It's offensive because he perverted what MLK Jr. actually stood for, in order to validate his own preachings. MLK Jr. was an open proponent of a Socialist Democracy. He was anti-war, and believe money spent on Militarism in our Country would be better spent on social programs. He also believed that the West was too arrogant, in the world, and needed to be more open to other Countries' ideas.
What Beck stood on and slam dunked was content of character. We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic. MLK might have missed that part. Not all remedies are compatible with our form of Government. Roosevelt seemed to miss that too, so MLK wasn't alone. In relation to empowerment, not entitlement, Mlk was right on. Maybe it was his Christian upbringing.
slam dunked?? Content of character?? Was that when he contradicted himself and said we should learn from our mistakes BUT later said we shouldn't look to where we were or are but that we should look to where we are going??
Or was that when he tried to compare moses leading the jews out of egypt to the american revolution?? Or when he seemed to describe himself as prophet when he described how "the people ask God to send them someone to guide them" (not exact quote but you get the idea).
I wasn't there but I did watch it on tv and most of his sermon seemed contradictory and not factually based. Even olbermann pointed out that beck's claim of holding washington's address in his own two hands was FALSE, so what else did he spin??
If you ignore the facts and drink the koolaid i am sure that you see it as a slam dunk. However, I really doubt most people see it that way. Was it a decent speech even though it was contradictory and not entirely basd on the truth?? Yeah, other than that to try and talk it up as if it was something more is beyond desperate.