Glenn Beck Show ended

Enough said that my opinion, for the reasons previously stated, is that Glenn Beck is bad news for people who are easily influence and whose critical thinking skills are poor.

Beck is not emotionally stable, he is a profitor [sic.] trying to pass himself as a "prophet," and he has a tendency for paranoia and grandiosity.

There is a statement I have not heard in a long time, "Mr. Big Talker is bad news for people who are easily influence and whose critical thinking skills are poor."

I have heard this about Rush for years; and I suppose somebody could say the same thing about Barack Obama. The whole notion is that a group of stupid, ignorant followers are just waiting to be lead like sheep. (no insult intended to sheep who have a mind of their own.)

In all the years I have been around people who enjoy listening to highly opinionated radio and TV personalities, I never once met someone who just mindlessly accepted every word like it was the gospel. If anything, these people are more aware of the issues and are able to debate them rationally.

All of these so-called groupies are a lot better informed because while somebody may try to tell everybody what to think, in reality the listeners are learnuing how to think critically.

Honestly, the person who walks around saying things like, "the guy's a nut" or "I hate all politicians" is a danger to democracy.

His one, brainless, thoughtless vote could offset my highly considered vote.
 
Werbung:
Glenn Beck is bad news for people who are easily influence and whose critical thinking skills are poor.

Beck is not emotionally stable, he is a profitor trying to pass himself as a "prophet," and he has a tendency for paranoia and grandiosity.
[P]ropaganda is any generalize statement that is made purposely with the intention to gather people around one mind set that serves a single ideology, outcome, or monetary gain and includes at most a portion of truth with a lot of misleading information.​
According to your own definition, what you have just said should qualify as propaganda.

I do not think I owe you anything. You are not a prosecutor, and I am not on trial.
Would you say that people who are easily influenced, and whose critical thinking skills are poor, are likely to become defensive when asked to offer a rational foundation for their opinion?
 
Rush explaned the Obama song

And the FCC did nothing. Jesse Jackson even complaned to the FCC and they couldnt do nothing about it. FCC Regalates TELEVISON! You cant say the N word on Network TV. But you can say it on HBO Heres an Example from Bill Maher
 
[P]ropaganda is any generalize statement that is made purposely with the intention to gather people around one mind set that serves a single ideology, outcome, or monetary gain and includes at most a portion of truth with a lot of misleading information.​
According to your own definition, what you have just said should qualify as propaganda.


Would you say that people who are easily influenced, and whose critical thinking skills are poor, are likely to become defensive when asked to offer a rational foundation for their opinion?

No, I do not believe that my statement was propaganda because it is a personal opinion (although it is based on ny own career background), and it is not intended, or likely at all to influence anyone.

No, I don't think they would necessarely become defensive. Many would beome aggressine and even offensive. More evev would resort to "canned statements," or change the subject by attempting to deride the person.
A last group, slightly more polished, would simply attempt to derail the real issue and to put the other person on the defensive by asking a very loosely related (at best) question.
 
No, I do not believe that my statement was propaganda because it is a personal opinion...
So Beck's opinions are propaganda but your opinions are not... Help me to understand how you draw such a distinction.

More evev would resort to "canned statements," or change the subject by attempting to deride the person.
Like when someone uses an ad hominem to attack the person while avoiding the substance of their argument?

Beck is not emotionally stable, he is a profitor trying to pass himself as a "prophet," and he has a tendency for paranoia and grandiosity.- Openmind​

A last group, slightly more polished, would simply attempt to derail the real issue and to put the other person on the defensive by asking a very loosely related (at best) question.
What do you consider the "real" issue to be?

I asked why you were happy Beck is no longer on FOX but your answers were all begging the question, so I have asked that you explain the rational foundation upon which your conclusions are based. If that is too difficult a task, then I appologize for having upset you.
 
I take that as meaning you have no legitimate answer to my question.

Take it how you wish but the proof is in that episode. Choose to ignore it if you wish but don't expect me to entertain many conversations with you if you choose to be so obtuse.
 
So Beck's opinions are propaganda but your opinions are not... Help me to understand how you draw such a distinction. .


I am very flattered but, believe me, no one is paying me millions of dollars for my opinion, and millions are not listening and repeating my opinions at nauseum. Also, I do not reep any personal monetary gain for my opinions.

Like when someone uses an ad hominem to attack the person while avoiding the substance of their argument? .

If this is what you believe, be my guest.

Beck is not emotionally stable, he is a profitor trying to pass himself as a "prophet," and he has a tendency for paranoia and grandiosity.- Openmind​
.

Again, this is my opinion, based on my career experience with people with emotiona/mental issues. You may or may not approve of it, but I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours.

I asked why you were happy Beck is no longer on FOX but your answers were all begging the question, so I have asked that you explain the rational foundation upon which your conclusions are based. If that is too difficult a task, then I appologize for having upset you.

I believe my answers stood on their own. They were not presented as "FACTS" and I wasn't trying to convince anyone. I gave you all the answers I care to give.
You have not "upset" me. But I apologize if I have said a little too much, while answering your "questions" about diversion techniques commonly used by trolls.

I do not plan on pursuing your little game. It may be of great amusement to you, but it is of no interest to me. Furthermore, I do not believe that Beck is worth all this time. He is a closed case as far as I'm concern.
 
Take it how you wish but the proof is in that episode. Choose to ignore it if you wish but don't expect me to entertain many conversations with you if you choose to be so obtuse.

Here are all of Glenn Beck's statements from that clip:

Beck: ...the secret of knowing everyone has a purpose. Not everybody can deliver the same message, not everybody can relate to each other, everybody has the same problems but there is somebody out there that you're going to brush... up...

Guest begins speaking.

Beck: ...Ok... Alright... When we, when we come back... I-I-I-Wanna...

End of clip.
Please, quote the portion of Beck's comments that you consider the 'smoking gun' proof that Glenn Beck wants a Theocracy in America.
 
Here are all of Glenn Beck's statements from that clip:

Beck: ...the secret of knowing everyone has a purpose. Not everybody can deliver the same message, not everybody can relate to each other, everybody has the same problems but there is somebody out there that you're going to brush... up...

Guest begins speaking.

Beck: ...Ok... Alright... When we, when we come back... I-I-I-Wanna...

End of clip.
Please, quote the portion of Beck's comments that you consider the 'smoking gun' proof that Glenn Beck wants a Theocracy in America.


My fault wrong clip... That was for something completely different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jf4aEMFbxI
 
You may or may not approve of it, but I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours.
I'm merely curious as to how people arrive at their opinions. For example: The easily influential people, with poor critical thinking skills, are more prone to form opinions based on emotion rather than logic and reason. Do you not agree?

I believe my answers stood on their own. They were not presented as "FACTS" and I wasn't trying to convince anyone. I gave you all the answers I care to give.
I appreciate the effort.
I apologize if I have said a little too much, while answering your "questions" about diversion techniques commonly used by trolls.
Yes, we must keep an eye out for trolls. :)

I do not plan on pursuing your little game. It may be of great amusement to you, but it is of no interest to me.
Game you say? We used to play a fun game around here, Secret Word, but we haven't played in quite some time. That was very amusing...

Furthermore, I do not believe that Beck is worth all this time. He is a closed case as far as I'm concern.
But you never explained why you think Beck is extreme... :(

Just the same, I look forward to hearing more of your well thought out opinions.

In Defense of Capitalism & Free Markets

Just in case you'd like to hear some of mine. ;)
 
Maybe if or Sarah Palin loses the white house she can become a Talkshow host and replace Beck at 5 PM

Is not the comedienne Sarah Palin the daughter of Python Michael Palin ?

Her satire of a right-wing dumbass is a hoot !!

Comrade Stalin
 
Werbung:
Is not the comedienne Sarah Palin the daughter of Python Michael Palin ?

Her satire of a right-wing dumbass is a hoot !!

Comrade Stalin

Palin is nothing more than a nuisance and a distraction. She needs to just go away and shoot a moose or something.
 
Back
Top