Man, I absolutely LOVE when someone illustrates so well any of the many examples of complete and utter Liberal stupidity and/or hypocrisy.  It's just one of the reasons I like Glenn Beck.

  This is a little article he wrote about people idolizing Che Guevara.  And by people, I mean Liberals.

  Here's the article:  T-shirt depicts 'pathetic and brutal legacy'

  The positions of Liberals?  Let's see.  Anti-racism (supposedly).  Anti-war.

  Che?  Let's see.

  "their different attitudes of life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead."

  Mass murdering man who reveled in killing and tried to start numerous wars.

  Hmmm.  Why do so many Liberals like him, again?  Oh, right.  He was a revolutionary.  And revolution is always good, all of the time.   Like change.

  Want to bring in a communist dictatorship?  That's fine, as long as it's revolutionary.


    But, I guess there is at least one (or a few, depending on your perspective) good reason why these people identify with him.  They both were adamant about achieving a goal they thought was good, which is actually bad, and ultimately became miserable failures.

  Because if there's one thing Liberals know, is how to cook up harmful, though well-intentioned, schemes that ultimately fail.  Like nationalized health care.



  And then there's the comments about the article.  Without fail, if there's a conservative article, there will always be at least one person who completely missunderstands it in some absurdly moronic way.

  Let's look at "Me".

"So by this logic, wearing a red cross of any kind means you are making terrorists believe you are one of them? While I don't believe Che deserves to be the iconic symbol he has become, I think your article is extremely narrow minded. Maybe we should all stop waving American flags because of the deaths caused by the wars our country tried to start."

  First of all, what to what logic are you referring?  There is nothing in the artcile that reflects the idea that wearing anything makes you a terrorist.

  And the last part; completely missing the point of the article, not to mention a very feeble analogy.  Again, not everything is inherently good or bad, including war.


  Next we have Louise.   "Wearing a T-shirt doesn't make you a terrorist. Give me a break."

  Well, Louise, I completely agree.  And since nothing in the article is suggesting it, I'm kind of wondering what you want the break about.

  Or was it just you competely missinterpretting this line:  "When you are wearing a Che T-shirt, you're wearing the same shirt that makes terrorists believe you're just one of the gang."?



Art N. felt the desire to say:  "Classic conservative approach, Glenn. Gas prices and the energy situation are in crisis, inflation is on the rise, the war in Afghanistan is escalation, the Iraqi war has no end or goal in sight, and you chum up the yokels on a nothing non-issue like Che shirts. All those ugly major urgent problems you conservatives caused, and you howl about a trifle like a t-shirt, and link it to terrorism. How characteristic of the conservative propaganda machine!"

  He apparently doesn't know anything about Glenn Beck.  Yes, he wrote one little article about Che t-shirts.  And talks repeatedly on both his radio and tv show about gas prices, inflation, the war, and a whole host of other issues.

  By the way, Art.  The shirt IS linked to terrorism by virtue of it depicting a terrorist with an intent to idolize that terrorist.



  BBB notes:   "Seems like his revolution worked pretty well in Cuba."

  You could say that, but I'd rather know what Che thought about it when Catro had him killed.



Brad Goins:   "Who is this guy? I wear a Che t-shirt. I'm just a schmo and the shirt is just like any other shirt -- a shirt. I find this editorial offensive, snide and mean-spirited. The logic, such as it is, is that because person X wears a shirt, I shouldn't wear it. I'm not familiar with that argument or the logic that would support it. Maybe it's a form of logic called Beck logic. Haven't read about that one in the books yet."

  Brad needs to learn a little more about what logic is, because nothing in the article, in any way, reflects his interpretation.  Maybe you're not familiar with that argument because you just made it up.  Which would make it Brad logic.



  Finally, to date, we have Andy.  "Wahhhh. It's no longer about the actual guy. He's an idea. A symbol. Like Batman. And he wouldn't be the first flop out of history to be made a hero (see Christopher Columbus)."

  Given who the actual guy was, actually, when was it ever about him?  When did they wear the t-shirt in support of mass-murdering, war-loving, and communism?  Oh, wait.  It probably was often worn in support of communism.