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

[bodecea]

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

Some people make a big deal out of the littlest things.

 

[nodoginnafight]

William Ayers

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground ... when they started to think bombing was the answer, he left ... this has been well documented by the Police department when they arrested him back in the 60's ... they discovered he had left their following ... it has been people like you who said just because Obama work with him, trying to help low income people, that Obama was is know associate of terrorist supporter just becasue he and Ayers were working together to help these people ...

NO No No - Op was arguing that people should NOT be vilified because of their associations .......

wasn't she/he?

so Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, et al ........ No Problem.

Right?

 

[BlindBoo]

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

So the First Amendment protect us from reprisal use of the very same First Amendment rights of others?

Nah that can't be right. She had every right to ask him and he had every right to answer any way he feels.

Personally, who cares who he associates with. But she did not violate his First Amendment rights. It's great to be an American, ain't it?

 

[Pogo]

William Ayers

you couldn't have said it better ... here a guy works with someone and now he's a terrorist in the minds of the opposition... perfect response

Bill Ayers is a terrorist. He has openly said his biggest regret is that he didn't do more.

We should have no problem with the President starting his political career in A terrorists home, and yet Mike Rowe should be given a hard time because he had the audacity to work with Glenn Beck to better the community and encourage hard work.

Clearly these things are absolutely identical.

Looks like the Guilt by Association Fallacy just sailed over your head too

 

[billyerock1991]

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?




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

so what you're saying its ok for you to be best buds with obama right ??? and you shouldn't be attacked for it right??? well I disagree... if you want to sleep with the scum of the earth, like glenn beck,then you get what you deserve a loss in your on air rating ...

All I can say for you is that you should lose some rep power for that unnecessary remark. Just how is he "scum" anyhow? Are you capable of answering intelligently without using pejoratives?

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 ...

 

[TemplarKormac]

How can you not see the relevance? A guy who bloviates on air is exactly the same thing as a guy who builds bombs and kills cops. If Mike Rowe can hang out with some blowhard who says stuff, surely Obama can hang out with a guy who plots to kill other people. It's the same thing!

Wait what? I saw that as comparing Beck to a terrorist. Not about who associates with who. I fail to see how Glenn Beck's opinions equate with someone who (supposedly) commits murder.

Your first comment didn't appear to equivocate so much:

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.

So what you're really saying is that people have no business questioning associations as long as YOU approve of them????

How very open minded of you.

No. If Obama wants to associate with an underground terrorist or a lunatic church pastor, that not my problem. But I hope he's prepared for the consequences that entails. Wait, scratch that, he was shielded from those consequences, while Mr. Rowe is excoriated for it.

Now, disengage attack mode. Sit boy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

So the First Amendment protect us from reprisal use of the very same First Amendment rights of others?

Nah that can't be right. She had every right to ask him and he had every right to answer any way he feels.

Personally, who cares who he associates with. But she did not violate his First Amendment rights. It's great to be an American, ain't it?

I absolutely looove how people like you, Pogo, and nodog are purposefully misinterpreting my thread.

I said nowhere that Ms. Walsh violated his First Amendment rights. I said she needs to acknowledge that fact, for she has that same exact right of her own.

 

[Newby]

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground ... when they started to think bombing was the answer, he left ... this has been well documented by the Police department when they arrested him back in the 60's ... they discovered he had left their following ... it has been people like you who said just because Obama work with him, trying to help low income people, that Obama was is know associate of terrorist supporter just becasue he and Ayers were working together to help these people ...

NO No No - Op was arguing that people should NOT be vilified because of their associations .......

wasn't she/he?

so Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, et al ........ No Problem.

Right?

The basic premise you're missing is that associating with a known terrorist who had murder as a plot, i.e. a criminal is going to have more of an impact on your character than associating with someone who is not a known criminal, regardless of how much you might dislike him. Any normal person would see the difference between the two. One should have shown a lack of character to everyone who knew about it or heard about it (i.e. it should have been something we all agreed on), the other would only show a lack of character to those who dislike Glen Beck for their own partisan reasons. In other words, everyone should hold disdain for Bill Ayers and question anyone that would knowingly associate with him because of his criminal past.

 

[billyerock1991]

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

How can you not see the relevance? A guy who bloviates on air is exactly the same thing as a guy who builds bombs and kills cops. If Mike Rowe can hang out with some blowhard who says stuff, surely Obama can hang out with a guy who plots to kill other people. It's the same thing!

Wait what? I saw that as comparing Beck to a terrorist. Not about who associates with who. I fail to see how Glenn Beck's opinions equate with someone who (supposedly) commits murder.

see what did I tell you its ok for beck to tell people to murder dems buts its not ok for some one else ...

to correct you ayers never ploted to murder anyone ... they plan to blow up statues from the government ... that's not planning to murder people ...its ass holes like you that listen to the likes of glenn beck deserves what they get

 

[Pogo]

Wait what? I saw that as comparing Beck to a terrorist. Not about who associates with who. I fail to see how Glenn Beck's opinions equate with someone who (supposedly) commits murder.

Your first comment didn't appear to equivocate so much:

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.

So what you're really saying is that people have no business questioning associations as long as YOU approve of them????

How very open minded of you.

No. If Obama wants to associate with an underground terrorist or a lunatic church pastor, that not my problem. But I hope he's prepared for the consequences that entails.

Now, disengage attack mode. Sit boy.

The point is -- why should there BE consequences? That's the whole point of your OP, and then you want to turn it in reverse for O'bama.

Can't have it both ways... either Guilt by Association is a valid reasoning, or it is not. Doesn't go on and off like a light switch. (For the record, it isn't).

The irony here:
Glenn Beck is, AFAIK, the assclown who drummed up this obscure figure Sol Jablonski as a guilt-by-association trip on O'bama.

Maybe this Mike Rowe could 'splain how that works to The Beck too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

William Ayers

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground ... when they started to think bombing was the answer, he left ... this has been well documented by the Police department when they arrested him back in the 60's ... they discovered he had left their following ... it has been people like you who said just because Obama work with him, trying to help low income people, that Obama was is know associate of terrorist supporter just becasue he and Ayers were working together to help these people ...

So my question to you is:

How does he have anything to do with Glenn Beck? Do you not see the stark difference between the two?

 

[billyerock1991]

How can you not see the relevance? A guy who bloviates on air is exactly the same thing as a guy who builds bombs and kills cops. If Mike Rowe can hang out with some blowhard who says stuff, surely Obama can hang out with a guy who plots to kill other people. It's the same thing!

Wait what? I saw that as comparing Beck to a terrorist. Not about who associates with who. I fail to see how Glenn Becks opinions equate with someone who (supposedly) commits murder.

It's was my admittedly poor attempt at sarcasm. Mea culpa.

I took the William Ayers reference as someone trying to say it's okay for people to hang out with dirtbags, as though someone on TV who says stuff is somehow equally as dirtbaggish as someone who builds bombs and kills cops. It's nonsense of course, but that's par for the course these days.

I thought it was great ... you have to understand republicans can't comprehend sarcasm ... its not in their genetic makeup

 

[Plasmaball]

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

suddenly? just how retarded are you Temp? Who is Bill Ayers and Wright? Suddenly this is an issue. Who is George Soros then...

You are mentally retarded.

 

[ClosedCaption]

William Ayers

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

The wingnuts were all over Obama in 2008 because he once attended a tea at the home of Bill Ayers. (Who used to be a member of the Weather Underground and who is now a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago.)

We had 24-7 coverage and analysis. And every wingnut on these boards was vilifying Obama. I'm glad to hear you denounce such behavior.

(I apologize for assuming you had been paying attention to the 2008 campaign)

Whoa there. There are different rules for Repubs. There, I fixed it for you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your first comment didn't appear to equivocate so much:



So what you're really saying is that people have no business questioning associations as long as YOU approve of them????

How very open minded of you.

No. If Obama wants to associate with an underground terrorist or a lunatic church pastor, that not my problem. But I hope he's prepared for the consequences that entails.

Now, disengage attack mode. Sit boy.

The point is -- why should there BE consequences? That's the whole point of your OP, and then you want to turn it in reverse for O'bama.

Can't have it both ways... either Guilt by Association is a valid reasoning, or it is not. Doesn't go on and off like a light switch.

The irony here:
Glenn Beck is, AFAIK, the assclown who drummed up Sol Jablonski as a guilt-by-association trip on O'bama.

Maybe this Mike Rowe could 'splain things to him.

So explain this guilt by association thing to me. Why should Mike Rowe be guilty or criticized for associating with Glenn Beck? Honestly, if I could go back in time to the 2007-08 election season, I would no doubt hear liberals echoing similar refrains in defense of Barack Obama. I mean from what I hear, this "guilt by association" thing is incredibly one sided with you guys.

But then, how many presidents have you ever heard of associating with underground terrorists?

 

[billyerock1991]

That's far kinder than anything I would have written. My response would have been more along the lines of:

Dear Shannon,

Thanks for your concern about who I do and don't associate with. I have put much thought into this. Unfortunately, there is no cure at this time for your being such a weeping **** and after consulting with the best medical minds around, we think the best course of action would be for you to die in a housefire.

With Warmest Regards,
Steven.

Then I highly recommend you work at being kind. Because it's a virtue we desperately need if we are going to rebuild civility in this nation

so you're saying we should shower republicans with everything they want ???? good luck with that ...

 

[nodoginnafight]

OP writes a fairly reasonable piece denoucing vilification by association.

Then reveals it be just another hyper-partisan rant by saying:

"William Ayers ..... Rev Wright ...... um wait .... that's DIFFERENT."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wait what? I saw that as comparing Beck to a terrorist. Not about who associates with who. I fail to see how Glenn Becks opinions equate with someone who (supposedly) commits murder.

It's was my admittedly poor attempt at sarcasm. Mea culpa.

I took the William Ayers reference as someone trying to say it's okay for people to hang out with dirtbags, as though someone on TV who says stuff is somehow equally as dirtbaggish as someone who builds bombs and kills cops. It's nonsense of course, but that's par for the course these days.

I thought it was great ... you have to understand republicans can't comprehend sarcasm ... its not in their genetic makeup

And it's beyond your intellectual capabilities to formulate cogent arguments. I dare say it may not be in your genetic makeup.

 

[Pogo]

William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground ... when they started to think bombing was the answer, he left ... this has been well documented by the Police department when they arrested him back in the 60's ... they discovered he had left their following ... it has been people like you who said just because Obama work with him, trying to help low income people, that Obama was is know associate of terrorist supporter just becasue he and Ayers were working together to help these people ...

NO No No - Op was arguing that people should NOT be vilified because of their associations .......

wasn't she/he?

so Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, et al ........ No Problem.

Right?

The basic premise you're missing is that associating with a known terrorist who had murder as a plot, i.e. a criminal is going to have more of an impact on your character than associating with someone who is not a known criminal, regardless of how much you might dislike him. Any normal person would see the difference between the two. One should have shown a lack of character to everyone who knew about it or heard about it (i.e. it should have been something we all agreed on), the other would only show a lack of character to those who dislike Glen Beck for their own partisan reasons. In other words, everyone should hold disdain for Bill Ayers and question anyone that would knowingly associate with him because of his criminal past.

No, this doesn't follow. Who will have an impact on one is determined by factors far deeper than whether the figure is a "criminal" or not. To suggest that the label "criminal" somehow invokes special powers is absurd. Everybody is flawed, regardless what label we hang on them, and likewise everybody makes his/her own decision about what influences they absorb. In essence what's suggested here is, once again, that Guilt by Association is OK as long as "I" approve of the associator.

This really isn't that complex; it's about consistency of logic. If Guilt by Association is valid, then Obama must suffer from Ayers and Wright, AND Rowe must suffer from Beck. If it is not, then everybody gets judged on their own actual merits and not on extrapolations of who they hang out with.

Btw I've hung out with "criminals" too. Good thing too, because one of them saved my life.

 

[TemplarKormac]

OP writes a fairly reasonable piece denoucing vilification by association.

Then reveals it be just another hyper-partisan rant by saying:

"William Ayers ..... Rev Wright ...... um wait .... that's DIFFERENT."

Actually not. Did you even read my posts saying Obama can associate with whom he pleases? If he's prepared for the consequences? Put your reading glasses on.