posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:23 PM
To my knowledge (I do not watch his show) has not advocated violence, or the violent over throw of the country.
Cause and reaction.
Is Beck causing the divisions in the country? Then you are saying that he is the greatest sales person in the world and convincing people in total
disagreement with out similiar predisposed thoughts to agree with him.
I do not believe that.
I believe his audience, like all the talking head's individual audiences are already predisposed to believe the talking head's messages because they
already think similiarly.
Birds of a feather flock together.
In other words the people who watch Matthews that agree that all opposition to Obama is based on race, imagined that to be true before they ever heard
it come out of his mouth. They respect him because he says the same things they already think and feel.
The same is true of Beck.
Ultimately I don't agree that all opposition to Obama is racial in nature and that there is a danger in believing that, but I still believe Matthews
has a right to claim that, and the people who watch him have a right to agree with him.
I don't agree with him, that's my right, but it is their right to agree with them.
Even though I think Matthews is being foolish and naive and racist himself by saying those things, I don't believe that he convinced anyone to feel
that way who hadn't already decided themselves to feel that way.
I believe Beck's audience and what ever he espouses is no different.
It's a which came first chicken or the egg argument, your supposition is Beck came first and created all these monsters in your oppinion who will
rampage across the nation tearing down that which you hold near and dear.
While they worry that the people on the other side are going to do the same.
Same thing with Israel/Iran, we have to get the Iranians before they get us, we just know they are going to try to get us.
It's simply intollerence, and when Beck says something I disagree with, when Matthews saws something I disagree with, when Bush or Carter say
something I disagree with, I disagree with it, because I disagree with it.
To my knowledge none of them have ever said anything I do agree with (That I should be proclaimed emperor of the world) so I simply pay no attention
to what they say and try to be agreeably disagreeable (figuring this makes me more attractive to be appointed emperor of the world) and allow them to
say what they say (as I have no choice since I am not emperor of the world) and don't go around frothing at the mouth about it (since I can handle
caffine and am not a canine).
Beck and Matthews don't drive these feelings and arguments they simply give voice to these arguments for people who like to argue (which is of course
why I think just naming me emperor for life would end most of these arguments) but people like to get upset and argue.
I don't know who in their right mind would get upset over what people say, because saying things and doing things are two different things.
Half of the whole liberal lefts argument right now is based on possible outcomes that become more probable based on their own inability to listen and
give others the right to voice their oppinions, I have heard so many people on the left side of the equation basically say, "You guys (anyone who
isn't on the left, even though they might not be on the right either) lost the election, deal with it".
If the left has anything to be worried about, it's that kind of attitude, not what the people who won't give up their right to free speech will do
if people keep trying to take it away from them, and attempt to villify and persecute them for using it.
It's intollerance that is dividing America, America is not a sliding board where one party gets to take a turn going DOWN, while the other party
waits for it's turn patiently and silently to go DOWN.
For pity's sake.