The web site ColorOfChange.org states that they “will do all we can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protected – regardless of race or class.” This includes promoting a boycott of Glenn Beck’s advertisers, whom you can email directly via a form on their site.

http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
468 ad

37 Responses to “ColorOfChange.org Calls for Boycott of Glenn Beck’s Advertisers”

  1. Ben Franklin says:

    Free speech is free speech. The most free speech is stuff you disagree with. Funny how those who complain the most about their rights under under “opposing” administrations are the ones who welcome those same infringements under “friendly” administrations. Some will never learn.

  2. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, Not all free speech is equal. You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. If you defame people without facts, you can be sued. If you’re a “news” organization, you should report the news, not subjective one-way criticism that follow party lines. Propaganda, from either side, should not be tolerated. There is nothing welcome about infringements on rights from any administration, and this site is not devoted to anything other than exposing Fox News. To think otherwise is pure ignorance.

  3. Ben Franklin says:

    No one you’re addressing here is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. If Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly are defaming you or your backers, then they should be sued, and let the courts decide.

    As far as propaganda goes… You’ve got to be kidding! Brown-nosing means that as a result of kissing someones butt, your nose is brown. And if that’s true, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and just about every other major media outlet are brown-ankling, meaning they’re so far up the administration’s butt, they’re soon going to disappear, which will be appropriate since their ratings already have done so.

    Regarding infringements on rights: I agreed with very little that Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 did on the topic of invasive “searches” as did Beck, but it seems like liberals are totally fine with this when Clinton and Obama take the same action, but only against it when Bush does so. Witness the call to turn in your neighbors for disagreeing with the administration. You’re totally fine with portraying Bush as an ass, Hitler, posters stating “George W. Bush – Wanted Dead or Alive”, ginning up Photoshop’d images of all sorts, Michael Moore staging fake scenes for “documentaries”, Al Franken’s campaign benefitting from “found” votes months after the election… talk about the loss of rights in America. Video of Black Panther members blocking voting areas with night sticks. Voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, that is a loss of rights for many.

    If you were truly concerned with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, your site would be dedicated to boycotting the advertisers (although I don’t agree with boycotts as a valid strategy since its objective is to silence free speech) of any show which is not fully truthful. That would, however, result in about 995 channels of static, and 5 channels of old fashioned Mickey Mouse, Flintstones, and Gunsmoke shows.

    By the way, your last statement “To think otherwise is pure ignorance.” implies a very narrow-minded viewpoint. ie: My way or the highway. You allow no room for other opinions or even if allowing a dialog (as here) you automatically dismiss those opposing views as summarily wrong.

    Thanks for entertaining my thoughts.

  4. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, The examples of yelling “fire” & defamation were leading up to my position that the news should be factual and void of propaganda. You really didn’t read my comment, did you? If you had, you would have noticed that I did not question your position on infringement of rights, mention anything about Bush41, Clinton, or Bush43, or Al Franken’s election. You completely ignored the fact that this site is only focused on Fox News. Hint: The domain name is FoxNewsBoycott.com. As I stated in my final sentence, which you must have misunderstood, to think other wise is pure ignorance. Again, this site is devoted to Fox News. Maybe I should have said, to think otherwise makes you dumber than a sack of rocks.

    Looking back, The previous comments should not have been approved, as they are completely off topic. Per the comment policy, further comments must be on topic.

  5. Ben Franklin says:

    Since the headline of THIS PARTICULAR thread is “ColorOfChange.org Calls for Boycott of Glenn Beck’s Advertisers” I obviously misunderstood the topic… My initial comments were addressing the boycott of Glenn Beck’s advertisers, and how the intended impact of a boycott is to silence speech with which you don’t agree. Neither Beck nor Hannity claim to be “news” shows, they are opinion shows. What part of that don’t you understand? I would not stoop to claim you are “dumber than a sack of rocks” or “ignorant” just misinformed, and closed-minded. My referencing Bush et al goes to the argument that the left IS COMPLETELY FINE with everything you’re accusing Fox of doing as long as it’s MSNBC or CNN, etc. bashing the right. And to stand behind the argument that this site is only focused on (bashing) Fox News while it’s only doing the exact same thing (but mirrored) as MSNBC is doing, is quite lame. But I can’t help it that, although you claim to be, you’re not ACTUALLY concerned with the truth, only the truth that paints the right poorly, and the left as infallible.

    If that’s not on-topic enough for you, ignore all those facts, and just consider the following as my truncated post:
    There is no way to obtain 100% consensus as to the factuality on almost anything, especially on a (news or opinion) television show, let alone an entire network. And your admission that your site is only concerned with boycotting advertisers of Fox is an admission that you’re completely unconcerned by the lack of truth anywhere but Fox.
    BTW isn’t claiming I’m ignorant or dumber than a sack of rocks a personal attack, and therefore should not have been published. Maybe I should be moderating your comments. Once again, we see that free speech is only good for you, but no one else.
    Thanks again.

  6. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, When will you and the other Fox News supporters actually read what is before you. Nobody here is trying to censor, or silence opposing views. If that were the case, your comments wouldn’t be approved. The problem is the blatant disregard for the truth, violent rhetoric, propaganda and lack of ethics in Journalism, FROM EITHER SIDE. But, since the domain name for this site is FoxNewsBoycott.com, guess what? It’s about Fox News. Period. Nobody is disputing that other networks may not be 100% accurate and may have some bias, but that’s for discussion on another site. Go find it, or start it, if it’s that important to you. As for the “ignorance” and “dumb as a sack of rocks” remarks, those are in direct response to anybody, ANYBODY, not just you, who thinks this site is for anything other than discussing Fox News, their personalities, or people/events associated with them. If you fall into that category, that’s your choosing. I am not deliberately making any personal attacks. If you take offense, work that out for yourself. It’s not my responsibility.

  7. Ben Franklin says:

    What, then, is the point of boycotting any interest? I think we can agree that you have the right to boycott Fox News. You do that every time you turn the channel away. If you don’t want to watch Fox, then don’t. And if you don’t want to buy GM products (for instance), that’s also up to you. BUT, BUT, BUT if the objective is to boycott the advertisers of Fox News, and to also call for their boycotts, and threaten them with this action, therefore pressuring them to pull their advertising, therefore silencing the voices YOU DON’T LIIKE, then that is silencing free speech! Here’s the other thing about major advertisers… All of them advertise on all the major media outlets, and they base their spending decisions on whether that advertising is working. Here’s where I point out that Beck’s show (no matter if you define it as news, fact or fiction), on at 5:00 eastern, 4:00 central, and 2:00 west) hardly in prime time, has higher ratings than ALL of MSNBC’s prime time line-up COMBINED! Like it or not, the proof to the pudding is in the tasting, and guess what… the people have voted with their channel changers and they watch Fox News over all other cable news stations.
    Long story short… when you threaten to boycott products, you threaten free speech.
    Thanks

  8. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, The idea of someone using their free speech to threaten someone else’s free speech is BS. Look at it this way. Assuming you’re a capitalist and not a *gasp* socialist, you believe in a free market economy wherein we are free to voice our opinions with our money. A boycott is as American as apple pie.

  9. Ben Franklin says:

    Assuming you mean an actual socialist, and not the “new definition” posited by your best friends at MSNBC claiming “socialist” is the “new ‘N’ word”… you could not any more obvious in your blind hatred for anyone outside the fringe left. Claiming that free speech can’t be used to quell free speech is like saying since we need food to live, one can’t overeat, or since we need water to live, one can’t drown. Some might even say, that it’s like saying that one couldn’t use the second amendment to threaten the first amendment. As YOU stated in (2) above… “Not all free speech is equal”, and I’ve already stated in (7) above, no one is interest in making you watch Fox, you are free to change the channel whenever you like. The prospect of an intellectually honest person not understanding these concepts is baffling. It seems like I’m arguing with a “sack of rocks”

  10. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, That’s just one ridiculous example after another. You seem to want to limit our free speech, while justifying other’s hate and fear mongering as free speech. They are free to spout their lies, misinformation and manipulations, but it should not be in the guise of news or journalism. There are ethics and rules that they should abide by and that others must abide by. Fox News has gotten a pass. But free speech is not the issue, it’s just a smoke screen so you can keep up this debate. The issue is capitalism, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with hate (unless you’re talking about Fox News personalities’ hate mongering) and it is not I who has blind hate, it is you with your “new ‘N’ word” comment. Has that been said here? Nope. It’s just a petty jab at people you don’t like and you’re trying to insert that lame debate here, where it doesn’t belong. So, get over the left vs. right BS. This is about Fox News caught, time after time, lying to the public and now, thanks to capitalism, we’re taking them to task for it.

    Perhaps I should try the Fox News method of assumptive questioning: Ben, why do you hate capitalism?

  11. The reality is that it wrong to limit free speech. Once you do that, it is no longer free. I may never agree with anything you have to say….but I will support to my death, your right to say it.

    Add this to the reality. The leader of the boycot is colorofchange.org. Go there…scroll down and look at the co-founder…Van Jones…oh my, what a coincidence! The self proclaimed communitst himself. This would be a fact.

    Oh but now….because I do not like the fact that a self proclaimed communist is in a leadership position of my country…..that makes me a racist, right?

    I got news for people. When a government silences one…..eventually they silence them all. Chew on that for a while.

    • FoxNewsBoycott says:

      “The leader of the boycot is colorofchange.org. Go there…scroll down and look at the co-founder…Van Jones…oh my, what a coincidence!”
      Color Of Change is one part of the boycott and Van Jones is no longer with them… nice try.

      “because I do not like the fact that a self proclaimed communist is in a leadership position of my country…..that makes me a racist, right?”
      Racist? Nobody called you a racist. You brought that up. What should we infer from that?

  12. Isn’t Color of Change founded by Van Jones? The self proclaimed communist? Why are people siding with the commies?

    • FoxNewsBoycott says:

      Jack, That’s just a petty attack on the messenger… Van Jones is the co-founder, but is no longer with Color Of Change.

  13. Ben Franklin says:

    FNB,
    After entering a 5 paragraph response, the brunt of which was to layout a factual case pointing out that you are not a capitalist, I returned to see that you refused to post it.
    Typical liberal. When faced with the facts, turn and run away. If you had any guts, professionalism, or ethical standards, you would post that reply and live with the facts.

  14. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, I never saw such a comment. IIRC, I’ve approved all of your comments, regardless of how ridiculous and off base they are. So, the first thing you do is attack me by calling me a liberal? You say I run away? You question my guts, professionalism, or ethical standards? LOL Why don’t you get your facts straight before exposing yourself as another Glenn Beck – a sensationalist partisan hack who doesn’t research before spouting childish nonsense.
    I would love to see how you can prove that I’m not a capitalist. We already know that you hate capitalism based on your refusal to accept that we choose to speak with our wallets in a fair market economy.

  15. Ben Franklin says:

    FNB and Kathy Bates in Misery…
    By the way, the fact that Van Jones is no longer “technically linked” to ColorOfChange is a smokescreen. You’re the one who pretends to be so concerned about the facts, but you are blinded by your own hatred for success, capitalism and the possibility of people standing or falling on their own. In a conversation I had with the a friend the other day, he correctly pointed out that the Democrat Party and liberals in general are not unlike the Kathy Bates character in Misery, in which she is so desperate to “keep and love” the Caan character that she is willing to cripple him to whatever degree necessary to “save and protect” him. When you attempt to protect the masses from the truth by killing the message of the right, you’re doing the same thing.
    P.S. WHO’S Lying??? A completely staged, fake doctor http://www.sodahead.com/blog/132611/obama-camp-plants-fake-doctor-town-hall-meeting/ Is there anything the left isn’t willing to do to “HELP” us?????

  16. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, First, tell me what proof you have that Van Jones has anything to do with this boycott. Second, prove that everybody working for ColorOfChange.org are communists. Third, tell me how one person stating that they’re a communist has anything to do with this boycott. Lastly, who gives a turd what “a friend” of yours says about liberals. That and your link have nothing to do with Fox News, nor this boycott. So, look who’s posting a smoke screen.

  17. Ben Franklin says:

    Re: (16) PLEASE SEE MY RESPONSES IN CAP, SINCE THERE IS NO OTHER TYPE TREATMENT AVAILABLE. I DON’T LIKE ALL CAPS, AND IF YOU HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF ADDING A FONT COLOR OPTION THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THIS SITUATION.
    Ben, I never saw such a comment. IIRC, I’ve approved all of your comments, regardless of how ridiculous and off base they are. YET, IT REMAINS ABSENT FROM THE BOARD. So, the first thing you do is attack me by calling me a liberal? I DO, ARE YOU NOT? COME OUT WITH A TRUTHFUL POST THAT SAYS YOU ARE NOT, AND BACK IT UP WITH DEMONSTRABLE FACTS. You say I run away? AS EVIDENCED BY THE LACK OF POST APPROVAL. You question my guts, professionalism, or ethical standards? YES, ALTHOUGH AT THE END OF MY COMMENTS YOU DIDN’T POST, I COMPLIMENTED YOU ON YOUR EXCELLENT TYPING AND PUNCTUATION SKILLS, SOMETHING SEVERELY LACKING ON THE INTERNET TODAY. LOL Why don’t you get your facts straight before exposing yourself as another Glenn Beck – a sensationalist partisan hack who doesn’t research before spouting childish nonsense. SO FAR, ALL YOU’VE DONE IS TO MAKE FUN OF MY STATEMENT, NOT DISPROVEN ANY OF THEM.
    I would love to see how you can prove that I’m not a capitalist. IF I HAD TAKEN THE TIME TO COPY THE POST BEFORE SUBMITTING IT, I WOULD GLADLY PASTE IT BACK HERE, BUT I WILL DO MY BEST TO RECONSTITUTE THE BASICS… YOU CLAIM TO BE A CAPITALIST, BUT ARE NO SUCH THING. YOU SEEK ONLY TO STOP OTHERS (FOX) FROM SELLING THEIR WARES. EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT YOU’RE BEGGING FOR MONEY ON YOUR LANDING PAGE. SURE YOU’LL SAY THAT YOU’RE SELLING T-SHIRTS AND CAPS, BUT FRONTING CAFE PRESS IS NOT CAPITALISM. IT DEMONSTRATES THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT CAPITALISM IS. THE PRACTICE OF CAPITALISM IS AT WORK WHEN PRIVATE CAPITAL IS PUT AT RISK, AND THEN THE FREE MARKET EITHER REWARDS, OR PENALIZES THE CAPITALIST BY PURCHASING, AND CREATING A PROFIT, OR NOT PURCHASING, AND CREATING A LOSS FOR THE CAPITALIST. (A SIDE NOTE: CAFE PRESS, ITSELF IS REAL CAPITALISM, THEY HAVE GONE OUT PURCHASED EQUIPMENT, DEVELOPED AD CAMPAIGNS AND HAVE ACTUAL CAPITAL AS RISK, UNLIKE THE PEOPLE WHO USE THEIR SERVICES. AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEIR USERS, BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE NOT OUT CLAMORING AND FALSELY CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE DEVOUT CAPITALISTS. WHILE THEY MAY BE CAPITALISTS, THAT IS NOT THEIR RALLYING CRY. THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE WITH A MESSAGE THAT AREN’T WILLING TO TAKE ANY RISK TO GET IT OUT THERE.) FOR THE UMTEENTH TIME, YOU ARE NOT A CAPITALIST BECAUSE YOU SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE ‘FREE MARKET’ IN THE NEGATIVE ASPECT. IF YOU WERE A TRUE CAPITALIST, THEN YOU WOULD GATHER MONEY TOGETHER (I HERE GEORGE SOROS IS STILL GIVING IT AWAY TO THE LEFT) AND START A COMPETING NETWORK OR STATION TO FOX NEWS. IF YOU HAVE A BETTER PRODUCE, THEN ADVERTISERS WILL FLOCK TO YOUR BETTER, TRUTHIER SOLUTION AND YOU WILL BECOME RICH. THEN YOU CAN USE ALL YOUR NEW FOUND WEALTH TO PURCHASE FOX AND SHUT IT DOWN.
    We already know that you hate capitalism based on your refusal to accept that we choose to speak with our wallets in a fair market economy. HMM, I’M PRETTY SURE THAT I’M THE ONE THAT STATED IN (7) AND (9) THAT YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO WATCH OR NOT WATCH WHATEVER YOU WANT, THE LINE THAT YOU HAVE CROSSED IS TO THREATEN OTHERS’ SPEECH BY BOYCOTTING THEIR ADVERTISERS.
    P.S. YOUR USE OF THE “I’M RUBBER, YOU’RE GLUE” TACTIC IS SO PREDICTABLE AND TIRING, BUT AT LEAST I SEE THAT I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE YOU TRY TO USE IT ON. ANYONE READING THIS, PLEASE REFERENCE SAUL ALINSKY’S RULES FOR RADICALS, THE LIBERAL PLAYBOOK OF THE LEFT. http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm (Not my site, by the way)
    Thanks

  18. Ben Franklin says:

    Re: (18)
    FNB,
    There you go moving the goal posts again. Let’s see… Van Jones helped found an organization “Color of Change” (if that’s not intended to be a racial schism on the part of their founders, please explain it otherwise) Then, it just so happens that Color of Change calls for a boycott, but, you say he’s not with them any more. NOOOO, I’m sure he’s not. I’m sure he’s completely and totally separate from them. Let me use this example, even though I’m sure you NEVER said this in the last 8 years “Dick Cheney blah blah blah, Haliburton, blah blah blah. Isn’t if funny how all that crap you lay down comes back to bite you in the butt. Your responses are so pre-programmed it’s ridiculous. How about this, prove that he doesn’t have anything to do with this boycott.

    Second, no one ever said that EVERYONE working for ColorOfChange.org is a communist, but you sound a little defensive on that point. Prove they’re not all communists. (you brought it up, not me)

    How does one person being a communist…? I’ll tell you how. “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” sayings like this don’t get to be sayings because they’re not true. When you have a group started by a communist, chances are, there are going to be communist tendencies in the group. And, the headline of this threat is a ColorOfChange story. Additionally, I see by the graphic of the shirts that you’re not selling at the bottom of the page, that you’re fond of the hammer and sickle. Maybe your site should be turned in to the “fishy info” enemies list Big Brother is creating. Wait, that would be a friends list for them… never mind.

    Once again, rather than debate the comparison, your witty rejoinder… “who gives a turd” That is AWESOME, if you don’t mind, I’m going to start using that one myself.

    Lastly, I think, at least for myself, conservatives find your site so rich in targets, it’s hard to stay focused on debunking just one crazy liberal claim at a time. What you claim is a smokescreen, is really more of a mosaic the reality, which, no matter how hard you fight, you will never disprove. You are no George Orwell, this is not 1984, and while I know you will not address this, it is the same list of offenders that I’ve listed several times above who are trying to revise history with lies. As for Fox News vs. the radically left-leaning “news” media, I have only four words… Ratings speak for themselves!

    Now I’m going to try out my new (stolen) catch phrase…
    Who gives a turd?

  19. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, I’ll say it again, I never saw your comment, and now that you’ve provided more information about what it contained, I can honestly say that it never made it into the queue, so maybe the server or your Internet connection hiccuped. I can’t say for sure and I’m not going to accuse you of lying, so I hope you would afford me the same courtesy.

    You are the one coming here making wild accusations, so this tit for tat BS is not going to fly. The onus is on you to prove your accusations. Period. Am I a liberal? It doesn’t matter. Does Fox News manipulate the truth? That matters. By taking up my time replying to your rants, I’m not able to devote as much time into showing more lies and distortions coming from Fox News every day. So, congrats. At least you can succeed at that.

    Now, as for capitalism and your claims that this site is not an example of such… You must not know much about running web sites as this is not created, hosted, nor promoted for free. Every post you make is a waste of space and bandwidth, that I pay for. So, you’re welcome. It’s the nature of the business that every project is started at a loss. If I operate at a loss, break even, or make a profit, that is not of your concern. I know and the IRS knows. That’s what matters. Not some random Internet troll. Not to mention, this site is a very small part of my life. So, judge me by one thing, call me names, accuse me of things, do whatever you want. None of it addresses the real issue and all of it is one giant smokescreen.

    A final thought about capitalism… You seem to be under the impression that service providers and laborers should not be included. I perform a service and have invested my time and money in it. So, saying that I’m not a capitalist, as if it matters, is just foolish. Where in the definition of capitalism does it reference negativity? Besides, it is only you and a growing minority who think that this boycott is negative. How is pointing out lies, falsehoods and manipulations negative? How is trying to get the news to report facts negative? It’s only in your mind, as is your statement about it being a rallying cry.

    Now, back to the topic of Color Of Change – Why don’t you take your accusations and opinions directly to them? They do not own this site, nor do they have anything to do with it. I posted some news and responded to comments with rationality. That’s it. So, I’m not going to waste my time arguing on behalf of someone I don’t know. We share a similar cause, but that’s where it ends. If you want to infer anything else, the onus is on you. Of course, the script you seem to be following will tell you to now say that I have to prove it. How childish… just like the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” comment. I forgot that’s a debate winner – I should have said that first! LOL

    And then you end your post with ratings. Ahh, the beloved 65+ demographic who sits at home and watches Fox News all day. Oh, but those ratings are only for cable news aren’t they… They don’t include network news, nor do they include Internet traffic, which placed Fox 6th, behind MSNBC & CNN. But I digress. That’s just another diversion, taking us away from the other claims you can’t prove. Looking back over my response, I can see how many tangents you’ve taken us on. If you can’t prove a point, try another, and another, until you can then say that the other person is avoiding the issue. Like bringing Cheney, Halliburton, Orwell and Big Brother into this. Pick a point and stick to it, or take something for the ADD.

    Now, I can get back to work, investing my time and money, providing a service, posting news that shows Fox News’ negativity and giving you a forum to voice your opinions, which others pay for, so you can use it for free.

  20. Donny Douch says:

    It’s not Foxes fault that people are dumb as dirt. The six years before Obama, Fow was calling protesters to the wars and GW, terrorists, Looney’s, Anti-American. Now they are supporting these health care protesters, come on who can’t figure this out. Fox is the new biased media.

  21. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, Your 1000+ word comments will not be approved and I am done discussing this topic with you. I’m not about to waste my time addressing every tangent you can dream up because you can’t accept the fact that companies, in a free economy, can advertise with whoever they wish. For the last time, nobody is denying Beck is freedom of speech. He can go stand on a corner and shout his ignorant rants, or do it in a padded room, but he is working for a corporation where freedom of speech does not necessarily apply.

  22. i would thinkyou wouldbe better off lookingat whattheissuses are andnotice beck has beenthe only one that provides hisviewers with what isgoingon, jones,andacorn i thinkthe government needs to quit spending, borrowing, and do one thing right before sticking its nose into anything else, i thought i was a democrate until obama, now i am a teabagger and proud of it. obama has lied, we do not have transparency, we do have pork, favoristisim, and taxed are going up for every one!!!!!!!!!! we are still in a war, and he has so many czars that have no expertise just favors and friends. look for the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    .-= brenda gillman´s last blog ..‘We Thought They Were Mushrooms’ =-.

  23. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    brenda, There appears to be something wrong with your space bar… You posted a lot of accusations w/out any proof provided. Please feel free to comment with your sources cited… As for “look[ing] for the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Would that include claiming that our president has a hatred for “white culture” but refuses to define what that is, or promoting anti-government protests with Obama as president but not while any other president was in office, or criticizing so-called “czars” under Obama including those that are Senate-confirmed and failing to equally criticize those under any other president, or calling Van Jones a convicted criminal when he’s never served time in prison & charges were dropped, or calling Jesse Jackson a racist and then doing the same thing Jackson did to earn that label in Beck’s eyes, or making fun of a woman’s miscarriage, or… ? the list could go on and on….

  24. Ben Franklin says:

    Does it not count when Jones states in his own book that he was in jail and came out a Communist? I don’t know if Beck said “jail” or “prison” but since you’ve written “prison” above, I’m going to say… Please don’t tell me you’re going to stake your claim he’s lying based on the distinction b/t jail and prison. ARE YOU?

    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true

    Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

    You can also find an excerpt written by Jones on the Huffington Post.

    Don’t be a dope.

  25. Ben Franklin says:

    By the way, he was in for 4+ months. That’s not just an overnighter. Maybe Brenda saves time by not using spaces. When you think about it that’s probably about a 15% savings.

  26. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, That was a nice read. Thank you. I do think; however, it may have a slight chronological error. It mentions an arrest between events in 1994 and 1996 and may just involve STORM & not Jones specifically. Jones was arrested in 1992 during the L.A. riots, but he was in San Francisco and was never convicted. Yes, there is a difference between jail and prison, but the point is that the charges were dropped by the D.A. Can you provide a source that mentions a different arrest and the 4 months in jail? That seems like a long time to await trial, or for charges to be dropped, but I’ve heard of worse things…

    Here’s something you ought to read by Eva Paterson, the person who first hired Jones as a legal intern & legal fellow – it addresses the arrest and communist label…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eva-paterson/glenn-becks-attack-on-van_b_271518.html

  27. Ben Franklin says:

    First you guys claim “there’s no communists…” then you’re splitting hairs over jail and prison, then it’s “well he wasn’t in there that long, and “here read this”. Next it’s going to be “Communism is really the way to go because…”

    Let me reiterate, while communism is still slightly uncool… From his own book: “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

    And WH DoC Anita Dunn’s outright statement that Mao is her political go-to guy on political philosophy… communist, murderer, leads nation into starvation… sounds good.

    And slightly off topic… since you make so much fun of Beck for crying all the time, please note that the article you pointed to above states multiple times that Jones and his cohorts were weeping and crying over the verdict. I guess what’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander. I’d much rather have gone with the pot and the kettle, but god forbid, since then you’d probably claim racism.

  28. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, I think that comment was beneath you, really. First paragraph… generalization, not knowing difference between jail & prison, making up quote, and guessing the future.
    Second paragraph, dwelling on communism, but not including the fact that Jones later denounced those beliefs and has worked to build the green economy. Third paragraph, irrelevant Dunn reading, leaving out one of her favorite authors Mother Theresa and the fact that Bush recommended Mao to Rove. Fourth paragraph, ridiculous comparison of Beck’s Vicks VapoRub induced tears to get ratings and sell books to Van Jones being legitimately emotional about something serious. Then winding it all out with a childish, “gee, don’t call me racist for using the word ‘black’” act. Low.

  29. Ben Franklin says:

    Let’s just try to keep these more focused… how’s that?
    So when I write “First you guys claim “there’s no communists…” that’s generalizing? So have there, or have there not been communists hired, employed, enlisted, or generally utilized by the administration?
    Even though you, very, very predictably are doing exactly what I said you would, by splitting hairs, please enlighten me as to the practical differences b/t jail and prison. And let’s not resort to dragging out the dictionary. Just let me know the practical differences. Is one of them voluntary? No… Is one of them where you come and go as you please? No. Do they serve better food in one or the other? Don’t know, never been there. Are the bars bigger or smaller in one? Bars are bars. Please regale me with the vast and and extreme differences. I can’t wait to hear this.
    Lastly “making up quotes” and guessing the future. I know you’ll love this, I’m going to quote Patrick Henry… “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the…” I’m going to leave the British out of this and say liberal pundits and Democrats when I quote your friends “Clinton didn’t have sex with Monica…” then it was “even if he did, it’s only sex”, then it became “no one died when Clinton lied” Well at least we finally got it out in the open. An admission of lying. Just remember, baby steps, baby steps.
    If you don’t think that 98% of politicians SUCK, you’ve got to get out more often. If you do realize it, but won’t admit it, you’ve got some growing up to do.
    Let’s leave it there. We’ll just work on the first paragraph of (29) and (30), then well push on once I’ve helped you to realize how misguided you’ve been. Don’t worry, we’ve got time.

  30. Ben Franklin says:

    …and by the way. You claim that your pal Van Jones “was” a Communist, but that was then, and this is now. I’ve demonstrated by way of Jones’ own writings where and when he became a Communist, but you’ve failed (to even try) to demonstrate when Van disavowed his red affinity. Johnny come lately statements by himself or others AFTER he was outed are not qualified proof that he’d shed Communism before he was appointed Green Jobs Czar.

  31. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Ben, oh master of semantics, here we go again… 1) never said there was nobody who claimed to be communists, 2) when arrested you go to jail, if convicted he would have gone to prison (short vs. long term) but the issue is that he was not convicted, 3) I stated that you made up a quote – from me, 4) predicting the future is still predicting the future regardless of the past, 5) Clinton? WTF? He lied & it’s irrelevant, 6) Never said I don’t have anything against politicians, 7) You have time to waste, but you’re a waste of my time… I’m done defending myself against your baseless accusations and twisting of words. You’ve proven that your comment was not beneath you, but it surely is beneath me & I’m not going to stoop to your level anymore.

    Re: Van Jones – The following is from:
    http://www.alternet.org/story/142310/glenn_beck%27s_crazy_lies_about_van_jones/

    The ‘Green’ Jack Kemp?

    Van believes in government clearing the way for private-sector innovation. In a YouTube clip, he said recently that progressives and conservatives should work together to find common ground and create a clean energy economy.

    Van said: “We are not promoting welfare. We are promoting work. … We are not expanding entitlements. We are expanding enterprise and investment. … We are not trying to redistribute existing wealth. We are trying to reinvent an existing sector, so that we can create NEW wealth – by unleashing innovation and entrepreneurship. This should be common ground.”

    He has been preaching that gospel, in various forms, for years and years. Van Jones is the nation’s “Green” Jack Kemp — using business-based solutions to attack poverty.

    I found it interesting that Bill O’Reilly in his interview repeatedly asked Glenn Beck whether Van Jones’ youthful views had changed over time. Beck never answers those inquiries and instead keeps insisting that Van has championed these ideas recently. Again, that is simply not true.

    Quotes Taken Out of Context

    Upon investigation, it turns out that Beck is quoting (out of context) an article that in fact makes the OPPOSITE point.

    The 2005 profile that Beck is flogging actually makes it crystal clear — even in the headline — that Jones has “renounced” his earlier views, matured and moved on. Van’s transformation is the entire point of the piece, and it is impossible that Beck does not know this.

    Fortunately, O’Reilly seemed to sense the truth. I remember seeing O’Reilly interview Van Jones some time ago and was struck by how much respect O’Reilly showed for Jones. Perhaps O’Reilly’s knowing queries were prompted by that encounter.

    When Van worked for me, he did exhibit that “know it all” quality that so many of us – myself included — have when we are young. Over the years, I have enjoyed watching him grow and blossom into a loving father and husband — and a creative, effective leader.

  32. Crowdaddy13 says:

    FNB, the best way to debate with a conservative douche is to not debate with them at all…………they have hard mongoloid heads that cannot be penetrated, waste your carpal tunnel on something constructive.

  33. Jim Lee says:

    So if FOX so continually commits such sue-able offenses, why have they not been sued out of existence? Because to do so you have to PROVE they’re wrong in court. Just spouting it out doesn’t work.
    Are we pretending they only defame people who are independently wealthy and just don’t bother to sue?
    Sorry. I don’t have a vivid enough imagination to buy that.
    I’m at a distinct disadvantage on this site. My parents never taught me how to hate anybody.

  34. Freedom of speech does not mean that you can go as far as abusing your fellow-beings without solid proof. I think news channels such as fox should refrain from maligning people in the minority who are coexisting with the majority in the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.