Is anyone surprised? An ill-informed, unstable and unbalanced hothead inciting other ill-informed, unstable and unbalanced hotheads. What would you expect. It’s “Tiller the Baby Killer,” proudly sponsored by FOX: Fair and Balanced, all over again.

I’m not unconvinced that Maddow should not make fact-checking Beck at least a weekly part of her show…

Glynnis — I know the prospect of an ongoing Glenn-Rachel smackdown is enticing, but your sentence’s triple negative displayed more enthusiasm than clarity. cheers — andrew

“But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park and nobody by to perceive them. The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them.”
George Berkeley
1710

I’d guess that the olbermann, malloy, maddow groupies have the market cornered in the ‘death threat’ arena. Just check any far left blog, plenty of evidence!

“Mr. Beck is this phenomenon who they’re keeping on for his ratings even as he’s lost so many sponsors.”
then later:
“He…has reaped big financial rewards for him and for Fox News.”

Given that he has lost “so many sponsors”, how has Fox News “reaped big financial rewards”?

Oh, I forgot. Logic isn’t part of Ms. Maddows intellectual make-up. Nor is telling the truth.

As Mr. Beck said, MSNBC has “flatlined”, and anytime he mentions MSNBC, it’s in the nature of a “public service announcement”. Whereas when Ms. Maddow mentions Fox News, it’s a pathetic attempt at attention as she trys to bolster slumping ratings.

Hey The Real Royal King,

Didn’t you also receive one or more of these death threats from Glenn Beck fans right here on Mediate?

Andrew Tyndall another one like Blue that loves to pick on spelling and grammar. Please this is not 4th grade. It is a blog about the media. Well sometimes it is about the media!!!

bluebogger: ” If you can’t say something nice…My mother taught me that many years ago. How about yours?”

My mother taught me not to suffer fools, gladly or otherwise. Which is why I’ve been ignoring you.

Didn’t you also receive one or more of these death threats from Glenn Beck fans right here on Mediate?

—

I am proud to see I did, Same2U. I was too young to make Nixon’s Enemies List, but this makes up for that in some fashion.

It is not surprising Beck’s followers would send death threats.. it’s what these ignoramuses do best – incite fear.

Maddow is so incredibly far out of Beck’s league intellectually and in truths.

How does Maddow know that the death threats are from Glenn Beck fans? Do they write “I am a huge Glenn Beck fan and you are going to die!” or (more likely) is this just made up slander on her part?

germ, maddow would say anything to get a few more loons to watch her show. She has no proof of anything. It’s common practice to say something outrageous when you are sinking like a lead ballon in the ratings….

Olby Sucks,

I know that, I was just hoping that one of the progressives would defend that.

Do they write “I am a huge Glenn Beck fan and you are going to die!” or (more likely) is this just made up slander on her part?

—

I think Ms. Maddow was answer content and context. The same semi-literate people clumsily recounting the same flawed data that Beck implanted in their pointy little heads just moments before.

Of course, if the messages were webcast, Ms. Maddow would be able to tell by junk food they were shoving into their mouths and they crazed look in their tiny eyes.

“I was just hoping that one of the progressives would defend that.”

by germ

You’re kidding, right?

Glenn Beck: Rachel Maddow Fans The Ones Most Likely To Mail Me Death Threats. Or wear purple shirts and bite my finger off. Clearly and without doubt, Leftist ‘Maddow followers’ are the ones more prone to physical violence. (See: SEIU).

TRRK,

Another great civil post by the ultimate example of civility! Woo! I am so glad the left has not gained the knowledge of hypocriscy yet!

Azarkhan i am sorry I didn’t see that as a negative statement but thanks for pointing that out. I will try harder from now on.

There is a very good reason Beck doesn’t remember what hes says. He’s making it up as he goes. I would imagine that it takes considerable effort on his part to keep track of all his lies.

Let’s not forget the Obama-worshiping, Maddow-following people who actually DO carry out their ‘death threats.’ You know…like that ‘elite’ Harvard-educated Amy Bishop down at UAH. ‘Peace-loving’ my ass.

Chris, let’s not forget about hasan, another obamabot.

Let’s review-

Rachel Maddow, from the beginning until the end of this video, is correct. You can argue about her exaggerations-as-humor-to-pander-to-her-liberal-audience, but her reporting here is correct. Can someone on the right please try RATIONALLY defending Glenn Beck’s very hypocritical statements without attacking the left?

Also, is it really unreasonable to think that Glenn Beck fans who write hate mail to Maddow would say that they are Glenn Beck fans?

And Azkaban, pay checks come from lots of places. Some from Fox News. Some from other sponsors. He has reaped big rewards from Fox. He has lost sponsors. Independent events. That, is logic. That, is truth. Those are tools not in YOUR tool-belt. Also, every time you attack MSNBC’s ratings on a post that isn’t addressing MSNBC’s ratings, your make it seem like you’re trying to distract and deflect the argument instead of addressing it critically. Just so you know. Stop it. It looks stupid.

What Beck said is she left of his very next sentence, which is something he says all the time, that one storm doesn’t prove or disproved GW. As for the death threats, my guess it’s like the cencus worker who committed suicide or the noose hanging on a professors door; a lib trying to make it look like a conservative. We know who’s more likely to being violent, and it’s not conservatives. Just ask the guy who got his finger bit off by a lib for opposing obamacare.

ChrisNH- Amy Bishop was not politically motivated. She does not represent liberal ideology. She does not represent Obama. She was crazy. You haven’t proven the hypocrisy of the left with this example. You’ve only stated that someone who works in academics shot people because she was denied tenure. Oh, wait, no, your’e right, she was killing in the name of Obama because she was probably a democrat. Well thought out point!

The Real Royal King says:
February 17, 2010 at 10:59 am

And yet the death threats from those on Mediaite… from your side… don’t seem to bother you. I guess that’s double standards for you!

Olby Sucks says:
February 17, 2010 at 11:20 am

Just check any far left blog, plenty of evidence!

You don’t have to go too far… I highlighted a bunch from here… yesterday!

blueblogger says:
February 17, 2010 at 11:24 am

Wait, are you talking about me, or you? And if it’s me… can you link to an example, please?

Oh, and here are some more death threats, and fantasies of suicide, execution, and torture… from the “right”:

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Glenn Beck – war criminal. Shoot him in the head, after a trial.

The Real Royal King says:
February 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I’m sure the Gretch and Douchey were in complete agreement, provided they were on and also provided that we brutally torture first.

roxsteady says:
February 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Maybe Beck should borrow his body guards gun and put it in his mouth and pull the trigger!

I guess the point is… it’s not the death threat that’s the problem for Maddow and her followers… it’s simply the target.

Ted says:
February 17, 2010 at 12:13 pm
There is a very good reason Beck doesn’t remember what hes says. He’s making it up as he goes. I would imagine that it takes considerable effort on his part to keep track of all his lies.

—

That’s why FOX needs to hire a staff of fact creators, like the fact checkers at other media outlets. Ailes can be very cheap, but then he plays to his audience.

MichelleF- You’re so right. Those peace loving conservatives. Killing doctors to save fetuses. Let’s take a step back and talk about the KKK and all those other conservative, peace-loving groups you’ve got on your side. Violence knows no ideology. Liberals kill. Conservatives kill. Anger spawns killing. People on both sides are angry. Conspiracy theorists are angry. You are angry. Please don’t kill me.

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Glenn Beck – war criminal. Shoot him in the head, after a trial.

Glenn Beck says shoot terrorists in the head. I ironically say to shoot Glenn Beck in the head. And you ONLY see a liberal threatening violence? Take off those conservative blinders, bro.

Glenn Beck says shoot terrorists in the head. I ironically say to shoot Glenn Beck in the head. And you ONLY see a liberal threatening violence? Take off those conservative blinders, bro.

icwutudidthere

Perhaps Maddow is trying to distract people from the fact that Amy Bishop, the liberal professor in Alabama that recently went on a murderous shooting spree, was likely one of her biggest fans and was motivated to kill by the hatred spewed every night on Maddow’s show. Is that a recklessly unsubstantiated charge? By Maddow’s logic, she is already convicted.

hhtds=terrorist sympathizer.

hatehavingtodothis: “Stop it. It looks stupid”

My thoughts exactly as I finally reached the end of your rambling, incoherent, disjointed rant. Naturally, I’m not going to bother responding to that mess. Go jerk-off with somebody else.

Maddow is still on the air?

Who knew?

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm

So you weren’t advocating violence against Beck? Really? Explain that for everyone.

Azkaban-

Oo. You’re going to have a problem with me. You’re incapable of conceding any ground, even when logic and evidence points against it? We’re going to have some fun, because I won’t settle for half-arguments and speculation in the place of empirical evidence.

So let me take a second to reframe what I was asking in a way that is more comprehensible and in a way that allows you to provide direct answers, if that’s OK with you.

And Azkaban, pay checks come from lots of places. Some from Fox News. Some from other sponsors. He has reaped big rewards from Fox. He has lost sponsors. Independent events. That, is logic. That, is truth. Those are tools not in YOUR tool-belt. Also, every time you attack MSNBC’s ratings on a post that isn’t addressing MSNBC’s ratings, your make it seem like you’re trying to distract and deflect the argument instead of addressing it critically. Just so you know. Stop it. It looks stupid.

1) Rachel Maddow said that Beck has lost financial sponsors. He also said that he has reaped big rewards for himself and Fox News. You seemed to think that this made her a hypocrite and/or liar. I, however, want to point out that those two events are not mutually exclusive. Beck can have sponsors independently of his contract with Fox (i.e.- gold). He also has a contract with Fox. He has reaped big rewards for himself with Fox to the extent that he has a highly rated show and probably brings them and himself a lot of $$ through it. But, he is also reported to have lost independent sponsors recently due to his controversial stances and opinions. Does this effectively support the hypothesis that this doesn’t make what Rachel Maddow said a lie?

2) Your claim that she is just attacking Beck to bring herself ratings may be true. It also may not be true. We don’t know. Maybe, to some extent. But also, they have been firing shots back and forth, and when Beck left himself open to an attack on the exact kind of editing cuts he decries, do you think it would have been a smart publicity move for Maddow to drop it now?

3) I just wanted to point out that this Mediaite post doesn’t really address MSNBC and Fox News’s ratings battle (which, clearly, Fox News is utterly dominating, and there are lots of other posts about it), so I was just confused as to why you felt it appropriate to bring it up here. Is it because you think the only reason Maddow said what she did is because she wanted ratings for her less-watched channel? And if so, can you blame her? Isn’t that how the entertainment industry works? And again, if so, does that make the basis of her argument in this video segment wrong? If so, how?

Thanks.

NotBlue: So you weren’t advocating violence against Beck? Really? Explain that for everyone.

No. I was advocating the efficacy of our judicial system who would have to give Beck a fair trial and convict him of the war crimes of shooting a captive in the head before we did the same to him. I was also using Palin-approved satire. To be clear, in your comment, you are basing what you said on what you took to be a fact that I honestly meant what I said. What I have tried to explain (which I didn’t think needed explanaition) is that I wasn’t in fact serious, and thus, was not advocating violence on Glenn Beck, but rather using satire to point out how silly it is to use violence-mongering phrases like “shoot him in the head”.

I have to say Hate Having To Do This, you’re going to cause a great deal of whining and pants wetting from the Hit and Run Trolls. You might even cause them to run back to sites which do not encourage the exchange of ideas and the sharing of information in favor of allowing more time to offer tribute to Ailes and Murdoch. Many thanks!

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Don’t want to jump in… but:

1) Makes no sense. Either Beck has a lost a lot of sponsors, and thusly FNC has suffered… or FNC hasn’t. Maddow says FNC has reaped benefits… but the only benefit they care about (like other networks) is money and advertising dollars. So which is it? Hurt or help?

2) It’s always funny when “creative editing” gets attacked by the left… and the right responds, “Here, take a look at Media Matters, or Keith Olbermann… they’ve done it too!” and the lefties run away. Frankly, it’s not right on either side.

3) If the rational of her argument is to attack Beck, for the sake or ratings, not for the sake of “correcting the record” or “intellectual honesty,” than she is both lying and deceiving her audience. Can she really be trusted if her goal is ratings, not the truth? Doesn’t that inherently imply that she’ll say anything if it means bigger numbers? It’s essentially the same as the paid witness… they may still be telling the truth, but their motivations throw their testimony into question.

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 17, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Ah… so you weren’t really saying, “Shoot him in the head,” when you said, “Shoot him in the head.” You were using satire.

Perhaps I was confused because you seemed to miss the point of Beck’s original statement (which I outlined in the post). Perhaps you were simply unclear. Perhaps you shouldn’t use obtuse sarcasm to posthumously explain inappropriate comments, and get it right the first time.

But, if your initial intent was “satire,” then okay. We’ll move on from there. However, it doesn’t really change the other comments I gathers with the same purpose, now does it?

The Real Royal King says:
February 17, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Really really obsessed with that site. Yikes!

lol ” hatehavingtodothis”
You said KKK are conservative…. You better check your history, the democrat party started the KKK … That’s like saying the Nazis were conservative… they were socialist lined close to left leaning ideas.

PureFreedom,

Common Sense and facts get lost on the progressive collective. They won’t argue the facts, but they will attack you for presenting them. After all, they are all civil, while the right are “hate-mongers,” at least in their minds.

Concerning Beck’s supposedly lost sponsors and his contribution to FNC’s bottom line –

No one should underestimate Beck’s role in providing a lead-in to FNC’s entire early evening and primetime line-up. The size of his audience at such an early time period is truly remarkable and his success benefits all the programs that follow him each evening.

A strong lead-in is such an important factor in TV ratings that there is absolutely no contradiction between the proposition that a) Beck may have alienated some sponsors and b) FNC makes more money by adding him to its line-up.

I would wager that even if Beck’s hour were commercial-free it would still be a money maker for FNC by virtue of all the extra viewers he brings to Baier, Smith, O’Reilly, Hannity and van Susteren. All five of those hours have enjoyed unprecedented viewership since Beck’s arrival a year ago.

Why doesn’t Beck ever have guests on his show that don’t agree with him? Never mind, stupid question. Keith Olbermann, another douchebag, operates the same way. Beck isn’t too bright in real time. Did you see him yesterday not knowing the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Never mind, details like that don’t matter. Could you imagine Rachel Maddow tearing him apart in a debate? Never mind, It’ll never happen.
Glenn Beck < The greatest Bullshit artist of this media age!

Thanks ImNotBlue, for taking care of my light work.

hatehavingtodothis, after all of that exertion, I’m sure you need to go clean yourself.

And Real Royal A-hole, do the words “pontificating gasbag” mean anything to you? No? i suggest you read your previous posts.

1) FNC has reaped the benefits of Glenn’s popularity in ratings and whatnot. Glenn Beck has personally, independently of FNC, lost sponsors in his life outside of FNC. It isn’t either/or. Not all of Beck’s sponsors go through Fox News. He has an income outside of Fox News. Those are the sponsors he lost. That is what Rachel Maddow was referring to. They are two different things. Where would I be wrong there?

2) You didn’t answer my question. The left does tricky editing too. I admit it. That’s not what this post is about. Please go back and answer without deflecting.

3) First- how is she lying? You have yet to point out to me where in her argument that Glenn Beck edited out his own self-damning evidence that she was wrong. Stick to that. Where is she wrong there? Second- every single pundit on every single channel is motivated by ratings and keeping their audience. Your complaint here is in no way unique to Maddow, MSNBC, or liberal media. Also, you immediately assumed that her ONLY motivation for attacking Beck is ratings, which seems dubious and isn’t what I claimed. And no, what I said doesn’t imply that “she’ll say anything”. No matter how often you think she’s wrong, she isn’t wrong 100% of the time, and I doubt she’d stake her credibility as a journalist or opinionator by “saying anything”, damn the consequences, which is EXACTLy what she is calling Glenn Beck out on, and what you yourself claim to be agains. The latter is what we’re discussing here. Please return to it.

Stop it with all this either/or black/white my-way/highway stuff. Let’s actually talk about this.

Next post:

1) Yes. I was using satire. Thanks for finally understanding.

2) Posthumously? I DIED? Did MichelleF get to me?

3) My comment can be made and I can still get your point. Again, not independent events. I said what I said because I thought it was funny. You can disagree with me on whether or not you found it funny, but you can’t say that I didn’t “get it right” when this isn’t even a matter of right and wrong.

Re: KKK and democrat vs. republican

Note- I didn’t say democrat or republican. I said conservative. You equated conservative with republican, which definitely has a muddy history and was something I didn’t say.

And Azkaban- thought and reason are stifling to the arguments of blind hatred, eh? Why are you rejecting my arguments simply because you find me to be a “pontificating gasbag”? Is that any excuse for not forming a thoughtful non-antagonistic response? If so- boo.

As sad a ratings as Olbermann has, the Madhatter has even worse. She is DESPERATELY SEEKING GLENN, in order to find some way of uping her ratings. Glenn, on the other hand, has no need to mention her name and probably wont ala BOR. The Madhatter has wasted a superb education on smugness and talking down to people. The Daily Howler (the lib publication) has for sometime had her number an pointed out her she tries to dumb down her and her show.

to “hatehavingtodothis”
Your right! about what you said on the KKK… but a true conservative believes in the constitution Just like Lincoln a Republican did… That is why Conservatives are more in-line with the republican party.

No matter what Rachel said, Glenn Beck is still WRONG… he was caught denying something, then Rachel played MANY clips showing exactly how he is a bonafied hypocrite! He tried to safe face by showing his own clip of Rachel, but in his rebuttal, he edited all her evidence, how sad!

No one on this board has been able to refute this claim by Maddow… as a result, Maddow wins this fight with a huge knock out!!!

Go Rachel…!

Obviously I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY with my fellow Right-Thinking Americans posting here!!1 Take a look at the HATEFUL TRIPE in the Huffington COMPOST or Daily KOSMMUNIST comments section and you’ll see nothing but LIB HATE!!1 Then go to the Fox Nation site and check THEIR comments – you will find nothing but RATIONAL arguments, CALM discourse, and INTELLIGENCE as far as the eye can see!!1

PureFreedom says:
February 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm

I think you made a mistake. the Nazis and KKK are alligned with PROGRESSIVE ideals. Not Liberal or
conservative.

Since the term “liberal”now equates to the term “progressive”, many people use the terms interchangeably.

However, “liberal” came from the term “Libertarian” in the early 1800s, but no longer have any connection with the original definition.

While I no longer use the term “liberal” to define democrats, I do not correct others for using the term.

The thing with Rachel I’ve noticed is that she tends to report facts but not all the facts. You
could call it ‘muckraking’ which really hurts her credability. Now as for her charges against Beck.
I have no doubt that she does receive death threats from a few Glen Beck fans but I suspect Beck
receives more death threats from Rachel Maddow fans.

Azarkhan says:
February 17, 2010 at 1:45 pm

Thanks ImNotBlue, for taking care of my light work.

Eh… I was just avoiding going out to shovel. Darn snow.

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 17, 2010 at 1:45 pm

1) What sponsors are you talking about? Sponsors for his radio show? I think we need to go back to the beginning. Where has he lost sponsors, and who has it effected?

2) “Do I think it would have been smart to drop the fight?” I think that was your question. Well, there are two angles to look at it… it would have been smart to drop the fight, because in the long run this only looks like another instance of MSNBC existing because of FNC. However, in the short term, it makes for good television, and can help get her some ratings points, so keeping it going makes good business sense. But if the intention is to fight Beck, and get him to a point where he no longer has fans, or his show gets canceled, or something like that… then I think Maddow is making a mistake, as well as her fans. This is nothing but entertainment, if the end goal is “off-air,” then it won’t happen through these means, and is a waste of time.

3) I think you combined a little of “3″ with “2.” I’ll skip that part, I think I answered it above.
I didn’t assume anything about Maddow and her motivations, I simply stated why IF she was doing it for ratings, it was fraudulent. Yes, everyone is driven by ratings, however if you take the “I’m on a moral quest” stance (as Maddow does), and you’re really on the “quest for ratings,” isn’t that misleading? Isn’t that an example of her presenting herself as some great truth-seeker, when really she’s into personal sustainability? In all likely-hood, I think it’s a little of both… but you cannot deny that a fight makes for good television, but discredits the “holier than thou” persona.

Next post:

2) Posthumously… as in the comment was already made, the time has passed, and you have to do something to re-define its meaning later. “Post-posting” sounds a little goofy… I’ll go with, “previously posted” to be more grammatically accurate.

Karl Spensen says:
February 17, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Christian Larson… still not bored with his college persona. And yet… we are.

Glenn Beck < The greatest Bullshit artist of this media age!

—

That's a good thought.

I have compared Beck to Father Coughlin. I don't think that's accurate any longer. Coughlin was intelligent, articulated and ideological. What changed my view? Last night, I proofed a thesis, written in English, for a German gymnasium student. This paper was to pick three (3) American literary characters from different historical periods and compare and contrast the character to a living American. He picked Elmer Gantry and Glen(n) Beck. It fit well.

Thanks for the chortle!

Alright ImNotBlue, you got me. SHOCKER: I am not a semi-literate capslock-obsessed hyperpartisan nutjob. I am simply a twisted reflection of the thousands of semi-literate capslock-obsessed hyperpartisan nutjobs that make up the right’s online base. Why the hell do you care? And why the hell do you think anyone else does? Seriously, your obsession with “exposing” me is both lame and truly disturbing. I honestly could not give a crap what you or anyone else thinks of me or my “persona”, although it is nice to know that I’ve hit such a nerve with you that you feel it necessary to carry on your little crusade instead of just ignoring me. I’m just here to spread a little nuttiness, while you seem to be one of those people who really takes their imaginary role as a comments section pundit way too seriously. Karl Spensen is just a small part of what is a very rewarding and productive life, whereas your world seems to revolve around your snide and condescending takedowns of other anonymous Internet people. Sad, sad, sad.

So Rachel is going to start pushing her viewers to Beck’s show also? They never learn over there. Without FNC, MSNBC would not even exist.

“most likely to” is a rather broad assumption Rachel.

Rachel’s numbers have been tanking lately, deservedly so.

I have to say, as I have said before, Mr. Spensen, you are a treasure. Being the subject or object of your remarks or simply a reader of them is a pleasure. Thank you.

Rachel’s numbers have been tanking lately, deservedly so.

—

TfT: I have seen that same language several times during the last couple of days. If you don’t mind my asking, from whence came this talking point?

Once again Rachel Madcow reveals her idiocy.

Advice for Rachel……

If she can’t stand the heat, she needs to get out of the kitchen.
She sure can give it, but can’t take it.

Advice for Glenn Beck…

Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

Actually, hatehavingtodothis, I’m not angry at all. Frustrated is a better word. I don’t even know why I bother, talking to any of you is like talking to a brick wall. It’s weird, I have alot of very liberal friends and we can debate and have fun with it, but the ones on this board are just plain hateful. For the record, I think killing an abortion doctor is just as wrong as killing anyone else, even though the doctor is himself a murderer. Please don’t give me the fetus crap, I’ve been pregnant and I had untrasounds very early on and it clearly was a person. But I understand why pro-abortion folks call it a fetus. If you actually called it what it is, a baby, and you are OK with killing it, then that would make you pretty evil. But I’m not going to change your mind and that’s fine by me. As for the KKK, have you ever heard of Robert Byrd?j You know the DEM senator who was very high up in the KKK. Grow up and learn how to debate like an adult.

TRRK: It’s not a “talking point”, its fact. Steve posts the numbers on this board regularly. All you have to do it look.

Does Steve use the term “tanking” like you and your little friends do? Why not falling, tumbling, sliding, dropping, skidding, spiraling downward? I’d expect some variety.

Tanking works just fine for me TRRK; I use it when I refer to Obama’s poll numbers as well. You are more than welcome to use your own terminology in respect to Rachel’s numbers — have at it, just have at it honestly.

JulesCat,.

Look in the mirror. You are the very definition of hate.

MichelleF-

I really appreciate your heartfelt comment, and I think it brings up a very good point: it’s really, really hard to debate like an adult online like this. It is truly a problem engrained in the medium itself. What does it say that I too have very conservative friends, and we can talk and debate and have fun with it, but I think that most conservatives just post hateful things on here. When I debate with conservatives online, it’s like talking to a brick wall. Let’s take a moment to think about this. We are both angry and upset at the exact same thing, and we perceive it the exact same way. Maybe we aren’t the brick walls. Maybe internet comments are brick walls. Maybe in real life debates, our body language and tone can convey subtle concessions, and talking points can be more quickly addressed and clarified, and exaggerations and sarcasm are much more easy to identify. It’s a lot harder to see the middle ground in a conversation where there is no natural give and take. And without the middle ground, arguments get a whole lot more polarized.

Oh, and the anonymous trolls really do nothing to help the situation. It can be so hard to distinguish sincerity on here.

And, ok, Michelle, the last two things I want to say about our discussion that led to my referring to the KKK (which, in retrospect, was much too big of a bag of worms, but what can I say, the internet brings out my most extreme tendencies) – 1) I was upset and unsatisfied with your using 3 examples of liberals being violent assholes as the entire basis for your two assertions: that conservatives are more peaceful than liberals, and there is a conspiracy behind Rachel Maddow’s claim that she gets death threats in which liberals are writing her death threats claiming to be Glenn Beck fans with the hope that she would some day mention it on the air. The first point I wanted to make is along the lines of what I said earlier- hate knows no ideology. There are wacko killing groups on both sides of the aisle and have been for a long while. BUT what I was saying about the KKK is 2) ok, clearly people have different understandings of liberal, conservative, progressive labels, and that is especially true when we start talking about how they were applied through history. What I was trying to say about their ties to conservatism doesn’t have to be rooted in history, so I’ll say it another way: in today’s America, do you really think there are more clansmen in the Democratic party? Really?

And my final thoughts, given the first paragraph up there: I’ve taken a cue from Mrs. Palin herself and will respectfully totally quit. I’ve been a Mediaite commenter for almost a week now. I’m smart, young, idealistic, and stupid. I can’t have an open and honest, productive debate online. I wanted to. But I am incapable of it. And you are incapable of it. Because we are commenting back and forth at the bottom of a blog post. It just. Doesn’t. Work. If you’re not a troll, you can’t say anything at all. I’ve had some fun, we’ve had some laughs, but I don’t want to be a troll- and after spending the last couple days cooped up, angry in front of my computer, misreading your comments, having my comments be misread, stirring up the very hate I wanted to come here and destroy, I barely see the difference any more. So I’m leaving. Back to the real world. Because it’s not worth it. Sure, I got in my cardio workout for the day by reading some of the stuff you guys said, but I’d rather go to the gym. Because there are no trolls in my gym! There are some really scruffy dudes in the sauna sometimes, but no trolls.

Have fun guys. Maybe I’ll see ya out there.

Xoxo,
Just some guy

hatehavingtodothis,

You obviously don’t know JulesCat like we do.

I realize that I’m late to this thread, but does anyone have the video of Bill Nye praising Sean Penn? I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d love to see it because I’m sure it’s a hoot.

Otherwise, yeah, a “feud” would be good for both of them. It could obviously help Maddow’s ratings and i’d give a context for more site to embed clips of Beck, which would help extend his reach. And because it’d also make Glynnis’ job easier, I think the idea’s a winner, all around.

Great Rachel! Yesterday your opponents were racists. The day before they were idiots. And today they are murderers. Sometime before your show gets canceled you should try addressing the issues instead of dishing out smears. Just for a change, you know.

Once again Ms. Madcow strains to prove her relevance. She actually thinks she is such a threat to conservatism that someone would waste a perfectly good bullet to rid the world of her presence.

Karl Spensen says:
February 17, 2010 at 3:27 pm

AH… finally!

I will be brief… because I appreciate that you’ve finally cracked.

My problem with your “persona” isn’t that it suggests you’ve still not yet mentally left college… that’s your deal, we all go through it a bit, time will take care of it. My problem isn’t even that you stand planted on the other side of the aisle (on some things, I suspect) from me… that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it.

No… my problem is the snide, nasty, condescending way in which you chose to represent your point. Your posts have become monotonous, repeating the same basic stuff over and over again. The joke has been told, it’s time to move on, not repeat it ad nauseam.

If you feel wronged, or disagree with comments or whatever… then make your own comment, and argue your point. Pretending to be this character over and over again isn’t winning any arguments, nor is it making any points. It allows you to hide from your actual feelings and opinions, while simply annoying the fast lot of other readers.

I’m just here to spread a little nuttiness…

We don’t need your nuttiness… we’re already nutty enough. Speak your mind, or move on… annoyance for the sake of annoyance isn’t a positive goal, is it?

Seems like in her quest to always uncover the truth, Rachel would’ve pointed out how MSNBC cropped that video of a ‘gun toter’ at a tea party. First off, he was black. Second, what was a black guy doing hanging around a tea party? The ‘tea baggers’ are all white racists, aren’t they? I’m sure Rachel just overlooked that one. Otherwise she’d have been outraged at MSNBC’s dishonesty.

Glenn Beck had “tanking numbers” when he was at CNN. It’s no wonder Maddow’s viewership is not wonderful, look at the venue she works at.
Imagine if Fox News hired Maddow ( it appears she’s considered that to be realistic) and let her do her show, her way. I suggest it would be a great fit . Certainly FNC would gain credibility in “Fair and Balanced”. Maddow would be out of the toilet and have access to some real numbers. I would love to see it, but alas, nutjobs from both the right and left would scream bloody murder.