Gregg’s on C-Span this morning
On Sunday, October 8 at 11:00 am and at 11:30 pm
Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, 2006-2007 Edition
Gregg Jackson
Description: Gregg Jackson, co-host of WRKO Pundit Review Radio, discusses his book, “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies.” In the book, he presents comebacks to liberal claims about abortion, the Clinton administration, and weapons of mass destruction. During a mock debate, Mr. Jackson shows conservative high school students how to refute Democrats’ claims and assertions. This event was part of the Eagle Council, hosted by the Eagle Forum.
Author Bio: Gregg Jackson is the co-host of WRKO Pundit Review Radio and a contributing editor to punditreview.com. Mr. Jackson was a 2005 Weblog Award Finalist in the Best Media Journalist Blog category.
Buy the book here.
Uncategorized | Kevin | 
October 8, 2006 6:54 am
I am a big fan of Gregg, but the “liberal” yahoo that he selected and is actually the chair of the NJ college republican’s makes this a complete farse. Liberals can be looney but to have a false looney just makes a mockery of what you are trying to do. Completely unwatchable and a waste or time, damaging to your cause.
Wow! Where did you find the guy you debated?! He seems like a nice person, but jeesh! There’s plenty of liberals out there that know how to debate…and not wear cut off jeans on national television. I think it’s kind of funny and sad that you debated him on c-span. I’m eighteen and have just started college, but I know I could have presented a much better debate than that…next time I would suggest not picking such a fool, of course your argument going to look good next to that guy!
Watching Greg Jackson on C-Span’s Book TV right now. The guy is a complete idiot. He spews nonsense and says “Does that answer your question?” and “Good question.” He’s talking to a roomful of high school girls who have most likely been pre-screened for this “chat.”
Jackson is inarticulate, incapable of discussing facts, cherry picks data (econ figures), and blows Anne Coulter’s horn, someone he’s obviously trying to emulate, certainly in terms of sales.
Greg I hope you read this comment. You have zero skills except for exemplifying how narrow-minded the right has become in this country and unlike what you’ve said, debate and conversation is an art. You are artless and an obvious know-nothing. From terrorism to politics to economics and social polciy. But I’m happy I’m watching you bullshit yourway through this…
W.T.F. How did that B.S. get on C-Span ?
“Jackson is inarticulate, incapable of discussing facts, cherry picks data (econ figures), and blows Anne Coulter??s horn, someone he??s obviously trying to emulate, certainly in terms of sales.”
let me guess you’re a liberal? Cspan is trying to present a fair and balanced view, right afterwards they had a moonbat who was defending the taliban.
As for his facts, they are just that. Facts.
Everything he presented was reasonable and balanced, what’s hilarious, is that you sound JUST like his “canned” (acted) opponent. What’s even more hilarious, is that I’m not a christian and am a hardcore atheist that constantly criticizes christianity. BUT, they still have the right to pray wherever they want, and they don’t have coalitions forcing children to become muslim, like happened in San Fransisco, Ca.
Let me guess matt… Christianity is just as dangerous as Islam?
It’s amazing isn’t it? Terrorism isn’t worth fighting?
Terrorism LIKE the cold war, is going to last GENERATIONS. But it is a fight we must fight, to insure that our society survives. It begins with locking down our borders. It extends to freeing the middle east from the tyranny of Islamo-Fascism.
Congratulations on the television appearance, Gregg.
Two questions:
1) Whose ‘truth’ is The Truth? As Mark Twain stated: “Man is the only animal that has the true religion. Several of them.”
2) Whose value/belief system for Conservative and/or Liberal? The two terms have become so intertwined that unless one knows specifically ‘who’ one is addressing, one may not recognize the/any differences.
And a Statement:
Words are Words . . .
The images you form, and the images I form,
from the same word may seem totally un-related.
In any event . . .
All of life, to me,
is observable as
a simultaneous event
consisting of Riddles: Without a specific
beginning or ending
. . . only NOW !
- from: an unexpected Collocation, Capistrano Beach, CA, 8/26/85
Jerry,
You ask: Whose ??truth?? is The Truth?
Answer:
Truth is not relative and not dependant upon the person(s) proclaiming it. It is absolute and is based on empirical evidence which is presented in the book. If you really want to explore the specific arguments dealth with in the book, perhaps you will choose to read it prior to commenting.The left routinely engages in positing claims that have no factual foundation which have been consistently refuted and discredited as if they were factually true. When something is repeated as if it were the truth when it has been consistently debunked by evidence to the contrary, it is by its very definition, an untruth (or lie). Those most common lies of the left are the ones debunked in the book.
Cheers.
Thank you for your Comment.
I ask a 3rd question: When was the last time you saw a sunrise?
Should you respond with ??this morning?, I will add that there has not been a ??sunrise? since Galileo observed that the earth is not the center of the universe in 1633. At that time Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church. It was 1983 before Pope John Paul II expressed an apology.
True, even Webster includes the word ??sunrise? with a relevant definition: ??the apparent rising of the sun above the horizon.? ??Sunrise? is an accepted colloquialism, not the ??truth?, for the earth is ??setting?? toward the sun.
From Tommy Smothers,
Truth is what you can get other people to believe.
3rd Annual TV Land Awards, March 16, 2005
With regard to Abortion:
ALL life is important, human life above all. But we do rationalize and decide the ending of life everyday based on choice, not just human life. We shouldn’t be self-righteous about this issue since no clear choices for NOT having children has been offered.
Yes, a very strong Republican Supreme Court passed the Roe v. Wade law. Yes, women have a right to choose.
Contraception is an option. (we make it difficult for teens to practice this since we want to try and police this behavior, but teens are in the throws of puberty and it’s ridiculous to think that it WON’T happen)
The Pill is an option. (we make this difficult for girls to have this option, as well, for some of the very same reasons)
Adoption is an option. (this is a great idea if you have a family for a child to go to, but sending unwanted children to foster homes is not necessarily a good idea. Having had a mother-in-law who worked with this community I can tell you that this isn’t the best option)
So what else is there? I’m for girls/women not having unwanted pregnancies. I’m for girls/women practicing contraception. I’m for men taking responsibility to have condoms available. The reality is that these things are always available or not always utilized, so what’s the option?
We know from adnausium research the damage it does to children to be parented by someone who didn’t want them, we know what it leads to; we know how abusive it is, at least enough to know that I don’t want to be responsible for furthering that problem.
Until we take responsibility for educating our children to whatever it takes to help them NOT go down this road until their adults with an income that will support themselves and the child, I don’t know that I want to have someone breeding who is irresponsible and passing that genepool into our society. Haven’t we had enough of that already?
I must say, Mr. Jackson, that finding a 23, 24 year old college kid who would claim that “seperation of church and state can be found in the constiution” hardly proves the point of your book. One of the letters in your “FACCE” acronym stands for “ego.” You went on to say the point of debate is to not make the other person look stupid, yet you find this dumb college kid to represent all liberals? Come on, Mr. Jackson, how old are you? Ever hear of picking on someone your own size (or age in this matter)?
I’ve got to say that i agree with many of the comments that point an ominous finger at this contrived interview.
The sad fact of the matter is that moderates look at the cherry picking of facts and misrepresentations as a poor means to help your cause. (Not to mention the poor chair of the college republicans of New Jersey making an ass out himself; if he had political aspirations he should kiss them goodbye.)
There are plenty of reasonable arguments you could have had this gentleman mention, but instead you chose to take misconstrued ‘facts,’ that have tenuous ties to any real liberal counterpoint, and mold them around these prepared responses.
This is, by far, the most egomaniacal act of masturbation I have ever seen on BookTV.
Mike Molzahn
Postscript: If you had a forum i would be glad to discuss some of these points and argue the merits, but instead, there is no room to have an intelligent discussion. (Which i am sure you considered in designing this blog and your own website.)
Disregard my comment from above. I only caught the first few minutes of the debate so I didn’t catch onto the fact that your little liberal friend really wasn’t. Mr. Jackson, I am a 20 year old college student who has yet to complete my 100 level intro to American politics course. Even I know that “seperation of church and state” isn’t in the constitution and that Michael Moore shoots himself in the foot more than he make a good point. Your little “debate” was absolutely ridiculous, and as I said before, violates what your preached in your “FACCE” acronym. Your tactics do nothing but make you look like a fool and piss everybody off. These hateful tactics are louder than your arguments. Instead of attacking liberals and finding some douchebag to pretend to be a liberal and make a complete ass out of himself, perhaps you should focus more energy on getting the message of your beliefs out there, instead of creating this “us against those evil and idiotic baby killing and god hating liberals” match. No one hears your arguments, sir. All we hear is how much you loathe liberals.
You take Dubya-defending of torture, islamophobia, and dick cheney kool-aid drinking to a brand new level. I hope this book outsells Ann Coulter’s latest screed. You have all the answers. I’d buy Amway from you. Praise Jesus.
Michael Molzahn,
You said:
“There are plenty of reasonable arguments you could have had this gentleman mention, but instead you chose to take misconstrued ??facts,?? that have tenuous ties to any real liberal counterpoint, and mold them around these prepared responses.”
How or why or what makes you think the facts are ‘misconstrued’? Who are you to say?
All of you people who are trying to downplay Gregg’s book and appearance are so jealous of his work and the FACT that it is TRUTHFULL.
Refute the facts and then maybe a real conversation and civil discourse can start.
Michael Molzahn,
Your site says “The ACLU rocks”…need I say more?
Mic,
You really don’t like someones opinion because they like the ACLU? They are often called god hating, but if you look at it: they have supported Christians rights in schools, and the KKK (who are practicing an extremely fanatical version of Christianity; i would never equate that kind of Christianity with anyone here.)
The ACLU can be characterized as libertarian fighting for basic and fundamental freedoms.
(By the way i’ve been called both a libertarian and a socialist, go figure.)
Anyhow, that’s neither here nor there.
Scia,
Habeas Corpus and Torture.
Right there, two things he misconstrued facts on, that poor high school girl who was making a valid point about habeas and warrantless searches, but he continued to asked questions to get something he could respond to with a scripted response from his book.
And he made an emotional play ‘they are cutting our heads off’, so yes let us be the lesser of two evils. Making people believe they are drowning or freezing them half to death are OK since they kill. Not to mention MANY detainees HAVE died at the hands of US interrogators and employees.
Torture is illegal under US and International Laws. (that we were the force behind instituting no less.)
There has NEVER been a credible report that says torture has provided any fact that has been useful; in fact the evidence from both liberal and conservative think tanks point to it providing poor information.
Those are two points i disagree with.
But it was the whole tone of that mock interview and his responses to questions no educated person would really ask in the manner they were.
Mike Molzahn
To clarify,
All i was trying to point out was the questions he had that gentleman ask were talking points molded to fit his responses. They were not representative of a real argument (for the most part) and he really didn’t represent any counterpoints.
They seemed to be a starting point for his partisan hackery / attacks.
That’s it, simply put. If i had the chance to rewrite and properly represent a few of those questions and their respective merits, along with pose counter arguments, i would. I believe he would do a lot more for himself and the conservative ‘argument’ if it were presented differntly.
Mike Molzahn
Post Script: It’s not like i hate time, a few issues he seemed decent on, and he paid careful attention to most of the high school students.
See here is the funny thing,
Gregg claims he can defuse any liberal argument with facts and reason, where is the argument on torture, or even flag burning?
I make a claim and someone says ‘you support the ACLU so you can’t have a valid opinion.’ This is what im talking about, )Bill O’ says the ACLU is trying to kill god and take away your churches (so they assume my opinions are nuts), but when people look at the facts, they are libertarian and fight for everyone since they support the constitution (and Christians as i pointed out).
It was late last night when I posted, and after school today i spent twenty minutes preparing a counter argument on torture.
Gregg and Mr. Bush have said ‘torture works’ but there isn’t even anecdotal evidence to support this claim.
Go and search scholarly articles and intelligence articles before sept 11th and you will not find ANY credible claims that it works; even conservative organizations didn’t think torture worked(s). Even Israel who has been fighting terrorism for decades upon decades will admit that torture only results in poor intelligence.
You have two claims of torture working since September 11th, neither of these relate to the US in any way, and if you look at both of the ‘plots’ they uncovered were either known or there is good evidence the interrogators and governments involved in these ‘claims of torture
working’ as being complicit or even helping to plan these ‘plots’.
Plus, no-one has attempted to refute Gregg’s higher ground argument that ‘they cut off heads, we only water board, sleep deprive, and freeze people.’ (thus making torture ok) But nowhere has he mentioned the many people that have been killed by US employees and interrogators (these are well documented), nor does he mention the innocent people we have tortured or beaten to death.
The US chose to setup international rules after WII, we chose to have a legal process at the Hague instead of just hanging the war criminals. We had the higher moral ground and appear to be throwing that away to detain and execute people indefinably, without a fair trial, and with the possibility that they will be ‘accidentally’ killed at the hands of our interrogators.
I would also point a finger to the sad state of politics when people (republicans and democrats alike) vote for torture and abandoning Habeas Corpus, saying ‘it’s ok the Supreme Court will overturn my vote on the rough stuff.’ It’s an election year so i will go against what i know is right and play into emotional politics.’
This is what i’m talking about, all gregg is doing is inflaming the partisanship and playing into the hands of silly arguments; like the constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, no-one really wants to ban flag burning, and if they do they really don’t understand the legal arguments of justification for banning flag burning: it’s just an emotional appeal to create more partisanship.
Both sides make me sick with things like this, and it’s become apparent that no-one really wants to respond with intelligence conversation or facts, just finger pointing and rhetoric.
Mike Molzahn
Postscript: Gregg, next time you write a book and are seen on c-span, don’t bother with a mock argument… It does nothing to further your cause. (I’m very conservative on several issues, and believe you are not helping our mutual cause in these issues)
People who wish to have an intelligent discussion to refute some of, what i would define as, your misconstrued facts will seek you out and find that you will not respond because you don’t have a leg to stand on; not to mention your supporters engage in the same ‘I have the truth, and you don’t', and ’since you support the ACLU, which i hear is evil, I cannot take you seriously.’
I know a blog isnt the most dignified place to respond, but since there is no other way: I ask you to present your arguments and mock interviews with a little more thought and grace, and ask your supporters to read with a little more depth on some issues, you may find that some of what Gregg says isn’t gospel. (I’m open to new things, i hope you will be as well, it will do a great deal to further unity in our country.)
saw Gregg Jackson on Cspan acting as if he was having a dialogue with liberal. I knew something was up because the liberal guy sounded like a real bafoon. Later, he [Gregg Jackson]introduced the guy as a leader of the college republicans. I wonder how Gregg would have really handled himself if he had to face a real liberal ie Al Franken. I bet he wouldn??t act so confident in his mundane arguements.
One of the few benefits to having chronic insomnia is CSPAN! Mr. Jackson was entertaining, transparent, insightful and a top salesman for the right!I’m buying 10 copies of Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies and bringing them to NYC for Thanksgiving.
I might check the book out at the library just to see what kind a BS he puts in there. The man has no credibility with me.
Greg ,
I watched your cpan gig. I have to say you are great at fooling most of the public. If I had tuned in just a few minutes in, I would have thought that young man at the table with you was the dumbest “Dem” or “Liberal” I’ve ever heard.
You really think thats how us real “Dems” are. Grow up!
A large part of the country knows that both sides are out for there own. If you are what you say , I feel sorry for you.
Keep pulling the wool over their eyes , most will either listen and believe , or will not care, or be misimformed just like most of the things you say us “Lebirals” are.
By the way I grew up a conservative in a very christain home. At 16 I saw what the right is all about. CONTROL , CONTROL , CONTROL.
Peace Noaln
Howdy, sir. I was up late last night and happened to be scanning and caught most of the C-SPAN deal. Never heard of yourself or you book, but it was interesting. More people should debate with as you presented to those high schoolers. Unfortunately many on the so-called ??left? and ??right? (and those that don??t exactly fit this one-dimensional line) just fall to irrational debate filled with emotions and tempers. Much of politics is ??Jerry Springer? like and, again, this goes for people across the political spectrum.
The comment by Nolan hits an important point, which I will talk about: While I like to see more rational debate, the Republican v. Democrat debate is nonsense. It is about control, control, control. Conservative does not equal Republican or Bush, sadly. As a paleoconservative capitalist, both parties are large supports of statism. You as a ??conservative,? at least you claim, should focus your attention on the origins of the conservative philosophy. Modern day conservatism should take a history tour of the Old Right. As a recent high school graduate I have had the luck to be exposed to some of the materials from the great thinkers of the Old Right.
The biggest destroyer of the family is the welfare state. Real conservatives understand this and see why we need radical decentralization. I remember at time when the Republicans, for example, wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, but now Bush expands it by, what, around 50 or 60 percent. Such is the state of conservatism. And when we talk about big government lovers, you cannot find someone more in love with it then Bush and this current Republican majority in the government. If we look at the facts, and not the rhetoric, Republicans beat the Democrats when it comes to socialism. And when we talk about tax cuts, it seems some basic economics has been forgotten: While tax cuts are very good, taxation is equal to the amount the government spends. The Federal Reserve might wave its magic, but inflation is probably more destructive then direct taxation. (Borrowing also has negative consequences.) As Bush gives us a tax cut, he uses his backhand to tax money from us in indirect ways. That is why the Old Right understood, for example, about the importance of the gold standard.
I saw Gregg speaking to a group of High School kids the other night on TV. It was so funny that I could not stop watching it. He was a horrible speaker, lost his train of thought often, and often rambled on about things that were not even relevant to the questions asked. It was hilarious, I was laughing out loud. It was more of a stand up comic routine than anything resembling an intelligent discussion. I am going to buy a copy of it to watch again for kicks.
He could only get away with those answers in a room full of adolescences for an audience. I can??t believe he is taken seriously by anyone, I thought it was a public access show or something. Nevertheless, he should keep it up, because I love to laugh.