Is the Lords hand behind Glenn Beck?

[MarginOfError]

It's not that he's passionate or that he's emotion or that he lies. It's the absurdly narrowly threaded connections he makes. These are usually on the order of things like Person A was advised with Person B and Person B once met with Person C. Person C is a marxist. Person A is being advised by a marxist! We can't stand for this.

In a sense, it actually is dishonest. Believe me, as a statistician, I know very well how easy it is to be 100% accurate and still be dishonest in order to come to a conclusion you want to make. In statistics, it's considered entirely unethical. It isn't quite as unethical in politics, apparently, but it still bugs me.

You should look up "There is a war in America, and the stakes are no higher than Glenn Beck's internal organs." It's a great spoof on Beck's methods, and really illustrates just how absurd his logical structures are to me.

And don't get me wrong...I think all of the radio and tv talking heads are like this. They are clowns. All of them. What else are you supposed to call an entertainer, really?

[MarginOfError]

I was actually surprised to see that you of all people would be like that. I always considered you to be one of the more reasonable debaters out here.

You are ofcourse welcome to have your opinion, so I won't badger you about it.

Regards,

Vanhin

by the way, thanks for the compliment. I just don't think Beck is a reasonable debater...not by a long shot. His primary tools are hyperbole and sophistry, which are the tools I only use when I want to irritate my opponent. What does that tell you about how I view Beck?

[Vanhin]

It's not that he's passionate or that he's emotion or that he lies. It's the absurdly narrowly threaded connections he makes. These are usually on the order of things like Person A was advised with Person B and Person B once met with Person C. Person C is a marxist. Person A is being advised by a marxist! We can't stand for this.

In a sense, it actually is dishonest. Believe me, as a statistician, I know very well how easy it is to be 100% accurate and still be dishonest in order to come to a conclusion you want to make. In statistics, it's considered entirely unethical. It isn't quite as unethical in politics, apparently, but it still bugs me.

You should look up "There is a war in America, and the stakes are no higher than Glenn Beck's internal organs." It's a great spoof on Beck's methods, and really illustrates just how absurd his logical structures are to me.

And don't get me wrong...I think all of the radio and tv talking heads are like this. They are clowns. All of them. What else are you supposed to call an entertainer, really?

The spoofs are not a real representation of a person. I hope that's not the only exposure you have had before you came to the conclusion that he is a clown. The non-specific example you paraphrased is typically how the spoofs try to portray him. I've seen them all, and they are funny, but inacurate.

Alright, who has Glenn Beck called out as a Marxist that actually wasn't? Van Jones, for example, is a self avowed communist (Van Jones, August 1992).

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

by the way, thanks for the compliment. I just don't think Beck is a reasonable debater...not by a long shot. His primary tools are hyperbole and sophistry, which are the tools I only use when I want to irritate my opponent. What does that tell you about how I view Beck?

I hear you. There are times when Glenn Beck is being the funny man, but I think it would be helpful if you included an example of what you mean so that we have a point of reference.

Regards,

Vanhin

[dorave]

I have no specific criticisms of Beck, except that he's a clown

I'd say that of any major talking head on television. The fact is that they get paid to bring in ratings. The relative or absolute truth value of what these people say on "opinion" shows makes no difference to the networks as long as they bring in the cash. So far, the only way to do that seems to be through incendiary and extreme speech.

But who has ratings and says 'pray to god for help' on TV? If 'being a clown' using extreme speech is a TV ratings model for journos or anchors - then it would be standard and less of a gimmick, however, I don't think nobody else could do it.

Out of all the talented journos and TV anchors, a clown beats them all.

No, there is something more to Glenn Beck than just his succesful ratings pull.

You are also making an assumption on his opinion.

[dorave]

The hand of the Lord is definitely behind Glenn Beck.

Because... Y'know... All of creation is thanks to God.

Other than that: I wouldn't say that Glenn Beck speaks for God. I'd say that the prophets and apostles do.

I never said he speaks for God or alluded to.

I just feel, as was with Columbus discovering America or the Protestant Reformers in the 16th Century - the lord had a hand in their work, to further his.

[dorave]

It's not that he's passionate or that he's emotion or that he lies. It's the absurdly narrowly threaded connections he makes. These are usually on the order of things like Person A was advised with Person B and Person B once met with Person C. Person C is a marxist. Person A is being advised by a marxist! We can't stand for this.

In a sense, it actually is dishonest. Believe me, as a statistician, I know very well how easy it is to be 100% accurate and still be dishonest in order to come to a conclusion you want to make. In statistics, it's considered entirely unethical. It isn't quite as unethical in politics, apparently, but it still bugs me.

You should look up "There is a war in America, and the stakes are no higher than Glenn Beck's internal organs." It's a great spoof on Beck's methods, and really illustrates just how absurd his logical structures are to me.

And don't get me wrong...I think all of the radio and tv talking heads are like this. They are clowns. All of them. What else are you supposed to call an entertainer, really?

Because you're a statistician, you claim to know Beck is being dishonest, and then you back up your claim by saying 'believe me' ...all because you're a statistician? ha! Glenn would never tell his viewers the truth stops with him and say 'believe me'.

[dorave]

by the way, thanks for the compliment. I just don't think Beck is a reasonable debater...not by a long shot. His primary tools are hyperbole and sophistry, which are the tools I only use when I want to irritate my opponent. What does that tell you about how I view Beck?

Glenn has admitted time and time again about his imperfections, that he has been a jerk in the past, and that he can still have a tendancy to be one.

Doesn't mean he is wrong, or even dishonest tho.

[MarginOfError]

I hear you. There are times when Glenn Beck is being the funny man, but I think it would be helpful if you included an example of what you mean so that we have a point of reference.

Regards,

Vanhin

Unfortunately, I can't give you specific examples because every time I listen to the man I get so annoyed that I end of changing the station after a few minutes. I can't stomach the man.

[MarginOfError]

Because you're a statistician, you claim to know Beck is being dishonest, and then you back up your claim by saying 'believe me' ...all because you're a statistician? ha! Glenn would never tell his viewers the truth stops with him and say 'believe me'.

That's not what I said. What I said was that my profession has made me acutely aware of when people are being accurate but dishonest. And Beck trips a lot of the alarms I've found in working in my profession. You're not supposed to believe me because I'm a statistician, you're supposed to believe me because I'm trained and alert for misrepresentations of fact. But you don't have to believe me if you don't want to...in fact I know you won't. But for what it's worth, that tactic of misrepresenting fact to make your point is what you just did.

[dorave]

That's not what I said. What I said was that my profession has made me acutely aware of when people are being accurate but dishonest. And Beck trips a lot of the alarms I've found in working in my profession. You're not supposed to believe me because I'm a statistician, you're supposed to believe me because I'm trained and alert for misrepresentations of fact. But you don't have to believe me if you don't want to...in fact I know you won't. But for what it's worth, that tactic of misrepresenting fact to make your point is what you just did.

But you did the same thing to Glenn.

Glenn has aways told viewers to go out and research his fact finding, doing your own homework, gathering the clips and quotes for yourself and coming to your own conclusion.

[pam]

As with all other Glen Beck threads on this site, it always comes down to a heated debate based on personal opinion of the guy. Many of the things said on this thread have been said already in other threads on the site. Before this gets much more heated, I'm closing it. Based on the fact that a moderator already warned earlier in the thread.

[Vanhin]

MoE,

Ok, so he annoys you, and he annoys Suzie who doesn't like it when he cries on TV. Got it.

You've managed to suggest that Glenn Beck uses "incendiary and extreme" speech, and that he is dishonest by misrepresenting facts, but when given the opportunity to show us some facts to back up your claims, you can't produce anything but a pattern for spoofs. And then you admit that you can't stand watching him long enough to have anything specific against him. So, you really have nothing, and yet the flip side you don't mind mischaracterizing facts concerning him.

It appears to me that you really don't know for yourself if he uses "incendiary and extreme speech", or that he is dishonest. Where did you get these notions if you haven't observed them yourself? SNL?

Regards,

Vanhin