Glenn Beck is a lightning rod for a whole lot of vitriol and accusations of hate. What I find most amazing is that first, nothing he says is at all hateful, and second, so far I think he has had to issue two on air “corrections” in 16 months of Fox broadcasts. Considering he forwards and presents facts about history and government five nights per week for 16 months, two “corrections” is statistically excellent – almost perfect mind you – yet still those who are more wed to their mistaken impressions or their hopeful ideological wishes still insist Beck’s lying.
Can they PROVE any of it? No, seems they can’t but they sure can demonstrate they are ignorant as to truth and just fine with publicly displaying ignorance. Nice for them. As for me, I am about the truth. I care not where it lies. I have no predetermined outcome in mind. All I want to know is what are the facts and the proper contexts, and that’s it.
It amazes me that people are so willing to show they seemingly have no soul. To me one without soul is one bereft of Human decency, and in my opinion Human decency requires honesty. One needn’t like the facts but one’s liking them or not does not alter their honest and factual nature.
First, for the record, Beck has a huge staff of researchers. Fox provides him with their resources of fact checkers, etc., so naturally a professional team of researchers will be able to wade through vast quantities of info the individual cannot possibly decipher due to sheer volume alone. Just because one wasn’t aware of Beck’s information isn’t in any way indicative of untruth? First time you’d heard “X”? Instead of whining about it, why don’t ya check and see if it is true first? Too much to hope for, huh? Go figure.
I am absolutely gobsmacked by the deniers who say things like “if you believe anything Beck says you are (fill in the blank).” I challenge them to PROVE the facts he presents are not factual in nature. They can’t do it and they know it. I find their ignorance and/or dishonesty astounding. Again, I do not care WHAT the facts are, but I need to know the unvarnished facts and their historically accurate context in order to make an informed decision.
It smacks of petulance and complete immaturity for a person who refuses to listen to the facts because it will destroy their preconceived notions of what is and what they want to see. I challenge a naysayer to point out Beck’s factual points are less than true. Indeed they might be able to find some aspect of a point and raise a factual objection, but that does not prove Beck is forwarding lies or spin. Oh sure, on occasion someone will argue “X” statement is not accurate, but prove the facts were not so.
I spend a fair amount of my time fact checking Beck myself. Guess what naysayers? Beck is right about 99% of the time. And for the naysayer, I assure you I have a love/hate relationship with Beck. I love his info but hate some of the ways he presents them. Not just the Creator stuff but some of his mannerisms too.
If it were me up there I would do a lot more presenting of my sources as well when I offered the facts. He does some of this, but he almost never provides links for us to check up on him and I think that hurts his cause in trying to convince the non-believers that he is telling the truth. When one is making an argument it is incumbent upon the arguer to prove their contentions. I learned this in college. One can write a ten page paper of nothing but facts and the reasonable conclusions based upon them, but without citing sources, one gets the big “F” bomb.
I will go to the trouble of googling a point he makes to see if it is accurate. The naysayer usually will not because either they are not interested in the truth, they are perhaps too lazy to bother, or because if they do research Beck’s points they will see Beck was telling the truth. For a person bent on seeing their ideology become paramount over all other considerations, facts just get in the way.
Sure sometimes the naysayer will be incensed and will check up on Beck, and occasionally they may even be able to make a reasonable argument in differing with Beck’s points, but that is when they go to the effort because he’s angered them. If they checked all of his points presented they would find Beck is so accurate it is scary – for them I mean.
For the naysayer who chimes in with “well, if ya listen to Beck that is your first mistake” or some such asinine objection totally bereft of merit or logic, I just shake my head at their ignorance. I have many commentators who will offer such a baseless objection as them thinking they have won the day with their not so damned clever remark.
Beck was dead on factually correct when he said Van Jones was an admitted Communist. That Cass Sunstein is all for government (progressive gov’t he meant) infiltrating “conspiracy theorists” as he loosely terms political dissenters to the progressive agenda. As Beck asked, would progressives have dropped a baby bovine from their backsides if Bush had advocated such? Duh!
Beck told us when the ACORN crap started that they would not disappear. They would change their name and reemerge and damn sure if that isn’t EXACTLY what happened. Beck has factually shown that Treasury revenues grew after the JFK and Reagan tax cuts, yet naysayers claim it’s not true. They are dishonest or foolish.
Beck told us this government would print money to pay our debts (monetizing debt) and he was 100% on point in his prediction. So naysayers, where’s the lie? Where is the untruth? Wait until the evidence emerges, as it now seems to be, that Obama did try to make Blago appoint his sycophant Valerie Jarret to Obama’s vacant Senate seat. Wonder how the naysayer will characterize that clear illegality and federal offense, a FELONY, mind ya? It’ll be the “depends on the meaning of ‘is'” crap again.
If someone they like does something illegal or just completely untoward, they excuse it, deny it, belittle the severity, etc., yet when someone who does not agree with them is even suspected of any wrongdoing at all, major or minor, suddenly “it’s the severity of the charge” that matters. Say what? No intellectual honesty at all in such concepts as that.
So it would seem the same crowd that hates Beck and refuses to acknowledge truth because it jeopardizes their desires are not only factually bereft of merit but they are also then hypocrites. What does that say about an ideology that uses such tactics as their in print directions for countering the truths that do not work in their favor?
Best of all is when naysayers take almost verbatim recitation of the Constitution or a Founder’s own words as to why “X” was included in the Document or the Bill of Rights, and they scream “hate speech!” How can anything in the Document be hate speech? How can forwarding and repeating the principles of the Constitution be anything at all other than facts? Naysayers prove they are dishonest or clueless when they utter the “hate speech” mantra.
It is not hate speech to repeat the Founder’s principles. It is not hate speech to forward Founding concepts. It is not hate speech to call Marxism an ideology that leads to many less than great things and indeed it led to the most horrid ideologies ever on Earth – Nazism and Communism. And it damn sure isn’t hate speech to look at sorry assed folks looking to rape the nation to personally benefit and calling them foul. They just don’t like it.
Gee, aren’t these tactics EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the ones Nazis and Communists employ? Yeah, yeah, they are. Ya know, fascistic? Oooops! Does that make me guilty of hate speech for not sucking up to them and in fact calling them fascist? Yes? Good! My work here is done – for now.