• 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!

Oh, Glenn...

When did we start demeaning people who didn't go to college? It doesn't take a diploma to have "high knowledge". Thinking so is a bit shallow.

It's been an interesting transformation over the decades. This kind of thinking was supposedly what "conservatives" do to the "little guy." Now you hear condescending, dismissive things like this from liberals all the time.

Especially at DP.
 
Glenn Beck is perhaps the most important watchdog personality on TV right now; maybe even ever. Does he embellish, sure, does he hyperbolize, sure, but his insight on matters concerning America is astute, and thus far, accurate.

Last time I checked, I wouldn't consider myself an unintelligent troglodyte.. :)

But, sorry to interrupt, back to your Beck bash.. :)


Tim-

Clearly he doesn't understand what negative rights are if he is criticizing Obama for stating what is, in fact, truth.

He also sees "communism" in 1930s era architecture (duh, there's also "fascism" in some 1920s architecture, if want to find it).

He's just there to scare people and point fingers at imagined enemies.

If people have someone else to blame (illegal immigrants, liberals, gays, feminists), then they won't blame themselves for things that go wrong.

He preaches nothing but "us vs. them" in everything he says (MSNBC are Commies; Obama is a racist; the Arts are Mt. Dew and Cheetos). He profits off of breeding hatred for his fellow Americans. That's all he does. He doesn't offer "insight". He offers insults and ensures his audience that they have someone else to blame for their troubles aside from themselves.

I love the unemployed white folks in my small hometown who never went to college, were complete slackers throughout school (I know, I was there with them), but take all these stances that gays are ruining marriage, Mexicans took their jobs (even though they have jobs - crappy ones, according to them), and Obama is ruining their lives - instead of looking at themselves and blaming themselves for not taking their education seriously and striving to move upward.

Sadly, their kids are doing the same things (thank God, I didn't have any). But they'll still blame the government and not themselves.

This is what Beck preaches. It's actually quite the opposite of personal responsibility. It's simply passing the buck to the others.
 
So where is Beck wrong here in regards to Obama? Cause if you LISTEN to Obama...



Obama also has a one Cass Sustein as an advisor, I think you'll recall the push for a more "positive liberties" 2nd Bill of rights?


Barack Obama and "The Second Bill of Rights" - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

In the first place, in the above quote, Obama is simply stating that the court-centered appraoch utilized by the civil rights movement may not have been the best strategy. He's pointing out a fact about the structure of the Constitution. If anything, it's a rather conservative statement in that he goes on to say that change involving the "redistribution of wealth" ought to be sought through the elected braches through coalition formation. But of course Glenn never puts this in context.

As for Cass Sunstein, he's the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Basically a part of the executive branch that advises the bureaucracy. He has no real power. And it's not as if no other administration appointed people with extremist views on the Constitution (I seem to recall a certain Attorney General under Bush II who pushed for a bill that greatly expanded the powers of the U.S. government to fight crime and terrorism, while simultaneously eliminating or curtailing judicial review of these powers). And he actually had power.

But in any case, comments made by Sunstein do not necessarily say anything about Obama's views. It's another guilt by association argument, as with Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.
 
You really don't see why it's useless to compare a television audience to a radio audience if you're trying to prove that Fox's audience is dumb? Again, Fox's audience was statistically indistinguishable from that of ABC, CBS, or NBC, yet I don't see you sniggering behind your hand about how dumb their viewers are.



And by "plenty of others" you mean "two different links to the same study"? Moreover, that study asked a grand total of three questions, two of which could arguably be answered either way. Not exactly much of a source, especially compared to the Pew Study you originally cited which directly contradicted those claims.



And how exactly do you define "editorialist"?

The question in the Pew survey was "what are your primary sources of news." We all have options regarding where we get our news from, so what's wrong with comparing across different types of media?

As for ABC, NBC, and CBS, I think they often do a terrible job at informing their audiences on a number of issues as well. This is a thread about Fox News generally and Glenn Beck specifically. When I see an especially dumb or disingenuous statement on one of those other networks, I'd be happy to start a thread on those, too.

And what's wrong with referring to only 3 questions? Plenty of surveys only include a few questions, it doesn't negate their findings. And people's perceptions of why we got involved in a war that killed thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's is a pretty important question. And the discrepancy between FNC viewers and others is pretty significant there.

An editorialist is someone who's on television, radio, print, etc. whose primary purpose is expressing opinions. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly are editorialists. Van Sustren, Baier, etc. are not.
 
It's been an interesting transformation over the decades. This kind of thinking was supposedly what "conservatives" do to the "little guy." Now you hear condescending, dismissive things like this from liberals all the time.

Especially at DP.

To be honest, I think it's a response to all the anti-intellectualism that's risen significantly over the past decade or so.

The Dumbing Of America - washingtonpost.com

I think this is a great read about it. I come from a small town in Indiana. This pretty much sums up what I experience whenever I go home.
 
To be honest, I think it's a response to all the anti-intellectualism that's risen significantly over the past decade or so.

The Dumbing Of America - washingtonpost.com

I think this is a great read about it. I come from a small town in Indiana. This pretty much sums up what I experience whenever I go home.

Yeah, that's not example of exactly what I was talking about or anything.
 
Clearly he doesn't understand what negative rights are if he is criticizing Obama for stating what is, in fact, truth.

He also sees "communism" in 1930s era architecture (duh, there's also "fascism" in some 1920s architecture, if want to find it).

He's just there to scare people and point fingers at imagined enemies.

If people have someone else to blame (illegal immigrants, liberals, gays, feminists), then they won't blame themselves for things that go wrong.

He preaches nothing but "us vs. them" in everything he says (MSNBC are Commies; Obama is a racist; the Arts are Mt. Dew and Cheetos). He profits off of breeding hatred for his fellow Americans. That's all he does. He doesn't offer "insight". He offers insults and ensures his audience that they have someone else to blame for their troubles aside from themselves.

I love the unemployed white folks in my small hometown who never went to college, were complete slackers throughout school (I know, I was there with them), but take all these stances that gays are ruining marriage, Mexicans took their jobs (even though they have jobs - crappy ones, according to them), and Obama is ruining their lives - instead of looking at themselves and blaming themselves for not taking their education seriously and striving to move upward.

Sadly, their kids are doing the same things (thank God, I didn't have any). But they'll still blame the government and not themselves.

This is what Beck preaches. It's actually quite the opposite of personal responsibility. It's simply passing the buck to the others.

Hmm.. Do you watch Beck? I mean, really, do you watch him daily? None of what you claim is true? I knew I should have simply passed by this Glenn Beck derangement syndrome thread? Much the same with Sara Palin syndrome.. :) It's laughable. There is a certain amount of showmanship about Beck, I already acknowledge this, but his message is crystal clear, and he's usually spot on...


Tim-
 
The question in the Pew survey was "what are your primary sources of news." We all have options regarding where we get our news from, so what's wrong with comparing across different types of media?

As for ABC, NBC, and CBS, I think they often do a terrible job at informing their audiences on a number of issues as well. This is a thread about Fox News generally and Glenn Beck specifically. When I see an especially dumb or disingenuous statement on one of those other networks, I'd be happy to start a thread on those, too.

Because the demographics of people who gets their news from basic television news are substantially different than the demographics of people who get their news from more particularized sources. As your link shows, the average person who gets their news from basic television is statistically identical across all the networks. The average person who gets their news from NPR, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh are somewhat more informed.

I think it's pretty clear that you posted that link because you believed that those numbers proved your point that fox viewers were dumb. You just never explored the question "dumber than what?"

And what's wrong with referring to only 3 questions? Plenty of surveys only include a few questions, it doesn't negate their findings. And people's perceptions of why we got involved in a war that killed thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's is a pretty important question. And the discrepancy between FNC viewers and others is pretty significant there.

Again, I think that judging people's "knowledge" on a three-question survey, particularly where two of the three questions can be answered either way, is entirely pointless. YMMV.

An editorialist is someone who's on television, radio, print, etc. whose primary purpose is expressing opinions. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly are editorialists. Van Sustren, Baier, etc. are not.

You made the claim that O'Reilly was the only fox news host that had more than a high school degree. Now you've revised that to say that you only meant "editorialists," since the first claim was obviously false. Why do I get the feeling that if I asked you for a list, the hosts would be classified according to whoever wikipedia says doesn't have a college degree?
 
Not that Van Sustren isn't an "editorialist," anyway.
 
To be honest, I think it's a response to all the anti-intellectualism that's risen significantly over the past decade or so.

The Dumbing Of America - washingtonpost.com

I think this is a great read about it. I come from a small town in Indiana. This pretty much sums up what I experience whenever I go home.

idiocracy.png
 
My favorite 21st century McCarthyite seems fond of playing a news reel of President Obama referring to the Constitution as a collection of "negative rights."

Does anyone believe that Mr. Beck has the slightest idea what "negative rights" means? Particularly given the fact that his own view of the document is essentially the same?

OK, this thread is clearly a rant, but I, at least, find Glenn's incessant use of the quote infinitely funny.

Keep it up, Lonely Roads :lol:

His show is meant for entertainment.
Don't take him seriously.
 

You know, I've always wondered . . .

If you take what they say about liberalism being the intellectually-superior philosophy because so much of academia is liberal, so much of the news media is liberal, so much of the upper echolons of popular culture is liberal . . .

Why wasn't that true about conservatives when they dominated all of those things?
 
You know, I've always wondered . . .

If you take what they say about liberalism being the intellectually-superior philosophy because so much of academia is liberal, so much of the news media is liberal, so much of the upper echolons of popular culture is liberal . . .

Why wasn't that true about conservatives when they dominated all of those things?


Because the conservatives maintained those positions of authority by formally and informally preventing or discouraging those who disagreed with them from gaining influence in any of those fields. Thankfully, the liberals have ousted those prejudiced conservative regimes and are working tirelessly to ensure that they never have a chance to gain influence like that again.
 
And here I thought liberals where smarter just because we were right on the issues....
 
Because the demographics of people who gets their news from basic television news are substantially different than the demographics of people who get their news from more particularized sources. As your link shows, the average person who gets their news from basic television is statistically identical across all the networks. The average person who gets their news from NPR, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh are somewhat more informed.

I think it's pretty clear that you posted that link because you believed that those numbers proved your point that fox viewers were dumb. You just never explored the question "dumber than what?"



Again, I think that judging people's "knowledge" on a three-question survey, particularly where two of the three questions can be answered either way, is entirely pointless. YMMV.



You made the claim that O'Reilly was the only fox news host that had more than a high school degree. Now you've revised that to say that you only meant "editorialists," since the first claim was obviously false. Why do I get the feeling that if I asked you for a list, the hosts would be classified according to whoever wikipedia says doesn't have a college degree?

Hey, I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong, and I'll retract my statement about the overall intelligence of Fox viewers. It was an over-generalization.

Who said debate never changes anyone's mind :)

I do still maintain that the survey about the responsibility for 9/11 that showed a significant gap between news sources says something about FNC. It's not a question that can be answered correctly either way. The fact is that Iraq had nothing to do with it. It would be like saying Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan or Belize are equally justified responses. One is simply not true.

As for the editorialist part, again, I admit my initial comment was also an over-generalization. But the distinction between an editorialist an someone engaged in "hard news" is an important one to make. I'm not sure what you mean by "classified according to whoever wikipedia says doesn't have a college degree," though.
 
Yeah, that's not example of exactly what I was talking about or anything.

No, I think it is what you're talking about. You refer to people talking down to "the little guy".

And I'm arguing that this "talking down" that you witness is a response to the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism that is addressed in the article.

You may see it as "talking down" to her - but when people compare Palin going to five schools over six years to get her degree being equal educationally to someone with a Ph.D., I have a problem with that. Now, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law and everyone's right to vote is equal and everyone is deserving of basic respect. But I'm not going to hire a lawyer to fix my pluming; and I'm not going to hire a plumber for his Constitutional opinions.

I'm tired of people saying that mediocrity is the same as exceptionalism. And I think it's why this nation is now 12th in education of developed nations and is falling behind in so many categories. It used to be liberals worrying about "self-esteem" of students. Now, it's the person who says, "The sun goes 'round the Earth and man interacted with dinosaurs!" and then defies to be educated who wants their opinion to be treated as equal to a scientist or educator.

If that's "talking down", then so be it.
 
No, I think it is what you're talking about. You refer to people talking down to "the little guy".

Ummm . . . yes. Which is why what I posted was unmistakably sarcasm.

The smug, elitist pap that she wrote is, indeed, exactly what I was referring to.
 
And here I thought liberals where smarter just because we were right on the issues....

If we assume for the sake of argument that you are right on the issues (of course, for that, you'd all have to agree on the issues), it still would not follow that you, as a group, are smarter.

However, that kind of thinking does indeed lead to concluding that hey, X disagrees with me, so he must be "anti-intellectual."
 
His show is meant for entertainment.
Don't take him seriously.

I hear this a lot on here, but I don't buy it. On the other hand, people I know in real life that watch the guy take everything he says as the truth. If his show is meant for entertainment, it's the ****tiest kind of entertainment I've ever seen.
 
I hear this a lot on here, but I don't buy it. On the other hand, people I know in real life that watch the guy take everything he says as the truth. If his show is meant for entertainment, it's the ****tiest kind of entertainment I've ever seen.

"In a 2010 interview in Forbes, Beck asserted that his business was not political, but is an entertainment company: "I could give a flying crap about the political process," continuing on to say that Mercury Radio Arts, his production company, is "an entertainment company".[1] In a follow-up story, Beck said, while explaining why Tyler Perry is his hero, “[Perry] has the luxury of not doing the political stuff, which is really where I want to be as a company. I just happen to believe the Republic is on fire and it wouldn’t be as effective if I had Pluto come out with a cartoon fire hose to put it out.

Glenn Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
"In a 2010 interview in Forbes, Beck asserted that his business was not political, but is an entertainment company: "I could give a flying crap about the political process," continuing on to say that Mercury Radio Arts, his production company, is "an entertainment company".[1] In a follow-up story, Beck said, while explaining why Tyler Perry is his hero, “[Perry] has the luxury of not doing the political stuff, which is really where I want to be as a company. I just happen to believe the Republic is on fire and it wouldn’t be as effective if I had Pluto come out with a cartoon fire hose to put it out.

Glenn Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, when you are doing things like the 9/12 project, and you are on political channels what is his game? If he truly was an entertainer wouldn't he be on an appropiate channel for such? I guess if I tell you a lie enough times you will start believing it too?
 
Once again, when you are doing things like the 9/12 project, and you are on political channels what is his game? If he truly was an entertainer wouldn't he be on an appropiate channel for such? I guess if I tell you a lie enough times you will start believing it too?

That doesn't mean he doesn't believe a lot of the stuff he says but he does and says a lot of crazy **** because he wants eyes looking at his show.
He wants people buy stuff from his sponsors and buying his books.

It also creates word of mouth advertising.
This thread is proof of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom