Skip to content

Glenn Tweedledum Beck: “George Bernard Shaw Was An Evil Man”

01/21/2010
by

“Don’t let your children read Shaw. If you see that your children bring home a book by George Bernard Shaw…call the school and have them stop teaching Shaw. He’s an evil, evil man.”

Beck’s minion blurts, “Ya, he’s more than a lovable old Irish writer.”

I personally think “Storm Trooper” Beck would be the happiest person at a book burning and obviously believes in censorship.

On this mornings radio show, Tweedledum Beck was railing against modern “progressives” and linking them together with Karl Marx, the Fabian Society and Shaw, who had been a member in the early 20th Century.

“We are going to tell you things that even the history books don’t tell you” Beck pontificates. “I’m going into the documentary business.” This in reference to his new, and I use the word loosely, documentary he’s releasing in partnership with Fox Network on Marx and the present progressive movement.

Since Mr. Tweedledum says he’s telling things the history books don’t tell us, I will state a few things they do: 1) The Fabian Society was for a minimum wage 1906. 2) Against hereditary peerages 1917 and 3) For the creation of a universal health care system 1911. They fought for slum clearance, a better military and a national educational system because

It is in the class-rooms that the future battles…for commercial prosperity are already being lost.

Beck trying to tie all this with Karl Marx and Communism fails since the “History Books” show that Leon Trotsky, a Bolshevik, revolutionary socialist and former Red Army General wrote:

Fabianism was an attempt to save capitalism from the working class…throughout the whole history of the British Labour movement there has been pressure by the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat through the agency of radicals, intellectuals, drawing-room and church socialists and Owenite who reject the class struggle and advocate the principle of social solidarity, preach collaboration with the bourgeoisie, bridle, enfeeble and politically debase the proletariat.

Maybe Mr. Beck would like children not to read Clement Moore’s, The Night Before Christmas, since it obviously teaches them about getting something for free or even distribution of wealth.

36 Comments leave one →
  1. 01/21/2010 1:41 pm

    Good post. I do have to admit a curiousity as to when the religious right is going to follow their puritan forerunners and actually ban Christmas rather than try to infuse an artificial Christian spirit.

    The neocons have this interesting version of history that seems to come from a bizarre parallel universe. For example, some take TR to be a conservative.

    Also, I belieeve the actual Boston Tea Party was more a protest against the British East India Company’s monopoly than the tax on tea. Along with the slogan “no taxtation without representation” being transformed into “no taxation”. There is a difference between the two concepts.

  2. Duh permalink
    01/21/2010 3:12 pm

    Where does Glenn Beck get the idea that George Bernard Shaw was an evil man? He gets the idea directly from George Bernard Shaw:

    “The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”

    So, in this case, Glenn Beck is absolutely correct. George Bernard Shaw was as evil as evil gets.

  3. 01/21/2010 5:50 pm

    Uh, nothiing like taking quotes out of context and not making reference to where the quote is from. The Book in question is George Bernard Shaw’s “On the Rocks” and this is an excerpt from the Chapter: CHRISTIANITY AND THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT.

    The quote in Context.

    Now it is not enough to satirize this. We must examine why it
    occurred. It is not enough to protest that evildoers must not be
    paid in their own coin by treating them as cruelly as they have
    treated others. We still have to stop the mischief they do. What
    is to be done with them? It is easy to suggest that they should be
    reformed by gentleness and shamed by non-resistance. By all means,
    if they respond to that treatment. But if gentleness fails to
    reform them and non-resistance encourages them to further
    aggression, what then? A month spent in a Tolstoyan community will
    convince anybody of the soundness of the nearest police inspector’s
    belief that every normal human group contains not only a percentage
    of saints but also a percentage of irreclaimable scoundrels and
    good-for-noughts who will wreck any community unless they are
    expensively restrained or cheaply exterminated. Our Mosaic system
    of vindictive punishment, politely called “retributory” by Prison
    Commissioners, disposes of them temporarily; but it wastes the
    lives of honest citizens in guarding them; sets a horrible example
    of cruelty and malicious injury; costs a good deal of money that
    might be better spent; and, after all, sooner or later lets the
    scoundrel loose again to recommence his depredations. It would be
    much more sensible and less cruel to treat him as we treat mad dogs
    or adders, without malice or cruelty, and without reference to
    catalogues of particular crimes. The notion that persons should be
    safe from extermination as long as they do not commit wilful
    murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol,
    is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to
    privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies
    outside them, but to divert attention from the essential
    justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible
    social incompatibility and nothing else.

  4. Duh permalink
    01/22/2010 10:08 am

    Nothing like supporting proponents of eugenics. He was an outspoken advocate of eugenics, believing in racial and social purity through government approved selective breeding.

    “Being cowards, we defeat natural selection under cover of philanthropy: being sluggards, we neglect artificial selection under cover of delicacy and morality.”

    Shaw made no apologies for his radical beliefs. He was quite proud of his “progressive” thought in this regard. It makes me wonder why anyone would feel the need to dismiss the facts in his defense. He never did. He never felt the need to.

    The quoted text from “On the Rocks,” which you quoted more fully, only solidifies the context that HE put it in. It supports my position and not yours.

    It is akin to my saying that Hitler was evil because he hated jews. Your retort becomes: “No, he was a great and good man because he really, really hated jews and began the systematic extermination of them and even that needs to be put into the context of starting a world war.”

    Read the full Shaw quote you posted. He was merciless. He didn’t believe in rehabilitation, for even minor offenses. As stated above he believed it wasted the time of good, socially acceptable citizens, cost money and was ineffective. He believed all social inferiors (not just criminals) should be treated as mad dogs. Killed. Immediately. Unapologetically.

    Shaw was evil. Dismissing his twisted thinking because he could turn a good phrase is… sad.

  5. 01/22/2010 12:23 pm

    Read the entire book.

  6. 01/22/2010 12:27 pm

    Laci, Thank you for your insight and comments. Duh does “cherry” pick their argument. Please see today’s guest post which addresses that same point and adds more insight to the debate.

    Also thank you for the alert on the gun site issue which we have updated in the original posting.

  7. 01/22/2010 12:29 pm

    Shaw was a proponent of Eugenics, who believed that “the only fundamental and possible Socialism” was “the socialisation of the selective breeding of Man”. At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he warned of the need to use a “lethal chamber” to solve the problem. Shaw said: “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …” Not all contemporary commentators noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists’ wilder dreams.

  8. Duh permalink
    01/22/2010 4:25 pm

    Talk about missing the mark… Was Shaw an advocate of eugenics? Yes. Fact. Not in dispute.

    As quoted above: “Not all contemporary commentators noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists’ wilder dreams.”

    Maybe that is because not all of those contemporary commentators were missing satire where none existed — certainly not in the manner of Jonathan Swift.

    Shaw, himself, was a strong supporter of eugenics. This is an indisputable fact. If he was, as stated, only arguing against the “wilder dreams” of eugenicists, what, pray tell, are the less wild dreams of a eugenicist? Please tell me because these less wild dreams are obviously acceptable to you. Forget exterminating the socially and physically inferior. How about:

    Forced selective breeding (for the good of society)?

    Forced sterilization of those deemed inferior (for the good of society)?

    The view that only those deemed worthy by the progressive era eugenicists should have social, economic and reproductive freedoms (for the good of society)?

    Is it such a leap to assume that once the “less wild dreams” of progressive eugenicists were obtained that the “wilder dreams” would not be quite so inconceivable?

    Have any of these grand progressive ideas regarding eugenics ever been put into practice? Yes. By a guy named Adolf in a very progressive socialist state praised by Shaw, Nazi Germany.

    To again address the original post, Beck was correct in this instance.

    Shaw believed in the putrid principles of eugenics because HE WAS A EUGENICIST!!! The two are inseparable.

    George Bernard Shaw was evil in thought and evil in words.

  9. Molinero permalink
    01/23/2010 5:27 am

    I, at times listen to Glenn Beck, and have never heard him call for Book Burning, and from what I have heard from him, would discourge it. (Unless you’re burning books which belongs to you)

    One thing I have noticed though, those who say that this person, or that one wants to “Burn Books” with “Dangerous Ideas”, are the very ones who are intolerent of ideas they dislike. I wonder how tolerent Tristan is of opposing points of views.

  10. 01/23/2010 11:42 am

    You will find many “opposing points of views” posted in the comment section of DTD. You will find a dissenting view on this topic. Please check out the posts on “gun control” and the objections posted.

    I will not publish comments that think using vulgarity is a way to make a point, for it does not reinforce the discussion or add to the quality of debate.

    I also will not publish those “rants” and comments that attack a persons well being or safety, such as was received on this issue when the commenter said that they hope the Guest Poster gets “ran over by a f**king expensive as hell solar powered “green” bus.” Also attacks on my life style does not enhance the issue, or further the discussion of issues that were posted.

    If Shaw is considered “evil” because of what he writes or thinks, and not on what he did in his life (action), then the same rule applies when judging what people post in discussion, or in some cases the non discussion, and become just plain spewing forth of hate, rhetoric and talking points from both sides of the “right/left” spectrum.

  11. chris permalink
    01/23/2010 2:10 pm

    Opposing points of view on DDT that are myths….

    I can show you quotes of people in important environmental positions saying it is a shame DDT was used because malaria is a natural population control…. would you like me to list these published quotes?

    This thinking is the same thinking as Shaw…

    Liberals should just say it… we don’t like the riff raff in the world, and we want them to die.

    Of course Shaw’s practice weren’t put into practice in the United States… just because it wasn’t endorsed doesn’t mean he would be happy to do it… he said flat out that he would LIKE to…. just like the liberal DDT propaganda people who want malaria to kill of less then desirable people

  12. Duh permalink
    01/23/2010 2:24 pm

    I agree with Tristan on this point. I have a different view on Shaw than other posters on this site. I was permitted to state my views. I challenged their views and my views were, in turn, challenged by others — all in a civil manner. No harm, no foul. Just civil debate.

    A point where I may disagree with Tristan because it is not clear: “If Shaw is considered “evil” because of what he writes or thinks, and not on what he did in his life (action), then the same rule applies when judging what people post in discussion…”

    Put it in another context. If someone is a racist does that make them evil? Not necessarily. If that person, however, writes, publishes and speaks in public about how a certain race is worthless to society, sub-human and needs to be eliminated does that make them evil? I would argue, yes. That, in itself, is action. I would not necessarily call defenders of that person evil (unless it is because they believed the same rubbish). I would simply consider them misguided.

    So far no one can enlighten me as to just why George Bernard Shaw needs to be defended? What was so great about this man? He was an ok playwright. He seemed very affable on old films. He was exceptionally brilliant when it came to quotable one-liners.

    He was still a detestable human being from his outspoken advocacy of eugenics, his praise of totalitarian dictators and the Nazis state. All of which I consider “actions” on his part.

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

  13. 01/24/2010 12:08 pm

    Thank you for your comment.

    I really wasn’t defending Shaw and what he wrote, and I feel Steve Oravecz in his posting did a fine job stating how I felt about Shaw’s statements, but pointing out the idea of telling schools that they “shouldn’t be teaching him.” The censorship idea bothers me more than, in context, what Shaw wrote.

    Even Shaw’s support of Nazi Germany, tho not agreed with, can be, in-hind sight, understood because of how he as an Irishman would be for anything to remove the British from Ireland and what he perceived as an occupation.

    Your statement showing one to be racist is clearly understood by me, and in many ways I agree, but is it the action of writing and stating that makes it evil or the “call to action” that makes one evil? An example of this, in my thoughts, is Bill O’Reilly and murder of Doctor Tiller. Calling for the murder, and urging, of abortion doctors is an example evil. BTW I will interject that I am a pro-life supporter and that’s another subject all together.

    Again thank you for you comments and dialogue.

  14. 01/25/2010 12:32 pm

    George Bernard Shaw quotes:

    “Americans adore me and will go on adoring me until I say something nice about them.”

    “An American has no sense of privacy. He does not know what it means.There is no such thing in the country.”

    “Criminals do not die by the hands of the law. They die by the hands of other men.”

    “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.”

    “Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.”

    “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”

    “An asylum for the sane would be empty in America.”

    “Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.”

    “Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few”

    And we wonder where our pols get their ideas? Especially “Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few,” reads like the current administration.

  15. emily permalink
    02/20/2010 6:41 am

    Love browsing this blog, I usually find out something new stuff.
    Emily Randall from Husky Training.net

  16. zanelle permalink
    04/01/2010 11:42 am

    I saw part of the Glen Beck lesson on George Bernard Shaw. As usual he sensationalized it all and made Shaw out to be very evil. I hadnt realized that Shaw had those views and it does make me wary of him now. But Glen reminds me of the horrible branding of anyone who was a communist in the fifties. It was a terrible time. Proving that you love America means that you have to think just like Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman. That is not the America I love. I want free speech and freedom of religion.

  17. Melissa permalink
    04/05/2010 3:17 pm

    In Beck’s defense, satire can be very hard to read. It is often contextual, and if you are unfamiliar with the context in which the author is living, the satirical nature of his remarks might not be evident. However, GB Shaw was a well known satirist. In his own time, his audience knew that any particularly shocking statement he made was to be taken as a condemnation of itself. The tip-off is in the adjectives. Satire tends to add adjectives into a statement which detract from the statement itself. Words like “Unnecessary” or “essential.” There is often a preponderance of adverbs as well. Words like “humanely” which both exaggerate the writer’s statements and call attention to themselves and thus put distance between the reader and the words.

    Shaw was Irish, and the Irish have always been noted for their sensitivity to language and its subtler uses. Americans tend to be more straightforward and concrete in their interpretations. I don’t know what Beck’s educational background might be, whether he has any lit-crit background where he might have been trained to recognize satire when he sees it (My masters degree is in Writing), but I have seen enough of his program to recognize that subtlety is not his strongest area.

  18. Shane Hesprich permalink
    04/08/2010 11:36 am


    watch this video of an actual quote from George Bernard Shaw, and tell me if you still think he isn’t evil.

  19. Todd permalink
    04/15/2010 12:21 pm

    While I can’t comment on Glen Beck’s show I can make a few statements about George Bernard Shaw, the man was insane. Perhaps beck showed the video of Shaw stating people need to prove their worth every few years and if they are not producing enough they should be killed.

    He was a supporter of Eugenics which anyone supporting that should at least have their sanity and motives questioned. Yes I know other famous people supported it. He concludes that if we want a perfect society, then we should expect to kill of anyone who does not fit or does not want to fit in it, he supported communism in various forms, supported stalin, hitler and others for their efforts judging them on results over misplaced notions of freedom, plus his plays have this kind of politics and eugenics in them. He is clearly against capitalism and as a supporter of Eugenics, it is easy to see why he thinks freedom is not a right.

    Some will argue this was all a sham, he was using the satirical methods of reductio ad absurdum as a way to go against all of the wacked ideas of the Eugenics, progressive, marxist and nazi ideology, the problem is the lack of quotes directly opposed to these things or any support for capitalism, no direct support for anything that could be considered support for Western concepts of freedom and the right to live as you choose. The claim that if you take his comments out of satirical context he looks bad is the problem. The man never actually showed he was against anything his satire was about, which would create a conclusion that he was not being satirical but using satire as a means to disguise his true ideology. Basically, he pretended to be satirical to be able to write and speak those evil ideas but avoid criticism because he was just joking. The fact is he made the statements got them out in the public as legitimate ideas and never refuted any of them with what his motives really were.

    The facts are people like Shaw created and embarrassed really bad ideas like Eugenics and Progressive ideology and today we are dealing with the consequences of the actions taken by Shaw and many many other idiots of his time. Hundreds of politicians, leaders and political philosophers were completely wrong in their progressive ideas, support for marxism, their distaste of capitalism and their insistence that free individuals defining their own rights and living as they choose was somehow bad.

    It would seem we had great politicians, philosophers and statesmen until about Abraham Lincoln, since then we have had nothing but fools like Marx, Shaw, Wilson, FDR, Lenin, Mao, Chamberlain and many others who were at best fools or a lot worse and the ideas these people put forth are what we are dealing with today.

    We should read Shaw but it should be in the context of his actual political philosophy of Eugenics and his support for ideologies that would see most of us dead for our lack of value. Either by killing us directly or indirectly as a result of his politics. While it is debatable that he was or was not for direct violence because he seemed to state he was against it but humane lethal chambers, seem to be ok to him, he in fact did support ideologies that if implemented in any way, would still result in millions dead. The man was evil, a fool with bad ideas but the popularity to see that his ideas were heard and taken seriously, a good enough definition of a bad guy to me.

  20. Kathryn permalink
    05/08/2010 1:09 pm

    The never ending debating society- aka terminally clueless. I’ll happily allow my children to read G. Barnard Shaw when it is age appropriate.

    I’ll keep nothing from them, as they mature and determine their place in this world.

    One thing is unanimous…. NO ONE wants to live in Amerika…

    {{sob}}}…they make me so PROUD! A mothers dream!

  21. TheBigPicture permalink
    05/21/2010 10:18 pm

    I saw the Glenn Beck’s program that discussed Shaw and have to agree with Tristan that it did come off as a little “over the top” but, the sensationalism and dramatic flair are the only things that can hold the attention span of our modern day society. When you sift through the facts, regardless of how they are presented, the revelations are startling.

    Your remarks about the Fabian Society do not absolve Shaw from any of his sins simply because he was a part of an organization that did make beneficial changes to society. Time for an analogy. If a man is a faithful husband and loving father for many years but, becomes dis-satisfied with his life and kills his family and himself, how will he be remembered? Yep, as a murderer. Shaw may not have had the smoking gun but, he did nothing to speak out against the acts being committed, instead…he openly supports them.

    Every generation will see a new incarnation of the “progressive movement” but, never forget that the base for these ideals come from Socialist and Communist views. These government philosophies don’t sound too bad on their own. A “classless” society where all are equals and share equally. Now step back and take a look at the biggest advocates, do you see any hypocrisy in their implementations of these grand ideals? The same old “caste system” that has been implemented in governments around the world since the beginning of civilized society is all I see.

    TheBigPicture.

  22. Self-Esteem permalink
    06/11/2010 7:45 pm

    [quote] Since Mr. Tweedledum says he’s telling things the history books don’t tell us, I will state a few things they do: 1) The Fabian Society was for a minimum wage 1906. 2) Against hereditary peerages 1917 and 3) For the creation of a universal health care system 1911. They fought for slum clearance, a better military and a national educational system because [/quote]

    I am sure Mr Hitler did similarily good things. Is that reason enough to forget the Holocaust and the atrocities of WWII?

    Glenn Beck has good reasons for condemning George Bernard Shaw.

    George Bernard Shaw was the first to openly enquire for a “humane” gas which could kill the unfit. He openly embraced Eugenics and once said

    “I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people whom I wish to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commisioners, and say every 5 years or every 7 years — just put them there and say ‘Sir or Madam. Now will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you are not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly, we cannot use the big organisation of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

    He also supported Hitler in the media and only ceased to do so after Hitler — according to Shaw’s own belief — gassed people based on their nationality, rather than their class

    George Bernard Shaw “Hitler got it all wrong. Absolutely different people needed to be killed”.

  23. 09/09/2010 5:03 pm

    Hello -

    I’m writing a book called War, Politics, and Superheroes and the final chapter is about the portrayal of Obama and Beck in superhero comic books. I was wondering if you drew the illustration of Beck and McCarthy, or who I could contact regarding obtaining permission to reprint the image?
    Any help you can offer would be very much appreciated.

    By the way, keep up the good work.

    All the best,
    Marc

    P.S. – George Bernard Shaw rocks. People need to read him more, not less.

  24. 06/29/2011 6:27 pm

    I’m not a fan of beck, but clearly you’ve never watched the show. He recommended reading and listening to the words, of these marxists.

  25. 06/30/2011 1:25 am

    Thank you for your comment and I hate to disappoint you….I do listen and watch Glenn Beck. One has to listen to those you disagree with so as to have their facts, real comments and talking points correct before discussing and analyzing.

  26. John Grant permalink
    07/02/2011 6:27 pm

    Re Eugenics, we read, typically:
    “Every generation will see a new incarnation of the “progressive movement” but, never forget that the base for these ideals come from Socialist and Communist views….

    Oh, if only it were so simple…. EVERYONE was into “eugenics” in the 20s and 30s: “Socialists,” “Communists,” and hmmm…. plenty of home grown Capitalists. Given the profound and enduring institutional subjugation of Afro-Americans in the USA, lynchings, rapes, torture, imprisonment for generations, the above-mentioned comments–and the sentiments that underlie them–seem just a tad naive, self-serving, and just plain ignorant.

  27. angie permalink
    09/02/2011 1:10 pm

    I’m so glad I came across this! Thank you for posting it, as well as the guest post on the same subject. I was verbally assaulted by my brother on this very topic about a month ago–a vitriolic diatribe that came out of nowhere. Until I researched where on earth he could get such notions about Shaw, I had no idea he was parroting Glenn Beck.

    I’ve studied Shaw extensively, and I tried to explain to my brother that Shaw was employing satire, like Swift does in “A Modest Proposal.” My brother’s response was seething: “No he wasn’t! Universities don’t teach you the truth! You won’t find it in the books you’ll read there!” To say I was gobsmacked (and still am) is an understatement.

    There is no arguing with people blind to confirmation bias, cherry-picked arguments, and faulty logic. There is no reasoning with people who believe that the “liberal machine in universities” has brainwashed millions into “sheeple” trained to believe whatever the “machine” wants. There is no way of explaining satire to people who genuinely don’t understand what it is. (I learned that unfortunate truth about satire when teaching “A Modest Proposal.” I had students I absolutely could not convince that it was satire. Thankfully, those students were few; otherwise, I would have wept.)

    Thanks again.

  28. 10/27/2011 12:53 pm

    You obviously are biased against the facts. Using nothing but inuendo shows you to be an edmucated idjit as Popeye would say.

  29. 10/28/2011 1:10 am

    You stated that I used nothing but “inuendo” (sic) in my little post, obviously you overlooked that 90% of the post was made up of direct quotes and 10%, I will admit, might be bias observation which was slanted towards the truth.

  30. Peoplewakeup permalink
    01/12/2013 9:47 pm

    Shaw was evil,indeed. The reason the left and all that it encompasses are into him is because he was an anything goes ,insane pop culture ,phoney.

  31. 01/16/2013 11:35 pm

    Shaw was a product of a different time and country which makes it hard for a semi-literate liberal from this era to judge. If you actually listened to Glenn Beck instead of regurgitating liberal spew you would see that he is a superb historian. Shaw was a dangerous man, Beck is a patriot!

  32. 01/17/2013 9:07 pm

    One man’s “patriot” is another man’s traitor. Just ask Benedict Arnold.

  33. 01/17/2013 9:08 pm

    Obviously you have no grasp on satire.

  34. 01/27/2014 9:20 am

    “Don’t let your children read[...]” Beck has pretty much given the game away in the first 5 words. “Don’t let your children read the authors I’m defaming or they might see I’m full of it.” It’s the Right that’s afraid of people reading, that burn books, who denounce intellectualism without having a clue what it is. Let your children read their asses off, it’s good for them. It helps them think for themselves. If that’s what you want them to do. I don’t think Beck wants children to go around thinking for themselves.

  35. Beth permalink
    03/19/2014 10:07 pm

    Obviously Tristan has no grasp on the truth… #1 tip off? Saying Beck told parents not to let their kids read George Bernard Shaw and to ban his books. In fact, he encourages people to read them and make their own opinion which I hope everyone on this thread does, unless you’re all for eugenics, communism, and the like. Socialists, communists are for book banning. They would like to tell you what you can read or watch on tv. If China and Russia take over the Internet, Tristan might find some of this out. Obama has yet thrown one of our freedoms away this week, you know it as what Al Gore invented…the internet.

  36. 03/20/2014 8:12 am

    Beth, I didn’t just say Beck said…I exact quoted him. Using your logic on Shaw, Beck’s words speak for themselves. I love that we are discussing a man who lived in the early 20th century but you can tie him in with your talking points of the 21st century and President Obama.

    Also Beth, if your Freedom using the internet is being “thrown out”, then how did I get your comment? How could I have approved and posted?

    Your “chicken little fear” of the sky is falling can be summed up by Shaw himself, “A pessimist is a man who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 391 other followers

%d bloggers like this: