Chuck – just an fyi because I know how fans of Glenn Beck are such sticklers for facts. He gave the domain name back to GB. But the site is up, different domain name. I await your mea culpa good sir!

COME CLEAN GLENN AND YOU’LL BE FORGIVEN!!!

Baby steps, Ted. Baby steps. One day you’ll be ready to speak real TROOF TO POWER! but you’ve got to give it time. Good night and good luck.

Good luck to you sir or madame!! GLENN, CHALK BOARD, FREEDOM!!

Reading is fundamental. Give it a try.

Chalk, board, red phone and facial contortions could clear this up pronto!!! A few tears wouldn’t hurt either.

Show his photo on air. Maybe interview his neighbors. Find out how his employer feels about the website. Talk to his parents. Get the opinion of some local rape victims advocacy groups. I doubt they’ll find the joke humorous.

Post his home address, phone number, place of employment, etc. Let’s see what turns up when concerned citizens dig into his past. I’d be very curious to know what skeletons Isaac Eiland-Hall has in his closet.

Bull.

I’ll defer to germ, and echo his request that you provide some examples.

He has the right to air his opinions.

He also has a tendency to back up his opinions with apparently-unassailable facts. This discomfits his detractors. This is obvious because they attempt to discredit him with base, foul smears of which the most yellow of the yellow journalists of the 1920′s would be ashamed, and from which the most shameless Weekly World News headline writers would shrink. Indeed, the high school English teachers of the “Did Beck do thus-and-such” pseudo-bloggers must be surely hanging their heads in shame, that their students would stoop to such lows.

I would say, “Shame on you!” But apparently “shame” is not a word you understand.

*Waffle House* that is…he makes a meanass omelette!

20 years in Reverend Hatey’s church can do that to a guy.

Do they actually pay you to write “reportage” like this? Because, First Amendment aside, they shouldn’t.

It’s great how Beck haters can vaguely say:

>The fact that it has no factual foundation is what makes the point.

>It’s EXACTLY what Glenn Beck does on a daily basis: makes stuff up and demagoguery.

Care to share any examples? Oh, that’s right you can’t.

> I wish you could’ve said the same thing when Beck accused Obama of having a deep-seething hatred of white people.

Beck said that because of the President’s own comments. If I would have said that someone was a “typical Black man,” I would have been put in jail for a hate crime and rode out of town as a racist. How is that any different than what President Obama has said?

The fact that it has no factual foundation is what makes the point.

It’s EXACTLY what Glenn Beck does on a daily basis: makes stuff up and demagoguery.

>You can’t really justify being so cruel and despicable… so you won’t. Truly disgusting.

I wish you could’ve said the same thing when Beck accused Obama of having a deep-seething hatred of white people. Or when he make stuff up and accuses hard working men and women of this country of basically being anti-American traitors.

I think Glenn Beck deserves every piece of shit tossed at him. Even if this satire is nasty, it’s justly deserved. He’s a despicable human being who adds nothing but poison to the political dialogue in this country.

Well… no. You’re not “just asking questions.” You’re exploiting other people’s pain and horror, for political gain.

The difference between what Beck does, and what you (and people like you) do is that Beck has a factual foundation on which to begin. This foolish question (which is stated as parody… something folks like you don’t quite understand) came out of thin air… thusly, the analogy doesn’t work.

So… answer my question… why is exploiting the crimes of rape and murder an acceptable tactic in attacking a political opponent?

I suppose, by your non-answer… you don’t have one. You can’t really justify being so cruel and despicable… so you won’t. Truly disgusting.

I’m pretty sure it was Jefferson…maybe Limbaugh. Correct me if I’ve got it wrong, but I don’t think I am.

Eh… it’s all robots now. One guy with a joystick… but perhaps I’ve gotten off topic.

It is not a good thing, but it is a Constitutionally protected thing.

I’m not arguing that… in fact, in my original comment, I said that if Beck had won, then “trademark infringement” could spell doom for a lot of other people, including websites like this. But just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean it’s good that you do. I want someone to tell me why it’s GOOD… not just doable.

Okay, Keeva… now I think I know where you’re coming from. I may not be 100% there with you, but now I know… and can understand what you’re getting at a little better. I agree that a lot of journalists throw themselves into their stories too quickly and too easily, but at the same time, a lot try not to… success and failure on that is largely subjective. Pundits get paid to debate, and sometimes passion gets confused for bullying… and sometimes it is bullying.

Alright… now that I know where you’re coming from, I can build my arguments against/for your comments with some specificity and target. Good! I hope we can dialogue in the future.

Ted says:
November 10, 2009 at 5:24 pm

So you’re cool exploiting rape, because you dislike Beck. Please let me know why the raping of an innocent boy or girl, is an acceptable device when attacking Beck.

And speaking of facts, Glenn Beck would not recognize one if it exploded in his colon. Glenn Beck is a big dope; its in the dictionary…look it up.

Glenn, I’m begging you. A little chalk, a big board…CLEAR THIS MESS UP!!!

The difference is that Beck uses satire as entertainment to drive FACTS ( you know, those things that get in the way of the progressive) home.

@Ted

The difference between what you are doing and what Beck does is that he uses FACTS for the point then adds satire for some entertainment.

If you think that there is no difference between Beck spoofing on “the Untouchables” while backing up his points with FACTS (he asks that people disprove the facts that he has shown since progressives would rather attack his point than argue the FACTS) compared to this dispickable, low-life crap, asking where is the proof! then there is nothing I have left to say..

It does not work that way here in America. Mr. Beck is innocent until proven guilty – not the other way around. Your post implies that he somehow is required to prove his innocence. And, as far as I know, he has not been proven guilty of anything, thus he remains innocent.

Try reading the actual Constitution once in a while. Even raving pundits like Beck are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Connect all the dots you want, but they do not add up to anything more than supposition.

This is what sets me off. The total and complete disregard for the rights of the other side of any debate. Beck is innocent until proven otherwise. Period. That is how we do it here in America.

(Yes, I am defending Beck on this one. He has the same presumption of innocence as everyone else and I respect that even while I do not respect Beck himself.)

But a little chalk and a board could clear it all up. By the way, it is a well known fact that Glenn Beck fans DO NOT think for themselves. Everybody knows that. Good luck to you sirs and/ or madame’s.

How come it is satire when Beck says it? And not on that web site? Is there some kind of magic line? Note that Beck, Olbermann and even Scarborough have pulled the “parody/satire” line out of their rears when they get caught. So, what? it only applies on TV? Read the Daily Onion lately?

@ImNotBlue

Actually, I like the camera folks. They do a very good, very difficult job and do it well. It is the so-called “journalists:” that I have problems with. It is important to note that I consider Beck, Olbermann, Hannity, Maddow and the rest of those pundits are NOT journalists. They get paid to toss opinions around. My issue with that crowd is their thin skinnedness. They can insult anyone, but cannot take even the slightest insult back.

Contessa Brewer – bad journalist. She cannot keep her opinion to herself with a ball gag. Trace Gallagher – same thing. Wears it on his sleeve while claiming to be unbiased. And those are just 2 examples.

“But I’m still waiting for one of the rabid anti-Beck folks, who thought this site was a “good thing,” to tell me why exploiting rape and murder to attack someone with whom you disagree politically is a “good thing.””

It is not a good thing, but it is a Constitutionally protected thing. And the pundits listed above all do the same thing. They exploit any and every little thing they can, to the point of almost making it up. And that is their right. A right I would fight to protect, even if I disagree. The founding fathers knew that the First Amendment would be needed to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection.

The coward thing is simple. All of those clowns are cowards. They rarely have a dissenting view around. They bully everyone who disagrees. They call names and then sue any that call them names. And they do all of that from behind the protection of a network security staff (who are NOT cowards.)

And yes, I am disgusted with the state of the news media today. Everyone spins everything. Nothing is straight up reporting anymore.

As to why I post, well, I have opinions, too. And I post them everywhere. I am a No Party Affiliation free thinker. At Some point this endless mud tossing contest between left and right will have to end if we ever expect to progress at all. Until then, I guess it is game on.

By the way, my oldest son is a journalist and I am proud of him. He worked hard to get his job and works even harder to keep it. I may not agree with him all the time, but he is doing what he can to raise my granddaughters and take good care of them. So I don’t hate ALL of them.