Glenn Beck is not a liar. He backs up everything he says with proof.
you are being sarcastic, right?
no. I've been watching him two months now. He's got a great sense of humor, too.
I cannot disagree with a single thing he says when he's only stating facts.
You should watch him more.
Glenn Beck is not a liar. He backs up everything he says with proof.
you are being sarcastic, right?
no. I've been watching him two months now. He's got a great sense of humor, too.
I cannot disagree with a single thing he says when he's only stating facts.
You should watch him more.
i'd rather listen to a priest, about as much truth and proof coming from beck as from a priest...
click my link...66 pages of distortions and outright lies listed right there for you to read...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I appreciate you posting the link, but I live out in the middle of nowhere & only have dial-up. Extremely slow dial-up, so I don't dare click on any links.
How often do you watch Beck?
Glenn Beck is not a liar. He backs up everything he says with proof.
you are being sarcastic, right?
Unless she means "90 proof"... which might explain his incoherent ramblings and vituperative screamfests.
I especially love the part about our lottery system to see a dr. Just the other day I went my dr., no appointment, was out of his office within an hour and that iccludes getting blood work, just showed the office y health card.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I appreciate you posting the link, but I live out in the middle of nowhere & only have dial-up. Extremely slow dial-up, so I don't dare click on any links.
How often do you watch Beck?
i don't watch beck. i don't waste my time on him. hes a little too whiney and dramatic and paranoid for me. actually i think he is batshit crazy. he lost me when he began to cry on the air about how much "i love my country"...
seriously, click the link. its just a series of headlines and if you click a headline you can read the article. there are 66 pages of links on that page...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I appreciate you posting the link, but I live out in the middle of nowhere & only have dial-up. Extremely slow dial-up, so I don't dare click on any links.
How often do you watch Beck?
when he had his show on cnn during that food shortage every day he said it was because of ethanol and we just need to drill anywhere and everywhere ("even right through a polar bear's head if we need to!") one night a guy explained, or tried to, that the shortage was over wheat, not corn, which is what makes ethanol but this didn't stop him from blaming it on ethanol and pushing drilling for several days after that.
he also had that guy that wrote a book about liberals really being fascists for an entire week to push his theories. one of them, which glenn agreed with, was the push to ban trans-fats. according to these 2 knuckle heads trans fats aren't that bad for you, this was just a test for the fascists and a way to get their foot in the door for socialist, government control which will obviously lead to the government controlling what you eat and every aspect of your life.
i also think he has no backbone. during the primaries he constantly referred to ron paul as 'the mayor of crazy town' ....until the night he had him on his show and glenn proceeded to kiss his ass and tell him how he made so much sense....then about 2 or 3 days later he was back to calling him the mayor of crazy town.
another part that made me laugh was when bobby kennedy jr accused him of being a spokesman for industries like big oil and helping push their agendas he said corporations didn't have anything to do with his show....and then he'd tell us each break that it was brought to us by some company.
oh, and during the primaries kucinich made a comment about what do we tell the troops they are dying for? there were no wmd's, they weren't a threat to us, they had nothing to do with 9/11....so we need to ask ourselves why are we sending them over there? which makes sense to me but glenn kept implying he was against the troops and even said it proved kucinich 'hated' the troops because he said this in response to a question by a reporter while in another country which in glenn's demented mind equaled to kucinich talking shit about the troops to a foreign country, which make no sense whatsoever.
as you can see i have seen many episodes of his show while on cnn and not so much on fox but i catch parts of it now and then
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Glenn Beck is not a liar. He backs up everything he says with proof.
you are being sarcastic, right?
no. I've been watching him two months now. He's got a great sense of humor, too.
I cannot disagree with a single thing he says when he's only stating facts.
You should watch him more.
When Harry Smith offered one potential thing that Americans could possibly point out that might be construed as socialism, Obama quickly squashed that nonsense by pointing out that a Republican proposed a similar plan.
Here he is:
SMITH: They would say that mandating that people have to buy insurance is something like that.
OBAMA: The sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney? Yeah, so...it doesn’t make too much sense.
Which is why is why I said when Mitt Romney was running for president I don’t want anyone who even flirts with socialism...his defense for an obvious socialist act is: ‘Well Mitt Romney, he’s a Republican and he did it too.’
Did anybody else’s mom, I remember mine probably in 1969 saying, you know, things like: ‘If Mitt Romney would jump off a cliff, would you jump off too?’ Which wouldn’t have made any sense in 1969 because I wouldn’t have known who Mitt Romney was, but you get the point. It seems to me that you can’t disprove your socialism with someone else’s socialism. Can you?
Let me repeat the question: Do you agree with Glenn Beck that Mitt Romney - the man who almost won the Republican nomination for President in 2008 - is a socialist?
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
I agree that that Mitt Romney endorses socialist policies. And look how successful that program is (sarcasm) it's the most expensive insurance in the country. Bush & Obama are both big government politicians that are incredibly similar to me: where's the change everyone was looing for?
according to gb the other day under obama the tax rate will soon go up to 77%!!!! :shock:
of course, he offered nothing to support this claim.....
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I agree that that Mitt Romney endorses socialist policies. And look how successful that program is (sarcasm) it's the most expensive insurance in the country. Bush & Obama are both big government politicians that are incredibly similar to me: where's the change everyone was looing for?
Right, the guy who won the recent straw poll in the Southern Republican convention is a socialist. Well done. Then again, anyone to the left of Sean Hannity is a socialist according to this current crowd. :roll:
And btw, look up the Lily Leadbetter Act. It's one of the laws President Obama signed almost as soon as he got into office. It was named for a woman who was being unfairly denied full wages, and when she tried to sue to get them back, the Supreme Court said she couldn't.
If you weren't OK with women being denied equal pay, and getting denied their chance to sue for their rightfully due back wages... then you should be OK with this law, no?
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
according to gb the other day under obama the tax rate will soon go up to 77%!!!! :shock:
of course, he offered nothing to support this claim.....
yeah i was wondering what he was basing this on.....that would be like ME saying your federal tax rate will continue to be the lowest it has been in the last 50 years like it was this year...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
according to gb the other day under obama the tax rate will soon go up to 77%!!!! :shock:
of course, he offered nothing to support this claim.....
yeah i was wondering what he was basing this on.....that would be like ME saying your federal tax rate will continue to be the lowest it has been in the last 50 years like it was this year...
Oh I WISH the tax rate for the obscenely rich who destroyed our economy would go back to 77%. That's about the top marginal tax rate when JFK slashed it when he took office. We did pretty well then.
Heck, I wish the top marginal tax rate would go back to almost 90% under that notorious socialist President Dwight David Eisenhower.
It'll never happen though. Not today at least. Way too much influence peddling by the rich and powerful in DC.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
caught part of his show the other day and he had his chalkboards out
it was exposing the true agenda of progressives, see, progressives really want full control over every aspect of our lives and you know who else was a progressive? hitler! :shock:
:roll:
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
So what is a real gripe? I'd say this spending and continuing Iraq and the renewal of the PATRIOT Act are valid concerns.
...
I agree.
But, unfortunately, those grievences are not shared with the Tea Party.
The Tea Party may have begun as a Grass Roots thing... but, it has been taken over by those with the Republican agenda in mind.
The Tea Party would be better served by registering Libertarian or some other third party and weeding out the Republicans looking for a leadership role in their movement (i.e. Sarah Palin) and dropping their main sponsor, FOX News (a.k.a. Karl Rove News).
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree that that Mitt Romney endorses socialist policies. And look how successful that program is (sarcasm) it's the most expensive insurance in the country. Bush & Obama are both big government politicians that are incredibly similar to me: where's the change everyone was looing for?
...
If there is no change between Bush and Obama... that would mean the past year and a half should be taking the same tac as the previous 8 years... doesn't that make you happy?
And if Bush and Obama are the same... and Obama is a Socialist... doesn't that mean Bush is a Socialist?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I guess what I don't understand is, no one steps up to actually refute his claims. Yes, I realize that people who can't refute his ramblings are going to say that it's a waste of time, and he's not worth it etc. I'm not saying he's 100% right, 100% of the time, and I'm sure that things can be picked out that are incorrect. With that being said, if the vast majority of what he is saying is absolute bullshit, then why can't people come up with anything to counter him other than bashing him because he's a crier, he's dramatic, he's crazy, etc. etc. I agree, he is all of those things, but even your 66 links really do little more than just transcribe what he said along with some inane commentary (many are nothing more than embedded video), but they don't really offer a counter argument.
I wish I could click on these links but there's no point with my slow dial-up. I started watching Glenn Beck about 2 months ago & I gotta say: I LOVE HIM!!!! I do feel scared for my future after watching his show, but that's because he is able to explain what is happening in our country better than any other show I watch.
I have my organic, pasture-raised chicken egg farm, I've planted an organic orchard & I'm on the cusp of buying a dairy cow or goat so when our economy completely fails, at least I'll have food.
mary
if this is all true
you are fuckin crazy
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I guess what I don't understand is, no one steps up to actually refute his claims. Yes, I realize that people who can't refute his ramblings are going to say that it's a waste of time, and he's not worth it etc. I'm not saying he's 100% right, 100% of the time, and I'm sure that things can be picked out that are incorrect. With that being said, if the vast majority of what he is saying is absolute bullshit, then why can't people come up with anything to counter him other than bashing him because he's a crier, he's dramatic, he's crazy, etc. etc. I agree, he is all of those things, but even your 66 links really do little more than just transcribe what he said along with some inane commentary (many are nothing more than embedded video), but they don't really offer a counter argument.
...
It would take me a million words and several paragraphs to explain how Glenn Beck takes factual information and links them together in a manner that seems to make sense... sort of like I can link the crowing of the rooster to the rising of the Sun. The Rooster crow, the Sun rises. Two facts... roosters do crow... and the Sun (apparently) rises. I can link them together and explain how one fact leads to another. But, is it true? If the rooster does not crow... will the Sun fail to rise?
But, since we know, people here will not read past on or two paragraphs... I found this example that clearly illustrates how you can link things together unrelated facts to come to some sort of conclusion... ala Beck: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/0 ... 48129.html
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It would take me a million words and several paragraphs to explain how Glenn Beck takes factual information and links them together in a manner that seems to make sense.
Once again, a perfect example of mocking Beck, but no substantive counter argument. No one has asked anyone to write a thesis, but if he is so wrong on every single topic, just pick one and give a brief refute. Should be easy. :roll:
It would take me a million words and several paragraphs to explain how Glenn Beck takes factual information and links them together in a manner that seems to make sense.
Once again, a perfect example of mocking Beck, but no substantive counter argument. No one has asked anyone to write a thesis, but if he is so wrong on every single topic, just pick one and give a brief refute. Should be easy. :roll:
+1
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
His occasional missteps shouldn't overshadow his tremendous ability to present a reasoned, logical, unassailable argument.
April 30, 2010- by David SolwayShare | He’s been called a “fearmonger”; a “buffoon”; a “fake revolutionary”; a “loudmouth idiot pundit”; “easily the stupidest,” compared to Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, “in this pool of incredible stupidity”; “clearly psychotic and paranoid”; “ a “spokesdouche”; a “ranting hobo”; a “right-wing blowhard who talks endlessly about stuff he doesn’t have a clue about”; a “crybaby purging every last tear from his body”; an “insane, delusional, and paranoid whack job”; “a perverse and high-impact media spectacle”; a “wife beater”; a “moron in a hurry”; “a dick”; a “demagogue”; a possible murderer; a “lying scumbag”; a “complete and utter tool”; and, to make a very long story short, conflating from many other sources, a purveyor of hysteria, lies, ridiculous rants, and pathological utterances. The yada yada appears to be endless.
There is no question that Glenn Beck’s native exuberance can propel him into the ozone of the intemperate. Is Barack Obama really a “racist,” as Beck claimed, “a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture”? The basis for this verdict was Obama’s premature and blundering intervention in the Gates-Crowley controversy, claiming the white police officer reacted “stupidly” in arresting the black professor, which made the president look as intemperate as Beck is purported to be. One might criticize the president for unseemly haste, lack of judgment, failure of imagination, or personal bias — all worrisome traits in a head of state — but the charge of racism is clearly beyond the pale.
Ron Radosh points to a polemical earnestness in Beck that can render him prone to misreadings of events and embarrassing assumptions. Some of Beck’s statements obviously do tend to soar over the top, but such fulminations are also a function of talk radio or TV advocacy and are common to media hosts on both sides of the political spectrum. Keith Olbermann, when he is “on,” can reduce Beck to the status of a Trappist monk. Consider the hatchet job that Olbermann did on new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown who, according to the MSNBC pundit, is an “irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees.” I can’t think of anything Glenn Beck has said to rival this upchuck of vulgar bombast, yet Olbermann has largely gotten away with his logorrheic obscenity. Nor does Beck traffic in the trademark snideness of, say, Jon Stewart. And we must remember, too, that political commentary in this day and age has left the requisites of decorum far behind. David Frum’s serial pummeling of Sarah Palin, for example, looks more like the airing of a private vendetta or some lurid obsession than the development of a reasoned analysis.
As for George Bush’s treatment at the hands of a liberal-left press, let’s not even go there, for fear of infection.
Where Beck differs from his detractors, whose vehemence and malice know no bounds, and from his media competitors, whose use of the tar brush is often far more problematic, is in his undoubted patriotism, his historical erudition, and the acuity of his argumentation. This is especially true of his published writings. For example, his Common Sense brings Thomas Paine, a major architect of the American Revolution, back into the contemporary American political scene at a time when he seems to be needed most — at precisely the moment when the founding principles of the Republic seem to be at risk. Beck’s little volume turns to the past in order to consolidate the future, a conservative treatise in the true sense of the word “conservative.” Or alternatively, a liberal manifesto in the true anti-authoritarian sense of the word “liberal,” as understood in John Locke’s seminal Two Treatises of Government with its emphasis on the sanctity of life, liberty, and property.
No less striking is Beck’s most recent offering, Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, whose provocative title belies the sober good sense within its pages. The book prickles with facts, transcripts, and statistics calculated to chafe and irritate those in the adversarial camp, whose favored strategy is to respond ad hominem, blasting the messenger while at the same time refusing to assimilate the message. This is the device employed by the book’s resident “idiot” who pugnaciously raises the predictable counter-arguments marshaled by those who believe in big government, fiscal redistribution, and state control, only to be answered with the drive and panache that is the Beckian signet. But the “idiot” is no straw man set up merely to be knocked down; his rejoinders are exactly what we read and hear daily in the MSM. And as Beck writes in the introductory disclaimer, “being an idiot has nothing to do with your party affiliation, it has to do with whether you are able to look beyond that affiliation and follow the facts, wherever they may lead.”
The chapter titles give a strong indication of the social, political, and economic positions Beck will take up as he pursues his campaign against creeping socialism and the dismantling of the American experiment: “In Defense of Capitalism: Giving the Free Market a Fair Shake,” “Unions: When Is America Finished Paying Her Dues,” “The Nanny State: Saving You from Yourself, One Right at a Time,” “The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation,” and so on. Beck characteristically pulls no punches, but his arguments in favor of small government and individual responsibility and against “mission creep” are for the most part nuanced, precise, and factually grounded. And this is perhaps what his enemies cannot forgive him, dismissing as bluster or pontification what is nothing short of analytic fidelity to the actual state of affairs.
An argument is made up of three components: evidence, inference (or deduction), and judgment. And in any argument there can be many a slip ‘twixt the evidence and the inference, or the inference and the judgment. No one is saying that Beck is immune to forensic slippage. But if the facts are right and the inference is sound, then the conclusions are correct. This is why his many detractors, in trying to negate his arguments, will invariably attack his conclusions — and of course the man who arrived at them — while refusing to deal with the facts on which they are based or the inferences which issue in a judgment.
These critics, almost exclusively on the left, employ what we might call an anti-extrapolation strategy, that is, they proceed as if Beck had nothing to extrapolate from except his own “sick fantasies,” as if he were inventing arguments ex nihilo, weaving a tapestry whose threads are made out of glitter dust and synaptic orts and figments. Thus we are regaled with Whoopi Goldberg’s probing observation that Beck “is a lying sack of dog mess,” Roseanne Barr’s definitive assessment that “Glenn Beck is … a ‘death lover’,” Keith Olbermann’s frenetic denunciation that “only in his wildest dreams could an actual suicide bomber hope to do as much damage to this country as Glenn Beck does every day,” Discover Magazine’s lame tu quoque, “Glenn Beck is an idiot,” or Joe Klein’s ludicrous accusation that Beck is “close to being seditious,” among others. Notice how no one deigns to contest the facts or query the inferential arc.
At the end of the book, Beck appends a citation section of twenty-four close-printed pages, which any honest antagonist would consult and take the time to follow up, instead of lazily discarding the book and Beck along with it as wrong-headed, loony, irrelevant, or deceptive. Further, an educated critic might be expected to be familiar with much of the cited material, to be, in other words, in pre-possession of the facts. This is so palpably not the case as to beggar belief. But it is not only ignorance that is the trouble here; it is, also, sheer disingenuousness and colossal bad faith. For Beck’s contentions are fully backed up by the weights and measures of extensive research. Gun control doesn’t work. Nationalized health care is a miserable flop wherever it has been implemented. Unions were once necessary; they have now become self-perpetuating, monopolistic organizations in which the welfare of their members is sacrificed to the quest for corporative power. Invasive state control culminates in both the moral and economic devitalization of the individual citizen. In all these instances, the proof is in the pudding and Beck serves it up by the bowlful. There is no lack of documentation.
Given that the facts are well-attested, the only valid critique of Arguing with Idiots would have to focus on the middle stage of the discursive structure, namely inference or deduction, and show that it fails to connect the fact to the judgment. They would have to show that Beck has committed a variant of the error that philosophers call the “fallacy of the undistributed middle.” But I am not aware of any reviewer who has succeeded in the effort nor do I believe that Beck has faltered, except occasionally, in this respect.
One such lapse, to cite an example, seems to occur on page 278, where Beck praises Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which imposes a tax of $10 per head on the “importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit.” Beck infers that the Founders apparently felt “like there was a value to being able to live here.” The problem is that this clause might be construed to have laundered the taint of slavery, with slave owners gaining a moral bye for an affordable price. It cannot be denied that Beck has made a shaky inference in this particular case, but taken over the length of the book the logical bridges that lead from origin to terminal appear to be consistent and on the whole convincing. The cumulative effect is impressive, to put it mildly. And this is incalculably more than can be said for the majority of his critics.
It must be admitted, however, that Beck can be politically inconsistent, as evidenced by his baffling condemnation of his conservative ally and brave warrior against Islamic supremacism, Geert Wilders, whom he implicitly tarred on Fox News as an exponent of fascism. This is quite incomprehensible and reveals Beck at his most incongruous and mercurial — though it may just mollify some of his leftist assailants. I cannot account for so egregious a lapse in judgment, though others have sought for possible explanations, e.g., his unfamiliarity with European politics, or far less flatteringly, the stock recently purchased by a Saudi prince in NewsCorp. Or is it simply that sometimes the wind listeth where it will, unpredictably in so tempestuous a sensibility?
Yes, there is plainly something excessive and volatile about Glenn Beck, but on the whole I am glad of it. His virtues and his vices are really one and the same and flow from the same turbulent source: he brimmeth over. As poet William Blake wrote in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.” Fortunately, Beck’s propensity toward excess is, more often than not, indeed leavened with wisdom, though he may find himself one day in a different America, living in a pillbox rather than a palace.
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books.
(from your friends at Pajamas Media-bigdvs)
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
I guess what I don't understand is, no one steps up to actually refute his claims. Yes, I realize that people who can't refute his ramblings are going to say that it's a waste of time, and he's not worth it etc. I'm not saying he's 100% right, 100% of the time, and I'm sure that things can be picked out that are incorrect. With that being said, if the vast majority of what he is saying is absolute bullshit, then why can't people come up with anything to counter him other than bashing him because he's a crier, he's dramatic, he's crazy, etc. etc. I agree, he is all of those things, but even your 66 links really do little more than just transcribe what he said along with some inane commentary (many are nothing more than embedded video), but they don't really offer a counter argument.
my counter to that is how can you refute someone who is so full of shit? he pulls random unrelated things out of his ass and links them together, like on his chalkboard. like the artwork in rockefeller center is really what he says it is, come on, i could go to some mural at some landmark and do the same fucking thing. and people would believe me too. to me he is like hitler, "the bigger the lie, the more people are willing to believe". its not my job to refute him, nor do i care to. to me people that worship and hang on his every word are far too gone for reasoned counterpoints, and would not believe me or anyone else and thus not worth my effort.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It would take me a million words and several paragraphs to explain how Glenn Beck takes factual information and links them together in a manner that seems to make sense.
Once again, a perfect example of mocking Beck, but no substantive counter argument. No one has asked anyone to write a thesis, but if he is so wrong on every single topic, just pick one and give a brief refute. Should be easy. :roll:
...
Read my ENTIRE Statement (you just proved that people her are incapable of reading much beyond that).
I provided a visual representation on the LINK.
Watch the video... it explains what I am saying about him. That is... only if you have the attention span beyond 10 minutes.
....
And I gave you one... Rooster/Sun. That is what Glen Beck does... takes random facts and links them together to form a speculative conclusion. Watch the example that explains that, in a quite entertaining way.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No one is saying that Beck is immune to forensic slippage. But if the facts are right and the inference is sound, then the conclusions are correct. This is why his many detractors, in trying to negate his arguments, will invariably attack his conclusions — and of course the man who arrived at them — while refusing to deal with the facts on which they are based or the inferences which issue in a judgment.
These critics, almost exclusively on the left, employ what we might call an anti-extrapolation strategy, that is, they proceed as if Beck had nothing to extrapolate from except his own “sick fantasies,” as if he were inventing arguments ex nihilo, weaving a tapestry whose threads are made out of glitter dust and synaptic orts and figments.
Glenn Beck accentuates specific facts and details to present and more importantly project a vision of what he believes the future and present are. Cosmo generic example is a basic example of that type of scenario. According to Beck, and this is why intrinsically he's really a nut, is not because he says things people simply disagree with based on fact, but he says and projects things in which he makes a leap to get there and backs it by very specific facts which only tell part of the entire truth. For example, he's always yapping about "socialist policies and we're turning fascist", yet anyone with half a brain and common knowledge knows by examples in history or even basic definitions, socialism doesn't lead to fascism nor has it ever done so. He takes specific real world examples of fear politics, the slippery slope theory and broad sweeping generalizations and make a leap to paint a futuristic picture of what will be in this alter-reality he sets up. In basic terms, it's no more than a conspiracy theorist for the common man on its most basic terms... based on facts, history and loosely fitting mantra's that are more of a reach and leap compared to actual fact and hard line detail.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It would take me a million words and several paragraphs to explain how Glenn Beck takes factual information and links them together in a manner that seems to make sense.
Once again, a perfect example of mocking Beck, but no substantive counter argument. No one has asked anyone to write a thesis, but if he is so wrong on every single topic, just pick one and give a brief refute. Should be easy. :roll:
Glenn Beck accentuates specific facts and details to present and more importantly project a vision of what he believes the future and present are. Cosmo generic example is a basic example of that type of scenario. According to Beck, and this is why intrinsically he's really a nut, is not because he says things people simply disagree with based on fact, but he says and projects things in which he makes a leap to get there and backs it by very specific facts which only tell part of the entire truth. For example, he's always yapping about "socialist policies and we're turning fascist", yet anyone with half a brain and common knowledge knows by examples in history or even basic definitions, socialism doesn't lead to fascism nor has it ever done so. He takes specific real world examples of fear politics, the slippery slope theory and broad sweeping generalizations and make a leap to paint a futuristic picture of what will be in this alter-reality he sets up. In basic terms, it's no more than a conspiracy theorist for the common man on its most basic terms... based on facts, history and loosely fitting mantra's that are more of a reach and leap compared to actual fact and hard line detail.
...
Add...
One of Glenn Beck's examples was to link the events of the Bolshevik Revolution and the recent economic melt down we saw here. He compares the two... people rising up against the Russian Czars and the social elites (wealthy people) and tossing them from power and the furor of the people towards AIG and financial experts (wealthy people) and LINKS the two... masses turning against wealth.
Then, he states how Benito Musssolini was a progressive Socialist that lead Italy to march with the National Socialits in Germany. He links that with progressives in America in the 1930s supported Mussolini's socialist acts.. and comes up to the conclusion that American progressives (i.e. 'Liberals') support, therefore WANT a Mussolini type Socialism here, in America.
From that... his grand conclusion... America is on the pathway to Marxist style socialism.
**weeps**
...
There... a specific Glenn Beck example.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Everyone on television has a bit... I don't care if it is Glenn Beck, David Letterman or that Kate with Eight person... they all have the same goal... STAYING ON TELEVISION.
Glenn Beck... his bit... an 'Every man'. He is always saying how he is not an expert... not a journalist... not a pundit... he's just a 'Regular Guy'.
That, right there is a lie. Regular guys aren't on television. Regular guys don't make millions of dollars from radio and television. Regular guys don't get paid $100,000.00 to speak a Tea Party Convention. Entertainers get that kind of money. But, he comes off to his viewers as just some guy with an opinion. An opinion that is worth a lot of fucking money.
His viewers need to question his conclusions, instead of soaking them in as if they are sermons. Question his conclusion that if 'Social Justice' ultimate leads to Fascism... his solution of moral conviction based upon Christian principles should ultimately leads us to an authoritarian Theocracy... when wild, unfounded inferrences are injected into the mix.
But... they don't. They don't question... they don't fact check... they just agree. With an entertainer... a celebrity... who gets paid to come up with these conclusions to stay on television and sell his books.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
Unless she means "90 proof"... which might explain his incoherent ramblings and vituperative screamfests.
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/glenn_beck
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
no. I've been watching him two months now. He's got a great sense of humor, too.
I cannot disagree with a single thing he says when he's only stating facts.
You should watch him more.
click my link...66 pages of distortions and outright lies listed right there for you to read...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
How often do you watch Beck?
I especially love the part about our lottery system to see a dr. Just the other day I went my dr., no appointment, was out of his office within an hour and that iccludes getting blood work, just showed the office y health card.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
seriously, click the link. its just a series of headlines and if you click a headline you can read the article. there are 66 pages of links on that page...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
when he had his show on cnn during that food shortage every day he said it was because of ethanol and we just need to drill anywhere and everywhere ("even right through a polar bear's head if we need to!") one night a guy explained, or tried to, that the shortage was over wheat, not corn, which is what makes ethanol but this didn't stop him from blaming it on ethanol and pushing drilling for several days after that.
he also had that guy that wrote a book about liberals really being fascists for an entire week to push his theories. one of them, which glenn agreed with, was the push to ban trans-fats. according to these 2 knuckle heads trans fats aren't that bad for you, this was just a test for the fascists and a way to get their foot in the door for socialist, government control which will obviously lead to the government controlling what you eat and every aspect of your life.
i also think he has no backbone. during the primaries he constantly referred to ron paul as 'the mayor of crazy town' ....until the night he had him on his show and glenn proceeded to kiss his ass and tell him how he made so much sense....then about 2 or 3 days later he was back to calling him the mayor of crazy town.
another part that made me laugh was when bobby kennedy jr accused him of being a spokesman for industries like big oil and helping push their agendas he said corporations didn't have anything to do with his show....and then he'd tell us each break that it was brought to us by some company.
oh, and during the primaries kucinich made a comment about what do we tell the troops they are dying for? there were no wmd's, they weren't a threat to us, they had nothing to do with 9/11....so we need to ask ourselves why are we sending them over there? which makes sense to me but glenn kept implying he was against the troops and even said it proved kucinich 'hated' the troops because he said this in response to a question by a reporter while in another country which in glenn's demented mind equaled to kucinich talking shit about the troops to a foreign country, which make no sense whatsoever.
as you can see i have seen many episodes of his show while on cnn and not so much on fox but i catch parts of it now and then
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
So you agree with Glenn Beck when he calls Mitt Romney a socialist?
When Harry Smith offered one potential thing that Americans could possibly point out that might be construed as socialism, Obama quickly squashed that nonsense by pointing out that a Republican proposed a similar plan.
Here he is:
SMITH: They would say that mandating that people have to buy insurance is something like that.
OBAMA: The sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney? Yeah, so...it doesn’t make too much sense.
Which is why is why I said when Mitt Romney was running for president I don’t want anyone who even flirts with socialism...his defense for an obvious socialist act is: ‘Well Mitt Romney, he’s a Republican and he did it too.’
Did anybody else’s mom, I remember mine probably in 1969 saying, you know, things like: ‘If Mitt Romney would jump off a cliff, would you jump off too?’ Which wouldn’t have made any sense in 1969 because I wouldn’t have known who Mitt Romney was, but you get the point.
It seems to me that you can’t disprove your socialism with someone else’s socialism. Can you?
Let me repeat the question: Do you agree with Glenn Beck that Mitt Romney - the man who almost won the Republican nomination for President in 2008 - is a socialist?
of course, he offered nothing to support this claim.....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Right, the guy who won the recent straw poll in the Southern Republican convention is a socialist. Well done. Then again, anyone to the left of Sean Hannity is a socialist according to this current crowd. :roll:
And btw, look up the Lily Leadbetter Act. It's one of the laws President Obama signed almost as soon as he got into office. It was named for a woman who was being unfairly denied full wages, and when she tried to sue to get them back, the Supreme Court said she couldn't.
If you weren't OK with women being denied equal pay, and getting denied their chance to sue for their rightfully due back wages... then you should be OK with this law, no?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh I WISH the tax rate for the obscenely rich who destroyed our economy would go back to 77%. That's about the top marginal tax rate when JFK slashed it when he took office. We did pretty well then.
Heck, I wish the top marginal tax rate would go back to almost 90% under that notorious socialist President Dwight David Eisenhower.
It'll never happen though. Not today at least. Way too much influence peddling by the rich and powerful in DC.
it was exposing the true agenda of progressives, see, progressives really want full control over every aspect of our lives and you know who else was a progressive? hitler!
:roll:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I agree.
But, unfortunately, those grievences are not shared with the Tea Party.
The Tea Party may have begun as a Grass Roots thing... but, it has been taken over by those with the Republican agenda in mind.
The Tea Party would be better served by registering Libertarian or some other third party and weeding out the Republicans looking for a leadership role in their movement (i.e. Sarah Palin) and dropping their main sponsor, FOX News (a.k.a. Karl Rove News).
Hail, Hail!!!
If there is no change between Bush and Obama... that would mean the past year and a half should be taking the same tac as the previous 8 years... doesn't that make you happy?
And if Bush and Obama are the same... and Obama is a Socialist... doesn't that mean Bush is a Socialist?
Hail, Hail!!!
I guess what I don't understand is, no one steps up to actually refute his claims. Yes, I realize that people who can't refute his ramblings are going to say that it's a waste of time, and he's not worth it etc. I'm not saying he's 100% right, 100% of the time, and I'm sure that things can be picked out that are incorrect. With that being said, if the vast majority of what he is saying is absolute bullshit, then why can't people come up with anything to counter him other than bashing him because he's a crier, he's dramatic, he's crazy, etc. etc. I agree, he is all of those things, but even your 66 links really do little more than just transcribe what he said along with some inane commentary (many are nothing more than embedded video), but they don't really offer a counter argument.
mary
if this is all true
you are fuckin crazy
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
It would take me a million words and several paragraphs to explain how Glenn Beck takes factual information and links them together in a manner that seems to make sense... sort of like I can link the crowing of the rooster to the rising of the Sun. The Rooster crow, the Sun rises. Two facts... roosters do crow... and the Sun (apparently) rises. I can link them together and explain how one fact leads to another. But, is it true? If the rooster does not crow... will the Sun fail to rise?
But, since we know, people here will not read past on or two paragraphs... I found this example that clearly illustrates how you can link things together unrelated facts to come to some sort of conclusion... ala Beck:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/0 ... 48129.html
Hail, Hail!!!
Once again, a perfect example of mocking Beck, but no substantive counter argument. No one has asked anyone to write a thesis, but if he is so wrong on every single topic, just pick one and give a brief refute. Should be easy. :roll:
His occasional missteps shouldn't overshadow his tremendous ability to present a reasoned, logical, unassailable argument.
April 30, 2010- by David SolwayShare | He’s been called a “fearmonger”; a “buffoon”; a “fake revolutionary”; a “loudmouth idiot pundit”; “easily the stupidest,” compared to Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, “in this pool of incredible stupidity”; “clearly psychotic and paranoid”; “ a “spokesdouche”; a “ranting hobo”; a “right-wing blowhard who talks endlessly about stuff he doesn’t have a clue about”; a “crybaby purging every last tear from his body”; an “insane, delusional, and paranoid whack job”; “a perverse and high-impact media spectacle”; a “wife beater”; a “moron in a hurry”; “a dick”; a “demagogue”; a possible murderer; a “lying scumbag”; a “complete and utter tool”; and, to make a very long story short, conflating from many other sources, a purveyor of hysteria, lies, ridiculous rants, and pathological utterances. The yada yada appears to be endless.
There is no question that Glenn Beck’s native exuberance can propel him into the ozone of the intemperate. Is Barack Obama really a “racist,” as Beck claimed, “a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture”? The basis for this verdict was Obama’s premature and blundering intervention in the Gates-Crowley controversy, claiming the white police officer reacted “stupidly” in arresting the black professor, which made the president look as intemperate as Beck is purported to be. One might criticize the president for unseemly haste, lack of judgment, failure of imagination, or personal bias — all worrisome traits in a head of state — but the charge of racism is clearly beyond the pale.
Ron Radosh points to a polemical earnestness in Beck that can render him prone to misreadings of events and embarrassing assumptions. Some of Beck’s statements obviously do tend to soar over the top, but such fulminations are also a function of talk radio or TV advocacy and are common to media hosts on both sides of the political spectrum. Keith Olbermann, when he is “on,” can reduce Beck to the status of a Trappist monk. Consider the hatchet job that Olbermann did on new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown who, according to the MSNBC pundit, is an “irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees.” I can’t think of anything Glenn Beck has said to rival this upchuck of vulgar bombast, yet Olbermann has largely gotten away with his logorrheic obscenity. Nor does Beck traffic in the trademark snideness of, say, Jon Stewart. And we must remember, too, that political commentary in this day and age has left the requisites of decorum far behind. David Frum’s serial pummeling of Sarah Palin, for example, looks more like the airing of a private vendetta or some lurid obsession than the development of a reasoned analysis.
As for George Bush’s treatment at the hands of a liberal-left press, let’s not even go there, for fear of infection.
Where Beck differs from his detractors, whose vehemence and malice know no bounds, and from his media competitors, whose use of the tar brush is often far more problematic, is in his undoubted patriotism, his historical erudition, and the acuity of his argumentation. This is especially true of his published writings. For example, his Common Sense brings Thomas Paine, a major architect of the American Revolution, back into the contemporary American political scene at a time when he seems to be needed most — at precisely the moment when the founding principles of the Republic seem to be at risk. Beck’s little volume turns to the past in order to consolidate the future, a conservative treatise in the true sense of the word “conservative.” Or alternatively, a liberal manifesto in the true anti-authoritarian sense of the word “liberal,” as understood in John Locke’s seminal Two Treatises of Government with its emphasis on the sanctity of life, liberty, and property.
No less striking is Beck’s most recent offering, Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, whose provocative title belies the sober good sense within its pages. The book prickles with facts, transcripts, and statistics calculated to chafe and irritate those in the adversarial camp, whose favored strategy is to respond ad hominem, blasting the messenger while at the same time refusing to assimilate the message. This is the device employed by the book’s resident “idiot” who pugnaciously raises the predictable counter-arguments marshaled by those who believe in big government, fiscal redistribution, and state control, only to be answered with the drive and panache that is the Beckian signet. But the “idiot” is no straw man set up merely to be knocked down; his rejoinders are exactly what we read and hear daily in the MSM. And as Beck writes in the introductory disclaimer, “being an idiot has nothing to do with your party affiliation, it has to do with whether you are able to look beyond that affiliation and follow the facts, wherever they may lead.”
The chapter titles give a strong indication of the social, political, and economic positions Beck will take up as he pursues his campaign against creeping socialism and the dismantling of the American experiment: “In Defense of Capitalism: Giving the Free Market a Fair Shake,” “Unions: When Is America Finished Paying Her Dues,” “The Nanny State: Saving You from Yourself, One Right at a Time,” “The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation,” and so on. Beck characteristically pulls no punches, but his arguments in favor of small government and individual responsibility and against “mission creep” are for the most part nuanced, precise, and factually grounded. And this is perhaps what his enemies cannot forgive him, dismissing as bluster or pontification what is nothing short of analytic fidelity to the actual state of affairs.
An argument is made up of three components: evidence, inference (or deduction), and judgment. And in any argument there can be many a slip ‘twixt the evidence and the inference, or the inference and the judgment. No one is saying that Beck is immune to forensic slippage. But if the facts are right and the inference is sound, then the conclusions are correct. This is why his many detractors, in trying to negate his arguments, will invariably attack his conclusions — and of course the man who arrived at them — while refusing to deal with the facts on which they are based or the inferences which issue in a judgment.
These critics, almost exclusively on the left, employ what we might call an anti-extrapolation strategy, that is, they proceed as if Beck had nothing to extrapolate from except his own “sick fantasies,” as if he were inventing arguments ex nihilo, weaving a tapestry whose threads are made out of glitter dust and synaptic orts and figments. Thus we are regaled with Whoopi Goldberg’s probing observation that Beck “is a lying sack of dog mess,” Roseanne Barr’s definitive assessment that “Glenn Beck is … a ‘death lover’,” Keith Olbermann’s frenetic denunciation that “only in his wildest dreams could an actual suicide bomber hope to do as much damage to this country as Glenn Beck does every day,” Discover Magazine’s lame tu quoque, “Glenn Beck is an idiot,” or Joe Klein’s ludicrous accusation that Beck is “close to being seditious,” among others. Notice how no one deigns to contest the facts or query the inferential arc.
At the end of the book, Beck appends a citation section of twenty-four close-printed pages, which any honest antagonist would consult and take the time to follow up, instead of lazily discarding the book and Beck along with it as wrong-headed, loony, irrelevant, or deceptive. Further, an educated critic might be expected to be familiar with much of the cited material, to be, in other words, in pre-possession of the facts. This is so palpably not the case as to beggar belief. But it is not only ignorance that is the trouble here; it is, also, sheer disingenuousness and colossal bad faith. For Beck’s contentions are fully backed up by the weights and measures of extensive research. Gun control doesn’t work. Nationalized health care is a miserable flop wherever it has been implemented. Unions were once necessary; they have now become self-perpetuating, monopolistic organizations in which the welfare of their members is sacrificed to the quest for corporative power. Invasive state control culminates in both the moral and economic devitalization of the individual citizen. In all these instances, the proof is in the pudding and Beck serves it up by the bowlful. There is no lack of documentation.
Given that the facts are well-attested, the only valid critique of Arguing with Idiots would have to focus on the middle stage of the discursive structure, namely inference or deduction, and show that it fails to connect the fact to the judgment. They would have to show that Beck has committed a variant of the error that philosophers call the “fallacy of the undistributed middle.” But I am not aware of any reviewer who has succeeded in the effort nor do I believe that Beck has faltered, except occasionally, in this respect.
One such lapse, to cite an example, seems to occur on page 278, where Beck praises Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which imposes a tax of $10 per head on the “importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit.” Beck infers that the Founders apparently felt “like there was a value to being able to live here.” The problem is that this clause might be construed to have laundered the taint of slavery, with slave owners gaining a moral bye for an affordable price. It cannot be denied that Beck has made a shaky inference in this particular case, but taken over the length of the book the logical bridges that lead from origin to terminal appear to be consistent and on the whole convincing. The cumulative effect is impressive, to put it mildly. And this is incalculably more than can be said for the majority of his critics.
It must be admitted, however, that Beck can be politically inconsistent, as evidenced by his baffling condemnation of his conservative ally and brave warrior against Islamic supremacism, Geert Wilders, whom he implicitly tarred on Fox News as an exponent of fascism. This is quite incomprehensible and reveals Beck at his most incongruous and mercurial — though it may just mollify some of his leftist assailants. I cannot account for so egregious a lapse in judgment, though others have sought for possible explanations, e.g., his unfamiliarity with European politics, or far less flatteringly, the stock recently purchased by a Saudi prince in NewsCorp. Or is it simply that sometimes the wind listeth where it will, unpredictably in so tempestuous a sensibility?
Yes, there is plainly something excessive and volatile about Glenn Beck, but on the whole I am glad of it. His virtues and his vices are really one and the same and flow from the same turbulent source: he brimmeth over. As poet William Blake wrote in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.” Fortunately, Beck’s propensity toward excess is, more often than not, indeed leavened with wisdom, though he may find himself one day in a different America, living in a pillbox rather than a palace.
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books.
(from your friends at Pajamas Media-bigdvs)
— Socrates
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Read my ENTIRE Statement (you just proved that people her are incapable of reading much beyond that).
I provided a visual representation on the LINK.
Watch the video... it explains what I am saying about him. That is... only if you have the attention span beyond 10 minutes.
....
And I gave you one... Rooster/Sun. That is what Glen Beck does... takes random facts and links them together to form a speculative conclusion. Watch the example that explains that, in a quite entertaining way.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well, I'd say that's spot on.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
-6
Does that now = -4?
Add...
One of Glenn Beck's examples was to link the events of the Bolshevik Revolution and the recent economic melt down we saw here. He compares the two... people rising up against the Russian Czars and the social elites (wealthy people) and tossing them from power and the furor of the people towards AIG and financial experts (wealthy people) and LINKS the two... masses turning against wealth.
Then, he states how Benito Musssolini was a progressive Socialist that lead Italy to march with the National Socialits in Germany. He links that with progressives in America in the 1930s supported Mussolini's socialist acts.. and comes up to the conclusion that American progressives (i.e. 'Liberals') support, therefore WANT a Mussolini type Socialism here, in America.
From that... his grand conclusion... America is on the pathway to Marxist style socialism.
**weeps**
...
There... a specific Glenn Beck example.
Hail, Hail!!!
Glenn Beck... his bit... an 'Every man'. He is always saying how he is not an expert... not a journalist... not a pundit... he's just a 'Regular Guy'.
That, right there is a lie. Regular guys aren't on television. Regular guys don't make millions of dollars from radio and television. Regular guys don't get paid $100,000.00 to speak a Tea Party Convention. Entertainers get that kind of money. But, he comes off to his viewers as just some guy with an opinion. An opinion that is worth a lot of fucking money.
His viewers need to question his conclusions, instead of soaking them in as if they are sermons. Question his conclusion that if 'Social Justice' ultimate leads to Fascism... his solution of moral conviction based upon Christian principles should ultimately leads us to an authoritarian Theocracy... when wild, unfounded inferrences are injected into the mix.
But... they don't. They don't question... they don't fact check... they just agree. With an entertainer... a celebrity... who gets paid to come up with these conclusions to stay on television and sell his books.
Hail, Hail!!!