Castle Magus

"Hi. This week, we're looking at George Soros: where he came from, how he made his money, and why the right-wing obsessively thinks he's the puppetmaster behind everything they don't like."

---

Betteridge's law of headlines.

"As the coronavirus continues to spread across the globe, John Oliver discusses President Trump’s inconsistent response to the pandemic, including his suggestion of an Easter deadline for sending America back to work, and his reluctance to use the Defense Production Act."

---

Also, apparently, Glenn Beck is still a thing? *eye roll + facepalm + smdh + weary sigh*

Alternative links in case of region-locking bullshit:
https://www.dailymotion.com/search/last%20week%20tonight%20coronavirus%20iii
https://www.dailymotion.com/search/last%20week%20tonight%20march%2029%202020

Wow. (More from Google.)

On the one hand, that's pretty bad for Trump when Glenn fucking Beck, of all people, is saying he's bad news, given what a ridiculously asinine braying jackass Glenn Beck himself usually is. And I agree with Beck in this case, though not for the same reasons. It's most likely true that Trump winning the nomination would indeed be a grievous blow to the GOP (and it's definitely true that Trump winning the presidency would be a grievous blow to the nation as a whole and the world overall, but that's another kettle of fish altogether).

On the other hand, one of the reasons Beck gives for not supporting Trump is because he claims that Trump is "too progressive." So, in other words, the way I see it is that Beck doesn't support Trump because Trump apparently isn't crazy enough for Beck's taste. Go figure. Remember, Beck and his ilk are people who try (and have been trying, for around nine or ten years now) to claim that Barack Obama is an evil socialist/communist/terrorist/Nazi/Muslim/Kenyan/whatever, too. Anyone who isn't firmly on the extreme far right will be "too progressive" for them.

So, basically, what I'm saying here is that I'm honestly not sure if Glenn Beck being against Trump is actually bad for Trump or good for him.

(Also, I'm not entirely sure why people just seem to assume that Hillary Clinton will definitely be the Democrat nominee. I don't think it can be simply taken as a given that she will defeat Bernie Sanders in the primaries. I mean, she probably will, but I don't think that it'll be an absolute slam dunk on Hillary's part, either.)

So Obama has released his long-form birth certificate.

This is something that the other side has been clamoring for him to do since before he got in office, but the clamor has increased lately thanks to retards like Donald Trump (pride is a sin, Mr. Trump, or so they say). But now that he's finally done so, what does the other side do? Why, of course, they accuse him of "playing politics." Pot, kettle, black.

Oh, and there are already dumbasses who are questioning or even explicitly saying that it's fake. Google it yourself. I'm not even going to dignify it with a link (other than that one).

Honestly, I think Obama would have been better off continuing to do what he had been doing all along: not feeding the trolls.

Wow.

That's all the commentary I feel up for at the moment.

Wow, Glenn Beck. Just... wow. It never ceases to amaze and dismay me that there are actually people out there who still, to this day, take this fruit loop seriously.

(EDIT) Broken embed removed. *weary sigh* (/EDIT)

Oh, wait, does this include his own so-called "university"?

(Follow up to this.)

I'm seeing some people saying things like "It's free speech, they should be able to burn whatever books they want" or "Well, I don't see anyone telling the Muslims not to murder to keep people from burning the Quran, so why are we telling people not to burn the Quran to keep the Muslims from murdering" and such.

First of all, okay, yeah, sure, burning a book is protected by free speech, I suppose, maybe? I don't know if it is or isn't. It probably is, and that's swell. Okay, but even if you're totally within your rights to burn a Quran, I'm still going to exercise my own right of free speech here to say that I think you are a stupid jackass for doing so.

Second of all, well, if you are the type who would burn a Quran to begin with, then it's fairly obvious that you're probably one of those who feels that all Muslims are terrorists anyway. (As always, I find that notion ridiculous, of course, but let's run with this for a bit.) I mean, it's not like there's one Quran that the Muslim terrorists use and then another different Quran that the rest of the Muslims use. (Any more than there's a different Bible that Fred Phelps uses, so I guess that makes all Christians just like Mr. Phelps, yeah? So I guess we should start burning Bibles too, huh?) Okay, so we've established that all Muslims are terrorists who will kill at the drop of a hat, with me so far? Good. So then, why in the blue hell would you do something so stupid as to burn a Quran? That would be like waving a red cape in front of an angry bull and then being surprised when he charges and tramples you (or the soldiers that are there trying to protect you from the angry bull).

It's just like that whole Everybody Draw Mohammed Day thing that went on a while back. If you were inclined to support or participate in that, then it's a safe bet that you already thought that all Muslims were assholes anyway, therefore what did you care if you pissed them off? Well, same as with burning the Quran, just because you can be a complete douchebag and do something like that, should you? Especially if you already believe that all Muslims everywhere are murderers who would rather kill you than give you the time of day, then why would you needlessly antagonize them like this? Would you also throw a rock at a nest of hornets and then be all whiny when they swarmed down and stung you? The Muslims are obviously (in your eyes) a sub-human force of evil who will kill anything that moves no matter what you do, so why bother drawing their ire even more so? If they really are what you believe them to be, then burning the Quran (or drawing Mohammed) isn't going to make them stop. It's just going to make them worse, so why bother doing it? Again, all that it does is make you look like a stupid jackass and needlessly piss off everyone else (yes, even non-Muslims).

On the other hand, if I am right, and most Muslims aren't terrorist asshats, then you are angering a large number of people undeservedly just to spite the few who are. And that, I believe, is far worse. But anyway, why should I care what you think? You're just a stupid asshat who thinks it's okay to burn a book.

(EDIT)

On this issue, even Glenn Beck (of all people, amazingly) makes a bit of sense. (Though why he's comparing this in any way to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" thing is beyond me.)

And here's Keith Olbermann's take on it. (I think he's trying a bit too hard to paint this as a "Ha ha, look, the Republicans obviously support the Quran burning by not speaking out against it!" thing, but aside from that, he's pretty much on point as well. The military guy he interviewed nailed it, though.)

(/EDIT)