• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beck exposes another communist lover in the Obama White House

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,480
Reaction score
17,287
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This guy is a one man wrecking crew.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Glenn Beck : Anita Dunn Favorite philosopher Mao Tse-Tung 10.15.09[/ame]
 
Did anyone else notice the rather disturbing smacking sounds she was making during her little ode to Mao?

Seriously, where did Obama find these people? These are the sorts of kooks who never used to be taken seriously, now they're in government!
 
I'm just patiently waiting for the personal attacks to start, and anxious to see how many posts will end up being on this thread, without one person actually disputing what Beck said.

All one has to do, is look at every other thread where Beck is mentioned, and you will find that the left never disputes the claims he makes against the administration.
 
I’ll take the bait… (the bait being your fallacious ad hominem needling I shall point out)

I believe this certain video shows Beck not as a “one man wrecking crew,” but rather as an example of terrible journalism. Here are examples of how:

After showing the clip of Dunn, Beck begins with his analysis of the clip saying
"...But I wanted to make sure we didn't take it out of context, we showed you the nice things she said about Mother Teresa."

Just because Beck shows what he considered a “nice” part of the speech as well does not mean it was not taken out of context. I still have absolutely no idea what Dunn was trying to address. Beck did not include enough of the video before, nor give any background for me to see what point the “…third, lesson, and tip…” was supposed to address. This is terrible journalism on Becks part.

Since I now have no idea of Dunn’s argument, I cannot have any idea of whether her claim, the“…third lesson and tip…” was valid or not. All I know is her third point seems to be claiming that those in the audience will be making their own choices, and they should not let outside influence affect these choices. This can be seen with her quotes “…You’re going to make choices, you’re going to be challenged, you’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal, these are your choices, they are no one else’s…” and later by saying “…You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and pasts. Ok, it is about your choices and your past; you fight your own war; you lay out your own past; you figure out what is right for you; you don’t let external definition define how good you are internally; you fight your war, you let them fight theirs…”

Dunn used her two favorite political leaders Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa as evidence for these claims by saying “…the two people I turn to most, to prove a simple point, which is, you are going to make choices…” This is an assertion in this context and not a claim. Logically, Beck cannot challenge this assertion only her claim, but I will still consider his arguments, as illogical and incoherent as they may be.

To make a quick recap, Beck did not present Dunn with an argument, only a single claim, her third lesson and tip, in which she stated two of her favorite political philosophers to be used specifically towards the support of this claim as evidence. Since she was using this statement as an assertion, rather than a claim for her apparently unknown argument, Beck most definitely did take her arguments out of context, whether by accident or on purpose, with the rest of the her speech.

Since Beck presented no arguments in Dunn’s video, he was forced to set up a series of straw man arguments that he could easily tear down. After Beck sets up a straw man argument he proceeds to argue against it by poisoning the well, among many other fallacies. These fallacies alone are enough to question just about everything said after this point, however I will dig deeper and find even more fallacies committed by Beck.

Directly after the first quote he does take her quotes farther out of context by saying "... the most important political philosopher, for her, is Mao Tse-Tung..."and mumbles so as I had to replay the clip several times before I noticed "...Oh, and Mother Teresa." From here on out Beck only focuses his arguments against one portion of her shown speech. Why did he even include the other portion about Mother Teresa if he was not going to address it? This commits two fallacies, argument by selective observation and argument by half-truths. Although this alone should show Becks terrible journalism in this video, let’s dig even deeper.

Beck then commits more fallacies on top of the ones already mentioned by saying:

“The guy responsible for more deaths than any other 20th century leader is her favorite political philosopher...how can that man be your favorite anything?” This is begging the question, assuming “the guy” being “responsible for more deaths than any other 20th century leader” is the reason why Mao is one Dunn’s favorite political philosophers. This also is a complex question, treating the two points of Mao Tse-Tung’s responsibility for these deaths and Mao Tse-tung being Dunn’s favorite political philosopher as though they should be rejected together.

“That would be like me saying to you, ah, you know who my favorite political philosopher is, Adolf Hitler. Have ya read Mein Kampf? Just fight your fight, like Hitler.” Is an example of Bad Analogy (Hitler and Mao are placed at opposite sides of the political spectrum), Extended analogy (Hitler and Mao are both responsible for many deaths, therefore are analogous to each other), and Argument by Scenario.

He also attempts a Reductio Ad Absurdum, claiming “It’s insanity!” however his argument so far has hardly addressed Dunn’s claim (its obvious he missed it), more or less that people will make choices, and tries to address her assertion, in which I have shown he still leaves gaping holes in his logical argument against it, and therefore her claim or even her assertion may still reach a logical conclusion and therefore he has actually committed his own fallacy, Disproof by fallacy.

According to Beck “She thinks of this man’s work all the time, that was a quote.” The two closest quotes from the video I could find were: “…the two people I turn to most, to prove a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices…” and when she also asks the audience to “…think about that (Mao’s quote) for a second…” This turns from taking quotes out of context to completely misquoting Dunn, committing the fallacy, error of fact. I cannot prove whether he lied by intentionally committing this error in fact, but I can say a professional journalist should be aware of the accuracy of his quotes.

“Could you please put the Gulags back up here? Could you please put the images back up here, of China Please? While I remind you the Gulags, not that picture, gimme the picture of the Chinese... and the brutality. The Gulags, the re-education camps, and he's your favorite?” Now Beck is questioning Dunn’s assertion of her favorite political philosophers. Although his reasoning is prudent against Mao, he commits an appeal to fear when criticizing Dunn’s assertion; while it is prudent to realize Mao was associated with the gulags and their re-education camps, this does not provide evidence against Dunn’s assertion, that Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa are two of her favorite political philosophers.

“How many radicals surrounding our president will it take before you understand that when the president says he wants to transform the country! Well, he, he wants to transform it alright.” This is a red herring, it attempts to draw our attention away from Dunn, and now place the blame on Obama.

“Progressives don't care what you think. They will drag you to reform if they have to…” Hasty generalization, I mean, surely not all progressive don’t care what “you” think.

“We are not just talking about progressives now; we're talking about revolutionaries that idolize Mao!” This is the least probable hypothesis I could think of, instead I think Dunn idolizes Mao for his ability to think for himself, which would seem to fit her claim nicely.

“You tell me the difference between these phrases: Castro, revolution first, elections later; Mao, people who try to commit don't commit suicide, don't save them; China is so populist that we can do without a few people! This is an argument by fast talking and argument by gibberish, I don’t know what point he is trying to make.

Now let’s look at what was said and see what we can actually consider non-fallacious:

“... But I wanted to make sure we didn't take it out of context, we showed you the nice things she said about Mother Teresa. Ok, so the reason this phone hasn’t rung all week is because the most important political philosopher, for her, is Mao Tse-tung ... (Mumbles) Oh, and Mother Teresa. The guy responsible for more deaths than any other 20th century leader is her favorite political philosopher...how can that man be your favorite anything?" He killed 70,000,000 people. That would be like me saying to you, ah, you know who my favorite political philosopher is, Adolf Hitler. Have ya read Mein Kampf? Just fight your fight, like Hitler. It’s insanity! This is her hero's work! 70,000,000 dead! … She thinks of this man’s work all the time, that was a quote. Could you please put the Gulags back up here? Could you please put the images back up here, of China Please? While I remind you the Gulags, not that picture, gimme the picture of the Chinese... and the brutality. The Gulags, the re-education camps, and he's your favorite? ... America...how many radicals is it going to take? How many radicals surrounding our president will it take before you understand that when the president says he wants to transform the country! Well, he, he wants to transform it alright. Progressives don't care what you think. They will drag you to reform if they have to; but we are not just talking about progressives now; we're talking about revolutionaries that idolize Mao! You tell me the difference between these phrases: Castro, revolution first, elections later; Mao, people who try to commit don't commit suicide, don't save them; China is so populist that we can do without a few people! What is the difference between that…and the clip I’m going to play for you next?”

It seems the only non-fallacious remarks of Beck's were when he asserted that Mao was responsible for the deaths of 70,000,000 people, which I will be honest; I have no idea if it is true or not based on fact. The other place he was able to a show non-fallacious remark was when he acknowledged Dunn’s assertion. However one could argue that his use of the word "heroic" may in fact be a weasel word or a euphemism.

To conclude, I cannot disprove that Dunn may in fact be communist, and I will not try. But I think I can prove that Glenn Beck in this example was a very unprofessional, in fact, a terrible journalist.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
I’ll take the bait… (the bait being your fallacious ad hominem needling I shall point out)
Click to expand...

:applaud:applaud

extremely well done!!! I have in the past thought of taking a segment (any segment) of Beck's show and pointing out how thoroughly wrapped in fallacy his dialogues are, but frankly I did not feel that the man was worth the effort. I get ample entertainment just watching him and seeing how he weaves one fallacy on top of another into an intricate web of misdirection and deceit.. he is damn good at his verbal sleight of tongue. It does have some entertainment value, unfortunately he airs on a news channel, so people do make the mistake of taking his spiel as factual and equating him to a journalist (you did as well) when he is a self described rodeo clown, and is just an entertainer with his own extremely profitable rodeo complete with masterful usage of logical fallacies to distract everyone with. He is a damn good clown, I will give him that.

Regardless, I am glad I did not ever take up the task of pointing out how fallacy laden any snippet of his speech is, since it would have been woefully inadequate compared to what I just read.

ohh btw.. welcome to DP!!
 
Last edited:
How can any middle aged person seriously consider Moa their favorite philosopher . I can maybe understand a liberal highschool student or dropout looking up to the man, but why on earth would even a grown adult consider Moa to be a good philosopher? Thats like nazi scum idolizing Hitler or some other genocidal mass murderer.
 
Oftencold said:
Did anyone else notice the rather disturbing smacking sounds she was making during her little ode to Mao?

Seriously, where did Obama find these people? These are the sorts of kooks who never used to be taken seriously, now they're in government!
Click to expand...
It must be tough find enough qualified tax evaders to choose from. :mrgreen:
 
This is terrible journalism on Becks part.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Beck is not a journalist. He's a commentator. He's not paid to conduct accurate, non-biased research. I don't understand why people on the right are so enmoured of him and I understand even less why people on the left, the gang currently in the White House included, are so afraid of him. In any case, he's definitely an interesting phenomenon.
 
How can any middle aged person seriously consider Moa their favorite philosopher . I can maybe understand a liberal highschool student or dropout looking up to the man, but why on earth would even a grown adult consider Moa to be a good philosopher?
Click to expand...

I feel it should also be addressed that just because someone considers a certain person as their favorite political philosopher, it does not imply they feel the same person is a good philosopher. The difference may seem subtle at first, but it really is an important distinction.

Using the a modification to your Hitler analogy I will present my point.

Hitler is my favorite political philosopher. I find his ideals of anti-semetisim, nationalism, and Social Darwinism extremely interesting to learn about and discuss. However, I do not believe Hitler was a good political philosopher because of the terrible effects of the holocaust and fascism around the world.

Do you see your fallacy? You changed the original claim halfway through, failing to reach a conclusion that supports it.

I also agree with everyone saying Beck should not be considered a journalist, however it seemed to me he was being treated as such by the original post, so I addressed the post as if he was.
 
Last edited:
There's no other way to put it... the lip smacking lady is ****ing scary as hell. And perhaps as an isolated instance - this is not that big of a deal - there are ****ed up people in all sorts of powerful positions. But looking holistically at who's manning some of the White House jobs --- and the stuff they say, or said, or have supported or wrote about... you gotta start wondering, wtf is going on? Was the pool of qualified people so low that these people had to be called upon?

It further questions how Presidents in the future will be able to choose these "Czars" - because right now, we've got some real whackjobs. Some signing "truther" documents, some writing theoretically about a future where mass sterilization is used, some who claim the last few months of life are too expensive on the health care system and you'll be left to die, some who do not see much value in spending health care money on the newly born... then there were the tax cheats - a few of them and still one in Congress heading up the committee that WRITES tax laws in this country. It's a little overwhelming, the amount FUBAR oozing out of this current White House administration and the liberals are all "blablabla -- strawman". Beck has such a following because someone on his staff actually looks into these people and then show what they find. I happen to agree with him in this case --- this womans a fruitcake. What's next? Rham saying his favorite philosopher is Gobbels? Or maybe it's some other mass murderer political figurehead... this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Soon, we'll be searching the sewars, or maybe we're already there and just don't know it.
 

One doesn't have to be a journalist to find and show, what clearly is some disturbing video of a person, and then comment on it. Him being or not being a journalist is a red herring. That Mao would be anyone's favorite philosopher, when that person is part of the White House and when they (presumably) know that Mao was responsible for a holocaust of tens of millions of his own people, is, and rightly so disturbing to some people. Surely you can understand that concern.
 

Please tell that to the people who parrot his stuff on the boards almost daily and assume if Beck says it it must be true. If you want to find one, go to the top of this thread.
 
Redress said:
Please tell that to the people who parrot his stuff on the boards almost daily and assume if Beck says it it must be true. If you want to find one, go to the top of this thread.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I love Glen. I think he's a riot. But that's pretty much all he's good for. A laugh. At least he's funny, unlike that Olberman guy.
 

From what Dunn said, I don't think she sees Mao the same way.

In any case, this was a fight that Dunn herself picked.
 
To conclude, I cannot disprove that Dunn may in fact be communist, and I will not try. But I think I can prove that Glenn Beck in this example was a very unprofessional, in fact, a terrible journalist.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have nothing to prove, then you are an odd sort of political debater.

Also, you might want to consider that criticizing a commentator as a poor journalist, is sort of like criticizing a singer for being a poor dancer.

Nice try, if a little wordy.
 
One doesn't have to be a journalist to find and show, what clearly is some disturbing video of a person, and then comment on it. Him being or not being a journalist is a red herring.
Click to expand...

I will cede to you, yes it is a red herring. I was calling him a journalist in my first post because the original poster placed this in the general political discussion, with a title of "Beck exposes another communist lover in the Obama administration," saying "this guy is a one man wrecking crew." I obviously thought he was taking it for fact and not opinion. I will agree with you, however, that I may have misinterpreted this and he may or may not be considered a journalist.

My original post also did address the challenge of the original poster:
“I'm just patiently waiting for the personal attacks to start, and anxious to see how many posts will end up being on this thread, without one person actually disputing what Beck said.” It’s my first line.

Therefore to revise my conclusion I will say this:

It seems the only non-fallacious remarks of Beck's were when he claimed that Mao was responsible for the deaths of 70,000,000 people, which I will be honest; I have no idea if it is true or not based on fact. However, I could depute this saying it is a straw man attempt at Dunn’s assertion. (Please see my first post to see her provided assertion, claim and argument) The other place he was able to a show non-fallacious remark was when he acknowledged Dunn’s assertion. However one could argue that his use of the word "heroic" may in fact be a weasel word or a euphemism.

To conclude, I cannot disprove that Dunn may in fact be communist, and I will not try. But I think I can prove that Glenn Beck in this example was a very unconvincing, unable to make any non-fallacious claims against Dunn. Beck being considered a journalist or not is unimportant, since his arguments are fallacious either way. Beck argues nothing, therefore we will conclude nothing other than Dunn may or may not be a communist.


This I have already when I analyzed Beck’s video. It is an appeal to fear.

From what Dunn said, I don't think she sees Mao the same way. In any case, this was a fight that Dunn herself picked.
Click to expand...

Read my first post again, I addressed this. Dunn did not pick the fight, Beck did by taking her quotes out of context.

Well, if you have nothing to prove, then you are an odd sort of political debater
Click to expand...

I proved Becks arguments fallacious. I proved Beck set up straw men so he could attempt to attack her assertion (which is not logically debatable). There is not conclusion other than this because Beck never presented an actual argument to weigh her only claim (that people will make choices…) against, so we cannot have any idea if it is valid or not. I am not the odd debater, Beck is.

I did not try to prove whether she was communist or not because it was not said in any other place but the title. You are inferring arguments that are not presented.

Read my first post again, and then when you see my red herring, calling Beck a journalist, read my revision. You should see my point.
 
Last edited:
Well to be honest, Dunn being or not being a communist is irrelevant. I'm more disturbed by Mao being one of her favorite philosopher. First, it's highly disputable that Mao was a philosopher. Second, that such a person like other political mass murderers of history, would shape her views, opinions and life - as well as her decision making is the real issue. While you may see it as an appeal to fear, it also doesn't change the fact that this development shown (and for right now, just focus on the video of Dunn, not the comments after) are factual. That she would feel comfortable enough to say such a thing in public, is also disturbing and shows that such radical (yes, radical) and highly inflammatory views are now making their way to the light - is concerning when taking into effect - the totality of the whackjobs working under the Obama Administration. One could argue that also is an appeal to fear - I call it ****ed up.

The video by itself without Beck is enough to convince me Dunn has no business being in the White House or in fact, within a 1,000 yards of any government building, without an escort.

drz-400 said:
Read my first post again, I addressed this. Dunn did not pick the fight, Beck did by taking her quotes out of context.
Click to expand...
Becks comments are over the top, but are not out of context. He makes accusations based on the information provided. Such are the ways of politics.

drz-400 said:
I did not try to prove whether she was communist or not because it was not said in any other place but the title. You are inferring arguments that are not presented.
Click to expand...
I'm simply making a logical conclusion based on the information provided. Without Becks comments.

The video can stand by itself. No one need prove Dunn is or is not a communist. One must ask the question: Am I comfortable with a person who admires a "philosopher", who caused the deaths of 40-70 million (depending on which reports one believes)? I say - I'm not comfortable with it - don't care what she believes - kick the dizzy whackjob out on her ass.

There has to be someone else just as qualified without the Mao baggage.
 
Oftencold said:
Also, you might want to consider that criticizing a commentator as a poor journalist, is sort of like criticizing a singer for being a poor dancer.

Nice try, if a little wordy.
Click to expand...

Fact checking a commentator is perfectly fine and worthy, especially in this case when the commentator is making an accusation.
 
The video proves nothing by itself, it merely suggests something fallaciously. You were forced to prove the rest by yourself through inference.

Where does the video say "that such a person like other political mass murderers of history, would shape her views, opinions and life - as well as her decision making ..."?

It doesn't, she says Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa are “…the two people I turn to most, to prove a simple point, you are going to make choices, you’re going to be challenged, you’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal, these are your choices, they are no one else’s…”

Using your logic I could say Dunn wants to make only holy, good, and righteous choices because Mother Teresa has “shape(d) her views, opinions and life - as well as her decision making.” That she would feel comfortable enough to say such a thing in public, is also moving and shows that such holy (yes, holy) and highly encouraging views are now making their way to the light - is reassuring when taking into effect - the amount of the roman Catholics working under the Obama Administration (he just nominated one as a supreme court justice).

Using the same logic we end up with completely contradictory conclusions. The video did not tell me this, I inferred it. This supports my argument that this sort of thinking is fallacious.

However, no matter how many times it seems I prove this, you will continue to infer what you want to believe; what you think, not what you know, and create your own conclusions based on logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
One of my favorite military strategists of all time is Sun Tzu, and I value his wisdom on the subject.

Sun Tzu sent thousands of people to their certain death.

Does this mean that I support sending thousands of people into situations where death is all but certain, or condone each and every action of his??

NO, it merely means that I feel he was a genius when it comes to military strategy and I admire that aspect of him.

I also admire St. Thomas Aquinas, he is probably my favorite religious philosopher, many things he said about the proofs of God are spot on.

He was a Catholic, and prayed regularly.

Since I have an appreciation of his philosophy then I must be an avowed supportive catholic who is a staunch believer in regular prayer. How could I admire his philosophy otherwise??

Plato's thoughts on morality are a cornerstone of my moral beliefs.

Plato liked to have sex with little boys.

Therefore I must be a supporter of sex with little boys.

Mao is my favorite political philosopher

Mao was a leader responsible for millions of dead people.

I must support the death of millions of people

What Mao the philosopher said does not correlate with what Mao the leader did. They are irrelevant and independent from each other, an appreciation of his philosophy does not= an appreciation of his actions.

There is no difference in any of the above examples, all commit the same fallacy, and all are equally invalid.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Redress said:
Fact checking a commentator is perfectly fine and worthy, especially in this case when the commentator is making an accusation.
Click to expand...
You want to fact check Beck? Have you seen how much reference material he uses? Go right ahead, I encourage you most enthusiastically!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…