A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded

[Avatar4321]

good !!! keep on moving ... don't need your opinion

Meanwhile you still think you should silence and rob someone because you dont like their politics and dont seem to think that is problematic in the least.

no I clearly said if you want to stay stupid and lied to, then fine go with glenn beck ... its not his politics I don't like its his constant lying and sponges like you sopping it up is what i don't like

You said his money should be taken from him and he be silenced. You conveniently cut out that quote. I wonder why.

Why should we rob and silence people who have a different political viewpoint? It makes no sense. It's pretty scummy. Why do you want to lie about it when anyone can just scroll back a few pages and see you say what you are currently denying you said? heck, Ill even quote it again for you no one has to go back:

who give a fuck about rep power ... I sure the hell don't ...isn't it what you whack jobs always say ... if you want to sleep with the scum, then you're scum too ... in my opinion Glenn Beck is a two bit lying piece of lying shit that should be taken off the air and every lying dollar he made should be taken away from him ... and any one who associates with him deserves what they get ...

You are clearly wanting to Rob and silence him. And you don't see anything bad about this?

I don't agree with President Obama. His policies are destroying this nation. But I don't want to rob him of his money. I don't want him silenced. If he was hungry, I would gladly share with him my food.

See, he is my brother and fellowcitizen. He is extremely wrong about so much. But he is still my brother and fellowcitizen. And as an American it's my responsibility to care for even my political enemies.

Is Glenn perfect? HECK NO. He would be the first to tell you that. But he is a remarkable man. He has done tremendous good in this nation. And he is encouraging men and women throughout the world to do good to one another.

But he doesn't agree with you politically, so clearly he has to be robbed and silenced.

 

[Avatar4321]

Glenn Beck's outrageous and anti-American rants are far worse thamn anything Rev. Wright ever said.

Please tell me what's outrageous or anti American about the following:

1) The Constitution
2) Nonviolent political involvement
3) Encouraging people to study history
4) Working together with people to build a better country through virtuous living and private service.

I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Bwaq hahahahahahahahahahah my side theyre acking BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you havew a lot to learn like I said go tpo factcheck.or do a search on glenn beck heres what you will find
1) The Constitution he knows nothing about
2) Nonviolent political involvement he insites peopel to violence all the time
3) Encouraging people to study history his version of history not the real history
4) Working together with people to build a better country through virtuous living and private servi if you want to have the right to choose then you're fuck ... as I said he knows nothing about the constitution

You realize that you didn't actually address anything, right? Simply saying "Nah ah!" isn't any kind of serious argument.

 

[Avatar4321]

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?"
- Glenn Beck

So much for the never advocated violence line hmmmmmm

You seriously aren't this stupid, right?

What is wrong with you people and ignoring context?

 

[Avatar4321]

Really? Then why weren't republicans allowed to do the same to Obama during the two presidential elections?

They did - 24/7

Really? Which is why 5 years later we still dont know the extent of the relationship and you guys are still trying to argue that it doesn't matter.

 

[Avatar4321]

They did - 24/7

Apparently not, since Obama was elected anyway.

Yet another logical fallacy.

People didn't care that much

No. The media didn't care that much. The People are still largely ignorant of the relationship and probably couldnt even tell us who Bill Ayers was because the media completely ignored the questions. Especially since they can't tell us who Joe Biden is.

 

[Avatar4321]

Looking for the person who claimed Beck has never endorsed violence to admit he/she is dead wrong.

In light of this quote:

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?"
- Glenn Beck

And Im looking for you to actually put the quote in context and I dont know read it.

You realize that getting frustrated with people and using extreme language isn't the same as actually advocating violence, right?

See, I could easily get frustrated and want to strangle stupid people. It's perfectly natural to want to do that. The difference is people like Glenn realize that despite the natural feelings or desires, which Glenn quite freely expresses, we need to still be civilized. Which is precisely why Glenn advocates the political methods of Gandhi and MLK.

A driver cut me off yesterday. Nearly killed my daughter and I doing that. I was angry with him. I am sure I felt exactly the way Glenn was feeling when he did that segment. Probably even more so. Just because you feel like you want to kill someone and even say that doesn't mean you are going to do that. Instead, that's when you say a prayer to bless that person.

You think Glenn likes doing what he is doing? I don't. The man is a pariah because ignorant people like yourself rip his comments out of context and completely ignore the message he is actually making. Who wants that? He has got both parties gunning for him because he will call both of them out when they are wrong.

But yeah. He is scum. Maybe he is scum compared to you and countless others. But he is one of the few actually standing up and trying to save this Republic.

I'd rather stand with imperfect sincere people trying to do good than stand with people who are always tearing one another down. I'd rather stand with imperfect people who believe in empowering on another than those who want people dependent on them for power.

I believe people can change. Glenn is a perfect example of that.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Really? Then why weren't republicans allowed to do the same to Obama during the two presidential elections?

They did - 24/7

Apparently not, since Obama was elected anyway.

super double facepalm.

 

[Avatar4321]

This Glenn Beck is one great American, huh?

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." –"The Glenn Beck Program," Sept. 9, 2005

That is great where Wright quoting someone on Fox news saying "chickens coming home" to roost is terrible.

See the pattern....A dem does it its terrible and no explanation is accepted. A repub does it and suddenly explanations are good and just.

That's what you call principles ladies and gentlemen

Your pattern is a bit wrong.

A dem does it and no explanation is ever given. It's just ignored. A Republican does it, they actually explain what they meant and often apologize for it.

 

[Avatar4321]

This thread is a good reminder of why we would all be better off if liberals and conservatives each had their own country.

And why would we want to leave our brethren under the despotic rule of progressives?

 

[Avatar4321]

Funny how temple virgin thinks it's okay for people to exercise their freedoms and talk or socialize with anyone they want, just don't let it be a socialist, progressive or a communist.

Funny how he has indicated nothing of the sort and you've had to resort to a straw man argument.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Really? Then why weren't republicans allowed to do the same to Obama during the two presidential elections?

They did - 24/7

Really? Which is why 5 years later we still dont know the extent of the relationship and you guys are still trying to argue that it doesn't matter.

You know about their relationship you're just engaging in a game called "what we don't know". And using that to pretend you don't know anything.

 

[Avatar4321]

Given the politically derisive nature of our country right now, suddenly we have enough gumption to question who associates with who, or whether we agree with them. I mean come on folks, seriously? According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal from angry liberal Facebook posters. But anyhow, if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

[The following is an excerpt from Mike Rowe's Facebook page (Rowe is the host of Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs)]

Shannon K. Walsh wrote, “Mike – How could you associate with such a horrible and psychotic person that is Glen[n] Beck? I wouldn’t accept a dime off that hateful, nasty racist. Very disappointed to see this post.”

Well, hi there, Shannon – and a pleasant good morning to you too!

If you want a detailed answer to your question, please take a moment to read my earlier reply to Bob Reidel, another crestfallen soul who couldn’t reconcile my association with a TV host that he personally despised. As you read it (out loud, if possible, and in a public place), kindly replace the words “Bob Reidel” with “Shannon K. Walsh,” and “Bill Maher” with “Glenn Beck.” But prepare yourself – you might be forced to conclude that my true objective here has little to do with winning or losing your approval.

As for your personal characterization of Glenn Beck, I can only assume you have information not available to me. In my time with him, I saw nothing “horrible, psychotic, hateful, or nasty.” I smelled no burning sulphur, no smoldering brimstone, and saw no sign of cloven hooves.

To the contrary, I found a very passionate guy who employs about 300 people, works his butt off, and puts his money where his mouth is. Do we agree on everything? Of course not. Am I “disappointed” by that fact? Not at all. The real question, Shannon, is … why are you?

To be clear, I’m not here to tell you what to think or whom to hate. Like everyone else, you’re free to pick your devils, choose your angels, and attach the horns and halos accordingly.

But the guts of your question – even without all the name-calling and acrimony – reveal the essence of what’s broken in our country. You want to know “how I can associate” with someone you don’t like? The short answer is, how can I not? How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don’t disagree with?

-Mike

Read more at A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded... | Independent Journal Review

What a person says and how they go about spreading their message are two completely different things. A perfect case in point would be bill o'reilly. A few years ago o'reilly was on a mission to condemn those who were for abortion. He even focused on an abortion doctor whom he called Tiller the Baby Killer. On air he told where Tiller lived. To some it would sound like a o'really was doing a wonderful service. To others it was a call for action. One of o'reilly's followers shot and killed Tiller in front of his family as he was coming out of church. o'reilly claimed that the 30 or 40 rants on his program had nothing to do with the crazy who killed Tiller. I see beck in the same light I see o'reilly.
As to Obama and ayres, to the best of my knowledge they attended some meeting where they happened to be in the same room. I also believe he was invited and accepted an invitation to a social gathering at ayres home. I was once invited and accepted to go to a luncheon at Wayne Newtons home. WAYNE AND I DO NOT PAL AROUND OR ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER. What Obama did IS NOT hanging around with someone despite the right's overwhelming desire to throw mud.
Rowe, on the other hand, does hang around with beck and even defends his actions. Whether it is fair or not, or weather it is accurate or not, a person is known by the company they keep. Rowe has a perfect right to hang around with whom ever we wishes. I have a perfect right to judge his behavior on who he hangs around with.
One final thought, beck is a distributor of hatred. More often than not his rants are designed to tear people and this country apart. I would have a difficult time respecting anyone who makes the choice to"pal" around with him.

If you are going to judge someones behavior, then maybe you should get your info corrected. It's obvious you don't listen to Glenn. I recommend actually doing some research. And by research Im not saying go find what others have said, but actually listen yourself.

 

[Avatar4321]

They did - 24/7

Really? Which is why 5 years later we still dont know the extent of the relationship and you guys are still trying to argue that it doesn't matter.

You know about their relationship you're just engaging in a game called "what we don't know". And using that to pretend you don't know anything.

Actually, no. We don't know the extent of the relationship. Obama denied the relationship existed and despite the evidence showing he lied the media has completely neglected any follow up questions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Really? Which is why 5 years later we still dont know the extent of the relationship and you guys are still trying to argue that it doesn't matter.

You know about their relationship you're just engaging in a game called "what we don't know". And using that to pretend you don't know anything.

Actually, no. We don't know the extent of the relationship. Obama denied the relationship existed and despite the evidence showing he lied the media has completely neglected any follow up questions.

What does "extent of relationship" mean? Once you fail to give the definition then you'll see why that is the perfect excuse. Someone cant provide something to you that you refuse to define.

 

[Pogo]

Funny how temple virgin thinks it's okay for people to exercise their freedoms and talk or socialize with anyone they want, just don't let it be a socialist, progressive or a communist.

Funny how he has indicated nothing of the sort and you've had to resort to a straw man argument.

"Straw man"? Did you blink?

I actually posted his own contrast back to him:

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK post 222: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

If you blinked a lot I can show about 23 more...
And everything that's being posted about Bill Ayers did this, Glenn Beck did that, is confirmation that this is no strawman but an active disagreement on what "kind" of people it's OK to associate with and what "kind" aren't. You're participating in this fallacy yourself. To be an active participant in a fallacy and then claim the very existence of it is a "straw man", that's not a blink; it's eyes wide shut.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

By attempting to kill other humans? A conspiracy theory is nothing more than an opinion and harms no one in and of itself.

You have a strange notion of virtue and questionable morality.

If their goal was to kill why did the issue warning about buildings they planed on bombing? If their intent was to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Radical do then they would be terrorist and probably behind bars right now, or dead. Whereas the Government policy there were fighting against was in fact killing a few hundred people every single day.

Using virtue and morality and Glenn Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If their goal was to kill why did the issue warning about buildings they planed on bombing? If their intent was to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Radical do then they would be terrorist and probably behind bars right now, or dead. Whereas the Government policy there were fighting against was in fact killing a few hundred people every single day.

Using virtue and morality and Glenn Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Regardless of intent, the use of explosives in public places by the terrorists is a callous disregard for life.

Look, I realize these are the leaders of your shameful party, and that you NEVER, EVER criticize or question the party - still, should you ever find a moment where some old fragment of integrity sneaks past all the walls you've built - perhaps you will find that bombing the public is not the virtue you claim it to be and that the terrorist Ayers is not really a hero.

 

[BlindBoo]

If their goal was to kill why did the issue warning about buildings they planed on bombing? If their intent was to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Radical do then they would be terrorist and probably behind bars right now, or dead. Whereas the Government policy there were fighting against was in fact killing a few hundred people every single day.

Using virtue and morality and Glenn Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Regardless of intent, the use of explosives in public places by the terrorists is a callous disregard for life.

Look, I realize these are the leaders of your shameful party, and that you NEVER, EVER criticize or question the party - still, should you ever find a moment where some old fragment of integrity sneaks past all the walls you've built - perhaps you will find that bombing the public is not the virtue you claim it to be and that the terrorist Ayers is not really a hero.

Sweet William and other radicals of the Weather Underground are Democratic leaders?

Who Knew?



A callous disregard for life is planting a bomb in a Disco, Pizza Parlor, school bus, tour bus, or sending human guided bombs into markets....hijacking and flying plane into buildings......

A callous disregard for property...yeah they had that.

 

[Pogo]

Guilt by association is ok when we do it


Signed,

Republicans

Guilt by association only works if someone is guilty of something.

Which is completely off the topic of the original post. But you guys don't seem to see the point of the OP.

Wrong, absolutely and completely wrong.

Number one, the word guilt does not mean "guilty of a culpable offence" in this context. It means the fallacy that, by association with that guy you were just talking to, you take on his aspects.

I put this in a simple parable earlier--
You sit down in a room with Charles Manson.
You talk about fried chicken recipes. You give him a cooking tip, he gives you a cooking tip. That's it.
You get up, you leave.
I watch from a distance. I don't know what you talked about.

----- Shall I conclude you are now a mass murderer? No, I have no basis.

And number two, this fallacy is what the entire OP event is built on. In this case, this woman who wrote Mike Rowe commits the fallacy. The fact that it IS a fallacy is what enables Mike Rowe to dismiss her concern, and he's correct to do so. In the comparative case, certain sides of the media (bloggers, commentators) commit the same fallacy vis à vis Ayers, Wright, and whoever else they might drag in. It's the same fallacy and it's equally illegitimate.

And I noted earlier, the irony is that Glenn Beck, the bystander-influence in the instant case, is himself guilty of the same fallacy, not only with Wright et al but scraping up an obscure figure nobody ever heard of (Saul Alinsky) to imply the same thing, and that's by no means an exhaustive list.

A fallacy is a fallacy. If it protects Rowe from illegitimate conclusions of who he can associate with (and it does), then it equally protects O'bama -- or anyone else for that matter.

As the OP asks:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

And as Rowe put it in the article:
How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don’t disagree with?

They're both right. And you can't apply that standard here, and suddenly jerk it away there. That's trying to have it both ways, and that's dishonest.

The OP didn't print this (there's an allusion that I had to look up), but the same thing happened in reverse when Rowe went on Bill Maher's TV show:

>> Truth is, every time I go on Fox, my liberal friends squeal. And every time I show up on MSNBC, my conservative pals whine. Not because they disagree with my position - everyone agrees that closing the skills gap is something that needs to happen. No, these days, people get bent simply if I appear on shows they don't like, or sit too close to people they don't care for.

What's up with that? Is our country so divided that my mere proximity to the "other side" prompts otherwise sensible adults to scoop up their marbles and go home? <<

(emphasis added, full page here, and worth a read)