• http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

    What a pair of assholes.

    • Calypso_1

      An anastomosis of anuses even.

  • BuzzCoastin

    congratulate me
    I made it all the way to 1:05 before I bailed on this

    • Anarchy Pony

      Clearly you have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Especially compared to a drone operator.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      I only watched the first ten minutes, but I was shocked that I agreed with a lot of it.

    • http://twitter.com/SirGamiad Gary Adams

      LOL, i wasn’t as smart

  • Kevin Leonard

    Get Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly in the room with these two and the Revelation of John may well be upon us.

    • Calypso_1

      I think my larynx just involuted in a bizarre conjunction of laughter, glossolalia, & regurgitation.

  • InfvoCuernos

    Not too keen on Glen Beck, but I am a fan of Penn Jilette and I have to say this was a pretty good discussion about religion in government. I’m a little surprised at some of the people poopooing this piece. The chalk board thingy in the beginning was an obvious oversimplification, but you have to take into account Glen Beck’s audience. I suppose I shouldn’t be too disappointed at the comments- not like there’s any critical discussion coming out of them, just a bunch of one line “These guys suck” shots. Lets hear a little bit about why, I’m open minded.

    • Anarchy Pony

      Right Libertarianism sucks. It’s proponents suck. That said, even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

    • Kevin Leonard

      I wasn’t poopooing this piece. I’m with Buzz. I tried to watch it, but couldn’t.
      They are both self-aggrandizing pricks. I wish Jillette would have stuck with magic. I liked him in that role. but about halfway through season one of Bullsh**t, I realized how much santorum he actually is.
      They are both manipulative cherry-picking debaters whose personal agendas don’t rub TPTB the wrong way, so they are allowed to speak.I cringe any time I agree with either of them.

      • Anarchy Pony

        The second they started apologizing for wal-mart, I ditched them quick.

      • Anarchy Pony

        The second they started apologizing for wal-mart, I ditched them quick.

        • InfvoCuernos

          I agree that Walmart episode was shit as was the “tap water is safe” farce, but I am always suspicious of anyone I agree with 100%.

    • echar

      They are two rich dudes who like the current system the way it is.From my perspective, all The talk about religion and government is just a distraction to get you to swallow the presupposition that people should give two shits about what they think. Penn says, “Constitution, nothing matters more”, never mind the elephant in the room. Which as I mentioned already is that they are two wealthy dudes.

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        Why is Penn Jillette rich? From dumping mercury in the ocean? From stealing from old ladies? You don’t want to live in a world where free thinking creative people can become successful?

        • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

          my comments are redundant because they disappeared. and so I repeated myself.

        • sonicbphuct

          The issue isn’t that Penn is rich. It’s that he’s on the side of a system that is not fair, or more aptly put, is not moral. He has a vested interest in that system. If he doesn’t put oil down a drain or mercury in the ocean, fine; but he’s able to accrue a disproportionate amount of resources due to the setup of the system which his defending.

          A more direct analogy would be a lobbyist. He is lobbying our opinion for a system that supports him, but does not support the vast vast majority. He talks about things like “re-distribution” which exposes him as either a propagandist, or someone who is just a useful-idiot, to steal Beck’s use of the term.

          So, the charge is: Penn & Beck both have a vested interest in this system, which causes even more suspicion on top of the Beck Issue. Penn is hawking his book, Beck is picking up “libertarian” audience members. I think Penn is on the losing side of this transaction (sorry, last bit off topic).

          • echar

            Thanks, that is what I am trying to say, and some.

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        How did Penn get rich? Stealing from old ladies? Polluting the Oceans? You don’t awnt to live in a world where free thinking creative people can become successful? I do.

        • echar

          How or why he is rich is irrelevent. He said something about being bothered by tribalism, and then continued to say distasteful things about the occupy movement. When in reality his tribalism was clearly being shown by appearing with another rich guy. I prefer you keep from putting words in my mouth about free thinking. Don’t worry about the duped comments, sometimes Disqus is glitchy.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            If how much money he has is irrelevant why did you bring it up? Why did you dismiss what he has to say becauase of it? You imply “the system” allowed him to become rich and that is why he likes it the way it is. So in what system would magicians not be able to become wealthy? Why would that be better? I am not putting words in your mouth I am trying to understand your position.

          • echar

            I said how or why.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            ok, please forgive me, but i still don’t understand your position.

          • echar

            Penn is a magician, a master of deception. He is being deceptive, imo. I think it’s all about money. He’s using his stature and image as a bullshit caller to strengthen the “I am rich, deal with it” meme. Glenn Beck is using Penn for the ratings, and to support the mentioned meme. This is what I see.

            Also I am pretty sure Penn was paid to be on the show. I can’t imagine he would show up for free. So there’s that as well. Another issue altogether.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            So who should decide how people spend their money?

          • echar

            The person decides what they spend their money on. However I think it’s beneficial to the greater good of society for those who have more to give more in taxes. Instead of getting paid to share media space with a douche to promote greed, Penn could have used his time and resources for something that benefits more than just him and his fellow rich friends.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            once again comments eaten

    • Calypso_1

      Glen Beck – 40:10

      “I believe in a progressive libertarian movement except that it is anti-progressive….hey you can’t say to this society Free Heroin!”

      • David Howe

        This is why I usually just call Beck names. He links progressivism with drug abuse. What a dick.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      I didn’t hear any critical discussion coming from you.

      • InfvoCuernos

        don’t watch the video-Check
        don’t read the comment-Check
        talk out your ass on the internet-Check
        - sounds like you got it all figured out.

        • Calypso_1

          To be fair, it has been proven that the mere sight of Glenn Beck can provoke a massive evacuation of the bowels. The ensuing electrolytically decompensated states of the alimentary canal produce such an astounding display of borborygmi that interpretation can vary depending on one’s expertise in gastromancy.

          I for one always make sure that my passages are free & clear prior to the masochistic unpleasantry of wading through the Beckian Brown-note to engage in the far more promising methodologies of chresmomancy.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            I made sure my passages were free & clear but these guys have the uncanny ability to go upstairs and mummify the brain. (Hooking any interesting thoughts out through the nose)

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            I made sure my passages were free & clear but these guys have the uncanny ability to go upstairs and mummify the brain. (Hooking any interesting thoughts out through the nose)

        • David Howe

          I don’t really see the point of engaging Beck in any serious way. namecalling is so much faster and it gets the job done.

        • David Howe

          I don’t really see the point of engaging Beck in any serious way. namecalling is so much faster and it gets the job done.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Yeah, I agree. Most stuff on t.v. is way dumber than this. This was pretty deep from what I expected. I personally agree with a lot of what was said.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      I agree. I couldn’t watch the whole thing but I thought they made some good points. I expected a lot less from a mainstream t.v. show. Personally I don’t begrudge people money, earned honestly, like some left wingers seem to.

      • echar

        It’s not that people are rich, it is how it is used.

        • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

          so, who decides how people use their own money?

          • echar

            The person does.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            ok, i agree. that’s why i am not a Maoist

          • echar

            Not at all. I simply mean that some rich people use their money for what I view as bad things. I like how Warren Buffet perceives things.

          • sonicbphuct

            Smith’s capitalism required a foundation of Morality. Being rich was already there – it was owning land and being king. Smith suggested that individuals probably had better morals than the “rich” at the time, and would put their money to more moral pursuits, given the opportunity. If that’s turned out to be the case or not, that’s the concept.

    • sonicbphuct

      I didn’t watch all of it; I couldn’t. I got about 6 minutes in before I had to call it quits. Once we went on the “Occupy Wall Street” bash-a-thon, which consists of feebly trying to pigeon hole a rather large group of people into some kind of, as Beck put it, “Anarchist Communists”. Its clear to me that neither of these two people who are discussing freedom have ever put any real thought into it. Neither have read Marx, Engels or even Smtih. Neither have read Bakunin, Emma Goldman, or Kropotkin. They might as well be discussing the Torah or Nihilism.

      They use phrases like “No Government”, or “wealth re-distritubtion”, none of which are part of Anarchy or Communism. Anarchy, Communism and, much to Beck’s & Teller’s surprise, Capitalism all concern themselves with the “fair” or “moral” distribution of wealth. And they love that “re” because it implies stealing. They love that “re’ because it means the way in which they received their wealth was perfectly legitimate, and any attempt to “re”-distribute it is clearly stealing. Start talking about no government in the same sentence as Anarchy and I know the speaker is ill-informed and hasn’t put much thought into the little information they *may* have. The term “Self-Governing” was not an accident that should have read “Community Governing”. An Anarchist should know that they are their own masters, and as such, govern their body, and their lives. As should a self-proclaimed Atheist.

      So, critical discussion is hard when you’re presented with bullshit. I don’t attempt critical discussion with children who are telling me fantasies, or schizophrenics in mania. Of course, with children, it’s cute. With grown men who posses sway over many, potentially millions of people, I demand a higher standard to even start off with. Coming to the table with the same bullshit line of ‘violent bomb throwing anarchists’ & ‘totalitarian communists’ is a non-starter. This is the propaganda line, and you can’t argue or be critical of propaganda. It is what it is – and that is: not an argument or evidence or a conclusion.

      • InfvoCuernos

        It seems like a lot of the butt hurt going on here is over the mention of the Occupy movement. They mentioned it in passing, while trying to explain the position that the nation should not be considered to be divided into left and right, but more like being split between totalitarianism on one side and anarchy on the other. They were trying to make the point that the occupy movement was in favor of more regulation which would place them closer to totalitarianism than “libertarianism” as they were defining it. They were very clear on the point that left and right wing politics both crave more totalitarian measures. We can argue about the definition of communism and anarchy all you want-neither one is humanly possible. Someone always gets greedy and fills the void of leadership. These two may be rich, but they both spent time working minimum wage jobs and didn’t inherit their wealth. The fact that neither one mentioned redistribution of wealth at all lets me know that you might just be the one fulfilling a propagandist’s role. We might as well be discussing their citizenship or their tax returns.

      • InfvoCuernos

        It seems like a lot of the butt hurt going on here is over the mention of the Occupy movement. They mentioned it in passing, while trying to explain the position that the nation should not be considered to be divided into left and right, but more like being split between totalitarianism on one side and anarchy on the other. They were trying to make the point that the occupy movement was in favor of more regulation which would place them closer to totalitarianism than “libertarianism” as they were defining it. They were very clear on the point that left and right wing politics both crave more totalitarian measures. We can argue about the definition of communism and anarchy all you want-neither one is humanly possible. Someone always gets greedy and fills the void of leadership. These two may be rich, but they both spent time working minimum wage jobs and didn’t inherit their wealth. The fact that neither one mentioned redistribution of wealth at all lets me know that you might just be the one fulfilling a propagandist’s role. We might as well be discussing their citizenship or their tax returns.

        • sonicbphuct

          Oh – my bad, at 5:27, they say, “re-distribute the money”.
          How’s your open mind?
          You asked for a critical analysis. You got one. It’s clear you’re either trolling or … dare I say it, scared of real thought.
          How or why they got their money is irrelevant – their use of the “re-distribution” trope is propaganda regurgitated. Their concept of Anarchy is over-simplified. Its a burned down one phrase description of something that has literally filled volumes.
          I suspect you didn’t get a lot of what I said, and that’s ok. Reading your other posts in this thread gives the impression that you’re just looking into this kind of thing.
          But the butt-hurt? Really? Did I come off as offended by these two? I hope not. I find them annoying, I find them pedantic, I find them illiterate, but none of that offends me. I was simply offering an expounded Critical Discussion on why “these guys suck.”
          take it or leave it.

        • sonicbphuct

          Oh – my bad, at 5:27, they say, “re-distribute the money”.
          How’s your open mind?
          You asked for a critical analysis. You got one. It’s clear you’re either trolling or … dare I say it, scared of real thought.
          How or why they got their money is irrelevant – their use of the “re-distribution” trope is propaganda regurgitated. Their concept of Anarchy is over-simplified. Its a burned down one phrase description of something that has literally filled volumes.
          I suspect you didn’t get a lot of what I said, and that’s ok. Reading your other posts in this thread gives the impression that you’re just looking into this kind of thing.
          But the butt-hurt? Really? Did I come off as offended by these two? I hope not. I find them annoying, I find them pedantic, I find them illiterate, but none of that offends me. I was simply offering an expounded Critical Discussion on why “these guys suck.”
          take it or leave it.

          • Calypso_1

            I liked the part where they both thought pharmacists wrote scripts.

          • Calypso_1

            I liked the part where they both thought pharmacists wrote scripts.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            it makes me wonder if they knew the difference between that pharmacists and the practicing doctor.

            Do they think pharmacists have the right to disobey doctor’s orders, the doctors right to deny medication to patients, or both? i’m guessing both…

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            it makes me wonder if they knew the difference between that pharmacists and the practicing doctor.

            Do they think pharmacists have the right to disobey doctor’s orders, the doctors right to deny medication to patients, or both? i’m guessing both…

          • Calypso_1

            ‘Right to refuse’ is an ongoing issue in state legislatures. Probably headed to the supreme court in time. Overall some states have allowed pharmacists the right to refuse any med on personal ‘ethical’ grounds if and only if they have pre-arranged their specified proclivities with their employer & if and only if they also provide the patient with timely access to fulfill their medical orders with a pharmacist that is willing to actually carry out their duty as a medical professional.

            Fundamentally the function of the pharmacist is to dispense orders from the physician and any overriding capacity they have within their expertise & (state issued) licensure is regulated to contraindications, interactions and the interdiction of fraudulent prescription – either by issue or intent of attainment by the patient.

            The weakly applied notion of personal ‘ethic’ to deprive patients of lawful medical services is a pretense not worthy of any medical professional & in many circumstance is subject to legal censure by sanctioning bodies of professional and regulatory commission.

            If you don’t want to be a licensed practitioner as developed & sanctioned through the expertise and methodologies of the scientific community then get the hell out of the way & enjoy the authority of your religious enclave and engage in the political process as dictated to you by ‘Focus on the Family’.

          • Calypso_1

            ‘Right to refuse’ is an ongoing issue in state legislatures. Probably headed to the supreme court in time. Overall some states have allowed pharmacists the right to refuse any med on personal ‘ethical’ grounds if and only if they have pre-arranged their specified proclivities with their employer & if and only if they also provide the patient with timely access to fulfill their medical orders with a pharmacist that is willing to actually carry out their duty as a medical professional.

            Fundamentally the function of the pharmacist is to dispense orders from the physician and any overriding capacity they have within their expertise & (state issued) licensure is regulated to contraindications, interactions and the interdiction of fraudulent prescription – either by issue or intent of attainment by the patient.

            The weakly applied notion of personal ‘ethic’ to deprive patients of lawful medical services is a pretense not worthy of any medical professional & in many circumstance is subject to legal censure by sanctioning bodies of professional and regulatory commission.

            If you don’t want to be a licensed practitioner as developed & sanctioned through the expertise and methodologies of the scientific community then get the hell out of the way & enjoy the authority of your religious enclave and engage in the political process as dictated to you by ‘Focus on the Family’.

        • sonicbphuct

          also, i take back some of my condescending tone and suggestion that you might not get it. I saw some of your other posts on other stories and found them less, um, silly. Sorry if that sounds insulting. Oh, also the trolling bit – my bad for jumping to conclusions. If I’m not convincing, at least I’m honest.

        • jnana

          ever been to a birthday party?
          that’s anarchy. it works a lot more than you think

        • jnana

          ever been to a birthday party?
          that’s anarchy. it works a lot more than you think

      • echar

        Teller’s surprise

        I think you mean Penn. Teller is the one that doesn’t talk as much. If it was Teller, there would be less bullshit. :)

        • sonicbphuct

          good point :-)

    • David Howe

      Been there. Done that. Gilette is tolerable and harmless, but Beck is really off the hook nuts, unprincipled, dishonest, why bother? I’ve got better things to do and it’s easier to just call him names.

    • Reuben_the_Red

      Wait, you’re saying Beck might be dumbing it down for his audience? I always thought he was dumbing it down for himself.

    • Reuben_the_Red

      Wait, you’re saying Beck might be dumbing it down for his audience? I always thought he was dumbing it down for himself.

  • echar

    I like neither of those two for different reasons, I really tried to watch this. I made it about 13 minutes, and finally decided it’s bs, even though they are both trying to confirm that it is not bs. Also I dislike Penn even more now.

  • VaudeVillain

    You know it’s bullshit when he tries to pretend that Republicans are “closer” to anarchism than Democrats. I could stomach it if he claimed they were approximately the same distance away from it (which would be more or less true, depending on the individuals in question)… but as stated it’s a complete load of shit.

    As for Penn… it’s disappointing to see a guy who claims to have such a lofty and well-informed have such a vacuous understanding of not only anarchism and the philosophy of liberty, but such an utter lack of critical thinking skills. He boasts that his marriage was performed with minimal state input, but what he describes doing is the complete opposite: a marriage ceremony which was 100% state-centric for purely legal reasons. Seriously? Even worse, next time he’s doing a BigThink or some other venue where liberals and atheists will make up a reasonable portion of the audience, there’s no doubt he’ll mysteriously change his mind.

    Alas, the greatest fools are the ones who follow such as these.

    • Anarchy Pony

      You’ve got to realize that these shit for brains hucksters aren’t talking about actual anarchism, they are talking about “anarcho” capitalism( an absurd contradiction and paradox, farted up by Murray Rothbard and the proponents of “Austrian economics”). Which is more or less about making everything imaginable into private property, and then giving property owners absolute authority over “their property“. From that perspective, yes republicans are closer to “anarchism”. Pie eyed idealists think that this will resemble Thomas Jefferson’s minarchist state, but in reality it will lead to corporate feudalism.

      • Anarchy Pony

        I should save this summation so I can copy paste it. ‘Cause I seem to make it all the time.

        • emperorreagan

          It’s a good explanation.

          The idea of anarcho-capitalism is mind blowing to me because coercion is inherent in capitalism and incompatible with anarchy. Then again, the notion that the Austrian school of economics is based on a priori claims to knowledge about fundamental principles (which are not necessarily backed by the historical record, anthropological surveys, or psychological & sociological studies) and the assertion that empirical evidence cannot refute its theories is even more mind blowing.

          It’s a religion, stripped of any potentially pleasant parts like charity or community, down to the core of GIVE YOUR SERVICE AND GOODS TO YOUR BETTERS.

          • Anarchy Pony

            And which also seeks to transform all social relations primarily into transactions.

        • Monkey See Monkey Do

          Thanks for your effort though. Orwellian double-speak has burrowed deep into the minds of the television nation.

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        well, it seems to me corporate feudalism is already here, so by your argument anarcho-capitalism must be the system we have now.

        • Anarchy Pony

          Almost. But not entirely.

      • InfvoCuernos

        Glen Beck makes the point early on that he is not for complete anarchy, and that there do need to be regulations in place to insure fairness in the marketplace, saying that the ideal is operating at a point between total anarchy and distant from totalitarianism.

        • David Howe

          yeah….as long as people have the right to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, and sexuality, he’d be happy…that’s his idea of freedom….more freedom for himself, less for everyone else.

    • InfvoCuernos

      About your claims regarding his marriage- he says that he consulted with numerous lawyers trying to find a legal way around getting the government involved and the easy solution was to simply get married in order to insure that he would have custody of his children in the event that something happened to his wife. There is only so much someone can do outside the law with regards to child custody-especially with a celebrity.

      • David Howe

        it almost sounds like you’re saying there should be no laws regarding marriage and child custody….the person with the strongest will wins?

        • InfvoCuernos

          I’m not saying anything like that. What I am saying is that Penn had to get married in order to make sure he was legally protected. In fact, what I’m saying is the opposite of “person with the strongest will wins”. That would be anarchy.

  • http://twitter.com/wi_ngo wingo shackleford

    Blowhard ping-pong.

  • David Howe

    I always find it interesting when two men who have more freedom than most human beings in history have ever known complain about their lack of freedom. That is, their freedom to pay the “help” less.

    • InfvoCuernos

      Actually, the fact that they are using their money as a platform to discuss freedom is a good thing. They could do whatever they want as they have the money, but they are giving a voice to people that agree with them. That is one of the points Teller was making- you could just stand on a corner and yell about how abortion is murder if that’s what you want-just don’t make the taxpayer pay for it. It should be pointed out that a lack of voice was one of the critical failures of the Occupy movement. Holding up a sign with slogan on it is all well and nice for the camera but it doesn’t make the point that two entertainers on a 30 minute tv show will make.

      • sonicbphuct

        “It should be pointed out that a lack of voice was one of the critical
        failures of the Occupy movement. Holding up a sign with slogan on it is
        all well and nice for the camera but it doesn’t make the point that two
        entertainers on a 30 minute tv show will make.”

        Exactly – and they’re selling their brand of freedom, which doesn’t include much freedom, much like the “Beef” in Europe these days. Just because you call horse meat beef, doesn’t make it beef. But you know what’s funny, You just said the tax-payer shouldn’t pay for it, which is exactly, really, exactly what “occupy WALL STREET” [caps for emphasis, not yelling] was all about: taxpayers paying for Wall Street.

      • David Howe

        ah….and the endless worship of rich assholes continues…

      • David Howe

        ah….and the endless worship of rich assholes continues…

  • Matt G

    Keep pretending that Clay Aiken didn’t give you that lecture Penn. I didn’t think things could get worse for Penn… I was wrong.

  • MCMoose

    I got to :59. Two entertainers. Period.

  • akbar lightning
  • helentfield

    til I saw the bank draft which was of $4021, I didn’t
    believe that my best friend was actualie making money in there spare time from
    there computar.. there neighbour had bean doing this for under a year and at
    present repayed the debts on their cottage and bought a great Saab 99 Turbo. we
    looked here, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • helentfield

    til I saw the bank draft which was of $4021, I didn’t
    believe that my best friend was actualie making money in there spare time from
    there computar.. there neighbour had bean doing this for under a year and at
    present repayed the debts on their cottage and bought a great Saab 99 Turbo. we
    looked here, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

21