Actually, the funniest part of the above comment is that while I actually do support Bill O’Reilly’s First Amendment rights, he doesn’t support mine.

A) obviously wrong, or

B) presented with absolutely no acknowledgment of possibly contradictory information.

Incidentally, the reason I’m writing these comments like a stuffy philosophy paper is because I’m doing so while taking a break from writing a stuffy philosophy paper.

Wait, just kidding. The man is an enemy of logic and reason. There is, simply put, absolutely no “philosophical level” to his ravings, if we’re to take philosophy as a serious, logical inquiry instead of a collection of a cluster of bizarre assertions based only in tribal prejudices and the gut instincts of a crazy person.

If you want to point me in the direction of a single serious philosophical argument Beck has made, then that would totally alter my perception of him. But everything I’ve heard from the man leads me to believe that his so-called “philosophy” is an affront to legitimate philosophical inquiry.

Glenn Beck is not a news show, though some of the things on his show become newsworthy.

The best thing about Glenn Beck is that he discusses issues in the context of principles and history – and tries to draw the picture of social and political connections that are complex and/or obscured.

He may not always be right – and I can’t stand his religious side, but I love that he bothers to question things at a philosophical level.