Beck guest said he wanted to see Clintons killed in Sopranos spoof; Beck previously fantasized about killing Michael Moore
During the June 20 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck hosted Michael Graham, a conservative radio talk show host, who said that, while watching a spoof of a scene from the series finale of HBO's The Sopranos filmed by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), he wanted to see someone "whack" the Clintons. Beck, while smiling, said he "did not want to see that." Graham's comments were not edited out of subsequent airings of the program. Instead, CNN aired the same version of the show -- including Graham's remark about wanting to see "somebody come in ... and just whack" the Clintons -- at 7 and 9 p.m. ET on June 20 and at midnight on June 21.
The Think Progress weblog noted Graham's comments on June 21.
This is not the first time Graham has used violent rhetoric while discussing the Clintons. On the May 7, 2003, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Graham said: "Anyone listening to Hillary Rodham in her speech last week about patriotism, that screaming, screeching fingernail, I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron."
During the May 17, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Beck himself fantasized about killing filmmaker Michael Moore:
BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?
I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death," and you know -- well, I'm not sure.
From the June 20 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: First of all, I don't know if I would have, you know, cast Bill as Tony Soprano, a guy who's a serial cheater. The second part is, I'm worried that we have been -- we've made politics now just about entertainment. I mean, why don't we just elect [country music singer] Kenny Chesney and get it all over with?
GRAHAM: I'm thinking about Hillary Clinton sitting there as the Carmela, you know, with this thing - you know --
BECK: Oh, and it's so true.
GRAHAM: -- with her large, overweight, powerful husband, and she's using his power to get what she wants. At some point, I -- but, seriously, Glenn, didn't you at some point want to see, like, Paulie Walnuts [fictional character on The Sopranos], somebody come in here and just whack them both right there? Wouldn't that have been great?
BECK: No, I did not want to see that.
GRAHAM: Come on! Where's "Big Pussy" [Sopranos fictional character]? Come on! Let's make it happen.
BECK: No, I did not want to see that.
GRAHAM: I wanted that.
BECK: When it comes to the Obama girl -- you know, the video that came out for the Obama girl --
GRAHAM: Yes, she's a cutie.
BECK: Well, there are parts of her -- she looked like -- I didn't mean it that way. I meant there's parts of the video that made me think of Monica Lewinsky. There was that one scene where she just kind of looked like that and, again, I didn't want to bring that image again. What do you think? Do you think [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ] could use something like this? He seems so old. I mean unless it's done by [actress] Bea Arthur -- an angry, pissed off Bea Arthur.
GRAHAM: Exactly. The only thing McCain's going to do is to get, you know, Grandpa Simpson [The Simpsons fictional character] to endorse him -- "I say vote for John; he's not a kook!" You know, but that -- no, that is a very good point about the perception that people have.
BECK: Yeah.
GRAHAM: Who wants to be part of a tired, old campaign?
BECK: Yeah.
GRAHAM: And it's not fair to Senator McCain at all to look at him and judge him, but that's what people do.
BECK: Oh, and meanwhile --
GRAHAM: Hillary Clinton's -- I must say, Hillary Clinton's number one problem, by the way, believe it or not, is not her policies -- which, you know, terrify me -- her number one problem is she has the most -- the highest negative ratings I've ever seen for a candidate for president.
BECK: She's just -- I mean, take --
GRAHAM: Almost half of America's already said they don't want to vote for her under any circumstances. How do you get people to like you?
BECK: You don't.
GRAHAM: You can't do it by debating health care.
BECK: OK.
GRAHAM: You do it by doing something cool about The Sopranos.
I fail to see a huge controversy with this MMFA report. Beck's dislike and distrust of all things Clinton has been well documented here on numerous occasions. His goofy guest is talking about a fantasy-based spoof, which is what the Clinton web spot was all about. I would not have said anything so extreme or imply in any way that I want harm to come to the Clintons. Still, this is much less harmful than when the Bush assassination movie came out. This is just two Clinton haters using poor taste to deride Bill and Hillary. Get used to it for the next 16 months or so.
Anytime you mention assasination , it is in poor taste.
Is that so? Why is it that the favorite movie of posters on fringe sites like Democrat Underground and Daily Chaos was "Assasination of a President," which discussed GW Bush being killed by a muslim terrorist?
you took an actual poll on that? or you're just huffing and puffing?
How about answering the question, Mr. Denial. It's ok to promote movies that actually portray a serious movie about a realistic assassination of our sitting president, but joking about a Sopranos spoof is overboard?
That wooshing sound? That's your credibility leaving the room.
I thought you conservatives hated censorship. Are you saying that artistic expression that involves the assassination of a president should be outlawed?
No, I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. If the left will fight for freedom of expression for artists, musicians, et al, they need to fight equally hard for free speech on the radio, whether it be liberal or conservative. It's te very argument that Larry Flint's lawyer used when presenting to the Supreme Court.
They have a right to say this--but, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been said. It's ugly and in poor taste.
Yesterday I wrote on this thread that the person who put this article together needs to look up the word "sarcasm" since, if Mr. Graham had been serious he'd have been paid a visit by the US Secret Service, who don't take kindly to threats against the president.
A poster named "Solon" agreed, saying the article was "weak".
Both posts have been deleted.
Is this what I can expect from these thin-skinned liberal nobodies at Media Matters?
Say something as obvious as Graham was kidding which is why he and Beck were laughing and your post gets censored and removed?
That's liberalism for ya.
Read this while ya can! lol
There is NO free speech issue at stake on the radio. You guys really think if you repeat something often enough it will become true IT WONT. They can say what they want. No one is stopping them. THEN there are consequences for their actions or an opposing view MIGHT be demanded but no one is infringing on anyones free speech rights. When they get arrested for spewing their stupidity on the street or in a park get back to us.
i answered his "question" by asking one of my one. how does he know what is the "favorite movie" on any particular web site? that whooshing sound? since you were unable to grasp the point, i would say it was the air between your ears escaping.
In the Bush movie was about what would happen if the Bush were killed. No one suggested that it SHOULD happen. Beck and this idiot fantasized that the Clintons were killed (perhaps in a half-joking manner) and expressed hope that it would happen.
If you can't understand the difference, go upstairs and ask your Mother to explain it to you.
(perhaps in a half-joking manner)
It was a JOKE... not a half-joke. To think that either host was legitimately serious requires some sort of mental illness. If you can't see that this was NOT a serius statement you are too clueless to use the internet. Step away from the keyboard.
Mental illness?!?!?!? My my. Just because you agree with them and I don't, it doesn't mean that I have a mental illness.
Do you also find fox "News's" HALF HOUR NEWS HOUR funny? Perhaps I am mentally deficient when it comes to Right wing humor.
Well I can see who watched the Glen Beck show and who did not. Conservitives as a rule are not funny. AL Goreilla and his "global warming" myth....now thats funny.
The whole point is why is he wasting air time talking about fantazing a Clinton assassination? The policies that "scare" Beck and his guest....why don't they tell us which policies are scary and why they're so scary? Why don't they analyze any policy or idea instead of water-cooler talk about the F-ing Sopranos? What a waste of time. Time that could actually be used discussing pertinent issues for the American people.
And no liberals every fantasize about killing bush, seeing him dead. Give me a break.
Thank you for acknowledging that fact.
And, about the break you requested--go ahead, but make it a short one. You have much work to do, and I can't spend all night ripping you to shreds.
Since you seem to have a problem understanding the question, I recommend that you read my post again. I visit both sites frequently and posters on at least one of them (Democrat Underground) kept K&R-ing this movie's review and were recommending the movie to others most heartily.Hypocrite.
Why don't you address your question to the poster in question on that website? How is it relevant to the discussion on this board? Are all liberals responsible for everything other supposed liberals say? Are you responsible for everything other conservatives say?
Perhaps I am mistaken. I am having a hard time following your reasoning here.
Genghiz said ...
And then said ...
(Emphasis mine)
So was Sueeld one of the posters? If not, how is she (or anyone else) a hypocrite? And how many posters was it? 2? 10? 100? What is your "representative sample" of people who you claim it is their favorite movie? What is this site "Democrat Underground?" Is it the same as DEMOCRATIC Underground? And what is "Daily Chaos?" It appears to be a camera picture blog. Not I'm not calling you necessarily on spelling, but accuracy might make you believable and worthy of consideration.
What exactly is the meat of this film? Is it dealing with the strength of the Republic in such an event? Does it feature a song-and-dance with Hillary and Obama characters? How can you make such a broad stroke without addressing the meat of the film?
In short, do you have any purpose in bringing this up other than attempting to derail discussion like Dennis the Menace shooting dog droppings at the adults? If so, please provide some proof, links, and information.
it doesn't belong on cnn.
Becasue you are emperor of CNN? Larry king had a whole show on PARIS HILTON. CNN, and any other news channel for that matter, seem to have some sort of status in your mind that does not represent reality
Okay...I agree that this is a very weak - if not baseless - post by MMFA with respect to Beck. He's made many reprehensible statements, but there's nothing here to criticize. I'm not going to pull a Bill First by attempting to read something more into the "smile" as MMFA seems to be implying.
However, with respect to Graham, I disagree with you. Specifically, I don't see how his comment is any "less harmful" than the "Bush assassination movie." Trying to make it seem humorous doesn't make it any less disgusting to me, only more juvenile.
I think it clearly demonstrates bias. That makes it worthy of posting here.
If you mean in regard to Graham, sure. If you mean Beck, I disagree. It doesn't demonstrate anything about Beck.
...but in case anybody thinks I approve of Beck otherwise, I don't.
i agree it was worthy of posting with regard to graham but beck didnt say he didnt want to see that credit where it is due
Some of us like juvenile and tasteless. Media matters loses credibility when they report jokes as misinformation or slander
So if I joke about Bush being an idiot, I lose credibility? Or on the flip side if a republican makes jokes about a democratic candidate being a flip-flopper that's ok?
Making jokes about rivals is a political tactic that has existed for a long time. These jokes are considered misinformation because they rarely are 100% reality based. They seek to create or reinforce a negative image of the target, based on characteristics that may or may not have any basis in reality.
So to claim MMFA loses credibility posting this is a weak argument.
Beck should be fired now. He also should face criminal charges along with Graham. Discussing killing a former President, Sitting Senator is disgraceful. Beck should be held accountable for allowing this to air.
This seems a little over-the-top. Let's look at this coolly. Hillary and Bill are playing characters in a parody of a fiction. Granted, the characters are themselves, but it's still a fiction. In that context Beck and Graham could argue (and it might be true) that they were saying (actually only Graham) "wouldn't it be a great ending of the commercial if you actually saw the guy whack 'em?" Not the ex-President and the candidate, but the characters in the charade? All fantasy. TastelessP perhaps. Criminal? no.
Yeah, he should be put in jail, for violating the first ammendment!
Here, let me save the trolls and troglodytes some time and effort:
IT WAS A JOKE! YOU LIBERALS HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR! YEAH, AND WHAT ABOUT CLINTON? DIDN'T HE OR SHE OR WHICHEVER ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONCE SAY SOMETHING THAT WASN'T FUNNY? WHY ISN'T MMFA WRITING ABOUT THAT, HUH? HUH? HUH?
So now you can take this thread off.
There is nothing that can't be made better by putting it in ALL CAPS.
Yeah yeah, we get it. You conservatives are always joking about something. Ha ha. Of course, a few posts back, another conservative was upset about a fictitious film about the assassination of Bush. But THAT was just a joke! Get over it!
There is no comparison between a passing sarcastic comment between two conservatives versue a full feature fim about kiling a president... especially while the president in the move is still in office in real life.
Don't get me wrong... I think you should be able to make the movie. And I think you should be able to express your views no matter what your affiliation. That's what makes this country great. The frustration most common sense people have is when one party tries to stifle the other.
I think not to long ago some radio guys were fired for a joke that a homeless man made about raping Condi and Laura.
O and A wasn't fired, just suspended for 30 days for insubordination to management. They are back on XM now and still just as offensive and hilarious!
indeed they are back on xm and as hilarious (in my opinion) as ever...
that said? beck is not funny. in my opinion.
a full feature fim about kiling a president
Your argument would improve if your facts were more on the mark. That film was not about killing a president, it was about the consequences that arose from it.
Saying it was "about" the assassination is as accurate as saying a movie about life during the Depression is "about" the stock market crash of 1929.
You conservatives
Oh, my. I thought my level of sarcasm was high enough to not be missed even by speed scanners. Apparently, I was wrong.
I also did notice, though, that my offer for the "trolls and troglodytes" to take the thread off was not accepted: Witness how many have, in fact, claimed "it was just a joke" and so unworthy of notice.
I'm always amused when two conservative radio hosts chat with each other on TV.
They usually try to see who can top the other with their hate/flag waving/liberal bashing.
Some classic pairings are Hannity/Michael Reagan, O'Reilly/Ingraham, and of course the kings of comedy Hannity/Coulter.
I guess you never listened to Airhead America, where hate was pretty much the only emotion on display at all times.
Are those idiots still on the air?
Hey your side has Micheal Savage, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbuagh. You have no solid ground to attack Air America. None of them are anywhere NEAR as hatemongering as Annie get you ratpoison Coulter
You're right, Solon. Err America can be ignored. It may be the flagship of liberal opinion but the fact is that it couldn't survive in the free market, where ideas rule.The Fairness Doctrine is all about giving failures like these repeated chances despite their lack of audiences, critical acclaim, or success.
Correction, the "free market" is where idea rules, not ideas.
The only idea they have is to defend the status quo.
They appeal mainly to the bedwetters brigade who see a commieislamofemoliberaltraitor under every one of their beds.
I don't understand, with the majority of people now supporting Democrats, why Air America is bankrupt. Oh yeah. It is really boring. That is why conservatives make all those insensitive jokes. Ever watch Colbert? Liberals would DOMINATE talk radio if they would just lighten up...
funny how they are still on the air and how in several markets progressive radio is kicking hate-wingers butts. But it's not like we don't expect nonsense from the name flipper ap/aa/rogain7/tommy-boy/letherjockstrap/widdle wes, etc.
I'm saying they would do a lot better if they made more jokes. "Still on the air" and "in some markets" is hardly a measure of financial success. Delta Airlines still flys, but they are hardly "kicking butt." It isn't about idology at all, since most Americans suport Democrats. it's about entertainment value. Yes, most of their jokes are juvenile. Yes, they preach and say dumb things. But they make money at it. Air America could take a lesson.
Fascinating assessment, given that the left dominates the internet, the one and only true bastion of democratic openness and idea market.
The left dominates a truly free forum where all are welcome to participate without restriction, yet in a theoretically free market, where participation is bought and sold, the right has a stranglehold. How does one reconcile that dynamic?
A talk radio host has to build and keep an audience, and if the host's ideas aren't popular, the show will fail. Liberals cannot very often succeed in an arena in which they're asked every day to back up their theories and beliefs. There is no vast, right wing radio conspiracy. It's just that liberalism is a very tough sell, and the ratings prove it every day.
It's tough to keep an audience interested when the host complains that taxes are too low, that we're being too tough on terrorists at Gitmo, that 9/11 was probably our fault and may have been an inside job since that's how evil Karl Rove really is, that only rednecks who enjoy killing carry guns, and that "everyone knows Gore really won" even though the guy wasn't ahead by one vote for even a moment in any of the three (2.5 really) vote counts in Florida.
Every time Ann Coulter crosses the line, another newspaper dumps her column. This is called having standards.
On the liberal half of the net however, hate and rage are rewarded with traffic. Democratic Underground will always be popular with liberals, and that's fine since liberals apparently need a place where they can cowardly, anonymously, sickeningly celebrate when Cheney has a heart attack or when some Jesus-pimp like Falwell dies (they have no such anger towards lefty religion-pimps, like the racists Sharpton and Jackson).
The clown who runs Daily Kos said this about the murders of four American contractors who were in Fallujah to help deliver food:
"I feel nothing over the death of mercenreies [sic]...They are there to wage a war for profit. Screw them."
Again, they were delivering food. This Markos idiot, who spells as well as Barbara Streisand, is the lefts' hero these days (he wanted Howard Dean in the White House for cryin out loud), although I guess I really shouldn't call him an idiot since he knows very well how to capitalize and profit from the rage of shallow, ignorant morons.
You brag about how the left "dominates a truly free forum where all are welcome to participate without restriction", but the "restriction" in radio-land is the free market in which people are held accountable for their words and ideas, a market in which Markos Zuniga would get his ass handed to him by the competition in a matter of weeks.
On the net, a "free forum where all are welcome to participate without restriction", Markos is a demigod, since there is no punishment for being a vulgar, insensitive pig, as he clearly is.
On the radio he'd be just another yahoo who would make millions ask "how did this ignorant know-nothing kid get a job on the radio?" for a few weeks until he was fired without fanfare.Not sure what's up w/ the tiny print at the end there, tho it is kinda cool......it says...
On the radio he'd be just another yahoo who would make millions ask "how did this ignorant, know-nothing kid get a job on the radio?" for a few weeks until he was fired without fanfare.
Don’t dig a pond on that foundation, because it won’t hold water.
So, the argument goes that Limbaugh and his media brethren sustain their jobs because they don’t use curse words. Well, they don’t swear but they are no less vulgar for it. The rest of the argument is premised upon misrepresentations of the message of the left, it is therefore, without merit.
The internet is the one and only true free marketplace of ideas. It requires no such corporate sponsorship for business friendly hosts as does talk radio. All are free to participate. It is the lone bastion of democratic openness, the kind of openness that lefties cherish.
If people were truly turned off by the blogs, the blogs would be cyber ghost towns. They are alive and bustling with community activists. They are flourishing and shaping the public discourse.
So, the argument goes that Limbaugh and his media brethren sustain their jobs because they don’t use curse words.
I'm not sure where you read that, but it wasn't in my post. I said:
Liberals cannot very often succeed in an arena in which they're asked every day to back up their theories and beliefs.
By extension, "Limbaugh and his media brethren" dominate talk radio because their core beliefs are easy to defend. There are exceptions, but not many. And no, what Bush has done in a number of areas has nothing to do with conservatism, which is why the '06 races went well for the left. The GOP has to screw up for the Democrats to win anything (GHWBush raised taxes and ticked off his base, and W didn't manage the war properly and spent money like a liberal).
"On the net, a "free forum where all are welcome to participate without restriction", Markos is a demigod, since there is no punishment for being a vulgar, insensitive pig, as he clearly is."
That's where a small portion of the response came from.
As to the rest, thank you for providing no substantive rebuttal to clear truth that the progressive message overwhelmingly resonates with everyday people on the wildly fantastic, wide open, democracy in action, internet!
Hopefully Media Matters won't delete this as they did my first post, the poor things.
As if we needed more proof of how intolerant liberals are of other's views.
Anyway,
the progressive message overwhelmingly resonates with everyday people
You claim I didn't refute that, but it was refuted before you wrote that, in my original post:
It's tough to keep an audience interested when the host complains that taxes are too low, that we're being too tough on terrorists at Gitmo, that 9/11 was probably our fault and may have been an inside job since that's how evil Karl Rove really is, that only rednecks who enjoy killing carry guns, and that "everyone knows Gore really won" even though the guy wasn't ahead by one vote for even a moment in any of the three (2.5 really) vote counts in Florida.
This "resonates with everyday people"?
Sure it does, that's why liberals call themselves progressives now, because liberalism was such a smashing success, lol.
I was writing in regard to the World Wide Web when I wrote, “As to the rest, thank you for providing no substantive rebuttal to clear truth that the progressive message overwhelmingly resonates with everyday people on the wildly fantastic, wide open, democracy in action, internet!”
That so called refutation of yours,” A talk radio host has to build and keep an audience, and if the host's ideas aren't popular, the show will fail.” was in reference to talk radio, not the net. Remember? You should, Roger, you wrote it.
To summarize, there is still no refuting the fact that, given open and equal exposure to an audience, the progressive message resonates with people.
“Sure it does, that's why liberals call themselves progressives now, because liberalism was such a smashing success, lol.”
Liberals did go underground for a spell, thanks in small part, to the efforts of conservatives to demonize the left. Case in point, the desperate misrepresentation of effective government, broad prosperity and mutual responsibility. But the left let it happen, c’est la vie, those days are gone. The greatest fear of the GOP are coming to fruition, the left is moving out of their issues silos and into a unity of purpose. Environmentalists, labor unions, women’s right organizations, civil rights groups, netroots and other activists are uniting in a common moral worldview of empathy and responsibility. These diverse groups, with the help of citizen participants, like me, are realizing the long view. We are learning to forego immediate gains for the sake of the long-term agenda. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.
Roger was banned, and I'm not sure where he could have gone...shame really, he was, so I hear, very talented, handsome and brave. Seems he upset some of the more thin-skinned, dimwitted chatters who have no sense of humor, but I'll tell him you said hi, as we both post at America Blog.
Anyhoo...
Liberals did go underground for a spell, thanks in small part, to the efforts of conservatives to demonize the left.
Why can't you guys admit that liberals had something to with the failures of liberalism, if not everything?
Liberals lose an election--they obviously had better ideas but were demonized. Liberals can't succeed on the radio no matter who tries--Rovian conspiracy, blah blah blah. Grow up.
I'm honest enough to admit that even though Bush is hardly a conservative, I can't seem to find many conservatives on the hill right now and the GOP certainly isn't acting like a pack of con's at all.
They've screwed themselves, and they deserve to be the minority.
But in the conspiracy filled, nothing-is-ever-our fault world of liberalism, liberals went "underground" because of those meanie conservatives. It didn't have anything to do with liberalism at all.
So why do I have no problem admitting that the right has screwed itself, but you can't admit the same?
What part of, ‘in small part’ gives one the idea that all blame is on the rightwing marketers?
The left let it happen, we liberals let it happen, greed and power-lust eroded the core values of our leaders. We the people failed to hold onto and exercise our power. We were busy squabbling internally to see the fall.
Good enough, Rog?
It's rather telling that you couldn't admit that until you were pressed to do so.
Really? What does that mean? Telling.
And do you really want to leave the door open for the, ‘Republicans haven’t been winning anything; Dems have just been blowing it,’ argument to walk through?
then why does limpballs and billdo need to 'buy' their way into markets?
Boy, there's that "fairness doctrine" strawman again.
And Air America is still around.
The flagship of liberal opinion? No, that would probably be the Nation Magazine nor Air America. I dont think the talk radio venue is a good one for liberals we dont do the preaching to the chior thing like the rightwing does. That being said I AM right that the liberal equivelent of Ann Coulter doesnt exist and comparing Air America to the hatefilled screeds of the Savages and Coulters of the world is a false equivelence fallacy
I've listened to AirAmerica a lot. I've never heard one hateful comment on any of their shows. I HAVE heard many rants and expressions of displeasure with many Republican points of view, but hate? No way.
I think right wingers have their emotions mixed up. They can't distinguish hate from unhappiness.
They cannot understand the difference between hating the behavior and hating the individual.
They also cannot understand that we do understand the difference, and so they frequently accuse us of hating people when what we do is hate the behavior.
If you hate the behavior, you don't joke about the person being killed. You joke about the person being physically restrained from the behavior. If you hate the person, then you joke about killing the person, like Beck's guest did.
You mean the way Randi Rhodes joked about assissinating Bush?
Give me a break. Both sides are guilty of murder jokes.
Yeah, this exactly the same as the Randi Rhodes episode, isn't it?
Except it's vastly different.
1. Randi had nothing to do with the production and content of that skit, and she didn't even hear it until it aired.
2. After it aired, she apologized profusely because it was in bad taste.
3. Randi also said that if it were wrong legally, then she was more than willing to accept the criminal penalties for this.
4. The President of Air America said that it was in bad taste, and that there were punishments given out for the bad vetting that allowed it to air. On the other hand, as Olbermann pointed out last night, Beck did not immediately condemn his guest's comments.
Totally different than what the rightwingers on this site are saying, but what's new with them not grasping reality?
Randi said "I also feel bad that there would be a perception that I would be advocating violence against anybody, let alone the President of the United States of America. It's no secret that I think he's a terrible president, but I don't think that anybody should have violence advocated against them in any way, shape or form ever!"
This is not the same. You are repeating invalidated talking points!
I think it's cute that they take Olbermann seriously.
The other 146 viewers will be very glad to know.
Michael Schultz is just as hateful and bogoted as Coulter; The reason he isn't the equivalent is that nobody listens to Schultz
Do you mean Ed Shultz? Ed's program is not an Air America Radio program. They are carried on the XM AAR channel at the discretion of XM.
Could ahve been Ed. He got taken off the public air in my market so I can't listen to him anymore. He WAS entertaining though.
"err america"... "airhead america"? you guys are hilarious! who says conservatives aren't funny?
Yeah... nothing is wrong with the title "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot." Liberals are sooooooo perfect, sooooo compassionate. Unless they disagree with you.
Lighten up, it is sarcasm. Period. Oh wait... you are only for free speech if it's perferts promoting porn or 'artists' displaying a crucifix in urine. If someone expresses a viewpoint you don't like you try to silence it.
Lighten up. It's only a cross.
Haven't read every thread today, but your post has my vote for post of the day.
If someone offended a towel-headed sand flea, this guy would cry racism and try to get the guy arrested.
Offending Christians however is no big deal.
That's how the BBC works as well, and they've just admitted it. They won't fix the problem, but they've come clean about it, which is more than we can say for the American media who do the same thing.
The title was ironic. Since Limbaugh makes personal attacks on those he disagrees with he opens himself up for a return serve. Your post was dumb no one claims the left is perfect. Only someone hypnotized by the black/white simplicity of their worldview would even make such a stupid claim. Ya got nothin. You never do.
Pssst. Salon. Don't chase him away, I'm having fun batting him around my monitor screen. I realize it's kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, or matching wits with a Right Winger, but, I needed a little relaxation.
Sorry, I misspelled your handle. SOLON.
Salon,
Please pardon my barging in here. But I was wondering if you might give me a brief synopsis of your "world view" so I can establish a bit of a baseline for future discussions. Please focus if you would on your use of the term "black/white simplicity".
Sky
Ignore the trolls, they're only here for the attention they cannot generate on a site where all of the posters are as ignorant as they are.
How typical. Anyone that disagrees with a liberal on a message board is a troll. No room for debate, huh? If you are so confident that your stance or position is right, you should be eager to defend your view, not stifle the view of those who disagree with you.
What happened to free speech? What happened to the concept of debate?
What happened to free speech?
Let's see. "You're with us, or against us." "Love it or leave it." "Nobody cares what you think."
Conservatives have no bidness bitching about having their voices stifled.
So, becasue some conservatives are facists and want to stifle Lieral free speech, that makes it okay to stifle them back? Are you retarded, or just self-serving?
how was limpballs 'stifled'? could swear the big fat idiot was still out there promoting his racist agenda with the 26%'ers at the low end of the bell curve like you
So, because some Liberals supposedly want to stifle Conservative Free Speech, that makes it okay to paint them all with the same brush? Are you self-serving or simply unwilling to extend courtesy both ways?
I didn't paint al liberals with the same brush; I was referring to the gentleman who says that "Conservatives have no bidness..."
Oh great... Keith Olbermann just gave these two the Worst Person award for this exchange. Nothing like a news guy who made his reputation via smarmy sports sarcasm making fun of a guy using sarcasm. Step it up Keith, try finding something more important to worry about, like your career.
Keith's career is going great. Particularly now that you watch him every night for the Worst Person award. Keep tuning in!
Wrong! He recently signed a huge contract with MSNBC. He doesn't look very worried to me. But, his job will be a bit harder when we run the RapePublicans out of Washington next year.
Yep, having a reputation via (? why not by?) smary sports sarcasm destroys all credibility. Well know fact.
Tank Mcnamara is not smarmy sports sarcasm...... Right? It would kill me to be wrong here.
This is really, really funny. Laugh a little liberals. Bill Maher does very similar stuff on the Left.
"A man walks into a bar. . .knocks himself out cold!"
lame joke--I know, but, it's much funnier than anything I've ever heard Beck or any of his guests say.
Ok, Copper;
Point out the laugh lines, the sight gags, the humor. Explain to me the witticisms I'm missing. To me it looks like a couple of middle-aged doughboys ragging on someone they don't like. I didn't find that amusing in high school, and I find it less amusing now. Enlighten me, please.
I enjoy watching Bill Maher rag on people he doesn't like. He's a funny man. So he never rags on liberals... Beck rarely rags on conservatives. The Clintons aren't crying over it, so you shouldn't be either.
Bill never rags on liberals?
You don't watch his show much do you?
"Where's Big Pussy?" - Graham
What do you mean? He was the one conducting the interview.
Hey, SOMEONE had to say it.
Excuse me, but I think its more than a little unusual and disturbing for a grown man, joking or not, to describe wanting to bludgeon a woman's head in with a tire iron on national television. Even if this woman is a controversial public figure. Joking so casually about committing a gruesome act of violence is symptomatic of deep-seated psychological issues.
Liberals can be so hypocritacal, I have read all these posts about how terrible Glen Beck and his guest's comments are but it is okay for people for Bill Mahr, Daily Show, Michael Moore, or Rosie to joke about conservative politicians. If you don't like this comments don't watch the show, turn the channel. I don't base my political views on a talk show or entertainer. If I don't like what I am hearing I turn the channel, I listen to talk radio everyday for about 4-5 hours a day, I do not always agree what they say, I make my own decisions. Lighten up.
when have they 'joked' about assasinating people?
So, basically, what you are saying, is that if you don't like what's being said, you shouldn't comment or make a fuss, just ignore it and turn the channel, make your own decisions and don't share.
But if you read something you don't agree with, you should absolutely stand up for your beliefs and immediately point out all the flaws you perceive.
Or was that not your point?
I've said this before about Beck. He doesn't appear to be the kind of guy who could look someone in the eye as he chokes the life from him, but I'm sure he'd have no problem stabbing or shooting someone in the back.
Worrierking, that is a powerful post--and possibly dead-on. Here is my comment (the one I intended before I read yours):
Dear god, was there ever a more charmless, obtuse individual on mainstream media? (Obviousy, by "mainstream media" I'm excluding the Fox network.) Why, why, why did CNN further degrade its reputation by giving this know-nothing person a forum?
Susannah,
I'll ignore the "mainstream media" "Fox network" jab. Although, you might want to check Foxs' ratings -vs- the rest of the cable news offerings. Call me an idiot but I think it's safe to say that in the Cable News arena they're pretty mainstream. Either that or their viewing audience is one hell of a large fringe group.
Now to answer your rhetorical question with respect to CNN hiring Mr. Beck. I think you know the answer to the question. Be honest...you know why Mr. Beck was hired. You just don't want to say it do you? Well let me save you the pain and say it for you. CNN is just trying to keep up with the Jones. You know, the ol if you can't beatem joinem syndrome. CNN wants a piece of the conservative pie, thus Mr. Beck. Pretty good business decision on their part. Wouldn't you agree? As for Mr. Beck being a "know-nothing" person, is this fact, or your "know-everything" opinion?
Sky
Actually, I believe she's referring to the non-mainstream ideals of FOX, rather than the viewership. That aside, you're probably correct, CNN wanted its own pet troglodyte to stir up some controversy by parroting some conservative talking points and jabbing at liberal/progressives and generally acting like a stooge after the requisite eye-poking and brain-gouging.
Actually, it seems it wasn't a good decision on CNN's part, since it seems like Beck's show is dying by the day.
Oh, and being "know-nothing" is part of his "dumb guy" schtick.
I love the way the wingnuts have appeared in this thread taking up for Beck.
Nobody watches Beck. His dismal ratings prove that assertion.
Media Matters, ironically, is Beck's best publicist.
Beck is the guy who asked the newly elected Muslim representitive if he was a terrorist.
That's Beck's shtick in a nutshell.
Liberals have Colbert, Stewart & Maher. Between these 3 guys you not only get real news, you get a rundown of conservative stupidity & hypocrisy (and all 3 get decent ratings).
The right wing has Beck, O'Rielly & the hate-filled radio propagandists.
Oh yea, Air America has the Young Turks. The Young Turks alone blow out of the water Limbaugh & that cabal of far right radical nutjobs.
By extension, "Limbaugh and his media brethren" dominate talk radio because their core beliefs are easy to defend.
*********
Low taxes and third world sex tourism - what's not to defend?
Beck says:
>I'm worried that we have been -- we've made politics now just about entertainment.
Take the entertainment out of politics, and Beck would be out of a job. What a hypocrite! What does he think he is--a journalist?
REDRIGHTHAND,
Do me a favor if you would please and define the following:
1. troglodyte
2. mainstream (please include in your definition who/whom it is that gets to define this much abused word.)
3. liberal/progressive (and while your at it...and yes I know you didn't use the term but, would you mind defining neocon as well.)
4. conservative
5. parroting
6. stooge
7. schtick
Just trying to establish some sort of baseline here.
Sincerely,
Sky
please pardon my misspelling of the word you're...too little sleep...not enough. Having some blood work done this morning so I have to fast. :o(