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

[Uncensored2008]

A rightward slant? Try pure fabrication.

Yes. you're a partisan hack, I get it.

But in the face of outright bastardizations of history by Howard Zinn, et al. it's a bit difficult to get worked up over Glenn Beck failing to acknowledge the deity of Obama or state that FDR was the greatest man to ever live.

I've tried to blot most of what I heard from Glenn Beck out of my memory as the cognitive dissonance tends to fester.

No doubt - he is a blasphemer and might shake your faith - should you ever slip up and actually engage your brain.

Better that you chew your cud and bleat that which your rulers tell you. The party is all, the party is mother and father, all must serve the party...

However, one thing still sticks in my mind. In his attempt to demonize socialism, he said that the Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) were socialistic because socialism was right there in their name. How's that for in-depth analysis? <sarcasm>

Of course that isn't what he said, it is merely a talking point that you are reciting from the hate sites.

What he pointed out is that not only did the National Socialists state that they were socialists, they engaged in massive nationalization of major industry - every hear of Volkswagon? They also put Nazi stooges in charge of virtually ALL industry, placing the means of production in the hands of the state.

But hey, you've got a party to serve - you can't get hung up on minor things such as facts...

 

[Pogo]

^^ Enslaved to the concept that everyone belongs to some "party"

 

[ClosedCaption]

You think leftist revision of history and disinformation is a good thing, but a rightward slant is a crime against humanity?

No bias with you, eh sparky?

A rightward slant? Try pure fabrication. I've tried to blot most of what I heard from Glenn Beck out of my memory as the cognitive dissonance tends to fester. However, one thing still sticks in my mind. In his attempt to demonize socialism, he said that the Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) were socialistic because socialism was right there in their name. How's that for in-depth analysis? <sarcasm>

Yeah that is pretty specious. When the Beckdittoes try to trot that turkey out I like to point out that the Pennsylvania Dutch are not Dutch, that there are fewer than ten thousand people in the band 10,000 Maniacs, and that there exist neither grapes nor nuts in Grape Nuts.

(/offtopic)

Global Warming doesn't only mean warming only, a Dog wood tree does not contain any dog at all...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey, maybe you should. I know you're a fan of the Pol Pot hour so you prolly miss a lot. Lucky you have me to fill you in.

Don't worry, it wasn't any trouble. I've posted that story before so I already knew it. It's all true too.

Yeah I've noticed we often say metaphor when we mean simile. Kind of using metaphor as a metaphor. So your effort to keep the word simile alive is well taken, but this one really is a metaphor, on the verb "set (bombs)". As I noted, the opening Darkwind left me was just too tempting to stay silent.

I don't think so...

{sim·i·le
&#712;sim&#601;l&#275;/
noun
noun: simile;&#8195;plural noun: similes

1.
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).}

A simile has to use a comparative word like like or as (< there's one right there). But I didn't use one of those; I used set in a different sense than the literal.

You mean like the substitution of "bomb" for "exposé?"

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points. To set bombs and then detonate them is an attempt to kill. Issuing a warning somehow constitutes being absolved of the intent to kill? Like I said. Questionable morality at best.

As was mentioned earlier. The real cause of all that death was abandoning the mission and leaving millions to die in the aftermath.

As it stands right now, is the weather underground blowing up bombs against the government policies that are killing people today? I can assure you, Glenn Beck isn't.

Issuing warnings clearly demonstrates that their goal was not to kill or maim innocent people. It does not discount the fact that someone might have been killed when the bombs went off. Like what happen at the King David Hotel in Palestine. When the Brits ignored Jewish warning about an impending attack and 93 people were killed.

 

[JoeNormal]

A rightward slant? Try pure fabrication.

Yes. you're a partisan hack, I get it.

But in the face of outright bastardizations of history by Howard Zinn, et al. it's a bit difficult to get worked up over Glenn Beck failing to acknowledge the deity of Obama or state that FDR was the greatest man to ever live.

I've tried to blot most of what I heard from Glenn Beck out of my memory as the cognitive dissonance tends to fester.

No doubt - he is a blasphemer and might shake your faith - should you ever slip up and actually engage your brain.

Better that you chew your cud and bleat that which your rulers tell you. The party is all, the party is mother and father, all must serve the party...

However, one thing still sticks in my mind. In his attempt to demonize socialism, he said that the Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) were socialistic because socialism was right there in their name. How's that for in-depth analysis? <sarcasm>

Of course that isn't what he said, it is merely a talking point that you are reciting from the hate sites.

What he pointed out is that not only did the National Socialists state that they were socialists, they engaged in massive nationalization of major industry - every hear of Volkswagon? They also put Nazi stooges in charge of virtually ALL industry, placing the means of production in the hands of the state.

But hey, you've got a party to serve - you can't get hung up on minor things such as facts...

Oh, I've got a party to serve. I haven't voted for either of the major paries in a presidential election since Gore. You on the other hand have your head shoved so far up the ass of the republican party you can probably tickle its uvula.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, I've got a party to serve. I haven't voted for either of the major paries in a presidential election since Gore.

It's not my fault that you're too stoned to make it to the polls.

But hey, you do your part by demagogueing and spreading the message of CommunistDreams and ThinkProgress....

You on the other hand have your head shoved so far up the ass of the republican party you can probably tickle its uvula.

After all, I promoted...

Oh wait, i just called you on your bullshit.

But there are only faithful party members and infidels, amirite? And all infidels are Republicans, amirite?

LOL

You're not a leftist because you're the best and brightest, now are you sparky?

 

[Pogo]

I don't think so...

{sim·i·le
&#712;sim&#601;l&#275;/
noun
noun: simile;&#8195;plural noun: similes

1.
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).}

A simile has to use a comparative word like like or as (< there's one right there). But I didn't use one of those; I used set in a different sense than the literal.

You mean like the substitution of "bomb" for "exposé?"

There was no "exposé"; Beck's wording was "bombing". And that the towers were "blown up". I quoted him verbatim.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points. To set bombs and then detonate them is an attempt to kill. Issuing a warning somehow constitutes being absolved of the intent to kill? Like I said. Questionable morality at best.

As was mentioned earlier. The real cause of all that death was abandoning the mission and leaving millions to die in the aftermath.

As it stands right now, is the weather underground blowing up bombs against the government policies that are killing people today? I can assure you, Glenn Beck isn't.

Disclaimer: OK I made a point of not getting into the value judgements of Glenn Beck and Bill Ayers et al, but this is just too inviting so I'll take the tangent...

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points.

Actually you may want to check again...

>> Beck on air, 30 Sept '09: "Now they're worried about bombings taking place. Well, let me show you some new footage. A bombing did take place this past week in a town just north of Seattle called Everett. The only reason why I know this story is 'cause I was there. Radio station KRKO, their towers were blown up. When freedom of speech is being squelched, the left usually says, "That's fascist!" But in this case the left doesn't even call them anything!" <<

Just a few problems with this, starting with the fact that there wasn't any bombing. That "bomb" was planted by Beck, to make a political point. The towers were taken down by an excavator. No bomb at all. (source)

Second problem: his "freedom of speech" rant. Number one, the tower vandalism was apparently done out of environmental concerns for the RF energy being radiated into the area from newly-placed towers -- not for what the station carried on its airwaves (the tower destruction did not take it off the air). And number two, the station in question, KRKO-AM ... is a sports station.

So no bomb, no speech infringement. Did The Glenn Beck simply get a few details muddled from a story on the other end of the continent? Certainly wouldn't be the first time. But KRKO is in Everett, Washington -- where Beck was born. Literally. And he was in the area that same week in a "homecoming" appearance. Indeed he mentions that he was there above, so ignorance is no excuse.

So you could say that Glenn Beck did set a "bomb" to score political points after all.

I just thought that was ironic considering Darkwind's wording there. Nice setup.

(/offtopic)

"Some at the scene speculated that one tower was pulled over by an excavator, while the other was pushed down. By mid-morning, the excavator remained entangled in the wreckage of one of the towers, although investigators have yet to confirm that it was used in the vandalism.
A neighbor called 911 around 3:30 a.m. to report that someone appeared to be using a bulldozer, or other heavy equipment, to knock the radio towers over, Snohomish County sheriff's spokeswoman Rebecca Hover said.
The towers are in the 13400 block of Short School Road south of Snohomish. Deputies arrived to find a 349-foot tower and a 199-foot tower toppled. A police dog was used to try to track those responsible, but no suspects were caught, Hover said.
The deputies "found some other evidence at the scene," she said. "That's something that only the suspect or suspects would have information about.""

Sounds like it was probably a bomb.

Not that it matters. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the method of destruction.

Ecoterrorists claim toppling of KRKO radio towers | HeraldNet.com - Local news


Also, your contention that a bomb must be used to limit freedom of speech is ridiculous. Or, if your meaning was just that there was no bomb (which we certainly don't know, since it is acknowledged that some method was used aside from just pushing the tower over)...and that there was also no restriction of freedom of speech (sorry, all speech is protected, including sports announcements. Knocking down radio towers is the way fascists limit free communication).


BTW, my computer won't let me access your "source". So your "source" is apparently garbage that sets my firewall nuts.

 

[JoeNormal]

Oh, I've got a party to serve. I haven't voted for either of the major paries in a presidential election since Gore.

It's not my fault that you're too stoned to make it to the polls.

But hey, you do your part by demagogueing and spreading the message of CommunistDreams and ThinkProgress....

You on the other hand have your head shoved so far up the ass of the republican party you can probably tickle its uvula.

After all, I promoted...

Oh wait, i just called you on your bullshit.

But there are only faithful party members and infidels, amirite? And all infidels are Republicans, amirite?

LOL

You're not a leftist because you're the best and brightest, now are you sparky?

Gosh, are you new to this forum? Maybe I just have you confused with one of the other brain dead Republican cheerleaders. There are so many to choose from and the message is always the same.

 

[birddog]

Obama associated with Ayers far more than attending a "tea!"

As a private citizen, if Obama had applied for a TSC by the FBI, he would have been rejected due to his associations with Ayers, Wright, and Jones let alone his secretive history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gosh, are you new to this forum?

I dunno - maybe I should neg you and let you decide if I seem new...

Maybe I just have you confused with one of the other brain dead Republican cheerleaders. There are so many to choose from and the message is always the same.

I oppose the shameful democrats. I oppose socialism and Obamunism. I oppose Fascistcare.

No doubt that makes me a "Republican" in your world view.

Now I admit that I don't pay much attention to Beck - I enjoy that he makes you leftists spit and sputter, but I don't have much exposure to what he actually says.

Still, your claims about him have yet to show even a hint of substantiation. Looks like sour grapes from another leftist blowhard who is outraged that anyone would be allowed to question the GLORIOUS peoples democrats....

 

[daveman]

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

Mike Rowe's busting his ass to promote technical and skilled trades education in this country.

If the left wants to discard his efforts to support kids getting useful education and skilled jobs over whose show he appears on, fuck 'em.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you want to slam Obama for his association with Rev. Wright, that's certainly your right. And if you want to slam Rowe for his association with Beck, that's your right too.

But don't try to whine about one and defend the other. It just identifies you as a hyper-partisan hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So if a terrorist openly funds and endorses me for political office, what would you think of me? Seriously?

Given historical norms, people wouldn't be voting for me then, would they? This guilt by association argument is a cover for Obama's ties with an underground terrorist, who held a fundraiser for Obama's fledgling political career, and openly endorsed him for office. And to be blunt here, he never openly rejected Ayers' donations or endorsements.

Naturally people are going to assume you agree with a terrorist unless you make some effort to disprove that notion.

 

[JoeNormal]

Gosh, are you new to this forum?

I dunno - maybe I should neg you and let you decide if I seem new...

Maybe I just have you confused with one of the other brain dead Republican cheerleaders. There are so many to choose from and the message is always the same.

I oppose the shameful democrats. I oppose socialism and Obamunism. I oppose Fascistcare.

No doubt that makes me a "Republican" in your world view.

Now I admit that I don't pay much attention to Beck - I enjoy that he makes you leftists spit and sputter, but I don't have much exposure to what he actually says.

Still, your claims about him have yet to show even a hint of substantiation. Looks like sour grapes from another leftist blowhard who is outraged that anyone would be allowed to question the GLORIOUS peoples democrats....

You rail on me for assuming that you're a Republican while calling me a Democrat. Whatever. I have no great love for Democrats. The kindest thing I can say about them is that they aren't Rebublicans. I notice that you're a libertarian. I have a couple of friends who are libertarians and they both vote straight ticket Repblican. Are you saying you don't? And if you're really against socialism, what are you doing living in California? Doesn't it make your skin crawl?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rev. Wright is a far less disturbing association than Glenn Beck.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Is Tampon still trying to tell everyone that associations don't matter while telling everyone associations matter?

Just like Tampon to be on both sides of one issue

 

[Uncensored2008]

You rail on me for assuming that you're a Republican while calling me a Democrat. Whatever.

You promote democrat goals.

I have no great love for Democrats. The kindest thing I can say about them is that they aren't Rebublicans. I notice that you're a libertarian. I have a couple of friends who are libertarians and they both vote straight ticket Repblican.

I became a republican in 1988. George Bush was too repulsive to support. From that time until 2012 - I never voted for a Republican for president. I did vote for Mitt - not because I like him, just because Obama is a cancer

Are you saying you don't? And if you're really against socialism, what are you doing living in California? Doesn't it make your skin crawl?

I was born in California and lived here most of my life. With the desert, beaches, mountains, and valleys all close at hand, and the best weather on the planet, I put up the the BS from Sacramento.

 

[BlindBoo]

So if a terrorist openly funds and endorses me for political office, what would you think of me? Seriously?

Given historical norms, people wouldn't be voting for me then, would they? This guilt by association argument is a cover for Obama's ties with an underground terrorist, who held a fundraiser for Obama's fledgling political career, and openly endorsed him for office. And to be blunt here, he never openly rejected Ayers' donations or endorsements.

Naturally people are going to assume you agree with a terrorist unless you make some effort to disprove that notion.

Would you accept an endorsement from Oliver North?