Glen Beck

[Avatar4321]

More nutbags for the right to follow blindly , just great.

The man is a loser.

Got to love the left's arguments:

He's stupid!
He's a liar!
He's a loser!
He's a nutjob!

Seriously, when you find something substantive to say let me know.

 

[Truthmatters]

"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?" --Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck

Hes an unstable media whore.

 

[Avatar4321]

The man is very unstable and uneducated.

By unstable, you mean met and overcome alot of challenges in life, like most people.

By uneducated, you mean doesnt have a piece of paper and some letters next to his name.

If more people were like Glenn Beck, this world would be a much better place.

 

[Avatar4321]

that is halrious coming from the people who backed Bush like he was infaliable when the facts were completetly contrary to what he was saying.

Another example of a disconnect from reality:

No one thought Bush was infaliable. Everyone disagreed him on various issues.

You like ignoring that though. It helps you justify your groupthink with Obama.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah facts and sanity be damned huh?

Ive seen more evidence that you're insane than Glenn Beck.

 

[Truthmatters]

that is halrious coming from the people who backed Bush like he was infaliable when the facts were completetly contrary to what he was saying.

Another example of a disconnect from reality:

No one thought Bush was infaliable. Everyone disagreed him on various issues.

You like ignoring that though. It helps you justify your groupthink with Obama.

telll me what you were saying aout Bush in 2003?

can you be honest?

 

[Truthmatters]

Yeah facts and sanity be damned huh?

Ive seen more evidence that you're insane than Glenn Beck.

Yeah the snakefuck was waxing all romantic about killing someone because he didnt like his politics and you think hes some brillient mind?

 

[Avatar4321]

telll me what you were saying aout Bush in 2003?

can you be honest?

I sure as hell wasnt saying Bush was infalliable. However, i probably said dozens of things both positive and negative about President Bush.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah the snakefuck was waxing all romantic about killing someone because he didnt like his politics and you think hes some brillient mind?

So when you talk about killing someone and are serious it's alright.

Glenn talks about it as a joke and he's insane. Got ya.

 

[Truthmatters]

Prove it was a joke.

 

[Truthmatters]

telll me what you were saying aout Bush in 2003?

can you be honest?

I sure as hell wasnt saying Bush was infalliable. However, i probably said dozens of things both positive and negative about President Bush.

Yeah I didnt think you could be honest

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems to me that on a thread titled "Glenn Beck" that it would be more useful to quote something he said and evaluate that rather than putting together a string of juvenile insults and calling that a critique.

Is he nuts? How?

Is he insane? How?

Is he stupid? How?

What has he specifically said or done that upsets so many of you?

Surely there is more to life than name calling, and sure there are a few representatives of the left here who are more than leftwing wacko nutcases with limited vocabularies?

Let me suggest reading a few really intelligent liberals: Camille Paglia for starters. William Raspberry was amazing before his passing a few years ago. Michael Kinsley is really special. Even Maureen Dowd has a flash of brilliance now and then. Articulate and able to express a logical rationale for their point of view, each and every one.

So far, I haven't seen a single negative thing said about Glenn Beck here that is more than silly schoolyard taunts.

 

[midcan5]

I'm not sure we are clear here on what I mean by groupthink. Beck's group is his audience, it is the 'welcome to my (our) world, glad you're here, and glad you too share my views, we will save the world.' All mountebanks use these cajoling tactics. His attitude is inclusive while his words are negative. Examples. He constantly uses number 8. He is the only one who sees things correctly; he needs to say it. Number 4 is a constant in his depiction of Islam. He uses numbers 1 and 3 all the time in his opening braggadocio, "I'm the only one who can say this" for example. Contrast Beck with the ideas of opposition to groupthink in the link. Limbaugh similarly exhibits this thinking. Call it what you want, the man is a quack, and I think, a somewhat dangerous and unstable quack.

Group Think

Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Group Think

 

[WillowTree]

It seems to me that on a thread titled "Glenn Beck" that it would be more useful to quote something he said and evaluate that rather than putting together a string of juvenile insults and calling that a critique.

Is he nuts? How?

Is he insane? How?

Is he stupid? How?

What has he specifically said or done that upsets so many of you?
Surely there is more to life than name calling, and sure there are a few representatives of the left here who are more than leftwing wacko nutcases with limited vocabularies?

Let me suggest reading a few really intelligent liberals: Camille Paglia for starters. William Raspberry was amazing before his passing a few years ago. Michael Kinsley is really special. Even Maureen Dowd has a flash of brilliance now and then. Articulate and able to express a logical rationale for their point of view, each and every one.

So far, I haven't seen a single negative thing said about Glenn Beck here that is more than silly schoolyard taunts.

He's a RIGHT wing talk show host. His very existence is upsetting the moonbats. Anyone on earth who has a different viewpoint is a liar,insane unbalanced and a hater of the poor.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Prove it was a joke.

Prove that it wasn't.

 

[Newby]

"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?" --Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck

I think it's an established fact that libs have no sense of humor, unless of course it's Obama making fun of the special olympics, nor do they recognize sarcasm apparently.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm not sure we are clear here on what I mean by groupthink. Beck's group is his audience, it is the 'welcome to my (our) world, glad you're here, and glad you too share my views, we will save the world.' All mountebanks use these cajoling tactics. His attitude is inclusive while his words are negative. Examples. He constantly uses number 8. He is the only one who sees things correctly; he needs to say it. Number 4 is a constant in his depiction of Islam. He uses numbers 1 and 3 all the time in his opening braggadocio, "I'm the only one who can say this" for example. Contrast Beck with the ideas of opposition to groupthink in the link. Limbaugh similarly exhibits this thinking. Call it what you want, the man is a quack, and I think, a somewhat dangerous and unstable quack.

Group Think

Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Group Think

That is HYSTERICAL! (In at least two contexts and on several levels...)

So you thought that you'd use a source from "research" which is applied by the University of Illinois indoctrination centers; specifically a University which trains TEACHERS... a screed which in every respect DEFINES the ideological left... and the Hussein campaign, as well as their Administration, to identify Beck, who is in essence, taking a stand that is WHOLLY DISTINCT from anyone else in media at the moment; distinct from that of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al... as being a function of GROUP-THINK... and this because you vaguely attribute him to identified traits of 'group-think; traits which are stated as vaguely as they can be stated and still give the reader some means to connect them to the topic.

Well, here's the thing about that... It's nonsense. It's mind control... it basically says that if one can be said to exhibit, hopefully a majority, of these signs, then you're a victim of GROUP-THINK... Which of course would be anyone that is taking a position which can be said to be held by a 'group...' This 'research' is designed to project the conclusion that "If you do not accept the opposing position, then you're reasoning is not valid because it identifies you as NOT THINKING FOR YOURSELF... It's designed to be utlized by the members of YOUR GROUP, to discredit the opposition... which is my group.

Of course, as is often the case, where the left bothers to define their terms, they screw themselves and their argument; which is why they're rarely found defining their terms... and where someone has the temerity to define their terms for them, this simple act PROVES THAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS ABSURD; meaning that the point to which they were driving is not served by the defining elements of the words they've used... They scream bloody-murder, that the opposition is being pedantic and playing silly semantic games.

Your ‘research’ is designed NOT to identify group think, but to classify that which would contest THEIR position as GROUP-THINK; thus appealing to some point of distration; making it an invalid logical construct, proving the reasoning on which it rests to be fallacious and otherwise unsound.

Each facet of this research fulfills itself against ANY opposing point of view… be it one where the opposition is organized and shares information in a common interests, advancing commonly held beliefs or NOT… as each facet of this 'research' attempts to use the basic elements on which an opposing point of view may rest, against itself.

Let’s take them one at a time:



Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

This ‘symptom’ seeks to apply any overt stance in opposition as being representative of ignorance to danger and risk; projecting the basis of such as resting upon unfounded optimism; unfounded optimism which is born through the simple advancement of the individual BRINGING THE CONTEST, despite the certainty that such may not be welcomed and may result in some unpleasant concequences.

‘Do you know what you’re saying? What will people think? You could lose you scholarship… You could lose your JOB… You can’t fight City Hall… You don’t get it do you, no one here will listen to you if you keep saying these things…’

The simple fact that the conventional wisdom is being contested is said to be a function of ‘unfounded optimism, which subjects the whacko bringing it to unecessary danger, risk and that which is otherwise harmful to them... Sorta like what the Founders of the US did when they told the British Crown that they'd rather be free to run their own lives and listed the reasons why... which resulted in their lives being torn assunder for the best part of a decade, getting a number of them and their families killed, their property siezed or burned to the ground and other such ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES.’

2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

Uh oh… Looks like I’m already in trouble here… Clearly I’m attempting to discredit the warnings that Beck is a ‘Group-Thinker.’ How can one possibly oppose SCIENCE? I mean here I am opposing “RESEARCH! And what’s MORE, it’s RESEARCH WHICH HAS: A LINK!

3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

Yes… Because ‘EVERYONE KNOWS’ that MORAL CERTAINTY CAN NEVER CHALLENGE ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES…

This little nugget is a GOLD MINE of PC Indoctrination.

Notice how it’s framed… MORALITY-V- ETHICS… One pitted against the other in a supreme projection that morality is trumped by ethics… any attempt to impose your ILLUSION of morality on those around you and you’ll face the hard and fast ethical consequences which rest in supreme secular reasoning; Morality is subjective, rooted in religious superstition, while ETHICS are rooted in SCIENCE!

LOL... Oh god that's precious... If anyone would like to discuss this facet, I’d absolutely LOVE to… but for the sake of this discussion, let’s just leave this, at THAT. I think the point is sufficiently made; if you challenge the PC CW, you’ll be subjected to the consequences for having advanced: hate speech, a disregard for the feelings of others and the attempt to uproot the spirit of comity which is SO necessary to a civil society, college campus, business or what have you… we’ll toss in “professionalism’ as a lovely example of subjective interpretation which the just as subjective notion of “ethics” carries along with it.


4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.

Well sure… ya can’t label the contents within the opposition, because that opposition is really indefinable… this because not everyone in the opposing group of Dishwashers, washes dishes the same way… and your trying to identify each dishwasher as one who simply washes dishes is just a stereo-type which oversimplifies the essence of their diversity. Thus whatever it is that you seek to say about the Dishwashers, is discounted in a collective rationalization… (Shhhh… someone will figure out that #4 is a clear demonstration of old #2)


5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

Does anyone need much to be said on this bastion of sweet irony? This entire screed is designed to pressure conformity… and is designed to do NOTHING BUT IMPART PRESSURE FOR CONFORMITY... but it is a wonderful example of the Advocacy of Social Science, telegraphing their own traits and projecting them as the most certain signs that someone is BEING SCREWED if those traits are being applied... these people never FAIL to project their own traits onto their opposition and summarily DEMAND that those traits exemplify BAD NEWS. LOL... let's move on...

6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

Well I bet that Zell Miller could tell ya something about that one… How about Jim Cramer? Both lifelong Democrats who’ve recently tasted what happens when one openly expresses their opposing views.

I suspect that we should really spend a second to here to discuss how this little gem works… Does anyone not see how it stands in direct conflict with the first half of this intellectual train-wreck? Hells Bells, anyone that stands up is a moralist who can’t even recognize the dangers that they’re exposing themselves to… which tries to explain away what everyone is telling them… because they have a delusional since of invincibility…

‘No pressure to conform there… we’re just trying to stop the moralist stereo-typing…’

LOL… You can’t make this stuff up…


7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

Yeah… but I doubt that many people think ‘everyone agrees’ with them… at least when it comes down to arguing that concept on any discernable level of specifics… In my experience, most group thinkers tend to lean on “Most people’… and I imagine that such a group would probably spend a great deal of their time polling people to find out… if “most people feel’ as they do… Don’t you?

They might even take to designing polls to illicit the impression that most people do not agree with their opposition… for instance they may design the question where people who agree with the given position are broken down into multiple categories for the purposes of diluting the results… my favorite is ‘strongly agree, agree, but not strongly and disagree’ or something to that effect. Then the poll is reported to show that ‘ONLY 28% OF PEOPLE STRONGLY AGREE…” with 39% disagreeing…” Of course if ya pop open the internals, you’d find that another 33% agreed, just not strongly… which can mean anything to anyone; but what can’t be ignored is that 61% actually agreed despite the poll being advanced in such a way which sorta hides that little truth…


8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Yeah… such a member might choose to call themselves “Media Matters”… or they might scrawl out some “Reasearch” which is designed to project as a stigma, that their opposition is a member of the opposition which is exhibiting GROUP-THINK, in an attempt to discredit that opposition, in an attempt protect the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.


Yeah these guys are ALL OVER IT!

Brilliant Midcan ya really NAILED that whacko BECK! And as usual, ya did so in such a way that proved your own unbridled ignorance.

Congrats…

 

[WillowTree]

Beck is hosting Compean and Ramos today..

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So it's agreed then that Midcan's position is off the hook, absurd.

Super... that works for me.

 

[Truthmatters]

"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?" --Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck

I think it's an established fact that libs have no sense of humor, unless of course it's Obama making fun of the special olympics, nor do they recognize sarcasm apparently.

Is that why there are so many conservative comedians?