The “eight years” comment should’ve been directed at your second point, because for most of that time, conservative pundits dismissed the anti-war movement as a collection of liberal pansy nutjobs. Now, however, they’re all about dissenting opinions, because they’re a key part of democracy. I agree, but the glaring hypocrisy considering their actions during the Bush administration is blindingly obvious.

1. Obama’s “Czars” which are seen by many people as a successful attempt to install and expand leadership in areas where government has no business while bypassing the approval process. Many of these people are seen to have extremist views and questionable alliances, but were never examined because they were simply appointed in an “unchecked and unconstitutional expansion of government”.

2. He is highlighting what is seen by many as the current trend in which disagreeing in any way with the president, green movement, anti-war stance, etc. immediately throws out any chance you have of being taken seriously, and gets you labeled as a bigot or stupid or elitist or heartless or some other stereotype, thereby discouraging open discourse. If people can be trained not to listen to any dissenting voice, the work of convincing them to blindly follow becomes much easier. (i.e. the surest way to enslave people is not physically, but mentally)

3. He is saying that many people are defending policies and positions, but have to factual basis for doing so. However, when confronted with opposing facts and references, they will passionately defend a baseless opinion and ignore reality. He is saying that while that can seem funny, and even a little entertaining, the end result is quite dangerous, as many of the atrocities in the world have substantially benefitted from lack of opposition because people didn’t want to face the truth of what was going on.

He is wearing that “uniform” because he is the general that is going to lead the war against big government and the brain-washed lefty zombies. His tactics will be swift and effective, ambushes, propoganda, gas chambers, whatever is necessary to make sure the liberals and there illegitametly born President are defeated.

That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

Glenn Beck “posing” as an authoritarian party hack?

I have yet to hear anything like a creative, compassionate or constructive thought from Beck – but I hear plenty of hateful, cynical and self-serving spouting.

As usual, Beck is not remotely interested in any kind of respectful debate (note his subtitle “How to STOP small minds and big government”).

And you have to love the layers of hypocrisy from someone who makes more money than most of us by “arguing with idiots”.

Too bad civil dialog doesn’t pay so well…

Oddly enough, I’ll be leading a Bible study tonight. The text is Psalms 1, which starts out with –
Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.

Beck and Limbaugh are leaders in the “cause” of cynicism and mockery. I just don’t understand why people who call themselves Christians cheer them on.

As far as the cover, I think he is trying to be satirical – he tends to be that in general – and I think he is mocking the “idiots” he is writing against. Yes, mocking. He does that now, too. I would imagine his motivation is also posing that way to “show” that the US is going to become the next USSR, in which case military service and “re-education” would be required, so we’d all look like that, right?

Like I said, used to be level-headed.

@M – it’s ironic, I used to think the opposite: “why is Glenn Beck posing as a conservative when he is clearly a Libertarian?”