You missed it, completely. Again.
I merely pointed out the vast gulf of difference between "viewpoints" and "facts." While typically an "elitist" malaise, one needn't be an elitist to be thus afflicted.
Case in point.
;-\
That “elitist” tag is a cheap shot that is aimed at anybody who takes issue with certain politicians and media personalities of a controversial nature.
We are “elitist.” We get “talking points” We are “trolls.”
Horse crap! When those cheap shots are taken, it just weakens your own case because it shows that insults are your only defense of personalities who, for the most part, are not shrinking violets and do not need defensive and/or paranoid protectors to look out for their honor.
What do we have to do, mark any observation about people like Beck with “IMHO?” That’s silly. You know it’s opinion when you read “typical Beck conspiracy alarmism.”
It’s as bad as some readers who demand “/s” to be written anytime some irony is intended.
If I say, “Beck is mainly interested in selling gold and survival food,” is it necessary to mark that as my personal viewpoint? Of course that’s what it is. What else would it be, unless I cited a reference?
I can’t claim it as fact without providing evidence. And neither could you claim the contrary.
I’ve been listening to Beck fairly regularly since he started here in Tampa 10 or so years ago. I’ve got a feel for what he does and I have my opinion.
So do you, obviously, so carry on. I don’t care to hear anymore about him, however. (I actually gave him credit about the Lerner thing. I’m not being unfair.)