Slashdot Mirror
Glenn Beck Loses Dispute Over Parody Domain
CuteSteveJobs writes "Glenn Beck fought the law and the law won. Parody website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com attacked Beck using the same straw man arguments Beck himself is famous for: 'We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 — in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?'
Beck didn't see the humour and tried to have the site shut down. He sued the creator on the grounds the site 'violated his name as a trademark.' But in a sudden outbreak of common sense, WIPO rejected Beck's complaint finding the site 'can be said to be making a political statement,' which is a 'legitimate non-commercial use' of Beck's name. But after winning, the owner voluntarily handed Beck the domain anyway. Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs."
DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com
tell beck why the results of his arrogance is now something he has in common with barbra streisand. he'll love the comparison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
is that this type of *personal* attack is odious. Whether or not you agree with Beck at least he isn't resorting to this type of slime.
They should have handed the domain to someone who could have done even more with it, say AdBusters. Glenn Beck is evil and must be destroyed... not literally of course, but he must be combated intelligently (as in this example!) which is the only way to take away his power. Actually snuffing him would make him a martyr and that would be disgusting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Proves a nice point!
good news
Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
If not, why not?
I think it's pretty clear that this is an attack on the teabaggers, which have the left terrified, particularly after our huge victory in NY-23. We're going to take back this country, you see, for FREEDOM. For INDIVIDUALISM. For NO BIG GOVERNMENT.
Yea, I know that you guys call us "teabaggers" meaning it to be a pejorative, but like the term "yankee", we've made TEABAGGER our word and we now use it with PRIDE.
I think this internet meme was the best satire of Glenn Beck, until Jon Stewart joined in the fun.
Developers: We can use your help.
Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck
And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.
Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Not only, as they say, does he refuse to deny having raped and murdered a girl in 1990, but he tries to sue to get the story buried? That does not sound like the act of an innocent man! And, time and again, Glenn Beck has declined to use his show to publicly deny, on the record, that he routinely BBQs and eats babies, saying minorities taste the best, as some reports indicate*.
*Well, just this one.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Let's say its any other commentator, for example, Rachel Maddow. This doesn't seem right. The argument on here goes "Well, Glenn Beck uses the same tactics."
All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.
[FromTheMorning]
The funny thing about Glenn Beck is that the only people more idiotic than his rabid fans are his rabid anti-fans.
I recall Jerry Falwell has a similar case and lost. When you make a living condemning HALF THE WORLD you ought to expect this sort of thing. Beck's opinions are usually heavily slanted towards big business and he frequently denigrates anybody who would try to slow down the economy with harmful regulation (sic).
His book makes me laugh, as I feel that the title implies that it's a Howto guide for people to interact with him.
The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses (about, say, the Marxist leanings of numerous Obama appointees who ... actually cite Marx, or Mao, or Chavez as heros, etc), because he trots out video tape to keep it topical. When satire - a la The Daily Show - is anchored to your target's actual utterances, foibles, gaffes, and poor judgement, it's a lot more potent.
As for the "man, I sure hope I'm wrong on this" rhetorical technique: again, it's more effective when (as Beck has humorously done), he has a yes-the-White-House-Press-Office-knows-the-phone-number hot line, right to his studio, that he begs them to call, so that they can point out how the video taped comments of some of their idiots are wrong, or not meaningful. Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly. But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news. Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.
Yes, it's important that we preserve the rights to be satirical snots as needed, and at whomever we think needs to be on the receiving end. So this is a good development, no matter what you think about any of the parties involved or their positions. The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Glenn makes personal attacks of this very nature, so it is entirely appropriate that this was done to Beck. After all, if he didn't rape and murder a young girl, why doesn't he just prove it? Should be as easy as proving you were born in this country.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.
This is awful! Something has to be done about it!
BarackObamaHatesWhitePeople.com and ObamaEatsBabies.com are safe!
... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?
Explain what SFW porn is, please.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
that someone cared enough to go through all of the effort, its kind of an honor
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why do you bother? You are right but why make the effort?
I swear that the people on Slashdot have pushed the art of bias to new extremes.
To answer your question. No I am not furious that the decision was legal. And no I wouldn't be upset if the other URL was found legal.
I an and would be furious that both exists and I am a little ticked that Slashdot puts it on the front page and NOT under politics which I have set to not show up on my front page of Slashdot.
Yes it is good that it is legal it is bad that idiots create such crap and that other sites then give them free PR.
BTW if you hate Glen Beck you do know this will only help him with his faithful don't you?
Just so everybody can see the results of this action and understand just how STUPID it is I will explain it to you.
Some Beck hater posts this website.
People that HATE Beck will think it is funny.
People that Love Beck will hate those that think it is funny,
Beck takes them to court and doesn't get the site taken down.
The people that HATE Beck still think it is funny.
The people that LOVE Beck will see it as proof that the courts are biased and hate them. They will become more politically active and work harder for consertives to get elected.
The result is this is preaching to the base and will do nothing but amuse one base and rally the other.
End result more polarization which is exactly what WE DON"T NEED.
For people like me that don't love or hate Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, President Obama, or NPR.
We get anoyed that we have to see this stupidity.
Of course why did I bother to make this effort since it will be unread or I will be modded down as a troll.
PS. I bet Health Care will not pass. Both parties are expert at the art of active inactivity.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Here's a sample of SFW beastiality: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/usb-gadgets/9c89/
English is not this
beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery. to point lies, propaganda, and demagoguery back at the crap flingers is to merely use their own tactics against them
i am not aware of michelle obama engaging in smears and vindictive hysterical FUD against people she dislikes. but of course, that doesn't stop the likes of beck and limbaugh from pointing smears and propaganda at people they dislike for ideological reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the accusations they throw at people
that someone should point the same bullshit at them: exactly where is the hypocritical rule written that people who fling mud can't have mud flung at them?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, primarily because his commentary tends to get fairly extreme and lacks proper fact-checking.
But come on, this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous acts, not just par-for-the-course political chicanery.
Regardless of who the target was, doesn't this cross a line that shouldn't be crossed?
because you know Beck doesnt personally attack ANYONE with a liberal thought in him... Oh wait, he does.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?
Explain what SFW porn is, please.
Depends where you work. I expect that if you work for the Playboy organisation, SFW porn is stuff produced by your employer, NSFW porn is that produced by competitors (unless you're in market research).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I'm glad there are a bunch of kids sitting in the basements with nothing better to do than this. If it wasn't for them, I'd be the one in my basement stirring up trouble.
I would imagine most of the comments I just read were by those who have never even seen or listened to Beck's show. Why? Because I have. Beck BACKS UP claims and does more research than most main stream media, who generally worship at the feet of the democrat party. The quotes he provides are on video and can be looked up on You-Tube. Often they are taken from the person's own speeches (and no, not out of context). It's simply rather difficult, for example, for White House officials to deny their admiration for communist dictator Mao Tse Tung, although I imagine that frosts their gonads that Beck keeps exposing their beliefs.
Calling the accusation of fictional rape of a young girl parody is ridiculous. Stooping to that level means you are simply trying to assassinate a person's character. But when it's done against a conservative, it's called parody. If it was done to a liberal, it would be defamation and slander.
And we know the left (with an agreeable media) NEVER tries to take down someone they don't like. Just like the claims of Rush Limbaugh and racism...oh wait!
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
If this were a page mocking Obama's race and accentuating certain facial features, you Captain Crunch wannabes would be screaming racism and launching denial of service attacks on the site. But because Glenn is a conservative, it's ok to accuse him of this disgusting act. Glenn is exposing both political party's dirty laundry, and he is getting results. The crooked czars have come to light only because of Glenn Beck.
It could be that the people that Beck is calling out are aware of the saying along the lines of "Never never wrestle with a pig, you'll only get dirty and the pig will enjoy it". Note that I am not calling Beck a pig, but am pointing out that he has made his fortune on a radio show that is subtitled "A fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" (ie no mention of truth). This has also included a lot cases of playing hard and fast with words and taking things as far as possible without being able to back things up (IE the OBama is not an American meme) . So without seeing any of the quotes in question, if I was one of those people I would not respond to Beck for that very reason - ie they have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they enter Beck's (non level) playing field.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
why THIS of course!!
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
No matter what you may think of Glen Beck, baseless rumor created by misleading posts on the web could have serious consequences for any public figure. Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figure. I'm not sure how a public figure can defend themselves against this sort of thing, regardless of the source and target. The price of the First Amendment may be that we also have the responsibility to take care with the sources of our information and not give credence to rumor and slander. Unfortunately, that sort of responsibility seems not to be in vogue, and places the only defense of 's reputation in the hands of John Q. Public.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
The parody domain has been given to Glenn Beck but the controversy still hasn't been answered.
Here's the new(ish, same content, different domain) site: http://gb1990.com/
Spread the controversy because, after all, people are asking whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I, personally, cannot believe he did such a thing but why hasn't Glenn denied these allegations?
What is Glenn hiding, if he's hiding anything at all.
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics? Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
(i) respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and (ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Now, most normal people would say that "glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com" isn't confusing similar to "Glenn Beck" or even "glennbeck.com", but that wasn't the conclusion WIPO came to:
In the present case, a well-known trademark is directly incorporated in a domain name and additional terms are added. Even a “moron in a hurry” would not likely conclude that Complainant sponsored, endorsed or was affiliated with the website addressed by the disputed domain name. At the same time, the only reason why the typical Internet user would be tempted to visit the website addressed by the disputed domain name is precisely because Complainant’s well-known trademark is directly incorporated in the disputed domain name. Respondent is gaining an advantage in Internet visits based on the use of Complainant’s mark, irrespective of whether Respondent’s use is legitimate...
In the instant proceeding, Respondent has intentionally used the well-known trademark and service mark of Complainant in an “inflammatory” domain name in order to attract Internet users to its website. Based on the reasoning explained above, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for purposes of the Policy.
So, it's not an outright win for free speech.
I think that's what the case was about. Mr. Beck and his attorneys thought the site was libelous, the creator thought it was parody/satire. The judge sided with the creator. I don't see where it was incorrect to bring about a suit and from all reports it was handled correctly and professionally.
The only 'big thing' is that it was a site about Glenn Beck. Had it been someone less .. contentious .. then it probably wouldn't have been created/covered/known in the first place.
That's the price of being a public figure. The bar for libel is higher.
Politicians/ Talking Heads/ Mainstream Media traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery. to point lies, propaganda, and demagoguery back at the crap flingers is to merely use their own tactics against them i am not aware of "a person to which I have a favorable bias" engaging in smears and vindictive hysterical FUD against people this person dislikes. but of course, that doesn't stop the likes of Politicians/ Talking Heads/ Mainstream Media from pointing smears and propaganda at people they dislike for ideological reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the accusations they throw at people that someone should point the same bullshit at them: exactly where is the hypocritical rule written that people who fling mud can't have mud flung at them?
Why is this flamebait, along with my parent post? I genuinely have never heard of the guy before today. Perhaps the /. janitors could try explaining a bit about what they're talking about, before assuming that everyone's heard of their favourite niche TV or radio programme/book/band/whatever.
I *still* don't know who he is.
yawn.
If you don't like the media, why don't you start your own company rather than whining about it. That's what the free market is for, dipshit. I'd say I was shocked by your idiocy, but let's face it, logic and rationality has never been the right wing's strong point.
Yes! We need to get the grassroots base, made up of real Americans tired of the same old politics as usual, together for some Rape and Murder Parties! Quick, someone call up FOX News!
What you say those media outlets do is not in any way different than what Fox "News" does. I would also suggest that birthers, racists and others like you also get stuffed.
You've never seen SFW porn? Man you are missing out on one of the funniest things ever. They take images/videos and paint over inappropriate parts leaving thoroughly silly videos/images behind. Google for it some time it will brighten your day.
The more people foam at the mouth yelling at beck who is himself foaming at the mouth the higher his ratings go.
The loss of the case will not make his ratings go down, it will make them go UP.
Beck is just depressing. Dennis Miller is MUCH more enjoyable.
Quoting the article you linked to:
"You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, Okay? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path."
I watched the video of her delivering the speech, and it's perfectly plausible that her explanation is true. "...two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa" has all the hallmarks of a poorly delivered joke. She may, in fact, have heard that quote and backstory from Lee Atwater as she claimed.
So Beck, in his usual form, runs right out and connects her to all of Mao's atrocities, instead of to the quote she offered. He implies, AS YOU DO HERE, that she's a student of his work, and that she agrees with all of his choices. In no way can that be supported from anything else she's said, and it certainly can't be concluded on the basis of even this one isolated quote.
Beck does not back up most of his stuff. He implies. He solicits emotional response instead of enlightenment. He draws casual lines and tosses them aay without backing them up. He hammers his points, and you suck it up like his greedy little lap dog.
Wait a second... he's Michael Moore! Should have seen it before.
Or, as Daddy used to say, "Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk."
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
http://laurabushkilledaguy.com/ Oh wait, that's not parody. Different case law altogether..
But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news. Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.
Well that's funny, because I was under the impression that those people's faces are featured prominently on Fox's broadcast advertisements for their quality NEWS.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
the game you are playing is being the upstanding moral person. which is a good game, the most important game
but the game i am talking about is winning influence over people: politics
politics never was, is or ever will be about doing the right thing, but about doing the thing that wins the most influence. doing the right thing and winning influence are goals that often overlap in tactics, but not always
so you are correct, within the narrow confines of the goal you have in mind. but if you examine the nature of the game actually being played however by these cretins, you will notice being silent and above the fray wins you no influence
in politics, you have to get down and dirty and mess it up with the opposition to your agenda, no matter how dirty they play. not because you want to, but because you have to. ignoring them merely wins them more influence. directly confronting their lies and smears meanwhile is the only way to retain your influence and to grow it while under attack
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Everybody needs to fucking grow up. If Democrats think they are better than Republicans, then they are just as dumb. You both suck. John Stewart and Glenn Beck are both rich douche-bags.
I for one am sick and tired of these playground antics. The US is on the verge of a major economic and political meltdown and all you political ass-bags can do is point fingers and call names.
Honestly I used to listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years. Now that it's back, I'm puzzled about this show, which was then full of dick jokes and fake radio bits and phony phone calls has now become some sort of tongue-in-cheek conservative firebrand with two inconvenient books, tours, and an odd political movement. Where did all the dick jokes go?
The jingle used to be the "Fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" in the dick-joke period.
Is Beck actually playing a joke on everyone?
Kriston
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0479.html
Just goes to show that (unlike the above case) actually defending your domain name can work, even against people with armies of lawyers.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs.
Seems to me they fear guns, too.
Indulge.
That there was the point as it rushed over your head.
Beck makes assumptions and oddly worded semi-accusations toward people he disagrees with, then demands they take the time to disprove them. This site is made to do exactly that.
It is satire/parody, precisely because it uses his own techniques to make him look like an idiot. Not that he needed help.
personally I don't find it exactly hilarious, but shoving his own tactics back in his face is a worthwhile endeavour.
"Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs."
Unless the parody is a rewriting of an instrumental techno song used during a fight scene in a movie, with samples from "ALIENS" ("nuke 'em from orbit" and "game over man, game over") pasted onto it, and it presented as an anti-spam fight song. Despite being clearly labeled as a parody using a non-original form of the music and fair use sized vocal samples, we got a very pleasant request explaining why they were asking us to remove it, and after having done so a regular snotty legalistic bombast C&D. I've been writing Weird Al style parody songs for 20 years and know the laws. This one was legal. But we got the ding letters anyway. Their tone and intentions change when there's money to be made or not from the material.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Victim in fatal car accident tragically not Glenn Beck :-(
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
This being slashdot, I think people might assume that taking the time to *ask* who Glenn Beck is instead of spending 10 seconds on google qualified you as someone with an agenda.
Is wikipedia- but not slashdot- blocked where you work?
Just trying to help you out.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
I really get tired of hearing that all the hate comes from the right when the left is just as guilty of it, if not more so in recent times. The Rush debacle was probably the lowest point some major media outlets reached since Dan Rather and CBS did in 2004.
Glen Beck makes himself a target and I bet he comes away richer for it. However, try this same type of website against someone who is black, gay, or Muslim, and see how long it lasts; if Beck were either of the tree I bet it would have been taking down by intimidation long before this. The media essentially ignored this site because they enjoyed it but if you touch one of the areas they are sensitive too I know it will be front page "hate crime" news.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
those people's faces are featured prominently on Fox's broadcast advertisements for their quality NEWS
No. Olbermann does commentary/opinion for NBC, and Diane Rehm hosts the same for NPR. And yes, both NBC and NPR also do news, and the venues that carry those news broadcasts also show ads featuring their commentary/talk personalities. Just like Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.
Are you saying that a broadcaster that airs news segments should only be allowed to air news? Should the Cable News Network not be allowed to air Larry King, or are you only suggesting that they should advertise using his likeness? Or are you just a troll? Ah, OK.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Shut up you Glenn Beck apologist cunt. Go suck on his dick. Fuckwad. Glenn Beck doesn't do satire. He's a fucking prick. A disgusting putrid slime.
And I'd also add: Don't be such a pussy - anything you dish out you should fully be able to take. I'd love to hear an explanation on why it's fair when you do it and unfair when it's done to you.
And on top of that: If you love 'Murica as much as you say you do, then you should at least learn how she works. We're actually pretty proud of the First Amendment. Too bad you're not.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
his goal is to get attention, whether positive or negative. in fact, getting negative attention from his ideological opponents is probably more dear to him than getting positive attention from his admirers
you have to understand the man and the nature of his business: he's a professional troll. his goal is to create and generate emotional responses, whether positive or negative, its all the same to him. this is his business, and he's good at it. proof being, sites that mock and satire him: its proof of success
in fact, i'd bet he actually doesn't mind the site, it doesn't really bother him personally, but he shrewdly calculated that feigning outrage as a reaction would win him more response. i mean look at this giant shitstorm generated on slashdot over this ego-pumping pointlessness. we're all talking about glenn beck. beck, beck, beck, blah blah blah: he wins, he has our attention, he's the subject of our speech and occupies our thought. that's his goal
the man is a professional demagogue. this is what he does, and he does it well: he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause. of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter? truth is not the issue, influence is. and in politics the truth means something, but influence means even more
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They make up things such as the CBS Bush documents which were made with MS Word.
You're surprisingly partially right, because we all know Bush doesnt know how to use MS word.
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
I don't watch Fox News Channel. I actually tend not to watch any of the news channels, as I find they all have their particular biases, and I choose not to put up with their crap. If it wasn't for this Internet meme and all the news surrounding it online, I would never know who Glenn Beck is. Now, I have some idea of who he is, and I have a very low opinion of him too. This is the Streisand effect in action and at its best.
...if someone created a domain with their name inserted in the name of "www.Did{insertDomainCreatorNameHere}RapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com" instead right? The domain creator, I expect, wouldn't mind in the least right? I mean that would make him a hypocrite. So, say, if someone went and created a parody site on him then he'd be supportive? You know what, I think he would. Because he stood up for his right to make a parody site of Glenn Beck and I think the parody domain creator would be ecstatic to know a parody site of himself with a similar domain name and statements of his parody site could/should be put up!
You lost me there.
CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: "Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie"
Author: Liane Casten
ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection"
Author: Al Krebs
Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
By all rights, Beck - as an employee of Fox who was accusing somebody else of make false statements - should have been physically tossed from the courtroom (which, if justice was to be served, should have been on the 5th or higher floor).
IANAL, of course - but I would be remiss if I did not mention that I look upon anything that Fox says with a certain skepticism.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
The Onion's opinion.
Yeah, I've got nothing...
It's nice to see that you're so quick to tackle issues on the merits. Only a putrid slime like Beck would resort to ad hominem attacks, right? And, aren't you supposed to be in school? It's only noon, and I'm certain that junior high school is still in session until at least 2:00PM or so. Or are you posting from the guidance counselor's office, where you're waiting your turn to be comforted because someone challenged the Hope and Change pablum you swallowed, and it's made you upset?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Pure freedom of speach
Beck/Limbaugh/Fox et al market slander and innuendo daily for ratings, fun and profit
Their business model & practices are tearing America apart
Evidently you don't approve of any other using their tactics on them as parody.
Tough shit asshat
Grow some nuts and be a man, and please stop sniveling
You are ONE nutless cocksucker for posting that line after your previous rant
No seed of truth. Not even a smear campaign. Just a joke.
Google: gilbert gottfried bob saget roast
See that "Preview" button?
you ever seen V for Vendetta? remember the newscaster guy that spouted off political propaganda? yeah, thats basically Glenn Beck.
before anyone flames me for saying Glenn Beck is propaganda keep in mind most 'journalism' in the US is very very yellow and lean on facts, strong on opinion.
the thing about the GB show that makes it hard to swallow is that while even he must admit that it is 'not news' and even FOX admits it is 'not news' his show is sandwiched between other 'news' shows on FOXNews. is that line a little blurry for you? it is for a lot of people.
according to the wikipedia article Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American talk radio and television host, conservative political commentator, author, and entrepreneur. He hosts the nationally syndicated Glenn Beck Program on Premiere Radio Networks, while also hosting the Glenn Beck Show every weekday on the Fox News Channel. He has become a well-known public figure, whose provocative views have afforded him media recognition and popularity, along with controversy and criticism.
he embodies the reason why i hate politics and ANY news source that is either mainstream media or refers to another news sours as mainstream media.
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
Explain what SFW porn is, please.
Looking at the Staples website?
What I wonder about is the tabloids and those the articles against those who are voluntarily famous (i.e. those in hollywood, politics, etc) VS those who end up thus by circumstance.
Certainly articles about somebody's kidnapped, murdered, or abused children (or somebody who was a victim of said situation) go beyond tacky to being almost dangerous in the assumptions they lay upon the weak-minded.
Yeah, Fox is very honest and not a mouth piece of any political bias...they even say so in their byline!
I mean, if someone says they are 'fair and balanced' they must be, right!?!?!
Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly
They don't want to "take the bait" because all it would legitimize Beck and drive up his ratings. Haven't you ever heard that you shouldn't argue with a madman? The people who are convinced by his ravings won't be convinced by your good arguments.
Actually, Beck's program is *not*on during fox's scheduled slot for news programs. As pointed out by John Stewart a few nights ago.
So you can pretend to call it news, (Beck's fans are good at pretending many a things), but the reality says otherwise.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
The EASY way is to simply listen to his show and ever time he pulls something similar, simply create another domain based around the similar theme. Having watched beck on CNN at 3 am (coding), it is obvious to me that he WILL continue to pull this garbage and he will sue. Again. Since it went through the courts already, he should know better, but will do it to harass in hopes that it stops. Then simply counter-sue for legal costs and damages.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?
Explain what SFW porn is, please.
Here you go.
Actually, it wasn't the White House that said he wasn't news: it was Fox News that said he wasn't news. Because he isn't.
The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses.
Beck uses satire? Now that would be newsworthy.
The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine."
What the fuck are you talking about? You know you shouldn't believe fairy tales or outright lies, right?
... and then they built the supercollider.
there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives
Sure there are. But the point is that Beck's many followers call themselves conservative, and they would definitely say that he is conservative. Given that, who is to say that he isn't a "true" conservative?
Are you actually so stupid that you don't know that Microsoft Word did not EXIST in 1973? (The date that appears on the forgeries).
No fan of Bush, but I don't need to make shit up about the man, either.
The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine."
If the fairness doctrine is so evil, why do we lionize the journalists and TV anchors who had to operate under it?
Actually, it wasn't the White House that said he wasn't news: it was Fox News that said he wasn't news. Because he isn't.
Right, Fox has always called him something other than news. But it's the White House that refers to Fox (as a channel) as not producing news at all. Then they cite two non-news broadcast hours as their proof. It wouldn't be so embarassing if they said the same thing about, say, MSNBC. But that channel's commentary people slavishly applaud everything this administration says or does, so they're off the hook.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'll consider this newsworthy when the originator does the same thing to someone who claims to be a democrat.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/SFW_Porn is an example of SFW porn.
Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds?
No matter what you think about Beck, is this really funny? Maybe it's just a sick attack. If it was Linus, there would be an uproar here against this site.
... did Glenn Beck really rape a young girl in 1990? I dont think he did, but why is he not refuting this claims?!
...and then there's the fact that republicans often quote Mao too.
Are you adequate?
http://xkcd.com/641/
Its so true. It reinforces my mantra: "Never trust anyone". [tips tinfoil hat]
Wow, I bet that's where his mom got the wool for The Christmas Sweater!
Who is Streisand in this case? Consider this -
Glenn Beck loves publicity and controversy.
Guy who does a parody on Glenn Beck calls attention to Glenn Beck.
I couldn't give a rats ass about Glenn Beck. I never heard of the dork until I picked up a used book-on-CD at Half-price-books. I'm a (fiscally) conservative thinker, but I found Beck's CD to be annoying - not even funny. That's the only time I "returned" something to Half-Price Books (as opposed to selling it back to them). Yes, I admit, I used Half-Price Books as a library! But that product sucked.
OK, I haven't THOUGHT about Glenn Beck for at least a year, and now this parody guy causes Beck to pop back into my brain. Beck was gone, but thanks to the Streisand Effect, and the parody, Beck's got more attention.
I think the strategy of ignoring the dorks works pretty well.
This comment, ladies and gentlemen, is from the same person who had this to say about the Obama Joker posters being censored :
Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative. While reporters are often more liberal than their readership, editors and owners are more conservative. What the media actually is, is pro-owning class, and lazy. When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white. Please try to grow up and see that things are more nuanced, the world is not black and white, there are no pure 'good guys' or 'bad guys,' and not everyone who disagrees with you is a monster, a fascist, a Nazi, or insane.
So outright removal ("censorship") of material critical of Obama provokes nothing but a comment that such censorship does not indicate bias, yet material critical of Glenn Beck, now that *needs* defending.
Hypocrite.
This book, by Glenn, seems strangely appropriate. I've enjoyed it.
No, the White House was quoted as saying that Fox News produces biased news. That being said, Stewart also caught them with their hand in their pants when they quoted "some sources" on their official news hours when the sources were their non-news shows!
Is Fox News news? No. Am I in the White House? No. Was Fox News bashing Bush for favoring conservative viewpoints? No. Is Fox News a bunch of hypocritical winded douchebags shouting at a camera? Yes. Deal with it.
The document presented is prima facia evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is what the Hawaii state seal on the document and the signature of the state official on the document attest to. The republican governor of Hawaii and the Hawaii state officials responsible for maintaining those records have both publicly confirmed that they have reviewed the documents that are in state custody and those documents also prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The noise from the birthers is just denial.
"Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
- Lazarus Long
By this basic definition, the US has only one true party left, as both Democrats and Republicans seem to want nothing more than to control our lives, one way or another...
Fox and CNN just employ the loudest propaganda ministers.. In a civilized society the government wouldn't out-source propaganda this way.. this is yet another sign of the decline of this one. When the "journalists" are no longer a voice of truth, but a voice of "truth as is politically expedient today".. we're all in trouble.
One may claim that this is an over simplification of the situation we find ourselves in.
One, may be an idiot.
For anyone that honestly can't comprehend just how we find ourselves in this almost comical situation, I will guide you to the root cause.
Whenever something in your life makes little to no sense at all, when the actions of someone you want to respect seem to have turned to the psychotic, look for - and for the love of whatever deity you worship find - the money. Because when all other possibilities have been exhausted, the answer is always money.
Why would the United State's 'one true party' care so much for control over our lives, from our media consumption, to recreational drug use, to who we may fall in love with? Why have we become a country where we must "show our papers" to buy cold medicine? To travel within our nation's borders?
Well, this site has never shied from discussing our congress critter's ... almost sexual affection for large media companies and their "rights".. so I won't bother rehashing that..
The drug issue has been wrapped up in both the theater of "protecting children" and "morality".. Regarding the 'children'.. well, any society that in one breath chants 'protect the children', then imprisons children for taking photos of themselves... as far as 'morality' goes... Well, just reread the previous sentence, and understand that morality, when used this way, is as hypocritical as "protecting the children"...The true motive is the basic "right" of pharmaceutical companies to charge you $100/week for a 'medication' that gives you anal leakage, when eating some garlic and smoking a joint would probably have the same desired effect.
Regarding the issue of love, or 'gay marriage', the answer is even more simple. The lawyers (who's ranks most congress critters come from) haven't quite figured out how to make money off of 'gay marriage'... yet. Mark my words, as soon as they do, the US will legalize 'gay marriage'. Foaming at the mouth morality police be damned.. The money will come out on top.
What to do? Hand wringing does nothing. Posting here does less. Why I'm bothering I really don't know.. But, if you want to try to do .. something productive to attempt to remedy this situation.. Vote against all incumbents. Look with clear eyes around you, at how the system is actually 'working', and ignore party with a clear conscious. Impose your own term limit, and if their replacement proves to be just as crooked, vote against them when they come back kissing babies begging for your vote.
Why you all make this seem so complicated is beyond me.
Liberty Dogood
I don't care what that girl says, Glenn Beck absolutely did not kill her in 1990. I can't attest to the rape rumors, but the murder is outlandish. I would appreciate it if he was given his day in court to answer the charges rather than become a victim of this media lynch mob.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
no i'm just ignorant to the case in question. i had forgotten about that controversy because its pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but now that you mention it IIRC it was something about the font on the 'original' that didnt mesh up with reality. yeah.. you got me there...
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
And, of course, the other important reason to ignore the trolls.
If you take the time to respond to every ridiculous lie said about you, your political opponents will quickly learn that the fastest way to castrate you is to, drum roll please, say ridiculous lies about you. And you'll get caught up in a wave of responses where your opponents simply need to cut-and-paste bits of various lies together to keep you off your stride:
"[MyOpponent] was caught [action] [subject]! And if he doesn't deny it right now in public, with proof, you should assume it's true!"
Hell, you could write a simple mailmerge script in Outlook and send a different version to everyone in your mailing list. Your opponent would be so wrapped up trying to respond to your accusations.
If you play your cards right, you can turn a nonexistent accusation into a multimillion-dollar multi-year witch hunt into every aspect of their existence, eventually find something that really does exist and, despite the fact that it's not relevant, you can actually render a public opponent completely ineffective.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Actually the quote was "It's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." That's the White House's take on it. Not a "news organization." No indication of why NBC is a "news organization" despite their very loud and apparent "perspective."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Which still isn't a lie. When you watch Fox News, you aren't watching it for the raw news. You're watching it for their perspective, and their perspective is that this White House is run by a Socialist Kenyan, that they are not the mainstream media, and that they speak for America.
Possibly one reason why the White House doesn't chase down NBC (besides the obvious fact that NBC isn't spouting random bullshit about the White House, like "Obama isn't even an American citizen!!!11") is that NBC doesn't have every single headline rest as sensational on the screen. They may be opinionated, but they manage to do it in a way that isn't entirely grade school in its professionalism.
And yet, it seems like this Jones chap actually did claim to be a "radical Communist", which to my mind is a bit like claiming to be a big admirer of Hitler. It is hardly a spurious accusation or a McCarthyist witch hunt based on fabricated evidence and leading questions. Jones openly advocated extreme politics of a sort that killed hundreds of millions during the 20th century. It is only right that voters should take that into account when considering his abilities as a politician.
In Britain, we have a politician called Nick Griffin who claims not to be a Nazi, and claims his "British National Party" is interested only in freedom, democracy and national independence. And yet there are photos of him as a young man, standing under banners saying "White Pride". There's a video of him with the leader of the KKK explaining his election strategy. There's a picture of the former BNP leader wearing a Nazi uniform and standing beside a swastika. Has Griffin really changed? I doubt it.
Because of his past, Jones should be treated with equal suspicion.
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Seriously, what crack are the mods on? The reality is that politicians/news people wouldn't act like "cackling buffoons" if it didn't sell.
Glenn Beck is laughing his ass off in his trailer/hotel room/living roome/wherever over the fact that people are talking about him. The guy is not a dumb ass people. He may say things you don't agree with. He may act like a batshit insane asshat on public television. However, he is not stupid. You don't land your own show on a major network by being an infantile, drooling retard that is incapable of calculating your next move very carefully, with your own agenda in mind. Glenn Beck is a public player. He wheels and deals in attention. He garners attention from critics. He garners attention from cheerleaders. He garners attention from other pundits, political figures, and, yes, even you and your coworkers. That is what he does and he is very good at it.
So right now, after using a very successful strategy to sell his name and make himself (?in)famous, he saw someone throw his own attention games in his direction. So he did what any good actor would do. He acted. He sniggered and, probably, would high five the owners of the original website in the end. He got the public spotlight on him while he raved and ranted and complained about how he is being unjustly prosecuted. He made it so his critics would say, "There, look, see, he can't take it either!"
He made it so his cheerleaders would say, "There, see, the other side hates our beloved hero and won't do him justice!"
And now, the name Glenn Beck is not only circulating through lunchrooms and classrooms, now it is circulating around the world. Now people on every continent will be able to say, "Glenn Beck...haven't I heard of him before?"
Now Glenn Beck is laughing in his private chambers sniggering at what a good media whore he has become. Congratulations slashdot, you just sold your News for Nerds website as a medium by which someone can gain influence and fame be it for good or evil. Personally, the whole thing, including this story being here and ALL comments regarding it (mine included) is fucking disgusting.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Then you will all be ok when we put up parody sites featuring you, maybe your mom right?
Don't worry, we'll start with the names of those who made the ruling and then we'll progress over to other prominent people like say, Obama. From there we'll find your name and post it with child porn, all just a parody of course.
In the end, when they come for you, I will point out the exact location as you crouch down to avoid being hauled off, after all, its the consequences of your thoughts and actions that will do you in, fucking tards.
P.S. If you hate Beck for telling you what the Liar Media refused to, you wont like the fact that Beck won another one, Anita Dunn is back to sucking the Steeley Dan and is now free to purue her Maoist aspirations!
Liberals are all for free speech ... until THEY'RE in change!
more education about local conditions, not less education about traffic management
In my opinion, the best part of the whole ordeal, was the fact that after the parody won, the owner handed the domain name over to Beck anyway.
This means Beck will be forced to:
1) Let the domain registration lapse, and be taken up by squatters who will use him good name in vain, or
2) Keep the registration paid, and forever, for the rest of Beck's life, have to PAY to keep DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com out of the hands of squatters.
HAHAHAHAH.
Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?
I'm not saying it is or isn't taken, I'm just saying that a lot of Americans are interested in this question, and somebody needs to ask it.
Oh, I know, some of you are saying "Hey, why not just use nslookup?" Did you know that's part of the "BIND" -- now there's a scary name if there ever was one -- package from Berkeley? Have you ever thought about what the "N" and the "S" stand for? Did you that there's a magazine called "New Socialist" -- and they're now online?
Don't you think this is all pretty interesting?
Oh, and whether or not didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com is taken .... gb1990.com is. In fact, they're carrying -- and I know this is a little spooky -- the same content that was at didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com. Now that's a pretty interesting fact right there, isn't it? I'm not saying what's there is or isn't "true", but I hope Mr. Beck comes clean about these charges, because if he's innocent, we need him without this cloud over his head.
Tweet, tweet.
But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news. Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.
The problem is that Beck's audience isn't smart enough to make that distinction.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
So, the doctor who delivered Obama, and the newspaper that printed his birth announcement must be in on the scam? And the certificate that Hawaii issued was the only official certificate at the time. No controversy, just a bunch of hateful morons who can't stand the idea of a successful black man. Why would Obama even bother to speak to these wingers? That would just encourage them to waste more of his time.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Best...SERP...ever.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That poor Girl
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
This is pretty weaselly language for a ruling. Is it even enforceable given the complete lack of concrete wording?
No, I wasn't trolling.
The way I understand it, people are upset about editorial shows (like Beck's) playing a part in the shows that do purport to report on news. On slashdot it frequently gets pointed out that a story based on, for example, a blog, are actually based off a wiki article whose only reference is the blog that referenced the wiki. Circular.
I think many people see Beck's (and others') incendiary comments as a gateway for the news branches to report on topics that no reputable source would touch. So they can use the commentator as their 'sources say' instead of a journalist.
Now I don't know if NPR, CNN, et al do the same thing because I don't listen to them. If they do, that sucks. As for larry king- I've only seen his show a few times and as far as I can tell his show consists of interviews with people saying whatever it is they want to say (and with no reports of microphones being turned off). So King's show, I think, counts as a primary source. It would be news to report that so-and-so said this thing during an interview with larry king. It would not be news to report that 'some people' have been saying that this or that happened, because 'some people' might work for that network. Hey, if the 'liberal media' pull those stunts too, they should be called on them.
If I squint my eyes real hard this whole thing looks like a big game. The problem is that it isn't a game, it's a business, and it has real effects in local and global politics.
I didn't vote for Obama or Franken, for the record.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
I think people might assume that taking the time to *ask* who Glenn Beck is instead of spending 10 seconds on google qualified you as someone with an agenda.
Or someone with better things to do that look up random names on Google, perhaps?
If you look at the language of the site, they're specifically not accusing him of rape (odd, that you should pick that over murder, but oh well).
The point is that he uses exactly the same kind of language to accuse people of all sorts of things -- f.ex. accusing a Muslim congrescritter of being a terrorist by using absurdly leading language such as "Now, *I'm* not saying that you're a terrorist, but some people might think .... Why don't you deny the rumour that you are a terrorist?"
Glenn Beck is a fucking pussy who can't handle being confronted with his own tactics and he no moral high ground in this case.
HAND.
Have you denied having sex with farm animals in 2001?
If not, why not?
right...and such personal attacks are petty. like i said.
THL phish sticks
I consider neither of them to be journalists in any useful sense of the word.
Exactly it. As Jon Stewart noted, they're theater and not news.
And I agree with Jon - they're hurting America. Remember when people would ask you what your stand was on a given issue? People don't really do that anymore, do they? They ask (in one form or another) what side you're on. And that's a huge difference.
Political discourse used to be a discussion of issues. Each individual and separate. Political discussions used to be like a trip to the salad bar. Now it's two choices A or B.
Take Kral_Blbec above, who got downmodded to oblivion. I said something that ran contrary to some position of his. He therefore assumed I must be from the other party. "Your beloved leader doesn't seem..." To people like him who are so heavily polarized, it seems impossible to partially disagree with his party. You're either one of us, or one of them. You can't get these types of people to actually think about anything. They just recite their set sound bites and want their side to win. It's infuriating.
It's entirely possible to make up your mind on every individual issue on your own. And these talking heads are slowly robbing us of this.
It's depressing how low political discourse has sunk just in the span of my lifetime.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
My driver's license is prima facie evidence of my birthdate. But if it looks funny, it won't be accepted. The only legally definitive proof of my age is an official copy of my birth certificate, and I need to produce. Sending a scan won't do, and only showing it to a few people in an unofficial capacity won't do either. Yes, it's a private document, but I STILL to produce the thing itself.
You have GOT to be joking. "A politician/government employee says it's good, so that's it." Great. Lets get rid of Wikileaks, the Pentagon Papers, and the rest. Don't put the government budget on line, and trash the sunshine laws."
A statement that only reinforces the concerns of ANYBODY who doesn't toe the line. It's not possible to disagree or find fault with Obama, or his administration, or his policies. Give them a ridiculous name (teabaggers, birthers), and just yell it out when you want to shut someone up.
FWIW, I don't care one way or another where he was born. What I care about is that I have to produce an official birth certificate, on paper, and submit it for review by a government official in order to get an SSN, or a driver's license, etc. EVERYBODY is subject to this, privacy or no, in order to verify that one qualifies to receive a certain status from the government. And if that document is challenged, I need to back it up.
Barack Obama is exempt from the same requirements. Why?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I haven't seen "V for Vendetta", but I can imagine the sort of thing you mean. The TV equivalent of the raving loony right-wing red-top tabloids, then.
See, that is how you write a helpful answer. Read, and learn.
Perhaps you should just turn off the Glenn Beck show if it infuriates you so. /. has a rather strong lean towards a liberal agenda.
Nobody forces you to watch and absorb the information you receive from his show.
For that matter, I could easily argue that
I believe you mean the Crank Cycle. Damn funny.
The fact is that Beck is just a loon. Anyone who's read his book would know he's just a freak who disguises fear mongering as supposed "enlightenment". Stirs up the fears of backward rednecks just to make a profit from them and now he's mad because someone pokes fun at him? Sounds like justice to me.
Of course, it'll all just be a conspiracy by evil commies to bring him down and only you can save him for $14.95.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
Hey, cool, I just found this story! Daychilde is my common nickname - I adopted NameWithheld during the time I managed to stay anonymous - I'm Isaac Eiland-Hall. And this story explains why the server load is as high as it is, although we've been featured in a lot of places today.
If you want to see what you guys are doing to my two servers, check out http://namewithheld.us/ - I have live stats up. :)
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
I like how Jon Stewart also dug up the birth announcement from the local paper...as if Obama's scheme was so well thought out that 40 some years ago, they had the foresight to put a birth announcement in the paper, so that when he became President in 40 some years, he'd have built in proof of his citizenship.
Beck is no journalist. Many of the so-called journalists we have today are embarrassing; anybody can call themselves one and act anyway they want while the real journalists do nothing to defend their profession resulting in their own degradation. Its all entertainment now and that is why the measure is only ratings and nothing else.
Van Jones was NOT an issue to touch. It was a waste of time and not all that much of a fringe opinion either... not that he was strongly or openly taking a position on it. He left to avoid the mess that was manufactured and that was HIS mistake. He was THE MAN for green jobs, so clearly taking him out would undermine recovery as well as please non-green corporate interests - both perfectly aligned with the goals of FOX "news."
Also, I expect to see MORE attacks on Obama being racist. Its a clear posturing tactic to shield future attacks that could be labeled as race bating or even just plain racism. The more racist Obama is the more ok it is to be racist to obama; aside from the fact many closet racists fear minorities are taking over and infecting the culture and gene pool. I know some of these people; they are not racist in a conventional sense, and they'd be about the same if Obama was white -thing is, they are simpletons so his race or his name or his birthplace are highlighted because they are obvious differences. I've seen them say bigoted things with joy after the latest Obama is a racist talking point made them feel safe to do so. Its not rational behavior, but rational is not something that applies to at least 1/3 of the USA.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
only showing it to a few people in an unofficial capacity won't do either.
Tell me, who has the "official" capacity to gauge the citizenship of the President?
There is evidence he was born in HI. The birth certificate, birth announcements (or do you think that parents announce their births in foreign countries on the off chance they are raising a future president?) and such. And nothing indicating a birth elsewhere.
Barack Obama is exempt from the same requirements. Why?
He produced his birth certificate. The State of HI (and its Republican governor) have officially verified it to be a valid birth certificate. Everyone he's ever shown it to says it is valid. That's sufficient for everyone else on the planet, so why are you subjecting him to special treatment, then lying and saying it's no different than anyone else?
Learn to love Alaska
I hope you're happy in your victimhood. You might as well be, because reality isn't going to rearrange itself to support your prejudices.
After all, according to Whoopi Goldberg, it wasn't "rape-rape."
"if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course,"
But he hasn't really.
See, he hasn't shown a copy of his original birth certificate. He has released statement of birth which is different.
What I can't understand is that people don't acknowledge that he has NOT really released his a copy of his birth certificate! I read that the Hawaii hospital said the the original has been lost . So if that is so, officially say it! Tell us that Mr Obama's original Birth certificate ( you know, the same one you and me have with the doctors signature on it ) has been lost so we are issuing the statement of birth instead.
That's the crux of the argument. Obama's team has not released ( a copy ) of the original birth certificate.
Lets say I lease a car. The leasing company says that I am not paying the correct monthly payments. I ask for a copy of the original lease agreement that I signed ( for sake of argument let's say I've lost my copy ). What they send me is a statement of lease. This is not the original document that I signed, but it outlines my lease. Are these document the same? I say no.
Weather the "statement of birth" is good enough is not the argument. The fact is that it is not the same as a copy of the original birth certificate is. That's why the birth certificate issue won't go away for good.
In related news, victim in fatal car accident is tragically not Glenn Beck
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim_in_fatal_car_accident
This is how the loudness war is killing music.
I *still* don't know who he is.
Believe me, you're better off that way.
The report is that he actually said Canadians taste the best. Once again the liberal media distorts things to make him out to be some kind of white supremacist.
They argued that the site didn't really contain his name, which had been de facto changed to Glenn Bek after this episode.
Unless your original hospital birth certificate is signed by a government official and marked with a state seal, it's the same as toilet paper, as far as the US State Department or the DOD is concerned. That's from personal experience, I held a secret clearance for a time and started out with an original hospital birth certificate. I had to personally request a new document with the signature and state seal.
The document that Obama has presented meets the criteria for proof of US birth and is sufficient for proof of citizenship for a passport or a security clearance.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Idiot.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Glenn Beck plays lots of videos of Obama officials ranting and raving in praise of mass murderers and dictators, then invites team Obama to explain themselves... and the left is so outraged that they respond by playing videos of him raping and murdering.... no... wait... they have no such videos for him to explain....
The website was not a valid parody of Beck at all. It was just another nasty Obama hugger trying to distract from the questions Beck asked using video of Obama's own people ranting like lunatics It is not Beck's fault that so many on team Obama are on video that way... it's their own fault. The Obama vetting people allowed these people to be hired with, apparently, less background checking than a circus clown using google was able to do. This is a classic case of getting mad at the messenger when you do not like the message.
Beck at least loudly proclaims himself to be a circus clown and he has no governmental power or authority to do anything to anybody. He did not just make-up a bunch of ugly accusations about criminal offenses by Obama and then demand a response. Beck played videos of Obama people who were making, or advising on, government policy and some of whom were overseeing billions of tax dollars raving like certifiable lunatics and he then asked the administration to provide an alternate explanation for what was said that would be less nasty than the actual words uttered by team Obama.
There is no video of Beck bragging about a rape and a murder I would have hoped that the brainier-than-normal crowd who hang-out on slashdot would have seen the invalid comparison immediately and even the liberals here would rise above their biases to see that. The day Beck or anybody else on Fox accuse Obama of rape and murder with no evidence whatsoever, I will join the left in being outraged.
Even though you appear to be on the side of people who value truth, I think in this case you are correct.
This was clearly a conspiracy. Let's see if anyone denies it before I finish my post. ...
Well, no one denied it!
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Friday, November 6, 2009
Rep. Deal wants Obama to prove citizenship
"What I have seen -- and I think it is the only thing that has been put out -- is a certification of live birth, and it just does not contain the type of information that most state birth certificates would contain," Deal said. "It obviously does not have the signature of a doctor. Most birth certificates or even certificates of live birth have those kinds of verifications."
http://www.ajc.com/news/rep-deal-wants-obama-188779.html
All it proves is that the whiners have nothing, except copying a Gilbert Godfried routine.
BTW, why is Glenn Beck still on the air? The kos zombies were supposed to have taken all of his sponsors away already. That worked just as well as all of their other attempts to silence free speech.
That's an irrelevant and illogical argument. Accepted forms of proof of birth in all states are birth certificates and passports. Driver licenses are not accepted. In the state of Hawaii, the COLB is the official short form of a birth certificate. It is accepted by other states as proof of birth.
The authority of the records from the state of Hawaii is the state of Hawaii. Who else is going to vet the records? Jesus? Satan? Hitler? If you didn't notice, the Republican governor of Hawaii considers Democratic Barack Obama to have been born in Hawaii.
This topic has been covered multiple times. Each time the accusations and insinuations are thrown out only to be refuted by facts and declarations by the state of Hawaii not by the Obama administration. Whatever name you give them, it is clear these people refuse to accept simple facts.
I believe Obama already presented the official documentation to election officials. That's all he needed to do. The scanned copy was for the public since there were so many false allegations. FactCheck.org, upon request, was allowed to see the official document. Other than having the document go on tour in the country, there's nothing Obama can do to satisfy your outrageous demands. Or do you feel that somehow your demands supersedes the requirements of election officials.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Generally, unless a person has a truly amazing brain, they don't remember their birth. And, even if they did, it would be pretty hard for a newborn to figure out what country they're in. A person faking a college degree knows they're lying. A person trying to prove that they're a natural born US citizen who runs into a problem producing the documentation doesn't actually know for a fact that what they're proving is true. How many people actually have their birth certificate? Many probably do, but plenty don't. And these records aren't always available from the town hall afterwards. Sometimes they're lost, destroyed, or not even created in the first place for any number of reasons. Any normal person can probably go to court, provide a few witnesses or even just some signed affidavits and get a new birth certificate or equivalent document. After all, being a naturalized citizen is legally no different than being a natural-born citizen except in the particular case where you want to be president of the United States. Then, all of a sudden, it's a huge deal. Someone who was born in the United States and left the next day to spend 35 years in North Korea is acceptable, but someone who was born in Canada and moved the next day into the US and didn't leave for the next 35 years is somehow a security or loyalty risk to the country. I suppose there have been some other situations where not being a natural born citizen has mattered in other arenas like the internment camps in the US during WWII. Of course, two thirds of those of Japanese descent interned were natural born citizens and some large chunk of those were second generation natural born citizens, and the non-citizens were largely only non-citizens due to racist laws preventing "mongolians" from being naturalized.
So, anyway, maybe he does have some problem with his documentation, but there doesn't seem to be much question of his being a US citizen now, or of his mother living in Hawaii at the time he was born...
You know, until I saw this Slashdot article, I didn't know much about the Obama birth certificate "controversy" and I wrote most of this comment without having researched it. I just had a look at a few things, including the snopes.com article on it. Now I don't know why I even bothered to write most of this. It seems he doesn't have any problems with his documentation, the "controversy" is due to a crackpot lawsuit against him that the judge dismissed as "frivolous". So, yeah, it appears Glenn Beck deserves every bit of what he's getting.
Are you listening to yourself>? Government officials are the ones you have to prove this stuff to in order to get the documents. When they say the documents are bad, you have a problem. When they say the documents are good, then you don't have a problem, end of story. They can issue new ones if necessary. They don't need to, because the existing ones are good. It's that simple, game over, end of story.
Incidentally, I challenge your drivers license. I haven't seen it, and I don't know who you really are, or where you live, but by your assertion, if the document is challenged, you have to back it up, so I challenge it. If you truly believe in your principles, you will now cease driving until you have backed up your claim that your drivers license is valid. We'll start with you providing a link to a photocopy of both sides. When that isn't sufficient because I can't see the hologram in the copy, I'll probably be requiring you to mail me your drivers license. And don't expect me to accept some sort of statement from your states motor vehicle registry as proof. I'm not going to accept anything from some government official, even if that official represents the agency that issued the license in the first place.
So you come to post under an article about Glenn Beck, not knowing anything about Glenn Beck, and then whine that it`s too difficult to spend 10 seconds on Google to look up who Glenn Beck actually is? Does that not strike you as irrationally idiotic?
listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years.
Oh I know why you're confused. You must be thinking of this zany guy.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Hi,
In Australia on FoxNews channel the program information category comes up as 'Entertainment', whereas OReily and others come up as 'News'. Is that the same in the US/elsewhere?
Oh my goodness, here I thought that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, but maybe actually PENGUIN_DANCE RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990!!
Penguin_dance, will you deny, here on the record, that YOU RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990? Will you finally release the documents to disprove the allegation that YOU RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990?
Funny.
When there were questions about the election that got Bush II his second term, what was the one thing said by "conservatives"? Get over it, wasnt it? No "lets get to the bottom of this and prove it nonsense". Just shut up and get over it.
Also, *I* have not seen proof that Bush Jr. is a citizen of the US. Where is the proof?
Obama is required to present evidence *to the election officials*. Not to you. If you have a serious belief that that was not done, produce your proof. Or go look for it. Get to the bottom of it. Investigate. Back up your assertions. Until you have something more than allegations, hush.
emt 377 emt 4
The official government representatives of the state of Hawaii have stated repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii, that makes him a natural born US citizen, and eligible to be president of the United States.
Now, what particular part of "official state document" or "born in Hawaii" do you fail to comprehend?
did the guy give Beck the domain? i'd have given it to some liberal shill somewhere, letting the domain taunt Beck for the rest of the contract. then let that asshat go buy it.
"To stop the terrorists."
And why should anyone care?
Seriously poor editing if the editor didn't predict that response.
OK, didn't take long to find out (Wikipedia): "Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American talk radio and television host, conservative political commentator, author, and ... " total non-entity.
So, thanks to Slashdot's poor editorial standards, I've wasted about 3 minutes of my life (while, I must say, doing other more interesting things too). Thanks guys. Not.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
and their perspective is that this White House is run by a Socialist Kenyan
Never seen this, and in fact I have seen it being raised/debunked on Special Report. CNN, however, does have a birther (Lou Dobbs, I refuse to comment on if I like him or not as I do not watch him).
Wonder what the public key field is for?
The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses.
Beck uses satire? Now that would be newsworthy.
What the fuck are you talking about? You know you shouldn't believe fairy tales or outright lies, right?
The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine."
What the fuck are you talking about? You know you shouldn't believe fairy tales or outright lies, right?
What are YOU talking about? I have heard quite a number of congressmen openly support a fairness doctrine. The fact it has not gotten any floor time suggests it doesn't have the votes, but the fact anyone is for it is rather scary.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Quoting is perfectly fine. I read such quotes, Beck has (he showed off his collection of books, from Marx to Hitler). The Holocaust museum, for instance, quotes Hitler quite an awful lot, but it isn't quite the same thing as saying it is someone/some people "I turn to most." So don't get your point.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
And he showed the entire video, including that portion, as not to take anything out of context, which I respect. Regardless of why she did it I think we can agree she has no future career in stand up comedy.
At the very best, delivering this speech, and saying Mao is one of two people (along with Mother Teresa) that you "turn to most," in front of a high school graduation with almost no indication of sarcasm is not in good taste. Coupled with her other remarks I have read it would not surprise me either way, Maoist or failed comedian. Or both.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
You cant deny it "Beck is on the Money" and lots of it !!
Fox & Friends, something that I am forced to watch nearly every morning by my companions, spits that out maybe once every two weeks, O'Reilly mentions it in a huff on occasion, Beck flies through it when he's on one of his crazy speeches, and I'm pretty sure the actual news side of Fox News pulled the whole "some sources say..." routine at some point over it. If you want, I can go digging for some video proof...
Birtherism de-legitimizes the entire Teabagger movement. Having a whacked-out conspiracy at the heart of one's cause does not provide a strong foundation for sound ideas. Like the president, I was born in a state in which original birth certificates cannot be sent out in the mail upon request, as I suspect were many birthers. In my state of birth, as in several others, such record-keeping has been farmed out to private companies that will provide very nice replicas, complete with seals, for a small fee. These fakes are treated as originals and can be used for things such as replacing social security cards. In some cases, original records are actually destroyed after being digitized. Good thing that was not he case in Hawaii. This is all very simple to understand. I suspect in the case of birthers it is a combination of rampant stupidity and not wanting to understand this very simple process that makes them persist in this lunacy.
No. He produced a facsimile of his birth certificate. When I got my driver's license, I had to produce the real thing - a certified copy from the state of my birth. I had to do it again when I got my passport. I was not allowed to present a photocopy, nor was I allowed to have the county clerk call up and tell the official that the clerk has seen it and it's genuine.
As for who would review, a quote from the Washington Post:
"But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision."
So it looks like there is an authority to decide it. As for who he-'s shown it to, "everybody" appears to be 2 people from a website.
I'm not the one subjecting him to special treatment. If I were held to the same standard, I could have gotten my license with a photocopy and a phone call from a county clerk. Guess what - I can't, and neither can anyone else in the country. So who's getting special treatment?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"I believe Obama already presented the official documentation to election officials. "
That is the crux of our disagreement - to the best of my knowledge, he did not do so.
You are also missing my initial point - it's not about using a DL as ID, it's about having to produce, in my posession, and actual, certified document in order to GET my driver's license. Or a passport. Or an SSN. Or enroll in grade school. Or play on a youth soccer team. Sure, if I CAN'T produce it, there are official ways around it. But Obama did produce it when he got his driver's license, enrolled in school, etc. But to prove his eligibility to be POTUS he can produce a photocopy, 2 random guys who saw his copy and said "It's ok", and a statement from a state official that says that THEIR copy is good, but can't issue a certified copy.
As for your bringing up the parties, think a bit. He made his assertion after the election. What person in his right mind would assert at that point that Obama wasn't qualified? He may be republican, but Hawaii is as blue as they come. Would you commit career suicide over a done deal? Didn't think so.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"Obama is required to present evidence *to the election officials*. "
And to the best of my knowledge he has not done so. THAT's my problem with it.
And no, the governor of Hawaii, AFTER the election, doesn't count. He's neither a federal, nor a state, election official.
Everyone keeps responding saying "What he did was sufficient." But when I point out that it would not be sufficient if I did it, the name calling starts. Why?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"And to the best of my knowledge he has not done so. THAT's my problem with it."
OK, but no one notified me of Bush presenting his evidence to any election officials. It does not seem to be an event with a lot of hoopla around it. As Nixon can attest, it is hard to keep secrets, especially in Washington. If you believe a misdeed has been done here, figure out how to show it.
"And no, the governor of Hawaii, AFTER the election, doesn't count. He's neither a federal, nor a state, election official."
I agree with you there. He can state his opinion, but it would only be very meaningful to me if he came down on the other side of the issue.
"Everyone keeps responding saying "What he did was sufficient.""
I cant prove that what he did was or was not sufficient, so all I can say is that with the opposition to his presidency, if there were a good standing to this, I would think it would have been offered before now. My "first approximation", based on what I know at this point. I ( I cant speak for others ) am open to being convinced. But I can see that he and his staff are not going to get wrapped up in visiting every citizen and showing the documentation.
"But when I point out that it would not be sufficient if I did it,"
It is necessary for you to produce documentation to officials. This may or may not have happened ( in either case ). Your neighbor can allege that you did not show whatever proof was required, but you are not required to prove to *them* anything.
"the name calling starts. Why?"
On both side of the aisle are people who have "picked their team", and they are fans, come heck or high water. If you speak against that, expect them to get upset.
emt 377 emt 4
That's the crux of the whole thing, as far as you're concerned, isn't it? Where did the "best of your knowledge" come from? Who is the "authority" that gave you your knowledge? "Polarik" and Jerome Corsi, some random "entertainers" on talk radio or cable? Do you agree with them because of the vast preponderance of evidence they presented? Or, because they affirm your preconceptions?
Think man, think. Understand why you have chosen to believe what you do.
No. He produced a facsimile of his birth certificate.
No, he produced the official document to members of the government. That's what you had to do too. Also, can you name another president who provided his birth certificate to anyone? No, you can't. It isn't a requirement for the office.
So it looks like there is an authority to decide it.
The Supreme Court handling a legal battle isn't the same as there being a legal authority who the president must prove citizenship to.
I'm not the one subjecting him to special treatment.
Yes, you are. No other president ever did it, so why him? That's special treatment.
If I were held to the same standard, I could have gotten my license with a photocopy and a phone call from a county clerk.
He provided the actual document. People said "that's a fake" and the state of HI and their Republican head stated it wasn't a fake. What more could it possibly be? If he gave you the original, you'd still claim it was fake.
Learn to love Alaska
Well it's a good thing you don't have my real name to use. Because I COULD sue you. And I could win. It's harder to proved defamation, slander, etc. when you're a public figure. I am not.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
First of all, I also saw the video. She wasn't joking. Why in the world do these people quote Mao as an example, if they don't believe in what he says. If someone in the Bush admin had said one of his/her favorite 'philosophers' was Hitler, the media would have been ALL over it. Mao killed even more innocent people than Hitler. Mao "fought his war" all right, by killing his political enemies, an well as millions of others if they weren't put in re-education camps. And yet, he is now a "philosopher".
And now I notice that Anita Dunn's been shown the door....
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
I think your reply is reasonable, and you seem relatively open minded. I do want to emphasize that I see this as a matter of principle, not practicality. He's the President - period.
Another one of your points bears discussion: "if there were a good standing to this, I would think it would have been offered before now." You have a reasonable point - most of the "birther" opposition is based on racism. If Obama were white and was born in Ireland, 90% of the loudmouths wouldn't care. But there is a particular aspect to the Obama biography I find odd. Specifically, that his mother flew from Kenya to Honolulu immediately before his birth. At first glance, this seems unremarkable - pregnant women fly all of the time. But when Obama was born, pregnant women DIDN'T fly all of the time - especially long duration international flights. The medical establishment advised against it. As a matter of fact, if a woman showed up 9 months pregnant she probably would have been refused carriage. On the other hand, travelling with a babe in arms, even a newborn, was rare but SOP. So this raises a question - how, and more importantly WHY, would a young woman take such a risk when sh could have had the baby in Kenya?
There's plenty of reasons she may have wanted the child to be born in Hawaii, and they have nothing to do with a possible future presidency. But none of them play well in the bio - father dumped her, she was escaping him, Kenyan hospitals were unsafe, etc. So the reason WHY she came back is left nebulous - she just did. THAT is my root problem with the whole thing - there is this gap in his bio, at a critical time, and the official storyline just doesn't gibe to me.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"Think man, think. Understand why you have chosen to believe what you do."
Considering I don't even know who those people are, I'd say no. I barely watch TV, and get most of my news from NPR and the Express, which is a publication of the Washington Post. I've followed the elections and this particular item since well before the election. I have never seen a reference, ANYWHERE, regarding him presenting his qualifications to election officials. If he had, the campaign would have said so. And I'll bet you haven't seen a reference either.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Where did your "fact" that Ann Dunham flew from Kenya to Hawaii come from?
That is interesting.
The escaping the father, and wanting to have the child in America seem sufficient motivation to me for her desiring to leave Kenya for America. I cant say why she was not deterred by airport personnel. Maybe they tried and were unsuccessful. Maybe they did not see the risks of flying as being as large as the risk for her to stay. Or, maybe there may be something wrong there.
I do want to thank you for a reasonable discussion on the matter.
emt 377 emt 4
So what you're saying is that you don't believe it until you've personally witnessed it. So do you also think evolution cannot occur because you don't live long enough for species to evolve?
You missed the entire point utterly and completely. When you run for election even a local one, there is a large amount of paperwork to be filed. Most of this occurs out of the public eye. Did John McCain or Hilary Clinton bring in news camera when they submitted their birth certificates to their election officials? No. Obama has already produced the certificate to the local election officials AND he made if available to general public on his website. That's well beyond what he needed to so.
As for Hawaii not producing a copy for you, state records like birth records are private. I can't ask your state for your birth records anymore than you can ask Hawaii for Obama's records. That's basic common sense.
If you did one iota of research, that the Hawaii affirmed Obama's birthplace twice. The first time was October 2008. The second time was July of 2009. In October 2008, if the Republican governor of Hawaii could have completely eliminated Obama from the election, he would been a hero to the Republican party. Think about that.
The insinuations about his birth first appeared around 2006. Of all the people that could have challenged Obama's citizenship but didn't include:
Today the only people that challenge his birth are people like you who have no standing to do so and don't have a basic grasp of all the facts.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
CNN, however, does have a birther
Not anymore.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
You really don't get it. I BELIEVE Obama was born in Hawaii. And even if he wasn't, he's still president of the United States. Where have I called for his removal from office? Where have I said he is unqualified to serve?
Did you actually read your response? Are you seriously stating that Obama was certified by "local election officials" (and no, the ones in Hawaii aren't election officials), but that there is no record of this? I've looked, and I can't discover to what jurisdiction or what office this occurred. Can you? Or was that supposed to happen off the record?
As for McCain, Hilary, and the governor of Hawaii, so what? They are politicians - there goal is getting elected (or re-elected). I know people like to believe Republican politicians are retarded (or Machiavellian masterminds), but claiming that the governor of the bluest state in the Union would have declared Obama unqualified if only he could is tantamount to saying he's Forrest Gump. Same with McCain and Hillary
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Don't pat me on the back yet - that may be a speculation I swallowed as fact. Checking google now...
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Fox & Friends, something that I am forced to watch nearly every morning by my companions, spits that out maybe once every two weeks, O'Reilly mentions it in a huff on occasion, Beck flies through it when he's on one of his crazy speeches, and I'm pretty sure the actual news side of Fox News pulled the whole "some sources say..." routine at some point over it. If you want, I can go digging for some video proof...
Fox and Friends comes across as the program that just couldn't say anything insightful if it weren't for the teleprompter (and they struggle even with that). It isn't exactly on my list of high quality programs as is, say, Special Report or NPR reporting in general.
I would like to see O'Reilly say that, from what I have seen it wouldn't surprise me, but I have never heard anything about him on that subject, and I mean beyond a possible implication from a question such as "How bad can the Obama administration vetting process get?" Beck has absolutely not said anything of the sort, at least while on Fox.
My point I was trying to make is this isn't something that Fox is guilty of, or at least not alone - other organizations are just as bad with facts if not worse.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
You entire post is saying you don't believe anything until you see it. The certification of eligibility of an candidate happens locally. For the next presidential election I suggest you try to register as a candidate for an office. You'll go down to your local election officials. You'll fill out paperwork. A local official will review them. There normally will not be any cameras or ceremony. It's like that with most government processes.
If you feel that's inadequate then I suggest you head to Chicago and do some investigation. The state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii. That's good enough for me. If it's not good enough for you, get evidence instead of asking questions that have already been answered.
What you said defies common sense. Yes their goal is to get elected. If either of them could disqualify Obama, guess what? They achieve their goal.
Are you seriously saying that the Republican governor of Hawaii wouldn't support her own party especially when it comes to the highest office in the land? So what if Hawaii is blue? If the Republicans hold the presidency, that governor would be a hero and possibly have her pick of any office she wanted in the new administration. And are you also saying that Hilary Clinton with her ambition and drive wouldn't take an easy opportunity to eliminate her rival? She could have been the nominee if Obama was disqualified. McCain would have won unopposed against Obama if Hilary didn't take her shot. Yet all these people who have a vested interest in seeing Obama disqualified all somehow refused to take the opportunity.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Huh? When you ask for a "birth certificate" from the state of Hawaii, they are going to send you a COLB. Now in Hawaii, they don't necessarily call it a birth certificate. That's typical government stuff to name things by acronym and to name it differently than other states. For example if you suspect a child is being abused, you call CPS in one state, DHS in another, DFCS in another etc.
There are actually 2 forms of birth certificates. The COLB is the short form with just enough pertinent information. The long form is more of a medical form with things like blood type, etc.
He's already released the COLB on his website. That's far more than enough. As for not releasing the long form, would you want to release your medical records for the entire world to see?
If that wasn't enough for you, the State of Hawaii has repeatedly said he was born there.
He's been more open than he needed to be. And the State of Hawaii backs him up. What more proof do you need? At this point, it's not paranoid, it's more desperation, delusion, and blind ignorance of facts.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Seems notable to me. But, at least it's mentioned.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim_in_fatal_car_accident