That presuposes Glenn Beck's audience is stupid. Many may be , but it dosen't make GlennB beck any more responsible than it does Barack Obama for selling a $41,000 electric car no one wants.

I listened to Paul Harvey hawk JB Weld on his news program for years and never thought the less of him for it. Same thing with Marlin Perkins using a nature show to peddle insurance. It goes with the territory.

As did Bill Clinton renting out nights in the Lincoln Bedroom. If it's not illegal then it's okay, whether we like it or not. Being famous or powerful comes with some perks, and if they're willing to pay, why not?

Or he's just reading the script because he's paid too - like pretty much every other personality in America.

The same could be said of a lot of people and interest groups; just replace "audience" with "taxpayers".


I'm not a big fan of Beck anymore, as he has a tendency to go overboard, even when espousing libertarian ideals and, coming from me, that's saying something. Perhaps the only thing more annoying is that I often find myself in the position of having not only to make and defend my own arguments, but to dismiss or modify his as well when people equate them with mine. I'm quite capable of creating my own stupid or invalid arguments without having Beck's dumped on the pile, thank you.
Even so, I prefer him, however fraudulent, to idiots and con artists who both attempt to defraud me and, failing that, simply take my gains by force.

Beck puts himself and his views and whatever products or services he chooses to support out there for everyone to see, regardless of endorsement or ridicule. I can respect that. It takes courage to do what Beck does. Compare his on-air antics to say, what my union does and you'd have a lot more respect for him as well.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen spends tens of millions of dollars every year convincing Washington to steal your money and give it to us because we have posters of our members with babies and pretty mothers. We're red-blooded, hard-working, family-type Americans who need a little help from our fellow citizens because corporate greed would otherwise force us into hardship. Read that sentence again, and this time roll your eyes and perform the "wanking-off" hand motion to get an idea of how much sarcasm should be packed into it.
You could also come visit my relatively lazy, childless, wifeless ass to get some perspective. I'll take you to meet my similarly worthless co-workers. Hope you don't mind that we go behind your backs and steal a little of your American dream to make the one we sell to Washington achievable.

Rather than get pissed off at Beck defrauding lazy idiots into entering a detrimental transaction, perhaps we should be pissed off at the multitude of special interests who don't bother asking for your money before they take it and the legislators and judiciaries who make it all possible.

Fraud is fraud, no matter how you want to explain it away. It should be pointed out.

I've never been a fan of Beck myself, nor any other so called reporter that uses the emotional pathway to convey a message rather than the logical/rational route. This is the route con men use as it can bypass thought and reason. It is also surprisingly (to me anyways) effective, and often bypasses rational thought.

God I miss the days of objective (ie non subjective) news presentation. The days before all these scumsucking 'news reporters' came along daring to tell me how I should think about an event, and spinning the living heck out of it (not to mention following the rating's events for days to weeks with 'exclusive' coverage).

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second. We need to get on the same page, here. I never said fraud was ok, I simply said that fraud amongst idiots was preferable to theft and coercion. I totally agree that it should be pointed out. Fraud is anathema to a libertarian.

My point was that voluntary acceptance of fraud by idiots beats the hell out of enforced fraud.

If its blatent fraud then prosecute him.

If its not sit around and discuss it on an interwebs forum and try to make it seem so.

Relevance?

There both accused of questionable ethics?

But did you point it out because it's fraud, or because it's fraud perpetrated by someone you don't like? That's the difference between honesty and politics.

Probably a bit of both. :O:

He's held up to be infallible by a large segment of people. Given that, I think it's pretty shady to take advantage of people that believe that about you. He's using his position to enrich himself unfairly. Why does that not deserve to be called out?

Would I have the same low opinion if, say, Rachel Maddow did something like this? Absolutely. Would I make the same comments? Absolutely.

Good to hear. I don't mind seeing someone called out for this type of thing. I only object to the number of people around here who only see their side of the question.

"I'm right and you're stupid!"

I've yet to meet anyone who considers Glenn Beck to be "infallible". Not even close. Most conservatives I talk to see Beck as overly dramatic and slightly crazy.