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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catherine_D said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting, you call others narrow minded and lacking in intellectual honesty and open mindedness, then play the victim when a completely innocuous comment is made in reply (“you have different standards for useful information than I do” is offensive???), such that you refuse to read the post.

A little embarassing, considering the substance of your posts, on listening to everyone, no matter who they are.
 
JulieAA said:
Absolutely! Listen…Learn…Research…Discern!
Click to expand...
It’s the only intellectually honest thing to do.

Those that live in the echo chamber of opinions that they already agree with, learn nothing.
 
Sonic said:
Perhaps, it’s a form of Beckophobia. 😉
Click to expand...
Hey, this just happens, no matter what the subject. People are often happy with their opinions and beliefs. To give an off-topic (and therefore not as controversial example) ~ scientists are subject to the same thing. Scientific theories are developed, based on available information, and then a theory is determined based on that information. Because such a scientific theory seems to “fit” with the facts available, many scientists subscribe to it.

In the meantime, other facts develop, maybe not enough to up-end the currently accepted theory, but at least enough to call it into question. Those persons have to tread lightly in the scientific world, for fear of being labeled “crackpots”, even though, over time, they may be proven right.

Let’s face it. People like the ideas and opinions they already have. Changing them based on new information is troublesome. It’s much easier to simply discard new information that doesn’t “fit”. Of course, it could also be wrong to do that.
 
Larry Sabato and Glenn Beck have different jobs. You’d be right not to listen to Beck regarding election results. But he’s not a partisan, not a Republican, in fact he is on record criitcizing every president since Woodrow Wilson. Credit Beck with learning what he didn’t know, and following the facts. This is quite different from Olberman or any of those you’ve mentioned.

By the way, I don’t know about your standards…by your standards, you wouldn’t have listened to Jesus, either. He wasn’t educated, and didn’t have credentials, either, at least none you could see. No, Beck doesn’t have a great track record, but as Catharine said, he always invites you to investigate it for yourself. Few do. Beck is often misquoted, almost as mischaracterized as the Pope.
For the record, Martin Luther King did as much to educate white people about racial equality as he did to promote racial equality. King is not only a black hero, he’s an American hero. Beck, taking a cue from John the Baptist, says he will not step on the step tha MLK stood on to make his speech because he does not feel worthy to be up that high. I think he really reveres what MLK stands for…
Good_News said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I wish the Left was half as concerned about defeating Al Qaedaas they are about defeating Fox news and Glenn Beck.
 
bankerdavid said:
Larry Sabato and Glenn Beck have different jobs.
Click to expand...
Sure. Sabato is concerned with analysis and a reputation for getting things right. Beck’s job is to entertain and promote conservative ideas before a conservative audience, whether they are true or not.
But he’s not a partisan, not a Republican, in fact he is on record criitcizing every president since Woodrow Wilson.
Click to expand...
The only reason that Beck criticizes Republicans is because they aren’t on the fringe right, like he is. It isn’t as if he is a moderate. He is on the far outside of the spectrum. He is less objective than more mainstream Republicans.
Credit Beck with learning what he didn’t know, and following the facts.
Click to expand...
Really? What has he read, other than that book on the 5,000 year leap? Has he read any good comprehensive history texts? Does he follow the work of any particular economist? Does he subscribe to scholarly journals? Whenever I’ve tuned him it, it’s the wild conspiracy hour.

Just like Olbermann, he pretends to have the inside scoop on more topics than any person could master, and never gave any evidence of spending a day educating himself with any specificity.
By the way, I don’t know about your standards…by your standards, you wouldn’t have listened to Jesus, either.
Click to expand...
Two things: first, we can flatter ourselves all day, but neither you nor I can really say whether we would have listened to Jesus. Second, I didn’t argue the lack of credentials was the only problem with Beck, etc. I said it was the lack of credentials, the lack of any evidence of study, the wide range of topics they profess mastery on, their schedules, and the demands of keeping a partisan audience tuning in. All of these things make these pundits completely unreliable - not just whether they happened to get a degree in a field. Many people are self-taught, but they work at it. It isn’t Beck’s job to be educated, or tell the truth (it isn’t a requirement to always lie, but I don’t know how you can do a partisan show every day without some spin). He’s good at his job.
I think he really reveres what MLK stands for…
Click to expand...
Entertainment requires a certain degree of insincerity. No one gets to the top of politics or punditry unless they revere ratings above all else.
 
Catherine_D said:
Let’s face it. People like the ideas and opinions they already have. Changing them based on new information is troublesome. It’s much easier to simply discard new information that doesn’t “fit”. Of course, it could also be wrong to do that.
Click to expand...
:ehh:

[SIGN]It was a joke, Catherine. [/SIGN]
 
How are 'ideas" either true or false? You spout “conservative” like some Catholics spout “orthodox” as if it’s a bad thing. By the way, you know what being in the middle of the road gets you? Run over.

I know Beck educates himself. Frankly, I’m too busy to watch him much. When I do, I wonder what all the hullaballoo is all about.

Olberman might be wide-ranging, but Beck talks history, and how it’s repeating itself.

Which of those criteria would you have judged Jesus on?

Where I am, Beck is daytime TV, on at the same time as Oprah, or thereabouts. So I usually don’t catch his show. But what I have watched, those times I’ve watched, he’s been instructive, telling people the book he’s reading, and showing where his facts are. From what I know, he’s anti-Progressive, more than pro-Republican or anti-Democrat.

Of course, there are those on the left who say Obama’s not left enough, too…
Good_News said:
Sure. Sabato is concerned with analysis and a reputation for getting things right. Beck’s job is to entertain and promote conservative ideas before a conservative audience, whether they are true or not.

The only reason that Beck criticizes Republicans is because they aren’t on the fringe right, like he is. It isn’t as if he is a moderate. He is on the far outside of the spectrum. He is less objective than more mainstream Republicans.

Really? What has he read, other than that book on the 5,000 year leap? Has he read any good comprehensive history texts? Does he follow the work of any particular economist? Does he subscribe to scholarly journals? Whenever I’ve tuned him it, it’s the wild conspiracy hour.

Just like Olbermann, he pretends to have the inside scoop on more topics than any person could master, and never gave any evidence of spending a day educating himself with any specificity.

Two things: first, we can flatter ourselves all day, but neither you nor I can really say whether we would have listened to Jesus. Second, I didn’t argue the lack of credentials was the only problem with Beck, etc. I said it was the lack of credentials, the lack of any evidence of study, the wide range of topics they profess mastery on, their schedules, and the demands of keeping a partisan audience tuning in. All of these things make these pundits completely unreliable - not just whether they happened to get a degree in a field. Many people are self-taught, but they work at it. It isn’t Beck’s job to be educated, or tell the truth (it isn’t a requirement to always lie, but I don’t know how you can do a partisan show every day without some spin). He’s good at his job.

Entertainment requires a certain degree of insincerity. No one gets to the top of politics or punditry unless they revere ratings above all else.
Click to expand...
 
Good_News said:
Yup, the most polarizing and fringe figures in the American right promote the event over talk radio, the event is the subject of counter-protests by some of the most fringe elements of the left, it is discussed on all the political channels, it is supposedly in part about “reclaiming the civil rights movement” (a political movement), and it is on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Ted Nugent will be on hand to tell attendees about honor.

But Glenn says it isn’t political. Must be true if Glenn says so.
Click to expand...
POLORIZING… FRINGE… EXTREME.

That is laughable. You will need some new words to describe the majority after November.
 
I’m so bummed that I can’t make the rally. I live just outside of DC but I have to drive back to college on the 28th… The Beck bashers need to take a chill pill. What do you fear? Is it that the new right is on the brink of taking back this country? Is it that people who understand the Constitution are about to have a shot at making a difference?
 
bankerdavid said:
How are 'ideas" either true or false?
Click to expand...
You look at them and see if they are supported by fact.
You spout “conservative” like some Catholics spout “orthodox” as if it’s a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Considering I am a conservative, and admire Ronald Reagan and William Buckley, you are reading something that isn’t there. Beck is a moron and a fraud. It has nothing to do with whether he is conservative.
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
POLORIZING… FRINGE… EXTREME.

That is laughable. You will need some new words to describe the majority after November.
Click to expand...
Name someone further to the fringe on the right than Beck or Palin. Keyes? Bachman?

That’s the fringe, meaning there’s no where else to go.

Name someone other than Beck who would inspire a counterprotest for an event he claims is nonpolitical. I can’t think of anyone.

That’s polarizing.

It may be that the people on the polarizing fringe are right about everything. It may be that one day they take over (but the fringe isn’t moving into the majority this November, the establishment Republicans might). That doesn’t mean they aren’t polarizing, fringe actors.
 
Good_News said:
Beck is a moron and a fraud. It has nothing to do with whether he is conservative.
Click to expand...
Say what you like about Beck, but I think saying he is a moron and a fraud is a serious underestimation of the man. You don’t get where he is in the public arena by being a fool. No… he’s certainly intelligent enough and capable of motivating people to do things. He’s proven that so far.

Whether someone agrees with Beck or not, underestimating his abilities and the people who influence him is foolish. Even if he was born with a heart as pure as Mother Theresa, men in positions of power are still corruptible and can change.

While I listen to Beck and other sources, I wouldn’t place my full trust in him. The same goes for anyone in positions of influence.

Some reasons I’m watching Beck closely (besides his interesting and informative commentary)-
  1. His background and conversion story doesn’t all add up yet (I’m still researching). Several aspects of his life story don’t click (a little like Obama).
    salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
  2. According to A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell (A book promoted on Beck’s show a year ago), Beck very well may be a Constrained Socialist (as opposed to the left wing Unconstrained Socialism.) I’m not sure he is, but I’m keeping my radar open for now. With all the politics happening, I don’t want to accidentally throw my support in for the other side of the socialist coin. I suggest reading the book before even taking what I’ve said as fact.
  3. His lumping of Alan Keyes with Osama Bin Laden and other radicals seemed divisive and unsubstantiated. Keyes may be a lame duck candidate, but he’s certainly not a radical terrorist. aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12276&posts=19
  4. The owner of Fox News (Rupert Murdoch) began his career in association with the Labour Party in the UK. He has since been involved with politics in several countries around the world. This would be an indirect influence on Beck, but I don’t know how much of an influence and that doesn’t sit well with me. Murdoch does own the network. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
A lot of anti-Beck people think those people who listen to him are following him blindly. I don’t think that is the case. Case in point.
 
Sonic said:
You don’t get where he is in the public arena by being a fool.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. There are plenty of prominent fools in politics and in public life. Intelligence isn’t the path to popularity - it can probably be a liability in some cases.

He has talent - he started as a morning zoo shock jock, and has turned that into a political act. That isn’t a sign of greater intelligence, and certainly not a sign of an understanding of history or politics. I don’t know if people follow him blindly on all things, but it seems to take a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to seriously entertain his paranoid visions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top