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

[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?

[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.

unless its dogging dems its fine ... but dog a republican or one of his heros glen or mike ... he sees red...

 

[Avatar4321]

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

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 ...

No. Im saying we should be kind to one another regardless of what party we are associated with, if any.

 

[Jackson]

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 ...

What has he said that makes him "scum?"

 

[Steven_R]

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 ...

No. Im saying we should be kind to one another regardless of what party we are associated with, if any.

in general, I agree, but I have a real low tolerance for busybodies that think they can tell other people what to do and who to hang out with, as though their opinion really does equal some moral high ground.

Sometimes, just sometimes,, there is no need to go into some long-winded diatribe about rights and free association and the relative value of words versus deeds when a hearty "fuck off" does just fine.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ayers hosted a "Meet the Candidate Tea" at his home as Obama launched his first campaign to the illinois senate in 1995.

Who's the numbskull calling other people idiots because they didn't know "Obama launched his presidential campaign from Ayers' home" ???????????

 

[billyerock1991]

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 ...

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

ooooooooooooooooh look at you with all the fancy words ... like I said you can't make a dumb fuck like yourself comprehend, its not in your genetic makeup... you like Sahara, can now wash the ink off your hands now... see little words can cut too...

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

And it certainly doesn't explain Rev. Wright and the fallout from that.

What fallout?

what fallout from Rev. Wright?

Were you sleeping during the 2008 campaign?

 

[Pogo]

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

1. Yes it does follow. You liberals invoke guilt by association on black members of the Republican party (Herman Cain, Allen West, etc), yet they are free to associate themselves with the Democrats only. The same goes for women and Hispanics. Listen to yourselves. This is a totally hypocritical mindset.

No, it does not.
The poster wants to delineate which classes of people are eligible for a Guilt by Association fallacy, and which classes are not. You just cannot do that. Ever.
Because logic does not depend on who you're talking about.


Speaking of which, I see we're going for the fallacy double-shot: what did I ever post about Herman Cain or Allen West? I think you've got both a Hasty Gen and a Strawman.

Do you understand what logical fallacies are??

2. Apparently it's more complex than you realize. If you want to speak of consistent logic, yours is inconsistent. If you and another guy go rob a bank, but you weren't the one who took the money or held the place up, you're still guilty as an accomplice. Our system of laws apply guilt by association all the time.

Now you want to compare rhetorical logic with robbing a bank??
This ship is sinking fast...

3. Well if these criminals are of the type who turned over a new leaf, no need to worry now, right? Bill Ayers still holds the same beliefs he had as an underground terrorist. So he is still a criminal, regardless. Obama is guilty of associating with someone who was willing to deal harm to those who didn't agree with his way life.

So wait..... now you're saying "criminal" is defined by what's in a person's mind? And you can see in there?

Shheeeeeeeesh.
So many fallacies... so little time...

 

[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.

So what's so bad and this guy reaping the consequences for associating with Beck?

Can't gin up any big difference between Beck and Wright other than political leanings.

As Avatar said. There is no guilt between Beck and Rowe, so therefore you cannot hold him guilty for associating with Beck. Beck has no evil intentions. He's not a terrorist. He is a conservative. So, why should he suffer any consequences for associating with him?

 

[BlindBoo]

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 ...

?????

Q: What bombings has Ayers admitted?

A: In his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," he wrote that he helped with bombings of official sites, including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.

Questions And Answers About Bill Ayers - Chicago Tribune

 

[Uncensored2008]

What has he said that makes him "scum?"

You must understand, to the minions of Soros, opposition to the party is FAR worse than planing bombs on police cars or trying to murder civilians.

The leftists here hold the party above all. Those who criticize the party must be destroyed - killed if possible, slandered if not.

Beck has spoken against the party - this is blasphemy. Mindless drones like billyerock1991 are programmed by Soros and his lieutenants to attack enemies of the party with every resource at their disposal.

You cannot reason with drones like BlindBoo or billyerock1991, they lack the higher cognitive development needed for reason. They are driven only by emotion - and their handlers at DailyKOS have filled them with hatred and rage, making them effective soldiers for the party.

Glenn Beck is an enemy of the party, ergo billyerock1991 hates Glenn Beck with every fiber of his soul.

 

[Newby]

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.

Guilt by association is valid, I never said that it wasn't. My point, AGAIN, is that Bill Ayers is a known and admitted terrorist. Any NORMAL person would question the character of anyone that would knowingly associate with him given his past. Glen Beck, not so much, unless you're a partisan hack.

I love your 'everyone is flawed' comment, just classic of the liberal mindset. There's no 'good', there's no 'evil', everyone is 'the same'... Whether you associate with Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler, it makes no difference..

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ayers hosted a "Meet the Candidate Tea" at his home as Obama launched his first campaign to the illinois senate in 1995.

Who's the numbskull calling other people idiots because they didn't know "Obama launched his presidential campaign from Ayers' home" ???????????

So, Obama had his political career launched by a terrorist?

BUT, a terrorist loyal to the party - so it's all good.

Party above all, right comrade?

 

[Avatar4321]

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

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.

You're trying to dance around the issue and have it both ways. Don't think it's not obvious.

Once again slowly: either it's a fallacy or it isn't -- you don't get to invoke fallacy in case A, no fallacy in case B on account of "he's a criminal" or "he's a rodeo clown". Doesn't matter who Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck are-- it's either a valid argument or invalid, every time. And it's invalid. Period.

There is no fallacy period.

William Ayers is actually a terrorist. Questions about political associations with such a man should be asked. Every reasonable person should be asking "Why would you start your political career in the home of a terrorist"? To what extent do they share political views? Etc. To this day, none of those questions have ever even been attempted to be answered.

You can't guilt by association Mike Rowe with Glenn Beck. Why? Because Glenn Beck isn't guilty of any crime. It's not at all unreasonable for two people who care about strengthening the work ethic in America to be working together. In fact, there are probably many people on both sides of the aisle who want to work together in promoting hard work.

Not only that, Mike Rowe didn't back away from any question being asked of him.

William Ayers has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It was brought in as a deflection.

 

[Jackson]

What has he said that makes him "scum?"

You must understand, to the minions of Soros, opposition to the party is FAR worse than planing bombs on police cars or trying to murder civilians.

The leftists here hold the party above all. Those who criticize the party must be destroyed - killed if possible, slandered if not.

Beck has spoken against the party - this is blasphemy. Mindless drones like billyerock1991 are programmed by Soros and his lieutenants to attack enemies of the party with every resource at their disposal.

You cannot reason with drones like BlindBoo or billyerock1991, they lack the higher cognitive development needed for reason. They are driven only by emotion - and their handlers at DailyKOS have filled them with hatred and rage, making them effective soldiers for the party.

Glenn Beck is an enemy of the party, ergo billyerock1991 hates Glenn Beck with every fiber of his soul.

IOW, they are incapable of answering direct questions?

 

[billyerock1991]

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

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.

their intention wasn't to learn,their intention was to degrade the person ... nothing more ... you see if you, like the rest of the people on the right here, would have bother to see what he was accused of, then you wouldn't be calling him a terrorist ... then you would have a informed opinion .. the fact that you didn't do that you want to go along with the republican crowd here well, all I can say is stay stupid ... its the republican way

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. 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.

2. 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.

1. Yes it does follow. You liberals invoke guilt by association on black members of the Republican party (Herman Cain, Allen West, etc), yet they are free to associate themselves with the Democrats only. The same goes for women and Hispanics. Listen to yourselves. This is a totally hypocritical mindset.

No, it does not.
The poster wants to delineate which classes of people are eligible for a Guilt by Association fallacy, and which classes are not. You just cannot do that. Ever.
Because logic does not depend on who you're talking about.


Speaking of which, I see we're going for the fallacy double-shot: what did I ever post about Herman Cain or Allen West? I think you've got both a Hasty Gen and a Strawman.

Do you understand what logical fallacies are??

2. Apparently it's more complex than you realize. If you want to speak of consistent logic, yours is inconsistent. If you and another guy go rob a bank, but you weren't the one who took the money or held the place up, you're still guilty as an accomplice. Our system of laws apply guilt by association all the time.

Now you want to compare rhetorical logic with robbing a bank??
This ship is sinking fast...

3. Well if these criminals are of the type who turned over a new leaf, no need to worry now, right? Bill Ayers still holds the same beliefs he had as an underground terrorist. So he is still a criminal, regardless. Obama is guilty of associating with someone who was willing to deal harm to those who didn't agree with his way life.

So wait..... now you're saying "criminal" is defined by what's in a person's mind? And you can see in there?

Shheeeeeeeesh.
So many fallacies... so little time...

So many accusations, so little argument. Apparently guilt is determined by the political mindset of the person someone associates with. Namely Mike Rowe and Glenn Beck. Calling me crazy will not help your argument, so this namecalling of yours is killing your own cause. Yours is argumentum ad hominem. The argument this lady uses against Mike Rowe is argumentum ad rea (to guilt) or argumentum ad culpam consociationis (guilt by association). No Pogo, I know plenty about logical fallacy, all you're doing is jumping to wild conclusions, which is argumentum ad modicum.

 

[Newby]

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.

This is the part you don't seem to be getting. There is no guilt involved. Beck isn't an evil man. He doesn't encourage violence. There is no guilt by association because there is no guilt.

Exactly... but that seems to sail right over their pointy little heads...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I think Rowe's reply was great.
The woman does however have every right to voice her concerns, and in fact she's welcome to take it further and refuse to purchase any goods or services that Rowe may be involved in.
Punish them in the pocketbook is what I always say. I for one make it a point whenever I can to stay away from businesses owned or operated by liberals.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

This is the part you don't seem to be getting. There is no guilt involved. Beck isn't an evil man. He doesn't encourage violence. There is no guilt by association because there is no guilt.

Exactly... but that seems to sail right over their pointy little heads...

Rev. Wright didn't endorse violence either

"but .... but .... but ...."

Pure hypocrisy