Sick and evil people are trying to start a rumor/whisper campaign on the internet against Glenn Beck. Originating from a comedy routine of associating someone with insinuations, the original perpetrator and those who are spreading it are trying to hurt Beck by insinuating a violent crime in his past, though they are relatively careful about not actually making the claim. However, by trying to spread the idea and thus bring it to the forefront of Google and the like, they are creating a myth which, if it took root, would be virtually impossible to dispel.
Leftists will think this a stroke of brilliance without ever pondering what it means or what it would be like to be the target of such a thing.
Worse is their attempt to justify it, claiming that it was meant to flip the Obama birth certificate / citizenship questions back on the right wing, "using Beck's tactics against him". Bull!
First, I don't even think Beck questions Obama's citizenship, but even if he did, what the hell is the similarity between the "where's the beef?" citizenship people (who have yet to be given the beef) and this insidious rumor campaign? Proof positive is what the so-called Birthers are asking for, and the lack of it from Obama and Hawaii is the wind in their sails. Obama has a very simple solution . . . have the damn birth certificate shown so these people will shut up.
However, in the case of this evil maneuvering against Beck, there is no solution, because the wicked rumor-mongerers demand that a negative be proven. It's fallaciousness is similar, emotionally speaking, to the question-begging of "so when did you finally stop beating your wife", which presumes that you did. You are thus in the position of having to disprove the claim buried in the question.
But how do you prove a negative? Oh, sure, he could show he was somewhere else, or otherwise prove that every single bit of their claim was wrong. But that's not the same, and is wrong for Beck to have to do that besides. (e.g. Where was I in 1990? Up yours! I am a free man and owe you no
answer. If you require one then "I was banging your mom" is your
answer, you trash.)
All that Beck's point-by-point response would do is to disprove the claims of the rumor-mongerers, who aren't even really trying to prove their claims as factually-based anyway. And by even responding, Beck would be giving fuel to their fire. And even if he was somehow able to do the impossible and prove this negative (that he did not commit the crime they claim), there is nothing to stop them from doing it all over again with another crime the next day.
It's just more sick behavior from leftist trash, and it's enough to make one wish for the existence of Hell just so there's a proper place for such animals.
Leftists will think this a stroke of brilliance without ever pondering what it means or what it would be like to be the target of such a thing.
Worse is their attempt to justify it, claiming that it was meant to flip the Obama birth certificate / citizenship questions back on the right wing, "using Beck's tactics against him". Bull!
First, I don't even think Beck questions Obama's citizenship, but even if he did, what the hell is the similarity between the "where's the beef?" citizenship people (who have yet to be given the beef) and this insidious rumor campaign? Proof positive is what the so-called Birthers are asking for, and the lack of it from Obama and Hawaii is the wind in their sails. Obama has a very simple solution . . . have the damn birth certificate shown so these people will shut up.
However, in the case of this evil maneuvering against Beck, there is no solution, because the wicked rumor-mongerers demand that a negative be proven. It's fallaciousness is similar, emotionally speaking, to the question-begging of "so when did you finally stop beating your wife", which presumes that you did. You are thus in the position of having to disprove the claim buried in the question.
But how do you prove a negative? Oh, sure, he could show he was somewhere else, or otherwise prove that every single bit of their claim was wrong. But that's not the same, and is wrong for Beck to have to do that besides. (e.g. Where was I in 1990? Up yours! I am a free man and owe you no
answer. If you require one then "I was banging your mom" is your
answer, you trash.)
All that Beck's point-by-point response would do is to disprove the claims of the rumor-mongerers, who aren't even really trying to prove their claims as factually-based anyway. And by even responding, Beck would be giving fuel to their fire. And even if he was somehow able to do the impossible and prove this negative (that he did not commit the crime they claim), there is nothing to stop them from doing it all over again with another crime the next day.
It's just more sick behavior from leftist trash, and it's enough to make one wish for the existence of Hell just so there's a proper place for such animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment