are listed on pretty much every work's page out there.

However, since someone is trying to start an edit war, I guess I'll just post this little hideous comment under Never Live It Down, since personally, I think this is Beck's most disgusting comment to date.

I'm sorry, I think you're confused about what the purpose of this article is. It's not to tell people everything you think they should know about Glenn Beck, it's just to list tropes associated with him. Even if he's a horrible person, unless you have tropes associated with that horribleness it has no place in this article.

Never Live It Down really only applies if the individual actually never lives it down. It has to be a widespread thing. Just because you'll never forget it doesn't mean it qualifies. As such, I'm removing it from the article. If you want to contend, we can start a discussion in the forums where we can get some additional imput. But we shouldn't add examples just so we can say what we want about the man. That's not what TV Tropes is about.

If it's about tropes associated with him, why do you keep deleting the Commie Nazi trope when it's put on? He's made the accusation of people several times. You're simply editing the page to make Beck look better than he is. I'm not wanting to edit the page so that it claims he's the devil, but that doesn't mean that a page is designed to (1) be entirely subjective. This isn't wikipedia. Or (2) pretend that tropes that apply to Beck that are not exactly flattering don't apply.

The way that entry had been worded was skewed and factually false. I said as much in my editing comments, so you really have no excuse for not knowing this.

Actually, I'm guessing you don't read comments that much, as you've started adding tropes that depict Beck negatively that I removed with justification some time ago with. The fact that you haven't explained why they should remain on the page other than saying I just take them down because I'm trying to make Beck look like a saint (which is false, see above) makes it look to me like you're more concerned with those negative tropes being there than whether or not they actually should be there.

While we're on the subject, that "I hate 9/11 victims families" entry is very skewed. He said he hated a few of the families because, years after the attack, they were still complaining about how hard they have it. Now, I do think it's caused a significant enough backlash amongst his detractors to be on the article, but quoting that one line with a link to Media Matters of all places for the full context is not the way to do it.

You do realize that in that clip Beck is talking about how the government is enslaving people through its regulations and programs, right? In fact, most of his topics at the time was talking about the "new slavery," and there's an excerpt.

The fact, SG, that you're citing Media Matters as a valid source on Glenn Beck, when they've been notorious for cutting and editing clips as a means to smear those they disagree with(Bill O Reilly's been on the receiving end of these many-a-time, for instance), says quite a bit.

Probably because it could be abused to mean his far out conspiracy theories like the guy who just suggested that the left funded the Egyptian uprising, which was a part of the recent movement in North Africa to move from various dictatorships to a democracy.

Seeing as there's footage of Egyptian Union leaders thanking for the SEIU's "support and solidarity" during their uprisings...

And considering the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood(y'know, that group of Jihadists who help funnel millions of dollars toward the funding of various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda as well as their own efforts) is poised to take control of the Egyptian government, which Beck predicted and was ALSO derailed as a madman for saying...

Well, The Cuckoolander Was Right, wasn't he?

Libertarian doesn't mean anything in American political discourse anymore. In the US, it used to mean someone who was both an economically libertarian and a social libertarian. Now (only in the past 10-years, it seems) it's heavily associated with only the laissez-faire capitalism aspects.

However, old fashioned libertarians still maintain that only their economic and social libertarianism is true libertarianism.

"Libertarian doesn't mean anything in American political discourse anymore."

Says you. Glenn Beck supports the legalization of marijuana, and has been quoted on supporting gay rights, including marriage. That's Libertarian, no matter how you look a it. Plus, I'd like to know just what requires Libertarians to be "anti-war". People of all parties have subjective views, and war and intervention are among them. There's no law that states libertarians have to hold isolationist views. Plus, opposing abortion could be interpreted as supporting the rights of the unborn child as well as that of the potential mother. Once again, views are subjective.

"He's pro-war,"

As is John Stossel, another noted Libertarian who has his own show on FNC.

"anti-choice,"

I always love it when people love to smear pro-Lifers as "anti-Choice" in order to justify their moral grandstanding...

"and anti-LGBT-rights."

And we round off this stupidity with an out-and-out lie. Beck has, on more than one occasion, expressed sympathy and outright support for universal gay rights and the legalization of gay marriage. The reason why these issues don't come up with him, however, are because he's a very fiscally-minded individual when it comes to politics.

Two year old discussion, man.

No one said that he criticizes them equally, but he does criticize them a lot. Clearly, you don't watch his show all that much. I've been watching for quite a while now, and I can say that he criticizes Republicans as much as Jon Stewart does the same with Democrats. No one is trying to downplay his partisanship; they are just trying to make sure that [[Hatedom haters]] don't fill the page with Natter. I've been by pages of liberal pundits, including The Daily Show and {{Countdown With Keith Olbermann]], and those pages seem to be 100% written by their fans, with little to no "unflattering but ACCURATE" facts listed (and there are PLENTY to list, but they would immediately taken down as Flame Bait if they were posted). We're trying to be fair, and there's nothing dishonest about it.

As far as I can tell, having watched his show quite a bit, Beck is no more a conspiracy theorist than his rivals. I've heard Olbermann rant about what he seemed to think were conspiracy theories (just bring up Cheney and the PNAC, and he goes nuts, Oliver Stone-style), yet I don't see the entry in his page.

1) Perhaps you should post them then. If you think Olbermann is a conspiracy theorist (and I've heard him go there once or twice) then post that to his page but this isn't about Olbermann. You're trying to make the case that because one page is incomplete, this one should be as well. 2) No more a conspiracy theorist than his rivals? What frickin' show were you watching? It must have been one that didn't include Beck's diatribes about ACORN, the SEIU, Van Jones, his little Rockerfeller Centre art critique, his endless Nazi comparisons and his insinuations that people are out to get him (which have so far included the investigation of Goldline and SNL's parody of him). All of this can be easily checked, it's all on You Tube. 3) I have watched his show. He rarely goes after Republicans and when he does, it is always for not being far right enough. I'm not saying Beck is partisan in favour of Republicans, I'm saying he is a partisan attack dog for the ultraright. A couple of kooks aside, they aren't the same thing. 4) Being fair and objective doesn't mean drawing false equivelency between his fans (many of whom seem to think he's the messiah) position and his critics (whom we label as hatedom) position. It is entirely possible for one side to be flat wrong.

We call that the Golden Mean Fallacy.

"He rarely goes after Republicans and when he does, it is always for not being far right enough."

One, that's not 100% true. This is the result of believing Libertarianism of being an exclusively right-leaning ideology when, in reality, it's neither left nor right (take a look at the Nolan Chart for further explanation). Yes, he leans to the right, but not all of his beliefs do. Believing that Republicans should be more Libertarian does not mean he wants them to lean further to the right. (Oh, and for the record, he HAS criticized the Republican position on National Security: when the Times Square Bomber was arrested, and revealed to be Pakistani, one conservative pundit wanted the cops to forgo reading the Miranda Rights. Beck, however, claimed he should be read his rights, on the grounds of upholding the constitution). Second, even if it was, what's the problem? Isn't every single liberal pundit and comedian the same way, just inverted? Take Lewis Black, who said: "Democrats are the party of no ideas. Republicans are the party of bad ideas." He's making fun of them both, but for different reasons. He hates Republicans and everything they stand for, while he hates Democrats because, while he agrees with them, they don't do what he feels they should do (i.e., they don't lean far left enough). It's the same way with Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, and every other famous liberal, yet, whenever I hear people talk about them, they always gush about how they "go after both sides", and how much better and non-partisan it makes them than Republicans. Now, conservatives (and libertarians) have a similar pundit. What's wrong with that?

Secondly, you seem to imply that all his critics are fair and legitimate (and unfairly labeled as Hatedom), and his fans are all crazy worshippers. This couldn't be further from the truth. We call the Hatedom because the are Hatedom. Just look on any liberal blog, and you will find some of the most rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth hatred aimed at this man. I've met people who've told me that, if you like Beck, you shouldn't be allowed to vote (and also want the president to forcefully shut down FOX News on the grounds that they're a threat to national security, but I digress). I have friends who used to talk about all the horrible things they'd love to do to George Bush/Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly, but when Beck dared to do a similar thing with Michael Moore, they screamed for his blood. When the story of the Times Square bomber broke, bloggers immediately tried to find ways to blame Beck, insisting that the bomber was sure to be an avid listener. One blogger actually said, "Is it too late to pin this on Glenn Beck?" (Of course, when the true identity and motives of the bomber were revealed, the bloggers suddenly became sympathetic).

Oh, and as for Godwins Law, I wouldn't put it past him to be using so many ridiculous Nazi analogies just to show liberals how stupid their similar analogies against the former administration were.

"It is entirely possible for one side to be flat wrong."

Well, there you have it folks. It's as simple as that: Glenn Beck is the Devil, his fans are evil incarnate, and his critics are all heroic people standing up against the tide of fascistic insanity. There's no middle ground.

Well, you've certainly mastered the fallacies of the excluded middle and strawmen.

Now, do liberal pundits (all three of them) go after Democrats for not being liberal enough? Sure but they don't have anyone attempting to paint them as bipartisan or moderate. Does anyone claim Keith Olbermann, for example, is a moderate because he's gone after Democrats a few times? No. But based on the (very) few occasions Beck has gone after Republicans, people try and claim him as some sort of bipartisan moderate. He's not, he's an ultraright fringe attack dog. Yes, he now claims to be a Libertarian because that's now the fashionable label to claim among the ultraright but if it looks like an ultraconservative Republican, walks like an ultraconservative Republican and quacks like an ultraconservative Republican... When 99.9% of someone's show is demonising liberals, progressives and Democrats, complete with non-stop Nazi comparisons and including a lot of stuff that's just plain made-up, it's fair to call them a right-fringe conservative. Virtually every ultraconservative Republican likes to claim to be a Libertarian these days, Beck is the only one (apart from Michelle Bachmann) who sounds like he was thrown out of the John Birch Society for being too over-the-top. Secondly, Lewis Black and Jon Stewert are comedians while Moore is a film-maker. They're not pundits and don't have a daily show on a channel which claims to be "news". Stewert even goes out of his way to remind his audience that his show is "fake news".

"Secondly, you seem to imply that all his critics are fair and legitimate (and unfairly labeled as Hatedom), and his fans are all crazy worshippers."

Then I apologise for sloppy phrasing, it wasn't my intention to imply that. Since the rest of that paragraph is argument from personal experiance, I'll ignore it.

"Of course, when the true identity and motives of the bomber were revealed, the bloggers suddenly became sympathetic"

Oh goody, another "liberals sympathise with terrorists" allegation. And you have the nerve to accuse me of painting with too broad a brush?

The Godwin's Law part: It's possible that was his intention. However firstly, he's never made that clear and secondly, comparisons between Bush and Hitler were never as common as the right now likes to pretend they were. We can use Google and Lexis to go back and look this stuff up. Yes, a few people on a few websites made the comparison and Olbermann accused Bush of using fascist tactics once (and only once and without using the word "Hitler") but the insistence that Bush was accused of being Hitler-like constantly by the entirety of the left is revisionist history at best and outright lying at worst. Thirdly, even if that is his intent, it doesn't change the fact that he uses Nazi comparisons constantly and so, the Godwin's Law tag is entirely appropriate.

"Well, there you have it folks. It's as simple as that: Glenn Beck is the Devil, his fans are evil incarnate, and his critics are all heroic people standing up against the tide of fascistic insanity. There's no middle ground."

Well, evidently not for you as you've just used the fallacy of the excluded middle in it's purest form. Completely OTT hyperbole too.

"Oh goody, another "liberals sympathise with terrorists" allegation. And you have the nerve to accuse me of painting with too broad a brush?"

I never accused you of holding that belief. And it's not an allegation; it's a fact. If you need proof, here's the blog post in question. And there's no shortage of liberal blogs that concur, by the way.

"Yes, a few people on a few websites made the comparison."/"Comparisons between Bush and Hitler were never as common as the right now likes to pretend they were."/"The insistence that Bush was accused of being Hitler-like constantly by the entirety of the left is revisionist history at best and outright lying at worst."

Wow.

I'm sorry, but we clearly have a planetary difference here, because that's not how it was. Firstly, they don't say that the "entirety" of the left did it, but it certainly was a popular mantra among the left. Yes, we can Google this stuff, and a simple Google search alone reveals that far, far more than a few websites make the comparison - nay, insist on it - with several of them dedicated to nothing but this comparison (and there's many, many more where those came from). Not only that, but several prominent liberal or left-leaning writers or [[politicians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway]] are quite fond of this comparison as well, and, when rumors that Prescott Bush had been a Nazi surfaced (all the "proof" of which had been provided by a conspiracy theorist, and has not been proven since), his opponents rushed to push the information to the masses, without a care for factual accuracy, as if to say "AHA! We told you Bush was the Fuhrer's reincarnation!" Oh, and, if it matters, attending an anti-war protest would find no shortage of people sporting posters or masks of Bush with a Hitler moustache, by the way. The crown jewel, however, was this Moveon.org ad that, while it never aired, was still made by the group, which is supposed to be the most mainstream liberal group in the country, proving that this was not just a mantra among the loony left. "Revisionist history" my ass.

Either way, I think we've made ourselves clear. Both Godwins Law and Conspiracy Theorist are on the page, and no one is trying to remove them. However, if you must put up inflammatory stuff about Beck, stick to the discussion page, or start up a Just Bugs Me page.

Point of order- the Time Square Bomber was an American citizen. Beck was arguing that you cannot arbitrarily declare American citizens to be enemy combatants and hold them indefinitely without trial.

So your way of disproving my contention that the comparison of Bush to Hitler was never more than a few websites and fringe radicals is to... post a link to a Google search that lists such sites? The Google link you posted lists just over six million sites. Sounds like a lot until you actually search for "Bush" (127 million sites) or "George Bush" (38.5 million). So you managed to find six million. First off, on the web, six million is fringe. Googling "Obama" and "Kenya" gets twice that number and I'm pretty sure that the crackpot Birthers are radical fringe. Secondly, even examining the first page of those results shows several of them arguing against the Bush=Hitler comparison and several that are history sites that happen to mention both names (usually as part of a world timeline of sorts). Thirdly, your links to various fringe sites and blogs proves nothing at all. I could just as easily list various fringe sites and bloggers who insist Obama is the antichrist. Are a few websites comparing Bush to Hitler in any way comparable to an international media personality with his own daily show comparing Obama to Hitler frequently, did such high profile media figures frequently compare Bush to Hitler? That's "no" and "no" respectively.

You didn't link to "several prominent" left-leaning writers, you linked to one: Naomi Wolf. Great, she's certainly a prominent leftie but she's still one person. Oh, and George Galloway, who was kicked out of the centre-left Labour party, is now part of the outright socialist Respect Party and has a history of attention-seeking stunts. So, one prominent leftie and one fringe radical. Are you trying to prove your point or mine?

Ah, yes. The posters. First off, the Move On ad never aired. Someone in the organisation clearly thought better of it. Second, does that mean we can now assume that racism is widespread on the American right? Well, the Teabagger rallies have played host to numerous racist posters. Oh, those are just fringe elements who join in? Yes, they probably are, which rather proves my point.

So yeah, the claim that comparison was widespread on the left is revisionist history at best. And with your "it's not an allegation; it's a fact" that liberals sympathise with terrorists, I do indeed know exactly where you stand.

"Are a few websites comparing Bush to Hitler in any way comparable to an international media personality with his own daily show comparing Obama to Hitler frequently, did such high profile media figures frequently compare Bush to Hitler? That's "no" and "no" respectively."

If you can prove that Beck is serious when he makes those comparisons, I suppose you'd be right. But there's no proof that he's being serious, and I personally don't think he is, considering how over-the-top he plays it, and how much he jokes about those comparisons on the side. But even so, it doesn't compare. I remember the Bush years; Beck could continue doing Obama-as-Hitler comparisons for the rest of Obama's longest possible presidency, and he'd still fall well short of the amount of Bush-as-Hitler imagery we've seen in the last decade. Did I ever say that the majority of the left believed that Bush was equatable to Adolf Hitler? No, but a disturbing amount of them did, in ways that hadn't been done with a US president in years (I don't remember a single Clinton-as-Hitler comparison, and I'm too young to remember if Reagan was the victim of such comparisons that often). The Obama-as-Hitler comparisons seem like nothing more than a backlash at the unusually massive amount of Bush=Hitler imagery, as if the conservative fringe is simply saying "Now, it's OUR turn!" Because honestly, how can you actually compare Obama to Hitler and be serious about it? I'm not saying there aren't people who do it, but I guarantee that the percentage of those who seriously compared Bush to Hitler is larger than the percentage of those who seriously do the same with Obama. Bush=Hitler comparisons were largely serious, with people claiming that both were racist, genocidal warmongers, while the Obama=Hitler comparisons largely seem to be a straight-forward case of Godwins Law in action. They're not serious, they're just returning the favor.

I'm well aware that the Moveon.org ad didn't air, and I said so in my last post. Of course they wouldn't be so stupid as to actually air it, as that would've been more trouble than it was worth. But the fact remains that some people in the organization, which is supposed to be a mainstream liberal one (more mainstream for liberals than the Tea Partiers are mainstream for conservatives, anyway), thought it was a good idea. Remember, this isn't a fringe group like Code Pink, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, or Not In Our Name; it's Moveon.org. They're supposed to be above such things. But, then again, as we saw during the lead-up to the 2004 election, the mainstream liberal scene and the fringe seemed to become indistinguishable. Michael Moore (a master of the fringe if there ever was one) was the hottest thing in the liberal community, his movie a smash hit, and was invited as a guest of honor to the Democratic Convention. Moore, a fringe leftist, had become mainstream, if only because too many people actually believed that his film could unseat Bush. It wasn't until after the election that people realized how stupid this had been, but the fact remains that mainstream liberal America was swept up in the frenzy of a fringe leftist (whether or not this will happen with the mainstream conservative community has yet to be seen). Is it really too much to see mainstream liberals seriously making Bush=Hitler comparisons at the same time?

The phrase "liberals sympathize with terrorists" is a serious case of twisting words, because I never said anything of the sort. I was referring to a number of left-leaning blogs that insisted that the Times Square bomber was most certainly a fringe right-winger and Glenn Beck fan, with a rather strong emphasis on the part about Beck. When the truth came out, they did in fact become sympathetic towards the bomber, with the blog post I linked earlier being one example. You claimed it was merely an allegation, and I was pointing out that there were blogs that did indeed act that way. And as for liberals/leftists sympathizing with terrorists, well...there's certainly some basis in truth for that claim, even if it can be exaggerated. I'll give three examples, with all three being well-known and respected in the liberal community (and have had a significant influence on liberals within the past few decades). How about Oliver Stone, Michael Moore and Gore Vidal? I'm sorry, but far too many liberals in this country are under the impression that those of middle eastern descent who engage in terrorism share the same beliefs/grievances as they do, and, while they (mostly) don't condone their tactics, believe that most middle eastern terrorists are essentially nothing more than slightly misguided anti-imperialists. That's sympathy, plain and simple. It's not the majority, of course, but it's not to be dismissed.

I have no idea if Beck is serious, I'll give you that much. OTOH, since his entire personality is so larger-than-life, how can one tell when he's being deliberately OTT?

I remember the Bush years as well and I honestly don't remember as many Bush-Hitler comparisons as there now are Obama-Hitler comparisons. Now, to be fair, it's possible that the additional media focus on the tea party lunatic fringe makes them appear more widespread. There were loads of Clinton-Hitler comparisons as well but that was mostly confined to the militia crowd (and Ann Coulter who's pretty much militia crowd anyway).

There seems to be a general trend toward the fringe becoming mainstream at times when a party is searching for identity. Moore briefly became mainstream because the Democratic party (and, to an extent, the larger left) was searching for an identity. After the 2008 election, the Republican convention had Rush Limbaugh (who is at least as far-right as Moore is far-left) as their speaker for much the same reasons.

Finally, I would disagree that Stone, Moore, Vidal etc are actively sympathising with terrorists so much as trying to understand their reasoning. Very, very few condone acts of such violence but, in the same way as we need to understand murderers to be able to catch them, we need to understand the reasoning behind terrorism. There's a big difference between saying that, for example, the Palestinians have legitimate grievances and actively condoning the acts of violence comitted by some of those sympathetic to the cause.

I disagree with your belief that Stone, Moore and Vidal are just trying to understand those attacking western civilization. That may be a case for many people, but not the likes of them. On the contrary, they seem to believe that they fully understand them already, as if a massive dislike for the United States puts them on the same page. If you read the article on Stone, you will see that the film director starts a rant about six major companies controlling film and television (understandable, considering his profession), then immediately claims that the 9/11 attacks were a 'revolt' against such an injustice. Get it? He believes that the terrorists are anti-conglomerate revolutionaries, just like him, and he immediately speaks of their supposed agenda with not just sympathy, but enthusiasm as well, claiming that he can't wait for the 'revolution' to begin. That's insanity. Moore makes the same mistake of believing that the 9/11 terrorists (and others) are on the same page as he is. The page I provided shows him outright stating his support for those killing soldiers (and civilians, for that matter) in Iraq. But, if that's not enough, there's also this gem, which he posted on his website after the attacks:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them?"

Not only is he implying that mass murder of Bush voters would have somehow been more justified (and that the attacks only happened because of George W. Bush), he speaks about the attackers as if he (and, by extension, all Democratic voters) understands them, is on their side, and that they made a simple mistake of attacking the wrong targets. He sees eye-to-eye more with the 9/11 attackers than with those who vote Republican. He's basically saying, "Guys! I feel your pain! I totally understand why you'd wanna do this, but you should really do a better job of picking your targets! You killed a bunch of your friends here!" That's beyond sympathy; it's unrequited love. Said post has since been removed from his website archives, but the fact that he wrote it at all doesn't leave much to the imagination.

On a lighter note, one doesn't have to condone such tactics to sympathize with a terrorist's cause. It's the same that PETA claims to feel about groups like the Animal Liberation Front (whether or not they're telling the truth is another matter). Still, I'm quite disturbed at how many people who classify themselves as liberal or left-leaning tend to show sympathy to those who openly condemn and attack modernism and western civilization (especially if they have darker skin), and act as if Islamism is nothing but a product of Western imperialism and racism, that the terrorism produced by it (Islamism) is nothing but a misunderstood cry for help, and, stupidest of all, that if we were to reverse our policy on Israel, it would all go away. When someone chants "Death to Israel", I'm in favor of taking him seriously at his word, and not trying to pass it off as a misguided call for a two-state solution.

Stone confuses his own grievances with those of terrorists. OK, that's fair comment. Regarding Moore, I read the page you linked more throughly and I honestly can't see him stating support for those killing soldiers. I can see a long rant about Bush (some of which I agree with), a section that seems sad that the US got involved in this mess and a reluctance to let other nation's get involved but that's hardly the same thing. Further, the quote you reproduced strikes me as making a point about the illogic of terrorism, not only are terrorists murderers but they're not even rational murderers. That it can be read in the way you have read it is presumably why it's been removed from his site. I've read a few of Moore's books (don't bother, they're mostly dull) and while he has a lot of faults (hyperbole, lack of subtlety and being overly simplistic, just to start), calls for violence has never been one of them.

"act as if Islamism is nothing but a product of Western imperialism"

I'm sure some do act like that, I'm equally sure that it's a comparatively small number. The irony is that the above genuinely was true of Islamism, thirty years ago. Since then, religion (NOT fundementalist, this interpretation of Islam is actually quite recent) and nationalism and anti-modernity and all sorts of other things have mixed together and produced something horribly unique. How you deal with that (without outright genocide), I honestly have no idea.

"When someone chants "Death to Israel", I'm in favor of taking him seriously at his word, and not trying to pass it off as a misguided call for a two-state solution"

Sure. But the problem is that you have to ensure that in doing so, you don't radicalise the moderates who (mostly) are looking for a two-state solution. Ronald Reagan once said that any act of retribution for terrorism who caused civilian casualties was itself an act of terrorism. I'm not sure I'd go that far but if a moderate Muslim gets caught in the crossfire of a retributory attack, his relatives are likely not going to be moderates anymore. They're going to be pissed off at the country that killed peaceful Uncle Bob and they might well become radicalised. How we can defend ourselves without this, I really don't know. When the IRA were active over here, what happened was that eventually, the Irish people turned against them (removing their material support) and the issues which they used to inflame emotions became part of the political process (removing their political support). Perhaps that would work, I'm not sure.

"I'm sure some do act like that, I'm equally sure that it's a comparatively small number."

Dude, are you kidding me?

Just look at every left-leaning news source when the Fort Hood massacre broke headlines. What was a CLEAR act of terrorism was whitewashed by the Left, who insist on NOT calling Muslim Terrorists...Muslim Terrorists...

Then take this recent debate over the debt deal: Basically every left-leaning news source(from MSNBC all the way to CNN) was parroting the exact same talking point: The T.E.A. Party declared an "economic jihad" and "held the country hostage like a suicide bomber."

"Comparatively small number", my ass!

Alright... as much as I'd like to point out the apparent flaws in your arguments and join in... well, funny thing...

This discussion page... is actually about Glenn Beck. Odd, I know. Can we stay on topic? I love flame wars and political talkshow-esque debates as much as the next person, but this isn't the place.

And as much as I'd love to respond to your pointing out my argument's "flaws"...

I agree.

In this case, a lot of fair and accurate tropes have been removed purely because they are unflattering. Beck IS a conspiracy theorist and claiming a line was "taken out of context" is the kind of ass-covering every pundit does when they're caught saying something they'd rather not admit to. If tropes which are unflattering but ACCURATE can't be listed, what's the point of having this page at all? Removing legitimate but unflattering observations makes the page entirely pointless.

Beck is a Conspiracy Theorist, but lately the Conspiracy Theorists have been right more often than wrong.

In what cases would those be?

The skyrocketing price of gold and food? The alignment of Labor Unions and Marxist progressives to bully government into giving them what they want?

As long as it isn't used in a mocking way, I'm okay with it. He actually claims to have read up on a lot of the stuff he talks about extensively, and his books are well-sourced. Much of his fanbase considers him to be The Jor El.

Still, there's a reason I'm not editing this page as I see fit. I'm just here to represent the interests of those of us who like the guy to one extent or another.

Seconding SNES.

No?

No.

Yeah...how about 'no' on the suggested snarky Flame Bait above. I say we treat this article the way we do the Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh articles: vigilant and tread carefully when editing, and actually try not to treat this site like Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Obviously, tropes that are flat-out insults should not be added. But Hitler Ate Sugar or Godwins Law would actually be fitting, since he IS very quick to connect those he dislikes with National Socialism or Communism, or both.

I think he'd say that the reason he doesn't like those people is because he considers them Communists/Socialists. Perhaps if the entry was written to reflect this somewhat (while still including the fact that his detractors say otherwise), it would work.

Hitler Ate Sugar and Godwins Law is fine. It happens often and is very kneejerk.

Though I noticed a significant amount of bitching Natter and sputtering Flame Bait that's occured on this page several times. I needed to tone it down a bit.

It's fine to poke fun (like the Rush page) at Beck (that's really what TV Tropes is for), but you don't want the page to look like an Axe Crazy member of Beck's Hate Dom having a massive beat-off all over it. I'm guessing this might need to be watched like the FNC page. The Flame Bait that appeared on there appeared very similar here.

Darn. I guess quoting him is out the window too. My favorite? "I am not a Journalist... I'm just a guy who cares an awful lot about my country."

Yes, that is definitely out. If there is such a thing as positive flamebait, that is it. If that was added, my psyche would leave me two choices- mildly snarky bile-filled hatespeak relating to demonization, strawmanning, and idiocy of assuming that anyone who disagrees must hate America, or deleting the quote. And y'all seem to like the latter better, so don't even bother.

On top of everything else, how is Glenn a Ted Baxter? At least a good quarter of his show content (if not half) is him pointing out his own flaws and shortcomings over his life.