Glenn Beck rally will be a measure of the tea party's strength

[ProVobis]

So what happened to Rush Limbaugh? Thought he had a much wider audience.

 

[Good_News_1]

While I do not agree with your premise, I have to wonder ~ it would appear that you’re OK with limiting your sources of information, even censoring them to achieve a pre-determined result ~ such as not interfering with your pre-determined point of view.

I’ve watched Glenn Beck on Fox about five times all the way through, and about three times part way. I have heard about three or four hours of his radio program, as well as bits and pieces of his routine here and there.

My impression is he’s a moron and a fraud. That doesn’t mean I “censor” him, or limit my information. In fact, I don’t always disagree with him - there are many people I don’t like who probably agree with me on some things, and probably people who dislike me and agree with me on others. I am aware, though various sources, of what he says. In fact, I visited his webpage on the rally to reply to this thread. That’s how I know that Ted Nugent is going to be there.

intellectual honesty

How does this impact my honesty? It is possible that Glenn Beck will say something wonderful at the rally. If so, I’m sure someone here will alert me. He certainly has no credentials, as to life experience or otherwise, to talk about US History, honor, or God - he did not graduate college, has never shown any knowledge of history or any serious reading in the topic, has never served in the military, and to my knowledge has no significant experience in ministry. There is no reason to go to a rally on honor and God led by someone who has no experience in those topics. I’ll get that from people who I know know something about honor and God. I’m probably not going to go out of my way to listen to Lady Gaga talk about auto repair, or Bill Clinton talk about marriage, or Bill Cosby talk about physics. It may be that all of them have something interesting to say about those topics, but I certainly have no reason to believe that to be true beforehand.

 

[scipio337]

For myself, I would attend a function on honor and God in an appropriate venue, with appropriate leaders. That would be a church, or a military cemetary or base, led by people who had devoted themselves to service of the country and devotion to Christ.

I wouldn’t seek honor or God with a shock jock with a divisive political radio show.

Honor and God are two aspects that almost certainly won’t be present, as they are as much strangers to Mr. Beck as they are to Ted Nugent.

I could care less about Glen Beck, but leave Uncle Ted alone!

Meh.

I wish political adversaries worried about the economy as much as they did Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the NY Islamic Center, “Is Pres Obama really a Muslim”, etc.

 

[Catherine_D]

I’ve watched Glenn Beck on Fox about five times all the way through, and about three times part way. I have heard about three or four hours of his radio program, as well as bits and pieces of his routine here and there.

My impression is he’s a moron and a fraud. That doesn’t mean I “censor” him, or limit my information. In fact, I don’t always disagree with him - there are many people I don’t like who probably agree with me on some things, and probably people who dislike me and agree with me on others. I am aware, though various sources, of what he says. In fact, I visited his webpage on the rally to reply to this thread. That’s how I know that Ted Nugent is going to be there.

How does this impact my honesty? It is possible that Glenn Beck will say something wonderful at the rally. If so, I’m sure someone here will alert me. He certainly has no credentials, as to life experience or otherwise, to talk about US History, honor, or God - he did not graduate college, has never shown any knowledge of history or any serious reading in the topic, has never served in the military, and to my knowledge has no significant experience in ministry. There is no reason to go to a rally on honor and God led by someone who has no experience in those topics. I’ll get that from people who I know know something about honor and God. I’m probably not going to go out of my way to listen to Lady Gaga talk about auto repair, or Bill Clinton talk about marriage, or Bill Cosby talk about physics. It may be that all of them have something interesting to say about those topics, but I certainly have no reason to believe that to be true beforehand.

Please note, I didn’t address all “honesty” I was talking about “intellectual honesty”. There’s a huge difference.

I won’t address your entire post. I will simply note that “intellectual honesty” involves being able to look at, dispasionnately, both sides. If you have already taken a position, and refuse to hear any other information, you may be partisan, but you’re certainly not intellectually honest.

From the post you have provided so far, you have already pre-determined that seeing whatever it is presented on Saturday is something you will not watch or otherwise review. That’s censorship, that’s not intellectual honesty.

Intellectualy honest means that you review ALL the information. Not pick and choose the parts you like. So I find your pre-determined rejection of the event to be odd. You don’t know what is going to be said there, so how can you possibly make up your mind, objectively, about something that has yet to have happened?

 

[JulieAA]

My husband and I watch Glenn Beck quite often…thanks Tivo!

People either love him or hate him…no middle ground. What we like about his show is that when he makes a statement it is always followed with: “Don’t take my word for it, do your homework and research it for yourself”. If people would do this rather than take what they read or hear through the mainstream media as “gospel”, things may be clearer.

 

[Catherine_D]

My husband and I watch Glenn Beck quite often…thanks Tivo!

People either love him or hate him…no middle ground. What we like about his show is that when he makes a statement it is always followed with: “Don’t take my word for it, do your homework and research it for yourself”. If people would do this rather than take what they read or hear through the mainstream media as “gospel”, things may be clearer.

WOW! You’re suggesting people get the facts for themselves! Educate themselves?

Is it really that hard to do that? Shouldn’t well ALL do that? Not just take what people say, but actually LOOK at the facts?

I’ve worked, all my life, in a job where I tried to find out the facts and then figure out the situation. It’s really not that hard. Look for the facts, not just what people tell you they want you to know. It could make a difference!

 

[JulieAA]

WOW! You’re suggesting people get the facts for themselves! Educate themselves?

Is it really that hard to do that? Shouldn’t well ALL do that? Not just take what people say, but actually LOOK at the facts?

I’ve worked, all my life, in a job where I tried to find out the facts and then figure out the situation. It’s really not that hard. Look for the facts, not just what people tell you they want you to know. It could make a difference!

Is this in jest? Of course people should take the time to research…research…research, before flapping the jaws…that is what I was trying to communicate…with all due respect.

 

[Catherine_D]

Is this in jest? Of course people should take the time to research…research…research, before flapping the jaws…that is what I was trying to communicate…with all due respect.

Actually I was suggesting that people actually research, deeply (because it’s not always easy to find the facts, it’s much easier to find opinion disguised as facts.)

Thank you for being someone who actually wants to know the facts.

All too often, people go in search of “facts” that confirm what they already believe. That’s not research. In fact, if there is a word that describes such a thing, I’m not sure I know what it is.

On this subject, I am rather certain we agree.

 

[Good_News_1]

Intellectualy honest means that you review ALL the information. Not pick and choose the parts you like. So I find your pre-determined rejection of the event to be odd. You don’t know what is going to be said there, so how can you possibly make up your mind, objectively, about something that has yet to have happened?

Obviously, you have different standards for useful information than I do. I tend to listen to people who know what they are talking about. Anything else is a waste of time.

Consider politics. Larry Sabato has a great record of predicting election results. I will listen to him, because he devotes his entire life to political science, is thorough in his analysis, and has consistent results. I won’t listen to James Carville or Glenn Beck - because they really don’t know anything about it, they are often wrong, and their message is always the same - Carville will say the Republicans are screwing up, and Beck will say the Democrats are screwing up. With only so much time in the day - why would I listen to Beck on horserace analysis when there are others who can give me real, reliiable, meaty, tested information?

A major problem with Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, etc is that they, by the very nature of their job, can have no in depth information or objective analysis. They are presenting on too many topics - the economy, foreign policy, cultural issues, etc. And not one of them has done with slightest bit of in depth study on any of these topic, nor can they - because they have to prepare for a show, media appearances, etc, and because they are only going to present one side of the story. I’ve never heard of Rush or Beck praising Obama, or Maddow praising Bush. Why on earth would you spent time listening to these people? Their function is to rile people up, not educate or inform. Information and truth isn’t part of the job description.

In essence you are accusing me of beng narrow-minded. I have standards. Beck doesn’t meet them - not because of his opinions, which I can agree with sometimes, but because there is no substance behind his opinions. That isn’t odd. What is odd is that anyone would listen to someone who has absolutely no expertise in anything other than entertainment, and no time for much other than preparing for a show, whose viewpoint is predetermined, and who needs to pontificate on virtually everything under the sun. It’s a bigger waste of time than listening to Lady Gaga on auto repair, actually, because Lady Gaga doesn’t have any reason to lie about cars.

 

[mary_bobo]

How could anyone perceive anything political about rallying with a controversial political commentator on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial?

I suppose one could if they have a knee-jerk reaction to anything they might imagine is connected with politics. Typical reaction from the liberal left and its willing accomplises in the media. Says more about those who form opinions without the facts than it does about the program itself.

 

[Good_News_1]

Typical reaction from the liberal left and its willing accomplises in the media.

Wait. I thought it wasn’t about politics.

 

[mary_bobo]

So what happened to Rush Limbaugh? Thought he had a much wider audience.

What in the world does Rush have to do with this?

 

[mary_bobo]

Wait. I thought it wasn’t about politics.

It isn’t. Get your facts before you make snide comments about the event.

 

[Good_News_1]

It isn’t. Get your facts before you make snide comments about the event.

If it isn’t political, why are you bashing liberals?

 

[Catherine_D]

Obviously, you have different standards for useful information than I do. I tend to listen to people who know what they are talking about. Anything else is a waste of time.

Consider politics. Larry Sabato has a great record of predicting election results. I will listen to him, because he devotes his entire life to political science, is thorough in his analysis, and has consistent results. I won’t listen to James Carville or Glenn Beck - because they really don’t know anything about it, they are often wrong, and their message is always the same - Carville will say the Republicans are screwing up, and Beck will say the Democrats are screwing up. With only so much time in the day - why would I listen to Beck on horserace analysis when there are others who can give me real, reliiable, meaty, tested information?

A major problem with Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, etc is that they, by the very nature of their job, can have no in depth information or objective analysis. They are presenting on too many topics - the economy, foreign policy, cultural issues, etc. And not one of them has done with slightest bit of in depth study on any of these topic, nor can they - because they have to prepare for a show, media appearances, etc, and because they are only going to present one side of the story. I’ve never heard of Rush or Beck praising Obama, or Maddow praising Bush. Why on earth would you spent time listening to these people? Their function is to rile people up, not educate or inform. Information and truth isn’t part of the job description.

In essence you are accusing me of beng narrow-minded. I have standards. Beck doesn’t meet them - not because of his opinions, which I can agree with sometimes, but because there is no substance behind his opinions. That isn’t odd. What is odd is that anyone would listen to someone who has absolutely no expertise in anything other than entertainment, and no time for much other than preparing for a show, whose viewpoint is predetermined, and who needs to pontificate on virtually everything under the sun. It’s a bigger waste of time than listening to Lady Gaga on auto repair, actually, because Lady Gaga doesn’t have any reason to lie about cars.

Do you understand how offensive your first sentence is? Do you care?

I won’t even go on from there, since your beginning is so personally offensive.

 

[JulieAA]

Glenn Beck has ripped into both Republicans and Democrats on policies. Again, he always says to do your own research…what is wrong with that?

 

[Good_News_1]

Do you understand how offensive your first sentence is? Do you care?
I won’t even go on from there, since your beginning is so personally offensive.

You’re not one to censor your information, of course.

Or particularly prone to oversensitivity.

Take care.

 

[Catherine_D]

Glenn Beck has ripped into both Republicans and Democrats on policies. Again, he always says to do your own research…what is wrong with that?

Personally, I find getting the actual facts, rather than relying on propoganda and “spin” to be refreshing and enlightening. I’ve never thought that good information was a bad thing, even if it tended to up-end some already-formed opinion.

I agree with you 100%! Do your own research. Don’t depend on propoganda for your opinions! There’s plenty of propoganda available. Facts usually require WORK.

 

[Catherine_D]

You’re not one to censor your information, of course.

Or particularly prone to oversensitivity.

Take care.

I’ll also note, that, after being offensive, you ignored it, and tried to make me into the perpetrator, instead of you. I’d call that a double offense.

CLICK.

 

[JulieAA]

Personally, I find getting the actual facts, rather than relying on propoganda and “spin” to be refreshing and enlightening. I’ve never thought that good information was a bad thing, even if it tended to up-end some already-formed opinion.

I agree with you 100%! Do your own research. Don’t depend on propoganda for your opinions! There’s plenty of propoganda available. Facts usually require WORK.

Absolutely! Listen…Learn…Research…Discern!