Second, my view of Glenn Beck is that he presents discredited pseudo historians and skewed data on his show, and people whose views he's reinforcing soak that **** up like a sponge. This view is based upon evaluating the information that Mr. Beck presents on a number of issues. I've watched his show many times, and Rush Limbaugh does a better job of presenting unbiased and objective, factual information...and that's saying something.
Your view is that liberals are "prejudiced" against Glenn Beck personally because "they" don't like his message. My view is that he's shoddy and sloppy in handling facts and that he uses his bully pulpit to influence the weak=minded fools in this country who have zero idea how to do their own research and prefer their pablum in a convenient, ready-to-use television format.
His followers tend to be similarly sloppy thinkers who don't know the history of their own religions, much less the history of this nation, and who are too lazy to crack a book, read, and find out. They prefer having their prejudices reinforced by Glenn Beck to doing the sort of research that would help them understand their own system of government and country. They're lazy, cowardly, anti-intellectual, and many of them are racists who lack the dignity to be open with their despicable views. And, worst of all, they pride themselves on these things.
I dislike Glenn Beck not because of his political views, but because he's a political snake oil salesman preying on the weak-minded to make a quick buck.
I have more respect for telemarketers shilling financial schemes to senior citizens.
Anything that Glenn Beck sets his hand to has one purpose, and one purpose only: To glorify and enrich Glenn Beck. I pity those of you who think he's a sincere prophet of your beliefs.
Want someone to follow? Rick Santorelli would be a far better choice.