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."

Comments

DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com

[Anonymous Coward]

DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com

Re:DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com

[darkpixel2k]

DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com

Do you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is to subscribe to the mailing list?
WeHateKDawson-request@list.DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com

71 characters...

Screw the mailing list.

icing on the cake:

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:icing on the cake:

[WED Fan]

So if someone set up a similar site in your name it, you'd rest with the decision that it was parody and legal?

Re:icing on the cake:

[WED Fan]

Just because this is Glenn Beck, and there is almost a syndrome about the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox hatred going on right, doesn't take away from the vile level to which some people stoop to personally destroy someone.

If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on /. After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.

Re:icing on the cake:

[spun]

If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?

I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.

Re:icing on the cake:

[nomadic]

Irrelevant. The question isn't whether it provokes outrage, it's whether it was legal. Glenn Beck and his fans are all perfectly entitled to be enraged, but Beck shouldn't try to abuse the system in order to shut the website down.

Re:icing on the cake:

[thisnamestoolong]

Yes. People would be furious about that. So what? That would have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it was legal. I am sure that the drooling retards who call themselves Glenn Beck fans are outraged about this decision.

Re:icing on the cake:

[thisnamestoolong]

I wouldn't be happy about it -- but I would be smart enough to know that the site is parody, it is entirely legal, and attempting to make it go away will only draw more attention to it. I had not heard anything of the unconfirmed rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 until he tried to disappear it (although he STILL didn't deny the rumors -- why could that be?)

Re:icing on the cake:

[Icegryphon]

I am sure that the drooling retards who call themselves Glenn Beck fans are outraged about this decision.

I want one of those broad brushes.
Where did you get yours? Ace? HomeDepot?

Re:icing on the cake:

[spun]

It takes a broad brush to paint a neck red. Seriously, Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck gets zero respect from normal, educated Americans. The man is a traitor, a bully, and an idiot. He wants America to fail so that he can say, "I told you so." He wants you to fail so you'll blame Obama. Glenn Beck is a subhuman poo flinging primate.

Re:icing on the cake:

[houghi]

It is not that broad. It applies only to the drooling retards who call themselves Glenn Beck fans. The other retards who call themselves Glen Beck fans are not implied.

It could even be argued that it implies that there are other people who are Glenn Beck fans and not drooling retards.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Foolicious]

I admittedly don't know anything about this case. I haven't even RTFA! But on reading your post, I do wonder what the difference is between using and abusing the system. He tried and lost. That would suggest no abuse at all, just use.

Re:icing on the cake:

[AlecC]

Agreed. The adjudicator noted that he was making no judgement as to whether the website was defamatory: that judgement was left for a US court.

Re:icing on the cake:

[WillDraven]

there are other people who are Glenn Beck fans and not drooling retards.

[Citation needed]

Re:icing on the cake:

[jipn4]

Being entitled to being enraged is obviously not a legal question but a moral one. Did Glenn Beck have a moral entitlement to being enraged? I don't think so, given his history. That's the point of that domain, after all.

Re:icing on the cake:

[fahrbot-bot]

Glenn Beck is a subhuman poo flinging primate.

Hey, hey, HEY... Not fair - to subhuman, poo-flinging primates. My stuffed Gorilla is very nice, though I believe he would target his poo at Glenn - and the Fox News "commentators" in general - but that's his First Amendment right...

Re:icing on the cake:

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

The problem isn't that Beck and Limbaugh are conservative. It is that they are intellectually dishonest. William F. Buckley was conservative as hell, but you had to admire his intellect, education and ability to present a cogent argument. Beck is a buffoon who uses every logical fallacy in the book. As soon as Limbaugh says, "I don't just make this stuff up;" you know he's just making it up.

Re:icing on the cake:

[ArcherB]

If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?

I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.

Glenn Beck shows actual video of people saying outrageous things and THEN asks them to respond. Sorry, but this website does not have a video of Glenn Beck killing a young girl. Until they get one, your comparison is not a fair one.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Garrett Fox]

He's a sign of how much of an ideological split we have in this country, that we have certain people flinging accusations of treason against those who question our new overlord. (Or who ask crazy questions like "Where in the Constitution do the feds get the power to...?") The same people also have a tendency to be rude to the point of vileness. I've seen this twice personally with people I'd respected.

Re:icing on the cake:

[nomadic]

It doesn't look like he did abuse the system, unless I'm missing some fine point.

He brought this to the WIPO, which is intended to resolve intellectual property rights, not defamation torts. A proper use of the system would have been to file a defamation action in a US court of general jurisdiction.

Re:icing on the cake:

[drcln]

I Googled it, there are't any.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=glenn+beck+fans+who+are+%22not+drooling+retards%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

there are other people who are Glenn Beck fans and not drooling retards.

[Citation needed]

Re:icing on the cake:

[spun]

Sure it is. Glenn Beck takes quotes completely out of context, for one thing. For another, the birth certificate question. It was answered. Te birth certificate was shown. The doctor who delivered Obama spoke up. The newspaper that printed his birth announcement showed their records. Yet Beck blathered on, asking Obama to prove something that had already been proven.

The comparison is more than fair.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Wyatt Earp]

Its not just a US thing. Being too intellectual has been a focus or slander alot of places in the last 120 years. Vietnam during the war, Cambodia, Germany from before the First World War until the end of the Second, Pre and post Revolution Russia, post Revolution China.

And in the US its not just been the Right, in the 60s the Left was against business and intellectuals like McNamara. Anti-intellectualism seems to have started in the US in the 17th century and in Europe with Cato the Elder.

Go back farther and there have been anti-intellectual movements into the Classical period.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Hatta]

I like beck. Perhaps you are too educated for your own good.

That's right citizen. Ignorance is strength.

Re:icing on the cake:

[sjmacko29]

It takes a broad brush to paint a neck red. Seriously, Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck gets zero respect from normal, educated Americans. The man is a traitor, a bully, and an idiot. He wants America to fail so that he can say, "I told you so." He wants you to fail so you'll blame Obama. Glenn Beck is a subhuman poo flinging primate.

Ah, yes... Another liberal who is above the fray. And, for the record, I am not a Beck fan. After reading your post, however, I may become one.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Kozz]

I am sure that the drooling retards who call themselves Glenn Beck fans are outraged about this decision.

I want one of those broad brushes.
Where did you get yours? Ace? HomeDepot?

I can only hope that "fans" of Glenn Beck are sort of like pro wrestling "fans" -- They enjoy the performance, knowing deep down that it's not authentic.

Re:icing on the cake:

[MightyMartian]

This sort of satire has a rather long history, and has long been protected (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell ).

Beck is an infantile baby. Don't want this sort of attention, get a job as an accountant or burger slinger. Otherwise, shut up and take it.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Hatta]

No offense, and I know Glenn Beck fans. I like Glenn Beck fans. I've watched Fox. I really don't believe that conservatism is the politics of stupid. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked.

With that being said, you are a Glenn Beck fan. You are saying, "That's a broad brush" And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not a drooling idiot

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being a drooling idiot, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Re:icing on the cake:

[tayhimself]

Yeah I wish this country made a sharp turn away from federalism. Then the "red states" in the middle could wallow in their economic mediocrity while the blue states would be able to power ahead and have money to provide necessary government services.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Omestes]

Is there such a thing as "too" educated? I don't see how this is possible.

But then again I find people slandering other people over being "intellectuals" to be rather silly. i'd rather be an intellectual than its opposite, ignorant. There also is a huge amount of irony in this, the people who are slandering other people for being "educated" are doing so for almost wholly political reasons. The politicians on the left are "intellectuals", but they ignore the fact that the "home grown" politicians are the right have roughly the same level of education.

G.W. Bush, for example, was a Yale grad, with roughly the same level of education as the evil intellectial Clinton (either of them). Obama actually has LESS time in the crusty halls of Ivy League academe as G.W. Bush.

I never see how being an ignorant yokel could be a point of pride. Its like America aspires to be back in highschool, where picking on nerds, just because they like books more than football, was a great passtime.

Ignorance and stupidity is not a positive character trait.

Re:icing on the cake:

[commodore64_love]

You are right that Beck would have been wiser to ignore the website, and respect their right of free speech.
Even dickheads like the KKK have that right to smear other people.

As for Beck's show, I think it's worth watching. I would not have known that Mr. Jones wants to take my money and give it to Indians ("give them the wealth") or that he believes whites are poisoning blacks ("dumping their pollution in black neighborhoods") or tat he used to be not just Obama's right hand man, but also a communist. ----- I would not have known about the ACORN scandal where they advise their customers to cover-up illegal prostitution houses, and file false claims with the IRS. ----- I would not have known that Obama's Communication Director considers Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao her favorite philosophers, and that she admire how Mao overthrew the Democratic Chinese government.

Beck may be a nitwit but he's the only one revealing what's happening behind closed doors.
NBC, CNN, and the rest certainly don't discuss these things.
MSNBC goes so far as to edit video of a black man carrying a rifle, and then saying he's a "white racist".
link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

 

Re:icing on the cake:

[Sancho]

If we could trust politicians to be honest and honorable, I'd completely agree with the sentiment.

Unfortunately, they cater to industry interests (in exchange for kickbacks and whatnot) over just about anything else. So electing an elite just means that they'll be better at serving their own interests.

Of course, someone "just like me" is probably an elite who's good at appearing like the common man. I don't think that Mr. Smith can get to Washington these days, much less hold the highest, most powerful position in the country.

Re:icing on the cake:

[jahudabudy]

Except he didn't sue for libel in the applicable court system, presumably b/c he knew he would lose. He tried to get WIPO to grant him ownership of the site based on trademark infringement. B/c the site name included his name, which he has apparently not even trademarked. Strikes me as a desperate attempt to censor something he didn't like, but knew was perfectly legal.

Re:icing on the cake:

[jadavis]

Beck is a buffoon who uses every logical fallacy in the book.

You can attack Beck all you want, but he plays video and audio that nobody else finds, so he doesn't need credibility. Generally, it shows some pretty troubling stuff said by people in the federal government, many of whom are close to the president.

And before you say "out of context," this stuff is pretty bad, and often played with plenty of context, and often that context is the same person saying similar things throughout their career.

He doesn't like the current administration. But we need people like that who have incentive to find problems and report them to the public. Do we want the president hiring a bunch of leftist radicals like Van Jones? Maybe you do and maybe you don't, but don't you think that people should know when it happens, if they do care?

Re:icing on the cake:

[fahrbot-bot]

You still have stuffed animals? It's okay. I know an anarchist who still sleeps with Pound Puppies, although his wife isn't too fond of the situation.

I have several (and I'm 46). My wife and I couldn't have children and she had pet allergies, so we got stuffed animals. They loved to give her hugs and kisses and play in her underwear drawer. She died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (after 20 years together). I cherish my memories of us and our stuffed animals.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Xtravar]

Yeah, you know, America could use an opposition party that uses rational arguments rather than MAKING SHIT UP. Don't tell me about how Obama is from Kenya, or how he's going to kill old people. Tell me about how his policies will actually affect this country negatively.

And nobody's saying anything - or if they are, they're being drowned out by noise. I shouldn't just assume that there's absolutely no down side to the health care reform bill, but that's what I'm left to believe. Republicans are doing a terrible job spreading their ideology. It makes me wonder whether the Republican party was supplanted by loons on purpose to get Democratic agenda passed. But if that were the case, the Democrats would be moving faster than molasses, I'd think.

Re:icing on the cake:

[nschubach]

Or set up a flag@whitehouse.gov email that your constituents can use to report anyone speaking ill of you or your policies for "further education"...

Re:icing on the cake:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You're obviously not in contact with reality, and you (and your friends) are not fooling anybody anymore.

When that sentence is pronounced to a Glenn Beck fan, the correct moderation is +5 Insightful. Make it happen.

Re:icing on the cake:

[nschubach]

There are people on both sides that would like that very much. This includes people who were fighting for a more logical approach to health care by allowing the states to come up with their own systems instead of voting in one giant massive system that's untested. I happen to be one of these people... though I tend to fall more in the Libertarian side of the square as opposed to left or right (blue or red.) IMHO, the Federal government was setup as a check to the state governments where the people voted in representatives that could override decisions made by the states in intent. In practice, and thanks to the fade of States rights, it's been lost.

Or are you one of those people that think only Democrats can think of notable solutions and all other ideas will never work? That somehow "the red states" will fall and the "progressive blue wonders" will reach the utopia of mankind through social programs and abolishment of individual success?

Re:icing on the cake:

[kthejoker]

How can you like a man who raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?

Re:icing on the cake:

[kthejoker]

Intellectualism is being used as a synonym for elitism, not intelligence.

Re:icing on the cake:

[tmosley]

There is no doubt that more taxes are coming. What we're getting isn't so much FUD as it is FU.

Re:icing on the cake:

[nomadic]

Try again.
Blue states support the red welfare states.

Red states do pull ahead of the blue states in teen pregnancy rates, though, so you have that going for you.
detroit (falling apart more every day)

Oh, cherry-picking examples, are we? Detroit is failing because when an entire industry disappears seattle (crime skyrocketing)

Still a lot safer than that reddest of cities, Dallas, in that reddest of states, Texas.

new york (do i even need to say anything here)

I think you do; I live in NYC and it's a pretty good place to live, even with the world economy like it is.

With out fail, blue leadership has been killing all our major cities.

That is the most profoundly ignorant statement I've read today. Have you ever been to a major city? Or do you just listen to what Glenn Beck tells you from the safety of your little suburb?

Re:icing on the cake:

[Anonymous Coward]

So did you watch Glenn Beck before Obama was elected, or just when he started to broadcast news that you agreed with?

Typically I've found that people that love Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity or Glenn Beck are big fans but only after the 2008 election campaigns started and they were looking for someone to smear shit all over the competition.

Don't watch a news program just because it reveals "hat's happening behind closed doors.", watch it because it's actually fair and balanced.
If that means you don't watch the BBC, MSNBC or Air America so be it, but don't Beck up as a shining example of investigative journalism when really he's just a sensationalist spreading the latest scare tactics to the mindless masses.

Re:icing on the cake:

[dclydew]

I think you're confusing causation and correlation. Being educated has nothing to do with being a Cosmic Schmuck.

The search for certitude - like the pretense of moral righteousness - appears to me as a medieval habit that should have vanished long ago. None of us knows enough to be certain about anything, usually, and none of us are nearly as 'moral' as we feel obliged to pretend we are in order to be acceptable to 'Decent' Society.

If we are not totally stupid and blindly selfish on all possible occasions, we are about as bright and ethical as anyone in history has ever been. The greatest batters in the history of baseball all had batting averages well below 0.500, which means they missed more than half the time they swung. Medieval morality and theology have left us with the hypocritical habit of pretending batting averages close to 0.999 in both knowledge and ethics. (The Absolutists go around talking and acting as if their averages were actually 1.000 or sheer perfection.) On average, I think I score under Babe Ruth and I suspect you do, too.

There thus appears to be a great deal of conceit and self - deception in the habitual poses of intellectual certitude and ethical perfection among the educated classes. It would appear more in keeping with honesty, I think, to recognize, as analogous to Murphy's Law, the unscientific but useful generalization I call the Cosmic Schmuck Principle.

The Cosmic Schmuck Principle holds that if you don't wake up, once a month at least, and realize that you have been acting like a Cosmic Schmuck again then you will probably go on acting like a cosmic schmuck forever; but if you do, occasionally, recognize your Cosmic Schmuckiness, then you might begin to become a little less Schmucky that the general human average at this primitive stage of terrestrial evolution.

Page 22 - 23
Natural Law
or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy PDF
by Robert Anton Wilson

Re:icing on the cake:

[Chyeld]

Yeah, what a folksy and absolutely bullshit story. Are you telling me that a stop sign would have made the difference there?

An intersection is an intersection, the same problems you detail would have occured with a stop sign as well.

Way to prove that you have a bias against both the rich and the intelligent without actually justifying shit.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Boomerang Fish]

Not irrelevant if, (and I stress this is a hypothetical because we will never know until/unless someone tries it) had the cited personage actually been Michelle Obama, would the courts have rendered the decision the same way, and would the public opinion be similar (though likely with political affiliation swapped) or outraged?

Admittedly I'm cynical, but having watched how certain media outlets handle certain people with kid gloves because they are black or because they are republican or because they are democrat or because they are christian or because they are whatever... (and this happens on both sides of the aisle, so don't get your panties in a bunch because I'm maligning your "objective" news source -- they all do this)...

I honestly don't think the courts would have backed this, had it been MO, but I admit that's a feeling of mine, not something I'm claiming as a "fact". And I think, had the judges ruled the same way, some of the justices would see their death threat numbers go up...

We as a nation are NOT objective and fair, and in all honesty, we don't even really try to be...

--
Huh?

Re:icing on the cake:

[dclydew]

So you're upset by Healthcare, but you weren't worried when the government got permission to do wiretaps without a FISA order?

You're angered by bank bailouts, but not by citizens being held without trial, or US entities breaching treaties and conventions that we signed as a nation (like the Convention Against Torture)?

You are more concerned about TAXES then protesters being put in 'Free Speech Zones" that amounted to little more than cages?

Jefferson would make his hand strong and pimp slap you for invoking his name with that sort of logic.

Re:icing on the cake:

[Abcd1234]

You can attack Beck all you want, but he plays video and audio that nobody else finds, so he doesn't need credibility.

Uhuh. Here, let me show you how Beck would quote you:

So here's an interesting quote I found in some writings by jadavis:

'"we want the president hiring a bunch of leftist radicals"

Yup, you heard him right, folks. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying jadavis is a filthy, pinko communist. Heck, I *like* jadavis. But, let's face it, when you read something like this, it just makes you wonder, doesn't it?'

In short, Beck is a filthy, stinking liar. Worse, he's been caught repeatedly, and he keeps doing it. Worst of hall, his idiot fans believe his bullshit.

And yes, you read that right, I did in fact call you a fucking idiot.

Re:icing on the cake:

[IICV]

The best part of it is that when Glenn Beck's lawyers originally filed a complaint with the WIPO, the site's lawyer responded hilariously:

Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights.

It's funny really - Beck is all for the Constitution, except when it's inconvenient for him. Then he appeals to those same transnational bodies he rails against on his show to get around it.

Re:icing on the cake:

[commodore64_love]

>>>So you're upset by Healthcare, but you weren't worried when the government got permission to do wiretaps without a FISA order
>>>You're angered by bank bailouts, but not by citizens being held without trial...
>>>You are more concerned about TAXES then protesters being put in 'Free Speech Zones"...

Strawman argument. I didn't vote for Bush, and I thought his decision to go to war just because ~1500 people died was foolish, and I though the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and other anti-liberty laws were even more foolish.

Nice try though. You made the false assumption that because I oppose Democrats/Obama, I must automatically support Bush, but you were flat wrong. Never assume. I said I was Jeffersonian and that's what I meant.

Re:icing on the cake:

[UnknowingFool]

I think it was Christopher Buckely who once commented on the attack of intellectualism by the right during the elections last year. I can't seem to find the essay right now but here's what I remember. For him the roots of this attack is based in the general trend of where intellectuals go after college graduation. For the most part higher education was filled more by liberals than conservatives as the conservatives tended to go into business and Wall Street. That lead to an obvious bias in places of higher learning. The conservatives felt the need to counter this liberal intellectualism so that future generations of students would not be products of this liberalism. Somewhere along the way the "liberal" part was forgotten and right just attacked intellectualism. This however would put the GOP at odds with people like Buckely who were clearly intellectuals but not liberal.

Re:icing on the cake:

[sten ben]

Example, please? People say outrageous things, and then use "out of context" like a magic wand, without ever explaining what the context is.

Well, the first clip in parent's parent's comment is actually a pretty good example (mind you, I'm not from the US, so I might be wearing different spectacles). While he does provide some context in that he shows a big part of the speech, he neither seems to understand or acknowledge the context. He either wilfully ignores, or is ignorant of, what she is actually saying just to paint her, and Mr Obama, as communists.

1: He is not listening to what she is saying. She actually says that Mao and Mother Theresa are her favourites for making the point she's making: "...but the two people I turn to most, to basically deliver a simple point..."

2: It is actually quite interesting that they stop subtitling the video at the point where she starts explaining that your freedom is yours. That you can do what you want and don't have to follow dogma or preconception. That is the context that he is ignoring. I'd actually say that using Mao as well as Mother Theresa as an example is pretty smart. It shows that with freedom to take your own path comes great responsibility, take a wrong turn and forget the consequences of your actions and you may fall to "evil".

3: Another quite essential part that he is missing is that normal people do not need to agree 100% with their "favourite philosophers", it is quite all right to pick and choose in most cases. And the point he makes about Mein Kampff in the end only reinforces that perspective (as well as making me shout "Godwin!" to further invalidate him.

Re:icing on the cake:

[ak3ldama]

The one day I listened to his show he was talking about this...

I would not have known that Obama's Communication Director considers Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao her favorite philosophers, and that she admire how Mao overthrew the Democratic Chinese government.

I thought it was most definitely worth talking about, and spoke to the the people that Obama was choosing for his administration. That kinda shit should have had her fired in half a minute. She proceeded to say she didn't say it in any seriousness, and that it was funny. Admiring Mao is not funny.

People like Beck are worth watching occasionally. You should not be so naive as to think he is not worth watching (or listening to, he is also on the radio). I am not saying you have to every day - just that sometimes it is worthwhile.

Re:icing on the cake:

[billcopc]

Beck is an infantile baby.

That's the best kind! Senile babies are an entirely different beast...

Re:icing on the cake:

[saintlupus]

Hug rejected.

I just read that, and in my head, it was Dwight Schrute's voice. I'm pretty sure that he is now the Official Voice for your posts.

Thanks!

Re:icing on the cake:

[Boronx]

You are a strong data point for the notion that IQ doesn't reflect intelligence. Beck is a phony and a viper, as would be apparent to Jefferson or anyone with two neurons to rub together. And, in case you didn't notice, Jefferson lost his argument against a strong Federal Government more than 200 years ago, and it was finally buried for good in the Civil War.

Re:icing on the cake:

[SETIGuy]

...the rich people that live and vacation on the lake got sick of having to wait a stop sign when they wanted to leave... Sometimes the stupid people know things that the intellectual elite are too smart to see for themselves

Sometimes our biases are plain to see. For some reason, you seem to equate "rich" with "intellectual elite." I've known a lot of rich people, and I've known a lot of smart people. While there is some overlap between the two, I wouldn't say that it's large, or that intelligence, or even education, is a defining characteristic of the wealthy. The wealthy may be elite, but they tend not to be intellectual (e.g. our last president was definitely an east coast ivy league elite who was born to incredible wealth, but he wasn't an intellectual. Our current one is an intellectual, but was not born to wealth. Crazy, huh? Barak Obama has more in common with a poor suburban white man living in a trailer than G.W.B ever did. But that white guy is afraid of "eliteist" Obama, because he watches Glen Beck.)

Off the top of my head, I'd guess either you don't know many rich people or maybe you have some interest in perpetuating the idea that wealth always is earned and is always deserved as the result of hard work. That, unfortunately, is the exception rather than the rule. I know high school teachers with 150 IQ and lawyers with IQs less than 100. I'm not sure I know an MBA with an IQ above 115. I know people who worked and invested their way into wealth, but I know far more people who were born into it, married into it, were in the right place at the right time, or were just really pretty. There's a better correlation between height and business advancement than there is with IQ. If you look good in a suit, you will go far.

Any how, I'm one of those rich intellectual elites now, and I have nothing but disdain for rich NIMBYs who don't let their kids outside for fear of kidnappers and want a stoplight on every street corner. Please don't include all of the rich in with the few who happen to be intellectuals. And please, when Fox News is talking about the intellectual elites, understand that this is a bogeyman that they have developed that is there to make everyone think that "liberals think they are better than you" while hiding the fact that they (Fox News) are mouthpieces for the rich non-intellectual elites who want you to ignore them standing behind the curtain.

Has the real question been answered?

[Minwee]

Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?

If not, why not?

Re:Has the real question been answered?

[thisnamestoolong]

Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?

If not, why not?

I'm not saying he did or anything, and I think he didn't, but I think that many of the readers will wonder why he has yet to deny these rumors.

Re:Has the real question been answered?

[Inda]

Being British, I have not heard of Glenn Beck. After reading the Slashdot summary, I now believe he did rape and murder a young girl in 1990. Does someone want to tell me different?

Re:Has the real question been answered?

[DavidTC]

Glenn Beck almost certainly did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. However, with people raising the issue, he should step forward and deny that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I mean, the man has a TV show, a very public forum to state that he didn't raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. He could open tomorrow by saying that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

Instead he's now suing people who say he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990! I don't think this allegation is true for a second, but seriously, people, that doesn't look good.

In case you honestly don't get the joke, this is one of the many ways that Glenn Beck operates. He will explicitly state rumors, over and over, to assert he doesn't believe in them, but the Democrat involved, usually Obama, should deny them. So someone figured out, hey, he should have a rumor of his own to deny.

Re:Has the real question been answered?

[realityimpaired]

As a Canadian, I don't really get the reference, either. But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts. He's the kind of person who'd go on the radio saying something like "I'm not saying Tony Blair is a sheep-shagger, but why hasn't he denied calling the vet to his home under 'suspicious' circumstances last Tuesday at 3am?" As a rational thinker, you know that he's just spewing BS, but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American. They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. ^.~

It reminds me of McCarthyism... Joe McCarthy used to ask people pointed questions that included veiled accusations phrased as statement of fact. "Tell me, Inda, Why do you hate America?". Not "do you hate America"... in the phrasing of the question it's assumed that you hate America, and he's not asking you for a yes/no, he's asking for an explanation of why.

Re:The problem

[NiceGeek]

Because Beck never does that....oh wait.

Ah, satire

[truthsearch]

I think this internet meme was the best satire of Glenn Beck, until Jon Stewart joined in the fun.

Precident-setting?

[Sockatume]

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.

I wonder...

[nine-times]

Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?

For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

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?

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[corbettw]

Beck is famous for attacking politicians (especially Obama) by "asking questions". So some internet smart asses used his own style against him. Turns out he doesn't like it when the shoe's on the other foot.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[Trev311]

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?

Glen Beck is a radio talkshow host and a TV showhost on FOX News. He is very conservative and has been in the news for making some... missteps in his commentary that have made him come off as not extremely intelligent. The allegations are a parody of his style of reporting, which follows a similar logic(Example: the president hasn't denied that he was born out of the us, so if it isn't true why hasn't he?). So the point isn't to say if he actually did rape or murder anyone, but to draw attention to the flaw in his logic. Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[spun]

Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[IICV]

It's a parody of what he does when he reports "news". He makes ridiculous statements, but phrases them such that when people call him on his bullshit he can say "I'm just asking questions". He'll then badger people about neither confirming or denying his "questions" - and they won't confirm or deny them because the questions are not even wrong.

That's the point of this site - it's just asking a question, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Obviously he didn't, but why won't he confirm or deny it? That's interesting, isn't it?

The worst part is that he actually has a TV show on Fox News. If you look on YouTube, you can find some of his spiels. They're pretty horrible, and yet somehow Americans still watch him. He sounds like that crazy homeless dude on the corner, except he's wearing a suit and he's in a television studio.

(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[ZekoMal]

Basically, Glenn Beck is on Fox News as one of the many opinion guys they have. He throws out wild accusations but gets away with it by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but isn't it odd that I'm the only one asking these questions?" He's done so many crazy things (comparing Jesus to Hitler back when he was on CNN, for example). He's so batshit crazy that he makes Bill O'Reilly appear to be a sensible man. It's absolutely terrifying, moreso when you realize how many people religiously watch his show and consider it to be 100% fact.

The controversy is just someone parodying him by making a wild accusation and then covering it with a batshit crazy question.

...He also cries loudly at random intervals on his show. I highly advise you try and find some Glenn Beck vids. http://vodpod.com/watch/1409182-colbert-mocks-crazy-eyes-beck-with-doom-bunker-segment There's one off of the Colbert Report that gives you an excellent example, in fact.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[canajin56]

Nobody is saying he's a rapist and a murderer, they're just pointing out that he's never denied.it. He attacked an Arab-American senator, saying that they've never gone on record stating they aren't a terrorist, and never really presented any solid proof they aren't working for Al Quaida, so basically the website is operating under the assumption that if he can give it, he can take it.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[Comatose51]

"He is very conservative"

I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives). He's just crazy. The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll. I don't think he really has a position. He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[idiotnot]

Actual Malice. You might do well to familiarize yourself with the concept.

The question here is whether the claim is so absurd that no "ordinary person" would believe it to be true.

But other issues still exist, ones that I know the /. crowd finds despicable -- trademarks, copyrights, etc. etc.

As for his questions of Obama, and his administration officials, yes, it's yellow journalism. Still, clearly, he's unearthed a few issues the mainstream media has been loathe to touch (Van Jones, etc.). The question is whether the things he's unearthed matter or not.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[Wyatt Earp]

No, he is an entertainer, there is a bigger market pandering to the right on Fox than there is pandering to the left on CNN/MSNBC/etc because the market is saturated with left leaning commentators and entertainers.

Now he is an adherent to Mormonism through conversion after a rough patch, so yea, as many newly converted are, he is extra hyper about his religion and whatever world view he has now.

I'm a moderate Conservative and personally he and Limbaugh disgust me.

Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck

[johnm1019]

mod parent up! I wish the republican party could be taken back over by intellectual conservatives who actually believe in less spending. I don't care if Glenn Beck is a member of the Green party, he is just crazy.

Defensive?

[canajin56]

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.

Re:Defensive?

[TubeSteak]

Thank you for that amazing show canajin56. On TV ToughGuys with TubeSteak, we're going to look into the shocking allegations that Glenn Beck routinely BBQs and eats babies, saying minorities taste the best. I have with me here in the studio Mbuutu, a cannibal from Africa who has BBQed and eaten minority babies, to discuss with us why colored babies taste better than white ones.

-While I think that is funny on its own merits, the deeper joke is that I'm parodying Fox News' habit of having one showhost make an allegation, and later, having other showhosts "report" on the allegations. The day after, this leads to newspaper articles which are then quickly quoted by Fox News hosts as proof that there are merits to the allegations even though the articles are merely discussing what was said on TV the day before. I read a great article on the practice, but I can't find it.

Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers

[Brad Mace]

particularly after our huge victory in NY-23

The one where you got a democrat elected instead of a moderate republican? Or is my satire detector off?

This was a parody of the Glenn Beck Style

[spun]

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.

Re:This was a parody of the Glenn Beck Style

[Fujisawa Sensei]

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.

They have certificates proving you didn't rape and murder someone in 1990? I seem to have misplaced mine... Uh oh.

They also have government documents proving that people were born in the country

.

Re:Let's take Beck out of the equation

[spun]

Show me one time that Rachel Maddow has forced someone to deny bogus and patently ridiculous allegations over and over again. Who else but Beck has repeated the Obama birth certificate lunacy for so long? No one.

"Beck didn't see the humour"

[John Hasler]

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).

Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"

[Anonymous Coward]

All Beck had to do to make this go away was prove he didn't kill and rape or rape then kill a girl in 1990, how hard is this to do? Just show us the proof. Show the death certificate that says you didn't rape her

Why bother?

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:Why bother?

[ArcherB]

Beck's base cannot be any more polarized, or rallied. They live in a fantasyland.

I keep hearing things like this. I'm not necessarily a Glenn Beck fan, but I have seen his show and used to enjoy "Moron Trivia" from his radio show. The thing that I don't understand is that Glenn gets on his show and shows video of some member of saying something like, "I used to be a communist. Now I'm a radical communist." and people attack Glenn Beck!!??!! The only refutations of what Glenn Beck says are personal insults against him and his viewers. I have never seen anyone refute what Glenn Beck is actually saying.

So, if you have a problem with what Glenn Beck says, refute it. Don't simply hurl personal insults as it only proves him right.

Re:Why bother?

[nomadic]

The thing that I don't understand is that Glenn gets on his show and shows video of some member of saying something like, "I used to be a communist. Now I'm a radical communist." and people attack Glenn Beck!!??!! The only refutations of what Glenn Beck says are personal insults against him and his viewers.

Refuted.

Re:Why bother?

[Jeremi]

I have never seen anyone refute what Glenn Beck is actually saying.

That's the his entire M.O., is it not? First, Beck accuses you of beating your wife (or some similar calumny). Then he tries to get you to deny it. If you rise to the bait and do deny it, he now has video of you denying it, and can use that video to imply that whether you beat your wife or not is a legitimate question. If you refuse to dignify him with a response, he can go ahead and claim that because you refused to deny it, there must be something to the accusation. Either way, he wins.

Re:Why bother?

[Killer Orca]

There are much better examples, all on one handy page too! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

Re:Why bother?

[gurps_npc]

I herebey refute what Glenn Beck says.

Glenn Beck has said: It's just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."

Fact, the majority of american scientists -- over 90%, believe in Global warming. These are not socialist. Most are Democrats, but no, you don't get the right to tell other people what they believe. Deomcrats are liberals not socialists. We have the right to decide our own political affilialtion, you can't tell me I'm a socialist, anymore than I can tell you that you are a member of the NeoNazi party.

More importantly, not all scientists are Democrats. Yes, 55% say they are Democrats, but 6% say they are Republicans. (2% say they are independent). The independent ones also believe in Global warming.

(P.S. Republicans should be ashamed that so few scientists are Republicans. Yeah, I know the hole 'ivory tower' explanation, but frankly that might be enough to explain 20% or even 15%, but 6% indicates a serious problem).

The main problem with Glenn Beck is not the content, but the delivery.

That is I respect a man that says "I believe Obama is not an American Citizen" a lot more than I respect an asswipe that says "Isn't it interesting that Obama has not publicly denied being a Kenyan." The first man is simple ignorant, the second knows he is wrong, but wants to try an attack his opponent using dirty tricks based on a lie he refuses to stand up and state. The first man is a brave idiot, the second one is an intelligent coward trying to hide. I am proud to call the first a friend, but I would throw the second out of my house.

Glenn Beck is a shmuck, not because of what he believes, but of how he presents it.

Re:Why bother?

[ArcherB]

Refuted.

From your link, final paragraph:

But Beck has repeatedly said Jones is a communist. Present tense. Although we could not find a comment in which Jones explicitly said why he is no longer one, we found ample evidence that he now believes capitalism is the best force for the social change he is seeking. So there's truth to Beck's claim in that Jones was a communist, but it's apparent he isn't any longer, as Beck suggests. So we find the claim Barely True.

So, they have video of Van Jones saying he IS a communist, but can't find anything with him saying he is NOT. However, he has said some things that don't sound like a communist, so we don't think he is. Therefor, Beck is liar!

Did I summarize it right?

Re:Why bother?

[nomadic]

Did I summarize it right?

No. You've obviously read the first paragraph, and the last paragraph, but there's good stuff in the middle:

So Jones was a self-avowed communist. But is he still? The answer lies in the very same article. Even before the group disbanded in 2002, the Express article says, "Jones began transforming his politics and work..." According to the article, "He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. 'I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,' he said."

And even better:

"There will surely be an important role for nonprofit voluntary, cooperative, and community-based solutions," Jones writes on page 86. "But the reality is that we are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither the government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely. "So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs -- and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world -- and everyone else."

In context, yes, Beck is a liar for saying the guy's a communist.

Re:Why bother?

[nomadic]

You don't know what "communist" means, do you? You do realize "believ[ing] that the private sector is the only organization capable of actually solving the problems he believes faces the country" is very strong evidence that he's not a communist, don't you?

Re:Why bother?

[Albanach]

You really think redistribution of wealth == communism?

You are aware that even the Republicans will take your taxes and use them to fund the (albeit limited) US welfare system. Yes, even the republicans will take your money and give it to folk less well off.

Some would call that fair. Others would call it society. You on the other hand apparently believe Reagan was and George W Bush is a communist.

Remember that Social Security in the US is paid from current revenue. What you pay in is used today, it's not an investment fund. So when you turn 65, be sure not to claim any state support, or Medicare, lest you too become a communist.

Re:Why bother?

[ArcherB]

Well put. I don't agree with everything Beck says and there are times that he is truly wrong. You have pointed a couple out. Nice job.

Now, my beef is that Beck seems to bring up things that no one else (in the media) seems to care about. You have a "Green Jobs Czar" that has openly said he was a communist. Beck showed the video. But, so what. So what if the "Green Jobs Czar" is a communists? What can he do? He then showed the video of the same guy (Van Jones) saying that green jobs goes well beyond just "green jobs".

"[If] All we do is take out the dirty power system, the dirty power generation in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system. We don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how we're treating our other sister and other brothers' species, we don't deal with toxins, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have. You'll have solar powered bulldozers, solar powered buzz saws, and biofuel bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines and we'll still have a dead planet. This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system."

The "Green Jobs Czar" wanting to change the whole system? My big fear of government regulation of things is that they will use it to try to control me and take away my freedoms. Health care is a good example. Here is Van Jones saying that the government should use Global Warming as a way to control me. That scares me. If Glenn Beck had not started investigating Van Jones, no one would have ever known BECAUSE THE PRESS DOES NOT ASK THE QUESTIONS!

Then, of course, there is Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director. She said, "The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

Of course, no other media outlet reported on this. The only refutation that Beck received was that he took the quote out of context. HERE is a site that does just that. To prove the point, they showed the entire video of the relevant portions of her speech. They don't seem to notice the irony that the entire video they showed to prove that Beck took the quote out of context WAS FROM BECK'S SHOW!!!!

So, while you may not like Beck's delivery, pay attention to the content. I wrote Beck as crazy several years ago when he would say conspiracy stuff like, "The government wants to take over the financial sector" and "The government wants to control the auto manufacturers". Now-a-days I watch the occasional show (when I'm home at 5:00) and get scared to death. He's like Alex Jones, except Beck is right more times that not and HE ACTUALLY HAS THE VIDEO TO BACK UP WHAT HE IS SAYING!!!! Where Alex Jones says, "I've seen the documents",
Beck shows you the video, and it not only scares the crap out of me what Beck says, but the fact that the press ignores it almost makes me want to build a bunker!

Re:Why bother?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If I had mod points, I would have modded you as insightful.

You are absolutely correct that political polarization is what hurting this country (USA).

I'll tell you how bad it has gotten. I listen to "All Things Considered", "Morning Edition", and "Marketplace" on my local NPR station. I think overall these are well balanced news shows especially when compared to CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. My self-proclaimed conservative coworker harasses me about my habit of listening to state sponsored radio. WTF?

Now I consider myself a southern moderate conservative and yet have been accused of being a californian "bleeding heart" liberal because I don't agree with all the talking points that these "Conservative" shows spew out.

Here is my problem with their logic:

How can you be against a "totalitarian" government and support the suppression of the constitution in the name of national security?

How can you not trust the government, and yet insist it intrude into the private lives of it's citizens (eg. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Government Wire Taps)?

When it comes to health care, why is it that the majority of the people that I see who are against "socialized" medicine are of the age that receives Social Security and Medicare? I know this is a anecdotal observation on my part, but the GOP right-wing base is comprised of people who are old enough to qualify for both.

It makes no sense... Well... okay I can crudely describe the modern definition of "conservative" and "liberal" as the following:

Conservative - The portion that is wealthy likes to stay wealthy. The portion that is not wealthy, would like to be left alone and not pay any more taxes. They tend to drive up the deficit since they want the government to continue to spend money while not raising taxes. They believe they have more common sense than everybody else. They believe that if they imitate the wealthy that they may themselves become wealthy or at least their children will have a shot of being wealthy. They trust corporations, since corporations are a key component of the free market economy, and believe that any benefits that the corporations receive from the government may trickle down to their employees and whoever the employee does commerce. They pretend to be for individual rights as long as it is aligned with their beliefs. The powerful conservative trust the government to benefit corporations through the use of earmarks (pork spending) in the name of privatization (small government).

Liberal - The portion that is wealthy would like to pretend that they are like average folk and care about the little guy. The portion that are not wealthy consider themselves activists in social causes. As a group, they are for increase taxes in order to support more spending. The unwealthy portion believe the wealthy should pay more taxes, while the wealthy portion don't plan on paying them anyway. They believe that they are smarter than everybody else. They tend to be alarmist when it comes to the environment or social issues. They hate corporations despite any benefits that they may have received from them. They pretend to be for individual rights as long as it is aligned with their beliefs. They trust the government to be a benevolent entity that should take care of its citizens to a fault, while at the same time believe that the government is out to get them.

Thanks to polarization we can't compromise and have what I consider a more pragmatist government consisting of elements from both views which could be:

Moderate - Both wealthy and unwealthy members consider themselves pragmatists. They consider themselves wise and try to be open to new ideas and listen to both "conservative" and "liberal" ideas. They are for individual rights and realize that while these rights are open to abuse it is still worth protecting. They believe in a free market tempered with government regulation. They understand that free market capitalism is the engine for society to advance, yet the government

Re:Why bother?

[kthejoker]

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200611150004

Go on, justify it.

Re:Why bother?

[gnud]

Well if he lies when it suits him, maybe he lied when he said he was a communist? Duh.

Re:Why bother?

[butalearner]

Great post with one minor nitpick:

Scientist's don't really believe in global warming so much as accept it. That is, the current evidence very clearly points to a trend of global warming, and there is evidence that it is bad. This is why scientists and people who think like them really are more intelligent than others: if the evidence changes, so will their acceptance of it. It is shocking how few people actually understand this.

What isn't so clear is how much of an effect mankind has had on it, and how much power we have to stop it or at least slow it down. That's what is debatable. In my opinion we should be trying to head it off because it benefits us so much to do so. Using more alternative and/or renewable energy sources reduces both pollution and dependence on foreign oil. Sure it's expensive now but I'd rather spend that money here instead of pumping billions of dollars a day into the Middle East. The

Re:handing back the domain FAIL

[ravenshrike]

It is highly debatable whether ripping off Gilbert Gottfried material can be considered at all intelligent.

Re:handing back the domain FAIL

[BeansBaxter]

What? Someone modded you INSIGHTFUL? Ok its slashdot but still. Glenn Beck is evil? He must be destroyed? I think your post highlights an absolute fear of free speech. And for that you are modded insightful. Yes I'm in the wrong forum when talking about freedom and yes slashdot users have a bias which ruins its credibility. I don't fault the poster as much as the modders. Just a joke. Oh and on topic glad that freedoms were up-held and I love Beck's stuff. He cracks me up and makes me think.

Re:its fair turn around

[schnikies79]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Be the better person and refrain from it.

Using the same tactics makes you an asshat just like the other guy.

Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers

[DaHat]

Actually at the end of the day NY-23 was actually a strategic win for the Republicans, despite what is perceived as a tactical loss.

Don't forget that because an actual Democrat (in name and in beliefs) now has that seat, he will be far easier to beat by an actual conservative in 2010 than a 'Republican' (in name but not in beliefs) such as Scozzafava would have been.

Re:Sick of the Double Standard

[OzPeter]

I would imagine most of the comments I just read were by those who have never even seen or listened to Beck's show.Calling the accusation of fictional rape of a young girl parody is ridiculous.

I have listened to Beck and I also consider his approach to calling anything or anyone who proposes a government run this or that as communist and socialist (and the "fact" that the left has a "hidden" agenda to turn the US into a communist state) is also ridiculous and extremely distasteful

Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers

[spun]

From the wiki article on the race:

New York's 23rd congressional district has historically been one of the most Republican districts in the United States. Most of the area in what is NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the 19th century. A large portion—including the largest city, Watertown — has not been represented by a Democrat since the 1850s. In parts of the district, the last non-Republican Representative was a Whig.[7]

BOOYA, bitches! You just lost a district that you owned for over 150 years! Sweet.

Re:its fair turn around

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I agree with that statement 100%. However, the point of this website was not to fight fire with fire, but to fight fire with satire. That is something altogether different. However, one could legitimately ask if this kind of humor is lost on its intended audience as it requires something of an ability to objectively evaluate arguments, rather than simply agree with everything that person A says. Thus the real effect of such satire may just be preaching to the choir, while enraging those predisposed to defend Beck.

Re:its fair turn around

[ArcherB]

beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery.

Funny. The

numbers

show just the opposite. You can bitch and moan all you want, but numbers don't lie. So if the numbers don't lie and you are saying the opposite... what does that say about you?

Do you have something against a news network that actually gives those that you disagree with a fair shake?

(Granted, commentators like Hannity are NOT news. But as far as the actual NEWS goes, Fox NEWS was by fair the most "fair and balanced" of any network, at least in regards to the last election. Like I said, numbers don't lie.)

Re:Parody, satire or libel?

[nomadic]

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.

No, that's the thing; it was a libel suit, brought before a domain name tribunal. Completely improper and inappropriate. And it was brought there because they knew they'd have no chance in an actual court, trying to show libel.

Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers

[thebheffect]

And in the end, nothing of any significance will change. So continues the failed experiment of big government and big bureaucracy..

Re:handing back the domain FAIL

[BeansBaxter]

Yes when I listen to someone who brings in different ideas and viewpoints I'm willing to consider them against my own philosophies and put them into perspective. I'm not closed minded but I know myself and don't fear the words and ideas of others.
I've been listening to beck for 8 years now. Not religiously just when I get a chance. He is inflammatory on purpose. He does things to make his audience uncomfortable. It really is a brilliant mix and highly entertaining. He is a flawed human and happy to tell you so. He doesn't hold himself up as a model of perfection or anything else just an entertainer who likes to comment on politics with a "conservative" slant. He isn't a Republican booster despite others claiming such. But really you'd have to listen to understand any of that. I enjoy his show even when I disagree with his views.
I've never drank coffee so I have no idea what affect it would have.

Re:Crossing the line

[h00manist]

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?

"par for the course" politics - yep. injecting hot fuel into racial hatred in politics, on mass media, on a national level, in the most powerful and armed nation, in the middle of wars full of religious and ethnic problems. very innocent, fair political gaming. Glenn Beck calls President Barack Obama a 'racist'. And, nobody is accusing Glenn Beck of having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers

[DavidTC]

Wow! You got a virtual unknown conservative candidate within 4% of winning in a district that has elected Republicans since the 1880s!

And, honestly, you would have probably succeeded this time if the voters were not still entirely rejecting the right and everything you stand for. So there's that comfort.

Maybe next year, you'll actually manage to replace a Republican or two from, say, Utah! Assuming they're still electing Republicans over there.

You're exactly what the Republicans need, people kicking them in the head from behind because they suddenly are voting exactly the way they've always voted WRT to spending. Makes them honest. Honest and unconscious.

All of us here on the left are rooting for you.

Re:its fair turn around

[fahrbot-bot]

But as far as the actual NEWS goes, Fox NEWS was by fair the most "fair and balanced" of any network...

But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.

There should be no misconception that the entire Fox News organization is a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch and the Republican party. They are "fair and balanced" only up to the point that it conflicts with these two entities. To paint a broad stroke, anyone who cannot see that is deluded.

Re:Sick of the Double Standard

[Tanks*Guns]

"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"

You, my dear sir or madam, missed the point entirely, of course he didn't rape and kill anyone, it would certainly hit his ratings so he wouldn't do that, what the domain "parodied" was the style favored by Mr. Glenn "I do more research ..." Beck: make a statement about a target, imply its validity and ask why the target does not defend that accusation, because if he doesn't defend that accusation, then it must be true.

That *is* character assassination and he was called on it, quite publicly.

Remember, “if it weights more than a duck, it must be a witch"

Good Example, But Not Necessarily How You Meant...

[Petersko]

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.

Re:Sick of the Double Standard

[JCCyC]

I stopped reading at "democrat party".

Wotta loon.

Re:its fair turn around

[AlamedaStone]

Limbaugh and Beck are both "entertainment", obviously.

Of the "news" designated portions of Fox News, I challenge you to link a single clip of one minute or more that can reasonably be called either fair or balanced. Full disclosure: I don't believe it is possible.

Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.

Much like the Rush Limbaugh slavery quote

[Shivetya]

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.

Re:its fair turn around

[operagost]

Here you go. The total lack of criticism for Obama at MSNBC is disturbing. I'm sure now you'll make the argument that McCain is a baby-eater and he deserved more negative coverage.

Unfortunately, it seems like most people get their opinions from SNL skits and Jon Stewart.

Exactly

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Exactly

[Weaselmancer]

Except this isn't slander, it's parody. It appears you have the same blind spot Mr. Beck has.

But I will agree with you on Fox. Anyone has a right to stand up on a soapbox and say whatever they wish to. If anyone is actually looking to curtail their first amendment rights, then they are in the wrong. If anyone actually is doing so.

BTW if you're really looking for egregious crimes against the first amendment, W takes the cake.

Re:Exactly

[dclydew]

Well, it really depends on what one considers a news organization. I've tried to watch Fox... I really have (and no, I'm not a liberal). However, Fox News is news in the way Jon Stewart is... they use a "news format" but they have an obvious agenda. Obvious enough that I would call them an editorial organization that occasionally reports on the news.

Note too, that the first amendment doesn't mean "The President has to talk to me because I'm on television". If Obama called for Fox to be taken off the air... then I'd agree that he's obviously not respecting the First Amendment. However, he has only stated that they have an agenda, that they're the mouthpiece of a political group and that he's not wasting his time with them.

All of that seems true.

The first amendment guarantees our right to say what we want. Fox says what they want to say. It does not however, guarantee that anyone is going to respect what you say. I have yet to hear much of anything from Fox News that I respected.

Re:Exactly

[nomadic]

As for the 1st Amendment, who is it that has been trying to muscle Fox out of the networks, claiming they "aren't really a news organization"?

Nobody's been trying to "muscle" Fox out of the networks. Is the White House trying to shut them down? Send the army into the studio?

Re:Exactly

[cayenne8]

"Well, it really depends on what one considers a news organization. I've tried to watch Fox... I really have (and no, I'm not a liberal). However, Fox News is news in the way Jon Stewart is... they use a "news format" but they have an obvious agenda. Obvious enough that I would call them an editorial organization that occasionally reports on the news."

I'd say there are a number of shows on Fox where I agree with you....they do have an agenda and are heavily bent toward the far right (Hannity for example). But, I see there being a balance on MSNBC...have you ever seen Olbermann on there? My God, that man is as far left and ranting just as bad as some of the Fox far righters are.

Franky, I don't see Beck in that same category...why they try to lob him in with the likes of Limbaugh is beyond me. Rush rants and is way too far out there, but, Beck, while he does act goofy on the air occasionally, seems to actually be more moderate, and looking more at where the govt. is going vs what the constitution says. That and asking questions about the fiscal decisions the Federal govt. is making at this time...things most everyone should be asking.

I like some of the stuff on Fox, but, I try to watch also on CNN, and even the likes of the far left on MSNBC...then I try to make my own views and opinions after hearing from many viewpoints.

I would think that everyone would...but, that doesn't seem to be the case. That's the main trouble with political discourse in the US today...no one takes time to listen to the other side, it is just a big shouting match.

Re:Exactly

[dclydew]

It doesn't strike me as that odd... I have never seen a "major news organization" that has been as blatantly partisan and as blatantly biased as Fox News.

Re:Exactly

[BakaHoushi]

The reason I, personally, have a problem with Beck is exactly what is portrayed by this website.

He never SAYS that "The Government is doing *Insert Evil Act Here*." He just implies it. A lot. With no facts at all. Then he cries, and claims he's scared, all attempting to make people think he cares about them.

Then he compares some government program to what Hitler would do. Then maybe he talks about how the government COULD, not that they are, but so easily COULD put something in the swine flu vaccine.

It's scare politics. It's all it really is. Sure, he throws out the occasional "well, I'm speaking of the Republicans, too, don't want to make this political," but by far it's obvious where his loyalties lie. So obvious even SNL mocks him for it. Which is saying something.

And yes, Olbermann can be bad. But that's one guy on one channel. And he does tend to have some factual basis for his opinions. And I don't see his stuff leaking into the rest of the MSNBC newscasting.

Re:Exactly

[BakaHoushi]

George W Bush, MSNBC.

Hardly the first time.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

but you do have to admit that this is pretty much the first time a president or administration or party in power has overtly dismissed an entire news network, and actually spoken ill specifically of them.

No, I don't have to admit that - the Bush administration did the same thing with CNN, for simple reporting of the news.

They problem with Fox is that they are organizing political rallies, which makes them not a news organization, by definition - it makes them a political organization.

as bad as it got for Nixon, or Clinton, they didn't single out a news network that was reporting badly about them, verbally attack them, and cut off access from them like the current administration has to Fox.

The difference is that Fox is a political organization, not a news one. If they want to be treated like a news network, they should cease organizing political protests. They're free to give their opinion, but the second they start paying to host and organize political movements, they cease being an impartial observer.

Re:Exactly

[Rasputin]

"No, but you do have to admit that this is pretty much the first time a president or administration or party in power has overtly dismissed an entire news network, and actually spoken ill specifically of them"

Nope. In the 2004 election the Bush campaign faxed out dossiers attacking specific reporters and, even, whole news organizations. Bush was also the President who apologetically called a reporter a "major league asshole" on national TV.

Re:Exactly

[Rei]

At least Rush isn't an alleged rapist/murderer.

If Glen would only call and confirm or deny the charges, these nasty rumors would go away. It breaks my heart that he refuses to.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Struct]

Also don't forget that, as The Daily Show has pointed out on numerous occasions, Fox News then uses Beck's show and his audience (without direct reference, of course) to assert that 'Americans are starting to wonder if this government program isn't suspiciously like something Hitler would do'. It is painfully obvious that the whole thing is orchestrated to invent news. Fox has figured out a way to monetize the self-righteous indignation of Americans. All of the cable news outlets are guilty of it to some degree, but Fox consistently seems to be the most shameless. As far as right-wing and left-wing go, it hardly even matters to them. The far right just happens to be the audience they've chosen for the show they put on, and at the moment, it's a pretty lucrative demographic.

The White House is probably right to ignore them, but since mainstream media is mostly about entertainment, and since everybody would much rather watch entertainment than the news, the government needs those outlets to actually reach people. It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Re:Exactly

[BassMan449]

The White House requested them to be removed from the White House Press Pool. I would consider that trying to muscle them out.

Re:Exactly

[moeinvt]

"You honestly don't see those as being about as partisan towards the left side of things"

I see ALL of the "mainstream" media as a giant propaganda machine designed to perpetuate the status quo and serve wealthy special interests. Both of the "major" political parties are really on the same "side", except on a few divisive and emotional (but largely unimportant) issues. The mission of the MSM is to create and maintain the illusion of genuine political opposition. Their primary tool for doing this is to constrain the political dialogue in this country to a narrow spectrum of "acceptable" viewpoints, and then twist every issue into a narrow minded black and white paradigm where there are "two sides". Real investigative journalism no longer exists in the confines of the mainstream press.

We would all do well to completely ignore the MSM propaganda. Long live the bloggers and the independent media.

Re:Exactly

[glarbl_blarbl]

I am a "far left" liberal", whatever that means, and I watch Olbermann everyday. He is not a far-left liberal, there are none to be found in the mainstream media. Not even Rachel Maddow is in that category.

Here is how I know: no one in the MSM stood up and said that single-payer should have been the starting point for HCR negotiations, no one in the MSM calls for an end to Prohibition (the War on some Drugs). The only thing I can think of which might qualify is the fact that KO often calls for investigations into government lawbreaking, which reads to me more as a profound respect for the Rule of Law than any personal political beliefs.

glenn beck is a smear merchant

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:Sick of the Double Standard

[Grym]

It's not exactly unreasonable to call a program for the government to have the means to produce a thing (good or service) a socialist program.

That's entirely unreasonable. Socialism != Government-run. You don't think the U.S. military is socialist do you? Policemen and Firefighters aren't socialist are they?

The real problem is that too many Americans have no idea what Socialism is. The term has been shrewdly twisted by people who profit from Laissez-faire policies to effectively mean any and every service the government provides. But that is not socialism. The "means of production" is not defined as the ability to produce any product or any service like you seem to think.

It could just be that people are ignorant in general, and because they resent and distrust intellectuals, they end up getting their history lessons from buffoons like Glen Beck. The result is that a disturbing number of people end up truly believing that Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all the same. How can America hope to remain an innovative, dominant competitor in a global economy with such widespread ignorance?

-Grym

Re:Let's take Beck out of the equation

[Wyatt Earp]

Lew Rockwell is no better than Beck. Did you read the post you link to?

"Tonight, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had a sickeningly sycophantic interview with war criminal Madeline Albright about her new book on the creepy pins she wears. Is Albright a witch, or does she just look like one? One of her pins is a poisonous serpent. Ha ha ha."

That place is a nest of Pro-Confederacy, anti-Jewish and OMG fascism lunatics. I think I started surfing it in 2000, then after 9-11 the crazy really kicked in there.

Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po

[nine-times]

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.

Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers

[MeatBag PussRocket]

which begs the question who put that lady in as the Republican candidate? i mean, did she just walk in off the street and nobody noticed?

i mean doesnt the Republican party (ANY PARTY) choose its own representatives? i find your post disingenuous to a fer high degree, sir. i fear the only one you may be deluding is yourself.

Re:When did Glen Beck start being conservative?

[OzPeter]

Is Beck actually playing a joke on everyone?

As I don't know Beck personally I am of the opinion that the character that Beck plays on air is an anti-intellectual, fear mongering, fact misrepresenting, isolationist who uses logical fallacies to further his points. And as such the actual Beck is most likely a shrewd, capitalistic genius in being able to exploit the American public in the way he does in exchange for $$$. The possibility that Beck is actually like the character he portrays is even more scary than the entertainment show that he fronts. All entertainers have their schtick and Beck has found one that has attracted a large audience

"The Glen Beck Show - A fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" (my emphasis)

Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po

[ZekoMal]

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.

Re:Not entirely true

[kenaaker]

There is no "controversy" about the birth documentation.

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.

Re:Sick of the Double Standard

[Jaysyn]

Firefighters: Stop the Red Truck Socialist menace now!

I'm not saying it is or isn't taken, but...

[weston]

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.

Re:Not entirely true

[spun]

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.

The point

[warrax_666]

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.

Agreed100%

[Weaselmancer]

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.