Fact: CNN coddles only D-Baggers!

DEAR GLAAD,
Please provide us a list of the EXPERT gay haters you approve of,,
Sincerely,
CNN

From their petition:

“If you were running a story about education, would you seek out the opinion of someone who hates teachers”

And therein lies the rub. To have a difference of opinion or to object to their take on things is instantly labeled as “hate”. Is it automatically “hate” to not agree with someone?

They draw the hate card in one hand and the “homophobia” card in the other like an ambidextrous gunfighter whenever someone disgrees with them and use them to gun down their opponents, figuratively speaking, of course.

I said this to my fellow conservatives: gays are here to stay. get over it, accept them into society, and move on.

Now I’ll say this to gays: Not everyone is going to agree with your lifestyle. That doesn’t mean they hate you. What truly doesn’t help your quest for acceptance are the images of gays parading in thongs and acting out in misplaced displays of “gay pride”. The vulgar circus on the street in San Francisco each year where there is public oral sex and human toilet displays drives people away. Most gay people live quiet, dignified lives but that isn’t what the public sees when these people act the way they do and think that they are representing you. They don’t, and you need to make that clear.

Bullying CNN isn’t the answer. Better public relations is.

What happened to listening to both side of the story?

Plenty of straight people behave in a vulgar fashion in public. Is that a good reason to disagree with the heterosexual “lifestyle”? Do they represent all straight people?

I have to agree and thank Alex for the link.

If CNN were doing a story about crime rates in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, they wouldn’t invite David Duke to give a counterview, or if they were discussing the wage gap between males and females, they wouldn’t have as a guest someone from one of those churches that used to put “wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands” on their changeable letter sign. Not to mention that if they were doing a segment about the shellfish industry, they wouldn’t balance a fisheries spokesperson with someone allergic to shrimp.

Needless to say, I just signed.
Good post.

“SHUT UP!!!” they explained.

Harry Flashman said:
And therein lies the rub. To have a difference of opinion or to object to their take on things is instantly labeled as “hate”. Is it automatically “hate” to not agree with someone?

Yes, and it MUST BE STOPPED!!

Does that comparison really work Magister? What is the story was about crime rates? Would you have to find someone anti-crime rates for balance? If the story is about gay rights or gay marriage, and you’re trying to cover both sides of the issue, someone anti-gay marriage will represent one side. How else can you debate it?

These groups, whose only qualification is their animosity towards LGBT equality, bring absolutely nothing of value to your airwaves – and by inviting them on, you’re only lending them your credibility and elevating their messages.

What, precisely, are GLAAD’s qualifications?

paulmdoro said:
How else can you debate it?

The thrust seems to be that there is no debating it, therefore there’s no reason to listen to anyone who disagrees.

Pablo said:
The thrust seems to be that there is no debating it, therefore there’s no reason to listen to anyone who disagrees.

That’s an unfortunate stance. Attempting to stifle debate is un-American.

paulmdoro said:
Does that comparison really work Magister? What is the story was about crime rates? Would you have to find someone anti-crime rates for balance? If the story is about gay rights or gay marriage, and you’re trying to cover both sides of the issue, someone anti-gay marriage will represent one side. How else can you debate it?

If you were doing a story about same-sex marriage, then someone who opposes it does seem like it could be an appropriate counter-balance, but the example cited in the post was about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, so to balance it out, it’d make sense to use someone with military experience or maybe an expert on unit cohesion.

As for my example of crime rates… say… on one side you have someone speaking about possible social and economic causes, while on the other hand, you have… maybe… a cop.

PS) Though it’s not precisely on-topic and only tangentially related, the overall subject did put me in mind of the “CNN: Nobody Leave More Things There” portion of a “Daily Show” segment, which begins around six minutes into this clip.

paulmdoro said:
Plenty of straight people behave in a vulgar fashion in public. Is that a good reason to disagree with the heterosexual “lifestyle”? Do they represent all straight people?

It certainly would be if they did so under the banner and auspices of Hetero Pride” groups.

Harry made the point precisely. Your response does not address his point.

Grammie said:
Harry made the point precisely

Fact: (GLAAD) All the happy pants fags have a title to stand for now! Grammie you go girl!

GLAAD needs to calm down with the tired boring rhetoric. Having opposing views to gay activists’ views, is not anti-gay, it’s differences of opinions. GLAAD also attacks only Christians for their beliefs, but ignores the Islamic view of homosexuality, as worthy of death or cutting off hands. Gays have the same civil rights as others in America and this is all they deserve. Gays do not need special treatment, period. GLAAD should also stop with attempting to force their views on all of society. Live and let live. Just shut up.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: (GLAAD) All the happy pants fags have a title to stand for now! Grammie you go girl!

It appears the “SarahP” has been removed from the site… in another thread, the name “SarahP” has been replaced with, “Facebook User.” Either that means he/she has changed names (again), or Mediaite is practicing some moderation. With any luck, it’s as sign of much welcomed moderation.

Hopefully, you’re next on the chopping block.

I hate people who hate others…oh wait…never mind.

ImNotBlue says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm

One can at least hope.

I’ve never understood how Mediaite staff would let the comments sink into such degradation essentially with their stamp of approval.

A bit of housekeeping:

Because I don’t want to delete comments from my posts without being completely transparent about why I’m doing so, I’m letting you know that comments containing slurs (I’m sure you all can guess which I mean, but, in the case of this thread, “faggot” and “fag” are among them) will be deleted, whether used against a group or a specific commenter.

Quoting these words or using them in discussion as examples is totally fine, and I’ll be looking at comments on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the word adds to the conversation or detracts from it.

Alex Alvarez said:
A bit of housekeeping:

Excellent decision.

Alex Alvarez said:
A bit of housekeeping:

Please tell me that you are in the vanguard of a site wide campaign!

Having a discussion about any topic consists of having one person who is for and the other who is against the topic. Trying to make it where only one point of view is heard is ridiculous. No matter how much GLAAD wants to shove their views down peoples throats it is not going to make everyone bow down to them and say they are OK.

I have no problem with gays having rights, as a fact they already do. I do how ever have a problem with anyone, gay or straight, trying to shut up the other side because they don’t agree with them. We do live in a free society who values our free speech. If GLAAD doesn’t like that then maybe they should pack up and move to another country!

newzmaker said:
GLAAD also attacks only Christians for their beliefs, but ignores the Islamic view of homosexuality, as worthy of death or cutting off hands.

I haven’t reviewed all of CNN’s discussions on subjects specific to the homosexual community, but I find it doubtful they’ve ever had an otherwise unqualified Islamic guest speaking in opposition to an LGBT issue and I suspect, if they had someone from the more radical or orthodox extremes of the faith expressing a position on military policy, protests would be made.

this is why people will not ever be able to have open discussions on race, religion, gays. If you disagree with any point you are labeled a hater or homophobe

ImNotBlue said:
Hopefully, you’re next on the chopping block.

Fact: Great to debate you anytime!

Seriously, do you people even watch CNN?

They always have on for and against for any topic. When doing anything on vaccines causing autism they would have ones who say it does and the others who think it doesn’t. When doing any story on crime rates in minority places they did have on those who thought it was because of the bad schools, the way the police react their etc and they had on the counter side of ones who blamed the people that lived their themselves as to the problem and said it wasn’t the schools job to baby sit kids etc. When the oil spill happened they had on those for drilling and those against. When talking about polygamy they’ve had those on who left it as well as those against it and those who are still in and think it’s OK.

Shall I go on…there are A LOT more examples. You can’t truly have any kind of real discussion without having ALL sides accounted for. Trying to say you can have a fair discussion on anything to do with gays without having on those who oppose it is absurd!

And just for the record MANY times Anderson Cooper has had on gay issues with no opposing side and it was VERY one sided. People let him know that on his blog and also on Twitter. People want all sides of an argument not just one. When you only have one side on it makes people feel as if you are trying to shove your viewpoint down their throats and not letting them think for themselves.

And to Pablo…if it means you hate someone because you oppose their views then the gays are just as guilty as their opposer’s of being hate mongers then huh!?

paulmdoro says:
“Attempting to stifle debate is un-American.”

Homophobia and hatred is not “debate.”

One this this story conveys is what I’ve been arguing for months, CNN is the only cable news network that really is fair and balanced. Now they need someone neutral about LBGT’s to argue against LBGT rights. It’s a tall order.

Unless CNN is under new management since they hired Beck, they won’t bow to public pressure. They were lobbied when they announced that they had hired Beck, but they didn’t give a shit. They were set on trying to become more like Fox (reactionary, ignorant blowhards). We’ll find out if CNN learned anything from blowing off the pressure to not hire Beck, or if they will demonstrate some intelligence and try to fill that tall order.

Being against gay marriage is a legitimate viewpoint GBR. I disagree with it wholeheartedly, but it’s a total valid viewpoint. Trying to prevent someone against gay marriage from speaking about the issue on a cable news channel is stifling debate.

GlennBeckReview said:
Unless CNN is under new management since they hired Beck, they won’t bow to public pressure. They were lobbied when they announced that they had hired Beck, but they didn’t give a shit. They were set on trying to become more like Fox (reactionary, ignorant blowhards). We’ll find out if CNN learned anything from blowing off the pressure to not hire Beck, or if they will demonstrate some intelligence and try to fill that tall order.

GBR, you are a joke here. You lie everyday about Beck. That is your thing, but you fool nobody here. Don’t come back until you put out that BIG BOMBSHELL about Beck. LOL.

GlennBeckReview
Unless CNN is under new management since they hired Beck, they won’t bow to public pressure. They were lobbied when they announced that they had hired Beck, but they didn’t give a shit. They were set on trying to become more like Fox (reactionary, ignorant blowhards). We’ll find out if CNN learned anything from blowing off the pressure to not hire Beck, or if they will demonstrate some intelligence and try to fill that tall order.

GBR never fails to talk about Beck… even when Beck isn’t anywhere close to the conversation. WTG, buddy!

Your obsession is impressive.

Alex Alvarez said:
A bit of housekeeping: Because I don’t want to delete comments from my posts without being completely transparent about why I’m doing so, I’m letting you know that comments containing slurs (I’m sure you all can guess which I mean, but, in the case of this thread, “faggot” and “fag” are among them) will be deleted, whether used against a group or a specific commenter. Quoting these words or using them in discussion as examples is totally fine, and I’ll be looking at comments on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the word adds to the conversation or detracts from it.

Why not just ban those that use that language in that way? They clearly aren’t here for discussion, just ranting and hating.

Would some one ‘splane to me how Glenn Beck
entered in this conversation?? OH
Never mind!

DING DONG!! DING DONG!!

cjd ohio 1 said:
this is why people will not ever be able to have open discussions on race, religion, gays. If you disagree with any point you are labeled a hater or homophobe

GlennBeckReview said:
paulmdoro says:“Attempting to stifle debate is un-American.” Homophobia and hatred is not “debate.” One this this story conveys is what I’ve been arguing for months, CNN is the only cable news network that really is fair and balanced. Now they need someone neutral about LBGT’s to argue against LBGT rights. It’s a tall order. Unless CNN is under new management since they hired Beck, they won’t bow to public pressure. They were lobbied when they announced that they had hired Beck, but they didn’t give a shit. They were set on trying to become more like Fox (reactionary, ignorant blowhards). We’ll find out if CNN learned anything from blowing off the pressure to not hire Beck, or if they will demonstrate some intelligence and try to fill that tall order.

thanks GBR for proving my point

“For years, CNN has insisted on including the voices of the anti-gay industry whenever a topic that involves the LGBT community has come up. It’s time to speak up and tell CNN that this is unacceptable.”

Although I have always been in support of the gay community, I don’t quite understand what they hope to accomplish with this. If CNN agreed to their demands, they would have to ban possible misogynists from stories on women’s rights and anyone who might be labeled a racist because he/she is against affirmative action and/or Obama’s policies when discussing issues pertaining to blacks. That does not seem practical.

How can they even say this when Anderson Cooper has been a long time advocate of gay rights and has done numerous reports on gay issues? Some people are opposed to gay marriage because of religious reasons. Are they to be banned as well? If CNN agrees to this it will severely limit not only CNN’s ability to present an opposing view, but also their ability to expose those who would choose to harm the gay community. So-called “experts” can also hold a bias against one group or another. Do they believe “professional” people do not hold prejudices against certain groups? How do they plan on weeding them out?

@Alex Alvarez, “A bit of housekeeping:”

I am not sure if you are speaking for yourself and this particular post or Mediaite as a whole, but I hope your “housekeeping” will include all groups, including women and whites, and not just focus on a chosen few. Let’s not forget this promise when you post blogs on people like Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few.

libra blue said:
@Alex Alvarez, “A bit of housekeeping:”

I am not sure if you are speaking for yourself and this particular post or Mediaite as a whole, but I hope your “housekeeping” will include all groups, including women and whites, and not just focus on a chosen few. Let’s not forget this promise when you post blogs on people like Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few.

Indeed. Including a sexist or racist slur as an insult in a comment is essentially a way of asking me to please delete it.

@Alex Alvarez, “Indeed. Including a sexist or racist slur as an insult in a comment is essentially a way of asking me to please delete it.”

Sometimes there is a thin line between insult and opinion, but I guess like pornography, you’ll know it when you see it. It will be interesting to see how you implement this. Good luck!

libra blue said:
@Alex Alvarez, “Indeed. Including a sexist or racist slur as an insult in a comment is essentially a way of asking me to please delete it.”

Sometimes there is a thin line between insult and opinion, but I guess like pornography, you’ll know it when you see it. It will be interesting to see how you implement this. Good luck!

Exactly. It’ll definitely be on a case-by-case basis.

@glennbeckreview I’ve deleted your comment for calling other commenters “asshole.” No personal attacks in the comment threads, please.

cjd ohio 1 says:
“thanks GBR for proving my point”

That your reading comprehension is sub-secondary?

My point was (in as simple language as I can muster) that CNN needs to do a better job at finding opponents of LBGT rights who are not just bigots.

GlennBeckReview said:
cjd ohio 1 says:“thanks GBR for proving my point” That your reading comprehension is sub-secondary? My point was (in as simple language as I can muster) that CNN needs to do a better job at finding opponents of LBGT rights who are not just bigots.

but everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot, nice try but armwood you aren’t, all you do is bitch about beck with your opinion, state facts and the lies and someone might take you serious

Yes, CNN, become like MSNBC.

ImNotBlue said:
It appears the “SarahP” has been removed from the site… in another thread, the name “SarahP” has been replaced with, “Facebook User

Good!

Alex Alvarez says:, Mediaite Staff
“@glennbeckreview I’ve deleted your comment for calling other commenters “asshole.” No personal attacks in the comment threads, please.”

Are you new here? Do you have any idea how often I’m pointing out to my detractors that they are engaged in nothing more than ad hominem attacks? That is a personal attack, and it happens all the time.

Do you really believe that Gordon Bloyer calling me a liar is anything other than a personal attack?

When gordonbloyershow says:
“GBR, you are a joke here ” Alex, THAT is a personal attack. That’s all he does, and that was the larger point of my counter attack.

Are you going to start practicing double standards here, or are you going to delete virtually every comment that Bloyer and many others make on these pages? Seriously, if personal attacks are proscribed on Mediaite, I’m completely game for that new rule. How about applying that new rule universally? You can start by deleting Bloyer’s personal attack on me unless you think that calling me a joke on here is “constructive” or not personal.

Well Alex? Are you serious about proscribing personal attacks?

GlennBeckReview said:
Alex Alvarez says:, Mediaite Staff“@glennbeckreview I’ve deleted your comment for calling other commenters “asshole.” No personal attacks in the comment threads, please.” Are you new here? Do you have any idea how often I’m pointing out to my detractors that they are engaged in nothing more than ad hominem attacks? That is a personal attack, and it happens all the time. Do you really believe that Gordon Bloyer calling me a liar is anything other than a personal attack? When gordonbloyershow says:“GBR, you are a joke here ” Alex, THAT is a personal attack. That’s all he does, and that was the larger point of my counter attack. Are you going to start practicing double standards here, or are you going to delete virtually every comment that Bloyer and many others make on these pages? Seriously, if personal attacks are proscribed on Mediaite, I’m completely game for that new rule. How about applying that new rule universally? You can start by deleting Bloyer’s personal attack on me unless you think that calling me a joke on here is “constructive” or not personal. Well Alex? Are you serious about proscribing personal attacks?

whine about others lol

GlennBeckReview said:
Alex Alvarez says:, Mediaite Staff
“@glennbeckreview I’ve deleted your comment for calling other commenters “asshole.” No personal attacks in the comment threads, please.”

Are you new here? Do you have any idea how often I’m pointing out to my detractors that they are engaged in nothing more than ad hominem attacks? That is a personal attack, and it happens all the time.

Do you really believe that Gordon Bloyer calling me a liar is anything other than a personal attack?

When gordonbloyershow says:
“GBR, you are a joke here ” Alex, THAT is a personal attack. That’s all he does, and that was the larger point of my counter attack.

Are you going to start practicing double standards here, or are you going to delete virtually every comment that Bloyer and many others make on these pages? Seriously, if personal attacks are proscribed on Mediaite, I’m completely game for that new rule. How about applying that new rule universally? You can start by deleting Bloyer’s personal attack on me unless you think that calling me a joke on here is “constructive” or not personal.

Well Alex? Are you serious about proscribing personal attacks?

There’s a line between telling someone “you’re a joke” and “you’re an asshole.” If you can’t say it to someone on, say, a network nightly news show, you cannot say it to someone here without being deleted.

Edited to add: The purpose of this is to elevate the level of discussion on these threads and to ensure the conversation keeps from devolving into a series of attacks among commenters. Spam comments and obvious instances of trolling will also be deleted, for this same reason.

Alex Alvarez said:
There’s a line between telling someone “you’re a joke” and “you’re an asshole

Don’t be so sure; GBR is both!

notsofast said:
Don’t be so sure; GBR is both!

Ahem! Not so fast, notsofast.

stoogedudes said:
Why not just ban those that use that language in that way? They clearly aren’t here for discussion, just ranting and hating.

I wish it was that easy! However, it’s totally possible for someone to be hateful or rude or vulgar, yet still provide a dissenting viewpoint in a way that isn’t. So, everyone will be given the benefit of the doubt.

Knowledge_Is_Power said:
And to Pablo…if it means you hate someone because you oppose their views then the gays are just as guilty as their opposer’s of being hate mongers then huh!?

You’d think, huh? But of course, they’re not hateful. It’s just the people who disagree with them who should be shunned from society and silenced. Reminds me a lot of the dynamic between a certain obsessive Mediaite commenter and a popular Radio/TV host. Except that the latter probably doesn’t realize that the former exists.

Never trust anyone who lives to silence their opposition.

Alex, bravo.

Alex Alvarez says:
“There’s a line between telling someone “you’re a joke” and “you’re an asshole.””

Right, a line of opinion and fact: reactionary attack specialist, Bloyer, thinks I’m a “joke” for being a focused critic of one of his heros. It’s a flat out personal and baseless attack.

When I shot back that he is an a-hole, that’s a fact backed by Andrew. Again he wrote:

“I’m a big fan of what Abrams et al. are doing here, I just haven’t really been motivated to join the fray below the articles until now.

See, as a member of the generation that saw the advent of the internet in our formidable years I’m aware of the qualities of comment sections, chats, and forums. I know that for the most part they’ve been a place where people allow themselves the freedom to be total assholes to complete strangers. Because of this I’ve avoided registering or commenting on much (I hardly leave a peep on YouTube videos, because, frankly, I don’t need an email each time some illiterate 14 year-old calls me a fag for liking Paul McCartney’s solo work.).
But you know what Gordie? The comments are here, and often times the word count and sheer amount of information in comments section is much higher than that of even the OP’s article. There are actually a few interesting people around here that seem to understand media criticism, and Gord, you aren’t one of them.
… but man are you prolific. I’m willing to bet that you are one of the top commenters here on Mediaite, if we are talking sheer number of posts; and to be totally honest with you, it is ruining the site for me.

You are intentionally confrontational from the word go, you have no constructive input to offer. You seek out those who have an opinion you feel is in conflict with yours and belittle them and call them names. Your retorts are weak and often involve a regurgitation of what ever “kick” you are on (my bet is I’m not the only one you are calling “stupid” this morning.). When the tone moves to substantive debate that involves doing more than calling people names you rely on your extensive experience that includes a website you haven’t updated since 2008 and the fact that you accidently rubbed William F. Buckley’s junk through his pants on a bus once or something like that.

There is nothing positive in what you do Gordo. Not for people you are arguing with and not for the arguments themselves.

You bring nothing to the table Gord-a-lord-a-ding-dang. The broad generalizations you spit are not just stupid but border on offensive, and before you go calling me some sort of touchy-feelie “liberal” just remember that generalizations are not the kind of thing an individualist should be comfortable making because they remove a person’s sense of singularity. It has nothing to do with peoples feelings it has everything to do with respecting the humanity of your neighbor.

So Gord, do everyone a favor and saddle up your half-sack and get real. Talk about the issues in a way that actually conveys a point and maybe we’ll not just understand what it is you stand for but also accept it as valid. Hell, you might get someone to think outside their own narrow little box.

I guess, in your own way, by contributing to the status quo of comment thread filth and nastiness, you’ve inspired me to try to improve this entire situation.”

Alex, “filth and nastiness” are euphemisms for a-hole. Mediafight has been a series of personal attacks. I hope, Alex, that you’re consistent. So far, you’re not. Gordon’s personal attack is still there. Difference is simple: I cursed.

If that’s the new rule, state it. If personal attacks are banned, then delete them all. The line you draw seems to be in your head.

DING DONG!! DING DONG!!!

@GBR: In your first comment to this post, you suggested that CNN may not bend to pressure because you feel their sister station wasn’t responsive to your complaints about Glenn Beck.

As was noted in Jose Simian’s interview with Roberto Lovato, who organized the protests against Lou Dobbs in the Latino community and was gearing up to target CNN en Español, it wouldn’t serve CNN and other media outlets to be seen as bending to pressure, but the sheer amount of lobbying and the departure of Dobbs indicates their efforts may have been taken into consideration.
—

Otherwise, Alex, I applaud the decision to moderate comments to your posts.

Watch out Alex, or GBR will start up a website about you too! I’m sure it will be equally popular!

Its interesting that this issue has come up in what is essentially a thread about free speech, and acceptable speech. It’s equally interesting how GBR is against speech which he (and GLAAD) deem “unacceptable,” yet is HIGHLY upset over Mediaite restricting personal attacks! They seem incompatible, no?

GlennBeckReview said:
Alex, “filth and nastiness” are euphemisms for a-hole. Mediafight has been a series of personal attacks. I hope, Alex, that you’re consistent. So far, you’re not. Gordon’s personal attack is still there. Difference is simple: I cursed.
If that’s the new rule, state it. If personal attacks are banned, then delete them all. The line you draw seems to be in your head.

There you go lying again. You comments have been pointed out as lies by me and many others here. Claiming that a phony that posts on your website is an expert on my comments also makes you look like a fool. Just go away, you are no longer fooling anyone here.

Alex Alvarez said:
, a network nightly news show, you cannot say it to someone here without being deleted.

Fact: I love Red Eye and they are pretty open to all comments so that’s great! Cut away cutty!

Magister says:
“@GBR: In your first comment to this post, you suggested that CNN may not bend to pressure because you feel their sister station wasn’t responsive to your complaints about Glenn Beck.”

Not exactly. It was because they didn’t respond to a massive outpouring of dissent against him being hired. This history was covered in Zaitchik’s Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance. In Beck’s case, these protests did nothing.

Magister says:
“Alex, I applaud the decision to moderate comments to your posts.”

Me too: I just want to know what the rule is. No personal attacks, which would eliminate virtually every comment from Gordontheblowhardwithashow and many comments from others who routinely attack me personally. Right Probably Wrong About Everything?

If the rule is no personal attacks, then Gordon’s follow up comment warrants deletion along with virtually all he comments here. If the rule is no cursing, then fine. That’s easy rule to follow and to f#$king break.

Alex: I JUST WANT TO SEE NO DOUBLE STANDARDS!

gordonbloyershow says:
“There you go lying again. You comments have been pointed out as lies by me and many others here.”

Name one other person Gordon. Name one other commenter and use a URL to point to that comment or just admit that your personal attacks on me are deceitful in themselves and a substitute for real debate.

You tried discussing a supposed “lie” with me once, and I wiped your nonsense all over the floor. You can’t debate my claims with me because you’re wrong. I can prove this every time.

To your false claim that others assert that I lie, I again point to Andrew’s take down of your sleazy, “filth and nastiness.” You see Gordon, I do point to others who agree with me, that you are that body part situated between the upper thighs and the waist on people’s backsides. If you’d like to read Andrew’s original comment, go for it:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-links-florida-shooter-to-media-matters-you-can-tell-hes-liberal-because-he-cant-shoot/#comment-244641

See Gordon, I can point to others critical of your filth and nastiness, another who agrees with my view of you. Now reciprocate and point to another who has successfully shown that any fact I’ve posited is a “lie.” C’mon Gordon, follow up with your deceitful claim about or just admit that you are nothing but the liar that you accuse me of being. If you call me a liar, and I’m not a liar; that makes you a liar Gordon. Since you have never proven me to be a liar with your ad hominem attacks on me, then it IS you, Gordon, who is the liar.

Which of my three claims about Mr. Beck do you think is a “lie,” Gordon? Beck is a liar, a charlatan and a hypocrite.

Gorden, how does it feel to be a neighbor of Glenn Beck
in this guys head?
Tell Glenn we all say hey, and ask him if he has any idea
what the “BombShell” is.

GBR is now known as Barack Obombshell.

“writer” says:
“GBR is now known as Barack Obombshell.”

Better than being a dud.

Writer, attacking me personally is just another indication that you have nothing of value to write, to contribute.

Like the rest of Beck’s gullible supporters, you can’t defend Beck from my criticisms: Beck is a liar, a complete hypocrite and an utter fraud.

What do we get from you and the rest of the inane and idiotic far right who comment on MediaFight? Personal attacks, a sign of shallowness and a lack of post-secondary education.

“Writer,” don’t attack me personally: take on my charges against Beck. You can’t address the bombshell after it’s published. You can’t goad me into announcing what skeleton Beck has in his closet before my collaborator publishes it.

Glenn Beck has got to go!