Patterico's Pontifications

1/20/2011

No, Charles Johnson, Glenn Beck Did Not Tell His Viewers to Shoot Anyone in the Head

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:56 pm

On Twitter, Charles Johnson excitedly says:

He links to a post, evidently written by an LGF user, which provides no context for the clip, but simply embeds it. Here is a screenshot of the entire post:

And here is the short and misleading video the post embeds:

Now, here is the context Charles and his blogger omit.

The full transcript is here. When you read it, you will see that the word “you” refers to the leftist politicians in Washington and their pals in the media, and “they” refers to their radical leftist friends — who, Beck warns, actually believe there must be violent revolution . . . and if they don’t get what they want, they may start one.

Beck is warning the comfortable pols that the people who put them in power aren’t going to be satisfied with seeing just a little of their agenda accomplished. They want it all. Because they are revolutionaries at heart — people who have called for violence and never repudiated it. And if they aren’t satisfied, Beck tells the pols, they will come after you. Violently.

You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But they may shoot you.

Johnson wants you to believe that the “you” is Beck’s audience, whom Beck is inciting to violence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But Charles Johnson doesn’t care about context or truth any more.

Now that this video has surfaced, expect it to spread like wildfire. Be prepared, with this post and the linked transcript, to rebut the lies.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link, and welcome to new readers. Please note also Stacy McCain’s post on the same topic.

It gets better! Now leftist Brad Friedman is complaining about Beck’s rhetoric — despite the fact that Friedman’s business partner is a convicted bomber who blew off a guy’s leg.

213 Comments

  1. Oh, and Chuck? Two “n”s in “Glenn.”

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/20/2011 @ 4:59 pm

  2. what’s funny, besides the stuff here, is that even the most rabid lefties i know here in the PRC have ZERO weapons knowledge beyond whatever they have gleaned from Hollywood, television and various histrionic gun control ads and precious few. if any, weapons.

    so, by all means, if they want blood, let them come for it.

    we’ll call it the battle of “Bull 5hiters Run” when it’s all over.

    Comment by redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:14 pm

  3. Sombody named “Mitch” has been spamming this in threads here all day.

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:14 pm

  4. Can’t even spell the damn name.

    Thanks for making a smear easy to beat, though anyone taking LGF seriously is a clown.

    I was banned from LGF for asking LGF commenters to go to a Tea Party and see for themselves it wasn’t the extreme stereotype Charles was insisting it was. Since it’s grassroots, I told them they could be whatever kind of Tea Party they wanted to be, so long as it involved limited government and low taxes.

    Banned.

    What’s really funny about these smear efforts is they are causing a lot of reasonable people to stick up for Beck or Palin. It’s only hurting them with a few low info moderates and a ton of drooling True Believers who never cared for them in the first place.

    Low info voters will come around, or where never really with us to begin with. A lot of people have trashed their credibility (not Charles, who has none) for meager gains.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:17 pm

  5. its almost like Charles Johnson has been every bit the liar he used to have no tolerance of.

    hmmm

    > Oh, and Chuck? Two “n”s in “Glenn.”

    Mmmm, I’m too much in a glass house on that. :-D

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:25 pm

  6. Sufferin’ succotash!!!

    I just spent a half hour looking this stuff up to post in response to Mith on the other thread….

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:28 pm

  7. It’s sad to see how far Charles has sunk. I was banned from LGF almost 2 years ago for down-dinging an anti-Beck post, but I had been drifting away from it so it was no real loss. All I can do is just shake my head and remember how LGF used to be the go-to site for conservatives.

    Comment by ClericalGal (63225b) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:29 pm

  8. Is LGF a serious site? I assumed they were having more fun being a small scale Onion type site.

    Comment by karmanline8 (dfae20) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:33 pm

  9. LGF has never been a go to site for conservatives.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:35 pm

  10. I wonder what happened to Charles Johnson? I used to read Little Green Footballs often when it was relatively sane. Now I never glance at it. He seems to be peddling his bike somewhere up in the stormy clouds. He has little contact with earth or reality. A shame, really, sort of like a favorite aunt going batty.

    Comment by Rachelle (c0f1ca) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:36 pm

  11. Charles posted a link to and excerpt from the transcript in the comments. Here’s the relevant bit:

    Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.

    I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don’t. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep’s clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

    You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

    They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

    Perhaps someone could point to this as evidence that GlenN Beck isn’t batshit crazy, but I remain unconvinced. Violent fantasies against lefties are OK if the fantasist has both the shooter and shootee as both being lefties?

    Of course, posting this as evidence that Beck wants to shoot liberals in the head would be dishonest.

    Also, I don’t know whether it’s a traffic issue or what, but I get lots of hangups and popups on LGF these days. I thought that Johnson was a techie kind of guy?

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:37 pm

  12. MD in Philly,

    If a new liberal person surfaces and starts posting multiple posts, you need to ask yourself: might this person be Yelverton or imdw (which, as it happens, Mitch and Earl T and several other people lately have been)?

    If so, perhaps y’all should just ignore them until I get home and start deleting their comments.

    I finally banned both, in violation of my no-banning policy, for messing with people in real life. In imdw’s case I was still willing to publish stuff from moderation, but that wasn’t good enough for him. So, banned. Can’t play by the rules, no right to post. I now just delete everything he has written once I figure out it’s him.

    If Aaron wants to start checking IP’s and doing the same, more power to him. I can’t during the day.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:42 pm

  13. carlitos,

    If you have read the ENTIRE transcript and determined that was the relevant bit, then you and I will have to disagree.

    If you relied on Charles Johnson to give you the relevant bit, I encourage you to read the ENTIRE thing.

    He only posted that comment after I called him out on Twitter for pimping that post and avoiding the context.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:45 pm

  14. If imdw ever apologizes for posting my home address and promises not to do that again, I will consider unmoderating him.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:47 pm

  15. Well, I’m glad he responded, but does anyone you know use the phrase “shoot me in the head” as a common expression? It’s odd, and it reinforces my impression of Beck as a reactionary idiot.

    I skimmed the transcript, but will give it another read.

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:49 pm

  16. LGF has never been a go to site for conservatives.

    Comment by JD

    I used to read the site quite a bit, but they generally did not generate any novel content, and also were stingy about credit to other blogs. This isn’t something that offends me (it’s really just pathetic), but it costs the site a lot of value, because I’d like to read other blogs that LGF stole content from, and hiding that info just makes that difficult. Most blogs understand that a hat tip is not costing them anything.

    Anyway, LGF is quite a bit like Andrew Sullivan. When Sullivan was cheering Bush, he did so in an unreasonable and hysterical way. That’s funny sometimes, but eventually you have to get beyond snark and anger.

    LGF had a lot of merit to some of their arguments, and brought a lot of important issues up (often ripped from Freepers or other bloggers). I really liked Charles’s passionate discussion of not blaming bloggers for some extreme comment in their thread. This is quite memorable because Charles then happily endorsed blaming Hot Air for the N word appearing in their thread, even after the LGF moderator/moby who left the comment bragged about it.

    My point being that almost all the value people found in LGF was a lie. Charles happily reversed himself when it suited his ego.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:51 pm

  17. Of course, posting this as evidence that Beck wants to shoot liberals in the head would be dishonest.

    Indeed, Beck wasn’t advocating for violence whatsoever. He wasn’t talking to conservatives at all with this point, and he was discussing violence as a bad thing, that we should avoid, by not elevating cranks.

    I don’t see how someone could take this discussion as proof Beck is a nutjob, Carlitos. Left on left violence has killed a lot of people, and it’s worth warning the democrats about. It is really quite unfortunate for Obama to rely on some of the people he has.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:56 pm

  18. Carlitos, “shoot me in the head” is just like “over my dead body”, or “from my cold dead hands”. He’s declaring his readiness to defend the constitution. And he’s warning Pelosi and the other establishment types, who believe in nothing, that the communists they’re palling around with aren’t like them; they actually believe in Marxism and revolution, and therefore eventually they’ll turn on you and you’ll have to either shoot them or be shot.

    Comment by Milhouse (54f1a0) — 1/20/2011 @ 5:59 pm

  19. Typical of the raving moonbat that Charles has become. He went from being a core blogger to a complete loon and no one’s ever been able to explain the descent.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:06 pm

  20. _________________________________________

    Anyway, LGF is quite a bit like Andrew Sullivan. When Sullivan was cheering Bush, he did so in an unreasonable and hysterical way.

    I’d say they were illustrating, at least for a short while, the dynamics behind the phrase “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.” In this case, the mugging, if you will, occurred in New York on 9-11-01. But such folks tend to be intrinsically of the left. So their common sense is inherently very, very shallow. No surprise, therefore, that a willful naivete and foolishness returned as soon as the shock of the moment wore off.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:28 pm

  21. They’re so stupid over there. Complaining that Beck did this right after the shooting too. Recorded in June. Duh. Buncha dopes.

    Comment by Tea Party at Perrysburg (cb0e17) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:31 pm

  22. Patterico-

    Thanks for the suggestion- I wasn’t really upset at anyone other than myself for my compulsiveness and slow typing. I had not recognized “mitch” as anyone other than one post on the mentioned thread. I do often follow a link, unless someone beats me to it, as the majority of the time they link something that actually undercuts their argument, if taken time to read, such as this example.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:32 pm

  23. I re-read the transcript. Glenn Beck is crazy.

    That said, given the current tu quoque arguments about political civility, posting that video today as evidence of anything sinister is still stupid. Shoot me in the head if you disagree.

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:41 pm

  24. Yelverton is crazy. Beck is Beck.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:49 pm

  25. I like Mr. Beck he loves America very deeply and he has a great smile.

    Comment by happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:56 pm

  26. feets!

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/20/2011 @ 6:59 pm

  27. Charles Johnson? LGF? Is that thing still around?

    Comment by Cargosquid (2b3940) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:16 pm

  28. Uh, did you say he uttered the words “You’re going to have to shoot them in the head.” ????

    And it was in the context of nothing about warfare. And there hadn’t been anything said about gunfire or shooting.

    He just used the “figure of speech.” Zat what you’re sayin’?

    I guess by your standards he didn’t give any currency to shooting people in the head, or suggest that shooting people in the head is legitimate recourse, etc. etc.

    Shoot them in the head. Shoot them in the head. Shoot them in the head. Shoot them in the head.

    Oh. Ok.

    Spank your kids much?

    Comment by Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:17 pm

  29. Larry Reilly, never bothered to read the post at all obviously.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:19 pm

  30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TDgkOOlbwg

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:20 pm

  31. No,spqr. I read it carefully.
    Perhaps next week you’ll have enough pocket change to buy a clue.
    Using a certain phrase, no matter the context, the referent or whatever, reenforces that phrase. Period. For all kinds of nuts.
    Including the Beckster himself.

    Comment by Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:22 pm

  32. Mawy proves itself to be dummerer than a sack of dimwits every time it comments.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:26 pm

  33. Perhaps next week you’ll have enough pocket change to buy a clue.

    Larry, if nickels were brains, you wouldn’t have enough to cross the street.

    Comment by Another Chris (67858a) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:27 pm

  34. Re Post 32: Yelverton, please stop pretending to be JD.

    Comment by Jim (8de501) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:27 pm

  35. Larry Reilly, your comment proved that you either did not read the post or chose to lie about it.

    Well, now that you’ve given me a clue, you are correct in that I erred. It was the latter.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:29 pm

  36. Using a certain phrase, no matter the context, the referent or whatever, reenforces (sic) that phrase.

    Sort of like saying “Voldemort” – right, LR?

    Comment by Abraxas (1848da) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:37 pm

  37. Larry Reilly, did you complain when NBC aired a sitcom called “Just Shoot Me!” for seven long years?

    didja Larry??? Hmmmm….?

    You think the actors or writers thought they were reinforcing that phrase, “for all kinds of nuts”?

    Hmmm…..?

    Comment by Anna Keppa (6d8c52) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:37 pm

  38. Howdy Mr. carlitos you’ve been away it seems

    Comment by happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:45 pm

  39. “LGF has never been a go to site for conservatives.”

    I’d agree if you’d change that to “LGF has never been a go to site for conservatism.”

    LGF was once useful for coverage of islamo-fascism. It was never useful for exploration of conservative ideas, because Charles was always a liberal.

    In fact, there are quite a few leftists who, while staunchly anti-islam remain totally cool with leftist totalitarianism. The irony escapes them, but then lots escapes them.

    Comment by pst314 (48ad7b) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:46 pm

  40. Maybe you can ask Johnson to correct this jerkoff

    http://twitter.com/MichaelShatz/status/28285072415133696

    Comment by breitbartfan77 (b72ab6) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:48 pm

  41. I dropped LGF/Johnson from my RSS feed more than 2 years ago. He was a key figure in exposing the Rathergate/Bush TANG memo forgery, and he was a joy to follow during that time. But no more.

    Comment by RB (a07239) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:52 pm

  42. Is Shatz a conjugated form of shit?

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:54 pm

  43. Taking people down to the cellar and shooting them in the back of the head is an ancient and honored reactionary leftist tradition.

    The NKVD did it, the up to date and modern KGB did it, the Gestapo did it, the Stasi did it….

    Comment by Lazarus Long (35e4e1) — 1/20/2011 @ 7:55 pm

  44. Mom came down to the basement and told Larry while playing Call of Duty to be quiet or there would be no more grilled cheese.

    So, he had to post somewhere for the attention when everyone else went to bed.

    Comment by Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:02 pm

  45. The thing is, many people seem to miss the point about things like this (and the Palin uproars of late).

    It’s not about being correct, it’s about making wild negative claims. Because of the ratchet effect, that’s all that really matters. Sure, some people will stop believing once it’s proven to be wrong. But a good deal will continue to believe, because they don’t look at any further details, or they just don’t believe the explanation.

    Comment by JeremyR (6c56cc) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:02 pm

  46. all israel all the time glenn beck

    Comment by NadePaulKuciGravMcKi (e0a55f) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:04 pm

  47. Is Shatz a conjugated form of shlt?

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:06 pm

  48. Larry: are you one of CJ’s suckups sent here to defend him? If so, the quality of his flying monkeys has dropped off considerably

    Comment by eddiebear (15a37c) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:08 pm

  49. Nope, eddiebear, Larry Reilly is a blogroach of long standing.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:13 pm

  50. Now, NadePaulKuciGravMcKi … that one reads like a Lizardoid.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:13 pm

  51. Using a certain phrase, no matter the context, the referent or whatever, reenforces that phrase. Period.

    LOL

    This might as well come from the guy who did Alan Grayson’s ads. It’s 2011. You can’t lie like this anymore.

    If Beck is saying how extremists are bad, and a particular set are bad because they could get violent, that’s not reinforcing the idea that violence should be committed. When you cite something as a reason against, only a fraud would take that warning this far out of context.

    “If you stick your hand in fire you will get burned”

    “Oh no, you’re in favor of burning people!!!!”

    Thanks Larry, for the consistent hit and run horsecrap. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if you love LGF’s smear methodology.

    Then their rage was against Islamofascism, it seemed passionate and appropriate. I didn’t realize at the time that this was the only level of rage LGF ever shows, no matter if the issue isn’t even real.

    Makes you wonder how much evidence LGF trumped up about causes I agreed with. That’s the real reason no one reads that blog anymore. Without trust, their information has no value.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:17 pm

  52. SPQR: thanks

    Comment by eddiebear (15a37c) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:22 pm

  53. Larry’s Cheetos Depletion Rate(CDR) is extremely high. Mom needs to check his Basement Snack Indicator(BSI) when making the shopping list for groceries.

    Comment by vote for pedro (e7577d) — 1/20/2011 @ 8:55 pm

  54. I don’t know if you have seen this yet Mr Patterico but this site Fact Check: Johnson DID Refer to Corrie as “Saint Pancake” has just proved without a doubt that Charles Johnson lies like a rug when it suits him and he also tries to cover up his lies.

    Beware, Charles Johnson is dishonest.

    Comment by Internet Septic Tank Engineer (5b00d0) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:16 pm

  55. A Case Study

    If Glenn Beck tells people to shoot someone in the head, is Glenn Beck guilty if someone gets shot in the head?

    If you answered yes, then

    If you spread a lie that Glenn Beck told people to shoot someone in the head, is it Glenn Beck or YOU that is guilty if someone gets shot in the head?

    Hmmmm, now that’s a conundrum, isn’t it Charles?

    Comment by Jan Listerson (abb0bd) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:37 pm

  56. The day I came to a turning point with LGF was when he started angrily referring to climate-change skeptics as “deniers”. Only a few weeks earlier he had been criticizing the AGW movement as a “religion”. It was a complete 180. Then in another post he referred to himself as “stuck in the middle”, implying that he was some kind of centrist. The guy had held two conflicting extreme positions in the same month, yet somehow thought he was “in the middle”. No sane person could understand.

    Comment by Willy (56b3cc) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:06 pm

  57. american tass is not interested in the truth only in advancing their political agenda.

    Comment by tommy mc donnell (397858) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:08 pm

  58. Willy, the only reason I don’t think LGF was simply paid off by some astroturf effort is that I’m sure such a project would attempt to recruit a lot of bloggers, and someone would be reporting on it.

    Barring something like that, and I guess Charles was actually insincere from 9/11 up to 2008, and possibly still is.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:10 pm

  59. ^plus, his business model of driving away 97% of his audience and recruiting 0% of a new audience is one I think we all should emulate

    /

    Comment by eddiebear (0bfeb6) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:14 pm

  60. I used to be a big fan of LGF, but eventually I drifted away, and then after that Charles drifted away from pretty much all of his former readers.

    I think what typifies LGF now is something Charles wrote in a post (here) yesterday (Jan. 20):

    In our third story of the day about the Republican Party’s big push to destroy America’s ability to deal with climate change ….

    Comment by Joshua (5beaf6) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:05 pm

  61. Well, at least this Charlie didn’t follow his usual wont and photoshop Nazis into the background of the clipped Beck snippet.

    Comment by RH (25784a) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:07 pm

  62. I saw the link on Twitter, and immediately recognized this clip because I watch Beck’s show almost every day. I swiftly replied with the full context of the clip. I posted it, and minutes later when I refreshed the page, the whole thing had been pulled by the blog host.

    But I have a screencap, which I’ll try to post on my blog tomorrow.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (fee6be) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:22 pm

  63. Spank your kids much?
    Comment by Larry Reilly — 1/20/2011 @ 7:17 pm

    – [All too-obvious monkey-spanking joke deleted. As previously noted, in Mawy's case 'chastising the chimp' refers to the verbal abuse he heaps onto his simian typist.]

    Comment by Icy Texan (ed56f8) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:24 am

  64. Using a certain phrase, no matter the context, the referent or whatever, reenforces[sic] that phrase. Period. For all kinds of nuts.
    Including the Beckster himself.

    Comment by Larry Reilly — 1/20/2011 @ 7:22 pm

    “Beat on the brat
    Beat on the brat
    Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
    Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.”

    Comment by Icy Texan (ed56f8) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:36 am

  65. …”what’s funny, besides the stuff here, is that even the most rabid lefties i know here in the PRC have ZERO weapons knowledge beyond whatever they have gleaned from Hollywood, television and various histrionic gun control ads and precious few. if any, weapons.

    so, by all means, if they want blood, let them come for it.

    we’ll call it the battle of “Bull 5hiters Run” when it’s all over.”

    “…The NKVD did it, the up to date and modern KGB did it, the Gestapo did it, the Stasi did it….”

    and the POLES did it too! Yeah! But we…I mean they…uh…I mean Charles Johnson…Yeah, him, that guy…HE did it TOO! Shoot me in the head if I’m so casually comfortable with head-shooting in the abstract that I can’t conceive of folks a notch loonier than I actually shooting actual heads, them having so much weapons-knowledge and all, and being so SORELY PROVOKED by all the LEGIONS of COMMUNISTS just up the street, in San Francisco, or just across the Nerew…Like I said, shoot me in the foot if I am wrong.

    ice9

    Comment by ice9 (2d9cdd) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:56 am

  66. And Patterico should know if anyone does. So when are you going to issue Jeff Goldstein an apology? Because he didn’t issue any death threats on YOU, either.

    I’ll book the ballroom at the Satan Ski Resort for the occasion.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Comment by SDN (c7f390) — 1/21/2011 @ 3:51 am

  67. Dear Lord, why even bring up CJ, his site is a dwelling area for some of the most unintelligent, hyper liberal, illogical people on the planet.Seriously, it is the sewer of blogging web sites where the ban twitches finger is faster than a Nazi with a room full of Jews.

    Now as for Glenn Beck, everyone and I mean everyone who has watched the guy and even those who have only heard of his shtick realize that he is a rabid “anti violence” guy when it comes to politics, he is the teach and show the world the CJ types and remove them via elections kinda guy.

    Anyhow, please don’t mention CJ again, I have the taste of sewage in my mouth just hearing his Bolshevik name.

    Comment by Drider (5ef5c6) — 1/21/2011 @ 4:05 am

  68. Glenn Beck is an idiot conspiracist. I’ve watched him a couple times and he comes off as childish and over-dramatic. Sure in this instance he was being insane about something else but it is crazy. I see no evidence that the leftist backing Pelosi are going to shoot her in the head. I wouldn’t go hitching my horse to his.

    I especially hate all the bat-shit crazy stuff he has to say about atheists. He is so stupid he can’t tell the difference between the concepts of atheist and communist. Not every atheist is a communist.

    Not all atheists are communists, or even Marxists, and there are Christians that are communists. Given the open acceptance of contradictions in Christianity it is quite easy for someone to be a Christian and believe a great many crazy things. Like Beck does. As Sam Harris says, “Mormonism is merely Christianity coupled with some rather stupid ideas”.

    The same is true of atheists. Since atheism is about lack of belief in god and there are a great many crazy ideas that have nothing to do with believing in God, the options are limitless. One can lack belief in god and also believe in quite crazy stuff.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/21/2011 @ 4:45 am

  69. My sister defamed Sarah Palin for incitement to murder of Jared’s victims. So I wrote her a long set of comments explaining exactly why she was wrong and how she should proceed.

    Some of those rules are to be specific in what charges you are making, who you are making them against. Others are to criticize your own side first for behaviors you dislike in the other side. There were many other rules.

    Beck breaks every one of these rules. Here he is criticizing the left for unspecified nuts who are I assume supposed to be important supporters of Pelosi that are willing to “shoot her in the head”. Really, I am supposed to believe this? Isn’t it equally as likely that there are Republican sponsors that are just as likely to want to “shoot Pelosi in the head”.

    Also if you are going to make such charges then you need to be prepared to specify who these people are. Who exactly is going to shoot Pelosi in the Democrat party?

    Why does Beck go on this bat-shit crazy rants about delusionary non-sense when there are perfectly good issues to criticize the democrats on It can’t be the need to fill air time because there is plenty of sane criticisms of Democrats to run several hours of programming every day.

    All Beck is doing here is demonizing Pelosi over things that aren’t true.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/21/2011 @ 4:58 am

  70. Milhouse,

    “Carlitos, “shoot me in the head” is just like “over my dead body”, or “from my cold dead hands”. He’s declaring his readiness to defend the constitution. And he’s warning Pelosi and the other establishment types, who believe in nothing, that the communists they’re palling around with aren’t like them; they actually believe in Marxism and revolution, and therefore eventually they’ll turn on you and you’ll have to either shoot them or be shot.”

    Who exactly is “they”. Name names. I hate this “they” shit. Don’t tell me the “true Marxists” either.

    One of the rules I gave my sister was to start from the top down. Name which elected officials are going to shoot Pelosi first. Then name the party leaders that would do so. Then any Democratic party members you know of who would. Finally name supporters, but of course Pelosi has no more control over that than Republicans do over the fact that racists like their anti-busing policy.

    You guys do not get to bitch about people smearing Palin when you defend Beck for smearing Pelosi this way. Palin was defamed with incitement to murder. Pelosi is being charged falling in with murderers, and being too foolish to recognize there is no honor among thieves.

    Those who say Beck isn’t inciting people to shoot Pelosi are correct. He is doing something more subtle but it is still wrong.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/21/2011 @ 5:10 am

  71. I don’t think the video was cropped to show anything but Glenn Beck’s incessant need to be hyperbolic and over the top.

    You make it sound like Gabby Giffords isn’t considered by the right wing crazies in Arizona as a “radical leftist friend”.

    Comment by Ryan Colpaart (98ea80) — 1/21/2011 @ 5:18 am

  72. If you look on the right column of this page, in the “Favorite Sites” column, you can see LittleGreenFootballs STILL listed after all these years.

    Kinda reminds me of that run-down house in the neighborhood that never gets around to taking the christmas lights down, or the santa on the roof, and it’s July.

    Comment by Fritz Katz (5ca6cc) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:01 am

  73. Beck did in fact tell his viewers to shoot people in the head. He is a violent scumbag, and he’s talking to violent scumbags, i.e., the American right wing.

    Comment by Jake Jackson (66858c) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:30 am

  74. well they’re apparently disregarding him in droves

    kinda like M’chelle and her let’s move nonsense

    Americans just don’t obey like they should, huh?

    Comment by happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:35 am

  75. Some pollster should tally the number of times Jared Loughtner has been blamed in print and broadcast media for the shooting, and compare the total with the number of times when selected others have been blamed.

    Comment by ropelight (7909b0) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:44 am

  76. Comment by Jake Jackson — 1/21/2011 @ 6:30 am

    I’ll type it slowly for you, you great thundering moron…

    He was talking to the left about how they would have to shoot conservatives.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:46 am

  77. Ever notice how your computer seizes up for 2-3 minutes when you browse to LGF? CJ’s monument to creeping-featuritis, LGF is a giant hairball of amateurish AJAX code. He thinks he’s a hot-shit coder, but doesn’t seem to care he’s got the slowest loading, slowest rendering website on the net. How many IT pros browse to LGF and think “Oh yeah, I’ve got to hire THIS guy.”

    Comment by gp (72be5d) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:07 am

  78. I’ll type it slowly for you, you great thundering moron… He was talking to the left about how they would have to shoot conservatives. – Scott Jacobs —

    Indeed, and, in fact, the only person of important political stature who is urging his followers to “bring a gun” – to fight conservatives – is some guy named Obama.

    Comment by RH (25784a) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:18 am

  79. Ryan and Jake eat their boogers.

    Comment by JD (3dddfd) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:23 am

  80. Where did all of the trolls suddenly come from? An open sewer somewhere?

    Comment by Dmac (498ece) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:46 am

  81. Probably some of Charles’ not-so-bright gang.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:17 am

  82. He was talking to the left about how they would have to shoot conservatives.

    Um, no. Read it again. He assumes that the establishment media and politicians, including Nancy Pelosi, aren’t really leftists at all, but just cynics who are playing a game, and who imagine that everyone else is playing the same game. He’s warning them that they’re wrong; some people really do believe in the values they champion. Conservatives like himself really do believe in the values on which the USA was founded, and are prepared to fight for them. And similarly the radical communists they pal around with, e.g. Van Jones and Bill Ayers, do believe in that stuff that they (Pelosi et al) only pretend to believe, and therefore if they’re not careful then one day they will find themselves having to kill them in self defense.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:22 am

  83. In other words, he was talking to the fake-leftists about how they would one day have to shoot the real leftists.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:23 am

  84. The only part of that, that is correct, Milhouse, is if fired upon, fire will be returned.

    Comment by narciso (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:26 am

  85. You guys do not get to bitch about people smearing Palin when you defend Beck for smearing Pelosi this way.

    You really think this is fair?

    We don’t get to complain about people blaming Palin for murder now? That’s reasonable to you?

    Beck is right about this. In fact, you idiots smearing Palin are proving Beck right about this, and make Milhouse’s (clear and truthful) explanation of this even more compelling.

    No one is blaming Pelosi the way Palin was blamed. It’s a completely different type of message to tell her to realize who these particular extremists really are. Palin doesn’t appeal to such people (on the right).

    Left on left violence is real. Some people on the far left are not like mainstream democrats and actually do believe in some crazy revolutionary crap. It’s just the truth. Beck’s point was that if you empower then, as the Obama administration has done in a few cases, or tell them they are right, you’re playing with fire. He’s asking short term thinkers to realize these people aren’t just going away.

    I guess this reaction is predictable. Even when an LGFer has lost the argument handily, he’ll just chant ‘No, I’m right’ obtusely. Is this denial, or just a dedication to smear an innocent person again?

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:36 am

  86. Macker, you seem to want to elevate an opinion to a smear. You need to grow up.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:38 am

  87. Who exactly is “they”. Name names. I hate this “they” shit. Don’t tell me the “true Marxists” either.

    If you look at the transcript, it appears that he was specifically referring to Van Jones; but I imagine Bill Ayers was on his mind too.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:51 am

  88. Actually, he names a lot of names.

    See, this doesn’t work. The Clintons, Bidens, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi — they’re not Nazis and they’re not communists. It doesn’t work, OK?

    And this is where it has been confusing. I put it next to Van Jones? Yes. Bill Ayers? Yes. Dohrn, his wife? Yes. Jeff Jones? Sure. Jodie Evans from Code Pink? You bet. Andy Stern? You bet. They’re all on record saying it.

    [...]
    I don’t know where Barack Obama fits. Is he over here? Or is he over here? Cass Sunstein — I don’t know where he fits. Nancy Pelosi, I’m not sure. I don’t think she fits over there but I’m not sure she fits over here. I don’t know. It’s for you to decide.

    So it’s clear whom he’s talking to, and whom he thinks they’ll have to shoot in self defense. The Clintons, Biden, and Reid are definitely not communists. Van Jones, Ayers, Dohrn, Jeff Jones, Evans, Stern, are definitely communists. Obama, Sunstein, and Pelosi he’s not sure about, though he thinks she’s probably not.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:58 am

  89. “you” refers to the leftist politicians in Washington and their pals in the media, and “they” refers to their radical leftist friends

    For Glenda, there isn’t a difference. Remember, this is the man who thinkc Che Guevara and Woodrow Wilson are blood brothers.

    Comment by Steve J. (928c1d) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:05 am

  90. hat explanation is b.s. Beck invents his own fantasy of Democratic politicians coming after American citizens, using violence,

    No, you completely got it wrong.

    You got it so wrong that it’s quite clear you haven’t even tried to hear Beck’s argument.

    Beck isn’t telling us that Pelosi is going to come after us, and we have to shoot back, you moron.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:58 am

  91. Chucky’s amusing. In the comments he writes

    “Patterico’s having the vapors again: No, Charles Johnson, Glenn Beck Did Not Tell His Viewers to Shoot Anyone in the Head.

    I could swear that neither I nor ‘Conservative Moonbat’ made any such claim, but then I live in the real world.”

    Except, that is exactly what they were intending.

    Comment by William Teach (2d1bed) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:37 am

  92. I have lived in three countries while they were under assault by communist revolutionaries. The “they” Beck refers to are the violent cells these Marxist unleash. He is telling his audience that the threat is real and we may have to meet it with violence. What the radicals want is not going to be a riot where kids throw rocks and torch cars. We will face guerilla tactics – IEDs, targeted assassinations, kidnappings and bombings designed to bring the economy to a stop.

    Beck gives Obama a pass and I think he’s wrong about that. Obama wants the civilian security force as his state police. Obama is not just a politician trying to move his career forward. He is all about power and control and he cares not a whit about America. The democrats are Obama’s useful idiots. In a communist revolution, these are the first to be used and the first to be executed.

    In the three communist takeover attempts I saw happen, the most difficult idea to refute was in El Salvador. A cadre would be working in a cotton field with a gang of compesinos when the owner drove by in his Mercedes. This “community organizer” would point to the new car and say, “In a year that Rico will be dead, living in Miami or down here with us.”

    Comment by Arch (24f4f2) — 1/21/2011 @ 11:04 am

  93. Funny how the left never seems to broadcast any of the numerous Beck clips where he praises MLK and Ghandi, and their adherance to non-violence, and explicitly commands his followers never to use violence, saying it would make them as bad as the leftists they are tryng to defeat.

    Beck certainly criticises the left, often in very harsh, and even apacolyptic terms, and has often warned his listeners that the left would resort to violence, as this misquoted clip does. But he has never advocated that anybody who shares his beleifs should resort to violence, and in fact has on numerous occasions explicitly commanded them not to resort to violence.

    Comment by richard40 (19a56d) — 1/21/2011 @ 11:54 am

  94. Anybody who has watched Beck for 20 minutes knows he does not only NOT advocate violence, he advocates strongly for NON-violence.

    He correctly sees that any punches thrown, let alone serious violence will play right into the setup these non-stop warnings of “violent right-wingers” the media is feeding the country lay the foundation for.

    But people who haven’t listned to him, they will buy it. And they will buy the idea that he’s crazy and if they do watch him for 20 minutes it means they’re crazy, so they’ll never check it out for themselves and make their own judgements outside of the out-of-context soundbites the media serves up as part of the setup.

    I remember the show in question, from looking at the clip. Anyone who watched the show would know — and anyone who has listened to him regularly at all would know even better, that he was warning Democrats that they are being used by the radicals they thought they were using, and to beware.

    The “shooting in the head”? Direct reference to Marxist revolutions all over the world. Stalin. Che. Mao. That’s what they do when they’re done using you. It was a warning to Democrats that the people they THINK are their friends are NOT their friends and they will TURN on them.

    Glenn gets wound up when he talks about this stuff, no doubt about it, because he’s passionate and he believes it and he does NOT want it to happen. When he gets wound up, he is prone to get his tenses and grammatical persons mixed up — which is too bad. Most people who get excited and are speaking off teleprompter will do that occasionally. On the radio his sidekicks will correct him. But there’s nobody to correct him on the TV show. Still, if you’re paying attention at all, you figure out what he meant pretty quickly.

    He’s not crazy. He builds a good case, but it’s not something you can just drop in on for 5 minutes or even a day or two to see. You need an attention span longer than the MTV/Twitter culture conditions people to. He expects his audience to do its own research, and it does.

    If you can’t be bothered, don’t watch.

    Comment by philmon (e11595) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:41 pm

  95. A. Who cares who he is talking to when he suggests they will have to shoot them in the head? It is still inciting violence. There is no way to defend someone saying that they need to shoot them in the head.

    B. It is not at all clear who he is talking about, unless you are very selective in the way you parse the transcript.

    C. I am not going to fight with you about facts. He said to SOMEONE to go and shoot SOMEONE ELSE in the head. There is no excuse, backpedaling, or defense of such a statement on TV.

    D. This is just one of the most egregious examples of his constant drone of paranoid “the guvment is out to get you” rantings. Lunatics really latch on to that kind of thing.

    Comment by Chris Hooten (f8cf1d) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:48 pm

  96. What an incredibly disingenuous reading.

    Comment by jpe (fe8c3b) — 1/21/2011 @ 3:40 pm

  97. Disregard that. I read too quickly. You’re right.

    Comment by jpe (fe8c3b) — 1/21/2011 @ 3:41 pm

  98. I caught Glenn Beck in the mid-2000′s; I thought he was rather amusingly outspoken. I continued listening to him, not because I wanted to, but because it was a radio station that my husband left on all the time. I really started following his every word for the past couple of years–both radio and TV. Glenn is a peaceful, sincere person that is trying to wake up the sleeping giants in us all to let us be aware of the direction we are being taken. Here Glenn believes the left-wingers are beginning to divide–”you” and “they” refer to the left on left. I say, Glenn needs to be heard and heard in his entirety. Giants–take some Dramamine.

    Comment by Paula Anderson (c98bbd) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:15 am

  99. Hootie the comedian: “I am not going to fight with you about facts.”

    – Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

    Comment by Icy Texan (d0161a) — 1/22/2011 @ 4:12 am

  100. Reading comprehension is not one of crissyhooten’s strong suits. You won’t argue about the facts, crissyhooten, because the facts prove your disingenuous dishonest meme to be just that.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 5:58 am

  101. “You guys do not get to bitch about people smearing Palin when you defend Beck for smearing Pelosi this way.

    You really think this is fair?”

    Yes, I do. The purpose of Beck’s hyperbolic rant was to claim that Pelosi has fallen in with people that is going to end up in some kind of gun fight.

    “We don’t get to complain about people blaming Palin for murder now? That’s reasonable to you?”

    I didn’t say that. I said that those of you defending Beck’s behavior do not get to complain about the same kind of behavior from the left. It was conditional.

    Hypocrites don’t get to criticize others for behaviors they do and continue to do, unless and until they admit they did it, say it was wrong when they did it, and they regret it.

    I’m not saying a somebody needs to dredge up their entire past either, because people make mistakes and change. One can secretly regret actions of ones past that no one knows about and honestly criticize the same behavior in others, just so long as one remembers ones own fallibility on the subject.

    It would be hypocritical and wrong for someone to call for the death penalty for the use of fireworks if they had in the past used them illegally themselves.

    “Beck is right about this.”

    No he is not. Democrat disagreements between code pink and mainstream Democrats are not going to devolve into a communist purge complete with firing squads.

    “In fact, you idiots smearing Palin are proving Beck right about this, and make Milhouse’s (clear and truthful) explanation of this even more compelling.”

    I’m not an idiot and I’m not smearing Palin. In fact, if you read my comment you will see that I used the same arguments against my sister who was smearing Palin. Last week I spent quite a bit of time commenting in rebuttal to articles at Mother Jones where Palin is blamed for the shooting.

    “No one is blaming Pelosi the way Palin was blamed.”

    “It’s a completely different type of message to tell her to realize who these particular extremists really are.”

    Becks guilt by association arguments of exactly the same class. The only difference being that he is dealing in imaginary shootings, and making explicit hedges.

    They’d be identical if only the people on the left blaming Palin would hedge their arguments by saying that “Palin wouldn’t personally shoot anyone but if she was at Gifford’s event would have had to defend herself against being shot in the head like that republican judge”.

    Van Jones hasn’t shot anyone, much less a Democrat. The only guy I see on the list with a violent streak I know about is Ayers. I find it highly doubtful that Pelosi is going to end up in a gunfight with him.

    “Palin doesn’t appeal to such people (on the right).”

    I’m sure that Palin appeals to racists on certain topics, affirmative action and immigration. I’m sure that the same goes for guys like McVeigh would have found her more appealing than either Bush. That doesn’t reflect on Palin. Nor does Ayers preference for Pelosi reflect on her.

    “Left on left violence is real. Some people on the far left are not like mainstream democrats and actually do believe in some crazy revolutionary crap. It’s just the truth.”

    I know that and so what? Right on right violence is real too.

    Leftists have tried to use infighting on the left to try to claim that certain famous leftist were actually on the right. Leftist like Mussolini and Hilter. Over at Mother Jones I used the fact of left on left violence, think Trotsky, to show that arguments claiming Hitler was on the right because he attacked communists fall flat on their face precisely because communist attack communist. Go to Mother Jones and read me them hell on that.

    However, the mere existence of left on left violence does not mean that code pink is going to behave like Stalin. Hugo Chavez, yes, but Code Pink, no.

    “Beck’s point was that if you empower then, as the Obama administration has done in a few cases, or tell them they are right, you’re playing with fire. He’s asking short term thinkers to realize these people aren’t just going away.”

    The critics of Palin are making the argument that she was playing with fire, and has reaped the rewards.

    “I guess this reaction is predictable. Even when an LGFer has lost the argument handily, he’ll just chant ‘No, I’m right’ obtusely. Is this denial, or just a dedication to smear an innocent person again?”

    I’m not making the same argument as Charles Johnson.

    Critics of Palin are hypocrites making hyperbolic claims, just as Beck is. They are both violating the rules I wrote about to my sister in much more detail. Beck violates all of them in one way or another.

    What specific statement or action by anyone in the Democrat party leads him to believe that the people he does list are dupes that will eventually end up in a “shoot them in the head” gun battle?

    If you think he is being specific then he is just plain wrong, and doing smear indirectly. Van Jones hasn’t threatened to shoot anyone, hasn’t shot anyone, and therefore Pelosi.

    How can Pelosi be guilty of an imaginary head shot just because she has the same opinion on public health care as a guy like Van Jones?

    Absolutely ridiculous and Beck needs his childish butt paddled (metaphorically speaking for those who are squeamish. Actually he needs to be shot in the head, speaking metaphorically of course. LOL.)

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:16 am

  102. Jake Jackson,

    “Beck did in fact tell his viewers to shoot people in the head. He is a violent scumbag, and he’s talking to violent scumbags, i.e., the American right wing.”

    You are a liar and in fact worse than Beck. Read the transcript.

    What exactly do we need to do about people who are inciting violence? It’s a crime so we need to lock them up right? Which means that we must resort to violence. However since the violence would be motivated by your false charge it is actually you who incited the resulting violence, in this case, not Beck.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:21 am

  103. Milhouse,

    “So it’s clear whom he’s talking to, and whom he thinks they’ll have to shoot in self defense. The Clintons, Biden, and Reid are definitely not communists. Van Jones, Ayers, Dohrn, Jeff Jones, Evans, Stern, are definitely communists.”

    I’m not talking about who he thinks are communists or not. I’m talking about being specific in who he thinks is going to shoot Nancy Pelosi in the head.

    My comment above on the rules I laid out for my sister were a very short summation of what I wrote to her. You actually cannot have a full understanding of how Beck violates them if I were not to write a book here instead of a comment.

    He definitely is violating the rules about specificity. It’s not at all clear to me that he was actually claiming that Van Jones specifically is going to shoot Nancy Pelosi in the head. If it were then I’d just have to laugh at him.

    I specifically hate Beck because I often get classified with socialists and communists because he is so loose with his language and hyperbole. Likewise people like Stacy McCain who just got done claiming by implication that I’m a pot head, just because I do not want prohibition in drugs. These are all ad hominem demonizations.

    Yes, I’ve got a big problem with Beck, and it’s his own fault. What a drama queen.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:34 am

  104. Chris Hooten,

    “Who cares who he is talking to when he suggests they will have to shoot them in the head? It is still inciting violence.”

    No, inciting violence is more specific. You’ll have to come up with a different more believable claim. What he is doing isn’t right but it isn’t inciting violence either. No more so than those who smeared Palin were inciting violence, or you just did by lying about Beck.

    Too bad we don’t have more nuanced language to categorize these things properly.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:39 am

  105. Brian Macker, the bottom line is that – regardless of your approval of Beck’s line of argument about Pelosi and the Democratic Left – Beck is not advocating violence.

    And imagine that … that was the point of the thread, to show how dishonestly Beck’s words were being misrepresented.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:42 am

  106. What is a Brian Macker and why is he writing such narcissistic, wacky thing?

    Comment by ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:42 am

  107. Hooten, once again, you double down on your own dishonesty.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:42 am

  108. #

    A. Who cares who he is talking to when he suggests they will have to shoot them in the head? It is still inciting violence. There is no way to defend someone saying that they need to shoot them in the head.

    B. It is not at all clear who he is talking about, unless you are very selective in the way you parse the transcript.

    C. I am not going to fight with you about facts. He said to SOMEONE to go and shoot SOMEONE ELSE in the head. There is no excuse, backpedaling, or defense of such a statement on TV.

    D. This is just one of the most egregious examples of his constant drone of paranoid “the guvment is out to get you” rantings. Lunatics really latch on to that kind of thing.

    Comment by Chris Hooten — 1/21/2011 @ 2:48 pm

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    hooten hooting the
    hot-headed hoots of madman
    hope hootgun locked up!

    Comment by ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:49 am

  109. Richard40,

    “Funny how the left never seems to broadcast any of the numerous Beck clips where he praises MLK and Ghandi, and their adherance to non-violence, and explicitly commands his followers never to use violence, saying it would make them as bad as the leftists they are tryng to defeat.”

    People are hypocritical in their statements all the time. Islam is full of peaceful quotes, that are contradicted by other words and deeds in the religion. Make an effort and you can find lots of peaceful quotes by the very communists who took the kinds of actions Beck is worried about.

    So the left doesn’t need to go find all the peaceful stuff Beck says. It is quite reasonable and rational to focus in on anything bad.

    When we talk about Hitler no one cares about him being a vegatarian or a anti-vivisectionist. It’s the bad stuff he did that wipes out any notion that he was non-violent.

    Likewise Mohammad’s chopping off the heads of every adult male member of a Jewish tribe on the suspicion that a few of them might have opposed him blows away the idea that he is peaceful or for justice.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:53 am

  110. “Brian Macker, the bottom line is that – regardless of your approval of Beck’s line of argument about Pelosi and the Democratic Left – Beck is not advocating violence.”

    Correct, he is not advocating violence. Those smearing Palin are also not advocating violence. Doesn’t mean I can’t disapprove of both.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:55 am

  111. “What is a Brian Macker and why is he writing such narcissistic, wacky thing?”

    I don’t think anyone is going to be able to answer a troll unless you are specific. I think they will know “what” you are based on your comment. What specifically is narcissistic, and what specifically is wacky?

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 7:58 am

  112. Its no surprise that conservatives can condone such rhetoric. They are expert at denial. The same christian ‘culture of life’ that condoned torture and hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq. It is a classic example of how conservatives think. Can you imagine if a Democratic leader, perhaps Muslim COngressman Keith Ellis told a television audience that the right wing leadership needs to shoot their radical constituents in the head? What would this blog and these conservatives be saying?

    Comment by Truth (de7003) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:02 am

  113. “Truth” isn’t.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:03 am

  114. “Hypocrites don’t get to criticize others for behaviors they do and continue to do, unless and until they admit they did it, say it was wrong when they did it, and they regret it.”

    Brian – Sure they do, all day long, when the other side does not criticize the behavior of its own people, that is what creates the hypocrisy and is the very reason for pointing it out. You completely miss the point here.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:08 am

  115. Brian – If people on the right do not feel Beck is doing anything wrong and can point to people on the left using similar rhetoric not being condemned for it by the left, it is not at all hypocritical to point out the left’s double standards.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:11 am

  116. OK, I read the transcript. What I saw is that Glenn Beck is a barely functioning psychotic. Rambling, incoherent, delusional drivel: how much more evidence do you need?

    Comment by SqueakyRat (0f1b0d) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:25 am

  117. Twoof is one of our banned imbeciles. Macker likes the sound of his own assertions.

    A pox on both your houses!

    Comment by JD (109425) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:31 am

  118. And spueaky rat is a liar.

    Comment by JD (822109) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:32 am

  119. Can you imagine if a Democratic leader, perhaps Muslim COngressman Keith Ellis told a television audience that the right wing leadership needs to shoot their radical constituents in the head?

    You mean like this democrat congressman ?

    Putz.

    Comment by A Fine Bunch of Rubens (720b7a) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:32 am

  120. Certainly the trolls demonstrate that the left is still about nothing but name-calling and making up stuff.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/22/2011 @ 8:34 am

  121. Don’t have much desire to waste any time on CJ but was curious about his reaction to Olberdouche firing. In comment 14 Mr. Johnson states that, “Next Glenn Beck will announce his retirement. I can dream, can’t I?” Some posters suggested Maddow would make a good replacement in that time spot. The site sort of reminds me of DU now. And I do recall how the commie protester was vilified (rightly) at the time. She even was an Idiotarian of the Year. So I wonder what the artists who did the pictures of Idiotarians are doing now? I thought perhaps they were conservatives. Does anyone recall who recent idiotarians were? Just to see how things have changed there. Even a few years back I thought there was a cult of personality forming around CJ. Wonder if his opinion of Gunga Dan evolved also? I’ve never seen his lizard t-shirts anywhere around here in South Florida. I at times wear a W 2000 cap and get some strange looks, but these are the people who saved us from an Algore Presidency. “That butterfly ballot was way too confusing”, “Scotus SELECTED Bush.”

    Comment by Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:01 am

  122. “… and hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.”

    Nonsense. That study has been bunked for the fraud it was.

    “condoned torture”

    BTW, democrats condone torture too.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:26 am

  123. What kind of a coward suppresses comments that don’t kiss his ass?

    A pathetic cowardly denier.

    Yes, you’ve proven yourself just as we’d expected.

    Comment by IGM (c1f855) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:47 am

  124. Iamadimwit is going all psycho manic again.

    Comment by JD (85b089) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:49 am

  125. “Brian – If people on the right do not feel Beck is doing anything wrong and can point to people on the left using similar rhetoric not being condemned for it by the left, it is not at all hypocritical to point out the left’s double standards.”

    It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that Palin’s “target” map was not wrong, and that the Democrats have done the same and thus they are hypocrites. If they think it is so wrong then why do it, and why is their top elected officials doing it (not some straggler).

    That argument doesn’t apply here. Beck is smearing Pelosi as if there is going to be some life or death struggle with headshots in the Democrat party. If you support Beck’s hyperbole then you can’t complain about the lefts hyperbole about Palin.

    No Palin didn’t incite murder, and no Pelosi isn’t going to have to shoot anyone in the head.
    Both are false claims about someone else paint them in a bad light. Get it?

    Not every Republican supports Beck’s hyperbole. So this is not a claim that Republicans in general don’t get to complain about the defamation of Palin.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:50 am

  126. Macker, your attempts at creating this parallel simply fail.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:53 am

  127. Yes, you’ve proven yourself just as we’d expected.

    Comment by IGM — 1/22/2011 @ 9:47 am

    “We’d?” Who’s the “we’d” part of your statement referring to?

    Comment by vote for pedro (e7577d) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:55 am

  128. “Macker likes the sound of his own assertions.”

    Asserts JD while liking the sound of it.

    Is that supposed to be an insult, or a crime? Who would make an assertion that they didn’t like the sound of? Next you’ll be complaining that I’m using a keyboard to do so.

    Guilty as charged. LOL.

    At least I use my own name to make the assertions so you will know who to punish, mock in public, or whatever.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:57 am

  129. Except for the fact that Berwick, will deliver death panels, QE 2 is making everything more expensive, along with the EPA regulations, that
    ‘will necessarily make electricity prices skyrocket’ that was a promise, by the President

    Comment by narciso lopez (6075d0) — 1/22/2011 @ 9:59 am

  130. “Macker, your attempts at creating this parallel simply fail.”

    Which parallel?

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:00 am

  131. In the last year, there have been several high profile mass murders carried out by persons who were strong Obama supporters, although they were alienated from the system, Stack, the Austin IRS bomber, Bedell the Arlington station pot smoking
    9/11 denialist shooter (that Loughner resembles most) Lee, the Discovery Channel econut, who’s rhetoric was right out of Gore and Holdren. That fellow Duke up in the North Florida SB shooting,(with the V for Vendetta fetishism) those are a few that escaped the Mediamatter profile

    Comment by narciso lopez (6075d0) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:16 am

  132. narciso’s list seems to establish that Beck’s right. These people will kill or be killed. There’s nothing like that in the Tea Party. Palin’s message of locations she wants election wins has nothing comparable.

    There’s a big difference between actual killers, and Beck’s warning against violence (which Chris Hooten dishonestly calls support for violence) and the fact that people use crosses to mark geographic locations.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:22 am

  133. daleyrocks,

    Me: “Hypocrites don’t get to criticize others …”

    You: “Brian – Sure they do, all day long, when the other side does not criticize the behavior of its own people, that is what creates the hypocrisy and is the very reason for pointing it out. You completely miss the point here.”

    Nope, hypocrites can’t criticize other hypocrites for being hypocrites, and be taken seriously. I think it is you who misses the point. There is more than two points of view, and from where I’m standing some Democrats and some Republicans are hypocrites, and thus can be dismissed for their hyperbole.

    I find curious your notion that we can think in collectivist terms about hypocrisy and then somehow identify it as originating on one side. Do you think this kind of hyperbole started over the Palin “target” map? I’d never make a statement about where hypocrisy originates.

    Hypocrites aren’t restricted to the Democrat party, and they come of all political stripes including Republican. I’d judge it impossible to tell when it started.

    On the specific issue of Palin it is the specific Democrats who blamed her for inciting Jared’s crimes who are hypocrites. That’s true whether a Republican hypocrite points it out or not. Non-hypocrite republicans are justified in complaining, but the hypocrites aren’t. Any Republican that ever complained about using martial terms in politics would be a such a hypocrite. I know of no such Republican.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:28 am

  134. Dustin,

    I agree with your comment except for the first sentence, which was, “narciso’s list seems to establish that Beck’s right. These people will kill or be killed.”

    I guess I could agree if you really stress the word “seems” to the point where it means “artificially seems” or “seems to but doesn’t actually”. However, then the implication would be that Beck is wrong.

    Isn’t Narciso’s list a bunch of nuts? Part of my point about the order one needs to a “name who” which went from “elected officials”, “party leaders”, “party members”, down to “supporters”. Notice that I didn’t put “nut jobs” on the list.

    Even if they were not nuts, wouldn’t Beck be wrong precisely because the least likely target of an “eco-nut” is going to be Nancy Pelosi?

    The grain of truth in Becks claims, that involuntary Marxists (loosely referred to as communists), tend to hatch violent totalitarian movements, is lost in his hyperbole.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:38 am

  135. Now Beck has brought to light the whole infrastructure of ‘direct action’ like the Ruckus
    Society, CAP, ACORN, SEIU, which is much more advanced than some small band of malcontents like
    the Weatherman and even the Panthers ever where,
    and it is likely as we have seen in Europe, that this could get very bloody indeed, like the early
    20th century way of anarchism wave, and the union activism of the IWW

    Comment by narciso lopez (6075d0) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:39 am

  136. Has the media, even Fox really pointed out, this
    deep derangement on the part of significant members of this Popular FRont. How can we have
    an FCC political officer, who craves the ‘wonderful democratic revolution of Chavez’
    and who yearns of ways to carry it out, the stipulations on the Comcast measure, net neutrality, are just some of the signs,

    Comment by narciso lopez (6075d0) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:44 am

  137. Senor Macker likes the sound of his own words. Brevity and not being a nozzle are your friends, not enemies. Oops. Violent martial rhetoric.

    Comment by JD (d48c3b) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:46 am

  138. Any Republican that ever complained about using martial terms in politics would be a such a hypocrite.

    LOL

    Brian, you’re deranged in your effort to complexify a simple issue. Beck’s right, whether you like it or not. Whether you invent completely asinine, Orwellian rules about who is allowed to speak about what.

    Beck’s right. There are violent left on left commies in this country. Many of them are elevated by seemingly more reasonable democrats. Just a plain fact. Commies have been killing democrats for a very long time, and it’s very smart of Beck to describe the problem in the clear way he did.

    Anyone confusing this issue is a dissembler trying to score points. It’s related to Palin’s completely innocent map in absolutely no way whatsoever. There is no violence in her map, whatsoever, and those who say otherwise are either insane or quite horrible liars.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:07 am

  139. Narco,

    So you think Acorn is just the same as the Weatherman but bigger? I think Acorn is an appalling example self feeding government funding and of violation of voting rights, but not a terrorist organization like the weathermen.

    BTW, I wouldn’t give Beck credit for what others have done. I can live without Beck’s hyperbole. I don’t think any benefits are worth the costs. Like having to explain the above video.

    Likewise your painting of all those organizations with the same color as the weathermen.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:13 am

  140. So you think Acorn is just the same as the Weatherman but bigger

    Well, of course it is. You didn’t know that? What’s wrong with you? Are you educated?

    ACORN is the present iteration of a well known organization that used to be called the Weathermen. They realized the masses did not support their revolution, and found more obscure ways to effect socialism. This is quite simple.

    Election fraud, of which ACORN has been convicted so many times, is just as bad as violence.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:17 am

  141. “Whether you invent completely asinine, Orwellian rules about who is allowed to speak about what.”

    They aren’t Orwellian. In fact, many of you are invoking them. They are rules that you should abide by if you don’t want to be a hypocrite, or as a partisan not truly interested in the thing you pretend to object to.

    There are also rules you need to abide by if you don’t want to appear like a paranoid nut.

    You don’t have to follow them if you don’t want to.

    “Beck’s right. There are violent left on left commies in this country. Many of them are elevated by seemingly more reasonable democrats. Just a plain fact. Commies have been killing democrats for a very long time, and it’s very smart of Beck to describe the problem in the clear way he did.”

    If by “clear” you mean “non-specific hyperbole”, and by “right” you mean “wrong”.

    I don’t object to a lot of what Beck says. Other people manage to say it without all the hyperbole. Much of what he says becomes wrong precisely because of the way he says it.

    There is no doubt in my mind that fractional reserve banking is responsible for the business cycle, and therefore much misery in the world, including acting as a catalyst for world wars. It is also true that Jews were quite influential in the banking industry. Despite that I would never make a statement like “Hitler’s right.” after he got done with one of his hyperbolic speeches on Jews in banking.

    Every time I’ve listened to Beck he ends up going off on the hyperbole, when the originators of the ideas he co-opts had no such intentions or need. I cringe at the idea that the first exposure to Hayek for many people is a guy like this.

    If his TV program was live I might give him a little more slack, but this stuff is recorded. I’m sure if I had to fill an hour of live TV I’d make some mistakes but he’s obviously doing this stuff on purpose. He has a shtick.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:31 am

  142. Dustin,

    Well then any organization that promotes socialism, according to your criterion, is equivalent to the Weather Underground. That’s pretty broad. In fact, I think it includes the Catholic Church.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:33 am

  143. Macker is comparing apples and oranges but then says we cannot compare apples and apples. Makes no sense, but those are his rules. I think he is one of the deliberately obtuse ones.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:40 am

  144. “There is no doubt in my mind that fractional reserve banking is responsible for the business cycle, and therefore much misery in the world, including acting as a catalyst for world wars. It is also true that Jews were quite influential in the banking industry.”

    Those pesky Joooooos are all over the place, aren’t they?

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:42 am

  145. Dustin,

    “Anyone confusing this issue is a dissembler trying to score points.”

    Who am I scoring points with? Let me let you in on a secret. Ideologies of all stripes hate a guy like me who makes rational arguments. It’s actually a very bad way to “score points” with anyone. Holding people up to a mirror and requiring that they be rational doesn’t make you friends. Every ideology seems to have their own sacred cows.

    Here’s a tool for you to use. Take everything Beck has said, and replace Democrat with Republican, swap around the leaders, swap around the extremists, and you will find that the left is making the same exact complains about you, that Beck makes about the Democrats.

    That Democrats get communist votes is no more remarkable that Republicans get votes from anti-abortion bombers. That doesn’t make Democrats communists, or useful tools, anymore than it makes Republicans terrorists.

    Beck is just plain wrong because he wouldn’t accept the same exact argument from the other side.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:45 am

  146. “including acting as a catalyst for world wars. It is also true that Jews were quite influential in the banking industry.”

    Brian – I see where you’re going with this. The Jooooos caused the World Wars. The Jooooos also control the media so they can control propaganda related to wars. It’s all one giant conspiracy, isn’t it?

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:46 am

  147. If we didn’t have visitors like Brian, we would never really know what is going on in the world and what we are allowed to say. Is this a great country, or what?

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:49 am

  148. Good, point daley.

    Thanks, Brain!

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:51 am

  149. I really love putting commas wherever, the, hell I want.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:51 am

  150. There are also rules you need to abide by if you don’t want to appear like a paranoid nut.

    Sorry, I do not think I will let a verbose asshat make that kind of determination. Much like how leftists like crissyhooten like to make any differing opinion uneducated, outside the mainstream, or crazy.

    Plus, the Jooooooooooooooooos. And the Koch brothers.

    Why is every last “a pox on both houses I am a principled rational independent” inevitably a complete arse?

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 11:57 am

  151. “Macker is comparing apples and oranges…”

    Really, where? Be specific. You know, follow one of my Orwellian rules.

    “Those pesky Joooooos are all over the place, aren’t they?”

    Well, my actual point is that an institution was responsible for the business cycle, not Jews.

    I assume that everyone knows that Jews were common in European banking precisely because of Christian self-selection out of the business based on the weird idea that charging interest was against God’s will.

    There was also a Christian bias against occupations like being a merchant, i.e. “The Merchant of Venice”. In addition specific laws that forbade Jews from certain occupations, or only allowed them to pursue others.

    I think everyone can see the tone and point of your reasoning with this example. My point being that just because certain statements being are true is not indicative of any deep conspiracy. Just because some of the stuff Beck says is true doesn’t mean that “Those pesky communists are all over the place, aren’t they?”.

    Maybe you need to pay more attention to the details that you deride with “complexify a simple issue”.

    The world is complex, not simple. Beck is obviously driven by different motives than those he steals his ideas from. Otherwise he wouldn’t use the hyperbole. That’s simple enough for even you to understand.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:03 pm

  152. JD,

    “Why is every last “a pox on both houses I am a principled rational independent” inevitably a complete arse?”

    Says a guy who also says, and I quote, “A pox on both your houses!”

    That’s the second time you’ve done exactly what you condemn. You make this too easy.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:07 pm

  153. “Brian – I see where you’re going with this. The Jooooos caused the World Wars. The Jooooos also control the media so they can control propaganda related to wars. It’s all one giant conspiracy, isn’t it?”

    Actually, no you didn’t even see where I went (past tense) with it.

    The point was that Beck like Hiter comes off as a conspiracy nut. Apparently you are too.

    If this is too subtle for you to follow then I don’t see how you can be a proper judge of how Beck comes across.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:14 pm

  154. Okay, and completely self-unaware to boot .. I was mocking you the first time, but it flew right past your pointy head.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:21 pm

  155. Ok, so what have Daley, Dustin, and JD convinced me of? They are just the kind of “us against them” nuts that Beck attracts. In their minds opinion must be a “simple” gut level reaction to group membership. One cannot have opinion outside of the group. This kind of argumentation is supposed to help Becks image?

    You guys sound like a bunch of collectivists. They’d be proud of you in certain circles on the left.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:22 pm

  156. Tell me what else I believe. Tell me my opinion on Beck. Hell, you have not demonstrated the ability to understand anything other than you own bluster. Trolls like you are soooooooooooooooooo predictable, yet each and every one of you thinks you are special.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:33 pm

  157. “Okay, and completely self-unaware to boot .. I was mocking you the first time, but it flew right past your pointy head.”

    Apparently you have no idea what one of your favorite phrases means. I never expressed the desire for a pox, literally or figuratively, to befall anyone. That you expect me to pick up on your little psychological tics says more about you than me.

    I however think you are lying based on the original comment which was “Twoof is one of our banned imbeciles. Macker likes the sound of his own assertions. A pox on both your houses!” You gave reasons for wishing a pox on me, and Twoof. Mockery has a different structure than this, plus a basis. You have neither. Were you mocking then you would have included something to the effect of “I want to be unbiased so a pox on both their houses.”

    Even then it would be inapplicable. I’m hadn’t argued from authority based on any claims of lack of bias. Nor have I condemned all Democrats or all Republicans. Just the ones behaving badly like Beck.

    Also this is one of the games you partisans like to play. Name your enemy along side someone else’s name you dislike so you can get your hate on. Throw your underwear at the wall and see what will stick. I get it, you want me to shut up. I don’t care.

    While we are on the subject of psychology. Is “pointy head” a reference to your innate hatred of your intellectual superiors? Also, what is with Dustin’s random outbursts about, “I really love putting commas wherever, the, hell I want.” Is he worried I’m from the government and trying to control his grammar?

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:49 pm

  158. I am just skimming, but this thought by Brian sorta gets at my point. YMMV.

    I cringe at the idea that the first exposure to Hayek for many people is a guy like this.

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:55 pm

  159. You can “think” all you want. That does not make it so. You are not unique or special or insightful or new or anything other than predictable.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 12:59 pm

  160. That said, I’d second JD’s take on the pox on your house people. They often turn into poopyheads when their arguments aren’t immediately embraced by the groupthink.

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:01 pm

  161. “Otherwise he wouldn’t use the hyperbole.”

    Brian – It is like you are inside Beck’s mind with brilliant insight’s like this!

    Why did you mention the Jews in comment 141? You can be honest. You and you anti-semitic Austrian school of Economics pals share no love for the Jews, do you?

    FIAT CURRENCY!!!!! Oh Noes!!!!

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:03 pm

  162. Brian – I don’t watch or listen to Beck so your assumptions are all wrong, but thanks for playing.

    The faux intellectual arrogance of militant atheist libertarians who don’t understand the banking system amuses me, though. Congratulations on having sex at age seven. I’m happy for you.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:05 pm

  163. “Trolls like you are soooooooooooooooooo predictable, yet each and every one of you thinks you are special.”

    So you think I’m trolling you. I guess I must be a cannibal troll.

    “Hell, you have not demonstrated the ability to understand anything other than you own bluster.”

    Let’s persue your own comments for a half minute because that is all it will take to grasp your thinking processes, which is probably giving too much credit. Here’s what you have “demonstrated”:

    “Yelverton is crazy.”
    “Mawy proves itself to be dummerer than a sack of dimwits every time it comments.”
    “Is Shatz a conjugated form of shit?”
    “Is Shatz a conjugated form of shlt?”
    “Ryan and Jake eat their boogers.”
    “Twoof is one of our banned imbeciles.”
    “And spueaky rat is a liar.”
    “Iamadimwit is going all psycho manic again.”

    Most of those are your entire comment.

    I like how you give me the advice about brevity, like any concern troll would. Let me tell you, my “friend”, brevity is not your friend on this comment thread.

    “Tell me what else I believe.”

    You want me to so I’ll tell you what I think you believe based on your comments. You are the kinda troll who monitors a blog and insults anyone who you think isn’t on your side. You think you own the site.

    Talk about being a predictable troll. This pattern is so stereotypical of a territorial blog troll I couldn’t make it up. The immediate insults, the anger, the lack of rationality, the obsession with who was and was not banned, etc.

    Patterico should ban you. You lower the level of discourse here.

    “Tell me my opinion on Beck.”

    You haven’t bothered to do that during the entire thread, so why should I?

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:15 pm

  164. ____________________________________________

    The same christian ‘culture of life’ that condoned torture and hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.

    I’m amused when people of the left become so indignant about George Bush/America/US military/western imperialism and the actions of such people/things (or symbols) in Iraq and then stammer and stutter — or show much, much, much less indignation — about the abject brutality and horrors sown by Sadaam Hussein, not to mention Islam-fanaticism in societies like Palestine.

    Again, I wouldn’t be so POed about such liberals if they at least — at least — admitted their opinions and sentiments weren’t inspired by a great embrace of compassion and humanity.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:27 pm

  165. Daleyrocks,

    “You and you anti-semitic Austrian school of Economics pals share no love for the Jews, do you?”

    Laughable that you would call the Austrians anti-semites. Murray Rothbard (Jew), Ludwig Von Mises (Jew), Carl Menger (Jewish girlfriend), Israel Kirtzner (Jew).

    Meanwhile Beck approvingly quotes Austrians. Is he a anti-semite because of his economic views?

    I use my real name to post comments and I’m a quite stanch defender of Israel. It on the inter tubes for all to see. What kind of anti-semite does that.

    What kind of anti-semite marries a woman of Jewish heritage?

    This the best you can do?

    You can’t actually defend Beck because you haven’t sound footing. So you start attacking me (an indirectly Beck himself) as anti-semites because I think fractional reserve banking causes the instabilities of the business cycle.

    Not the brightest are you.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:33 pm

  166. It is truly not arrogant not pompous not pedantic and not the definition of mendoucheous to lecture me abut the structure of mockery. Here is a safe assumption for you, pudwacker, when in doubt, I am mocking you. When not in doubt, still mocking.

    I hesitate to note a possible typo, but when you are proclaiming yourself to be an intellectual superior based on absolutely nothing, you should avoid using terms like I’m hadn’t.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:39 pm

  167. “This the best you can do?”

    Brian – Why did you bring up Jews in comment 141?

    George Soros is a Jew and is not pro-Israel in fact seems anti-semitic as do a lot of Jewish progressives. It is almost a badge of honor these days. What is your point. Talk to me about Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul.

    Your real name? You mean your screen name. No way for people to verify your claim, not that it makes a difference, does it?

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:40 pm

  168. There is nothing to “defend” from the transcript provided, unless the reader chooses to take his actual words and meaning and turn it into something not said and not intended.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:42 pm

  169. I don’t see why Michelle Malkin is making such a big deal about Obama saying he doesn’t speak Austrian. I thought everyone knew he only speaks Keynesian, and not because his father is from Kenya either.

    Move over, Dorothy Parker and Oliver Wilde… there’s a new wit in town!

    Comment by ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:42 pm

  170. “I hesitate to note a possible typo”

    JD – There were many typos in Mr. Elitist Rules comments. I thought he would bring up another religious atrocity if I pointed them out or something.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:42 pm

  171. That Democrats get communist votes is no more remarkable that Republicans get votes from anti-abortion bombers.

    I understand where you’re coming from, but context is important. I’d say your POV would have had more ground to stand on during the first half of the 20th century. That’s when the KKK was far more visible, when Jim Crow was practiced in parts of America, when Hitler was getting hugs from parts of Europe.

    But in this era — in the 21st century — examples of excessive leftism are more commonplace throughout the Western World. There are more examples of mindless political correctness (which generally is the domain of liberalism) than there are of vindictive rightwing pettiness.

    And while Stalinism and Maoism have gone to the great beyond (thank God), a peculiar form of ultra-liberalism (call it Hugo Chavez-ism), which is very morally relativistic and quite willing to slap about common sense has taken their place. I think of societies running the gamut from China to Russia, Venezuela to Greece.

    IOW, leftist sentiment going berserk is more at the surface in 2011, and, no surprise, the deranged gunman in Arizona had biases rooted in the left.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:46 pm

  172. “I don’t watch or listen to Beck so your assumptions are all wrong, but thanks for playing.”

    You don’t have to listen to Beck to play the “us vs. them” game. Apparently you haven’t read any Austrian economics either but that didn’t stop you from making asinine claims about them. Jewish anti-semites who don’t even write anything nasty about the Jews. Amazing.

    “The faux intellectual arrogance of militant atheist libertarians who don’t understand the banking system amuses me, though.”

    Says someone who has amply demonstrated is total lack of any reading on the subject. Someone who actually thought Austrians were anti-Semites based on third, maybe fourth hand reading.

    Hmm.. quite a mouthful there “intellectual arrogance of militant atheist libertarians”.

    Yeah, I’m militant for expressing an opinion.

    BTW, I’m not a libertarian, at least so they tell me. I tend to agree. I could make an argument for the government forcing people to buy insurance that would be quite sound. Not an argument a socialist would like however.

    There you go with the group think. Plus a touch of denigration for using ones intellect.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:47 pm

  173. “You can’t actually defend Beck because you haven’t sound footing.”

    Brian – I don’t accept you premise or made up rules. The attack on Beck from LGF was based on taking words out of context. In context, there is nothing to attack. Your pretzel logic rules for the right not pointing out the left’s hypocrisy make no sense.

    This is the way it works – I have no control over your stupidity. Carry on.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:47 pm

  174. Brian – Why did you bring up Jews in comment 141?

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:49 pm

  175. “BTW, I’m not a libertarian”

    Right, you just like their economic theory. Got it. And you use your “real name” on the internet.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:52 pm

  176. Mark, and I understand where you are coming from. I wasn’t claiming identity, or exact reverse polarity.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:52 pm

  177. Fractional reserve system and the Joooooooooooooooooooooos. Bogeyman.BOO!

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:52 pm

  178. “Brian – Why did you bring up Jews in comment 141?”

    Read the comment again. The reason was clear.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:52 pm

  179. ““Brian – Why did you bring up Jews in comment 141?”

    Read the comment again. The reason was clear.”

    Brian – Are you saying Jews cause World Wars? Please confirm.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:54 pm

  180. Pay very close attention to the sentence: “Despite that I would never make a statement like “Hitler’s right.” after he got done with one of his hyperbolic speeches on Jews in banking.”

    Read it like five times, and also read the comment I was responding to.

    I’m pointing out that Beck draws a lot of isolated “facts” together to come to the wrong conclusions. Conclusions like Pelosi will have to one day shoot Van Jones in the head.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:56 pm

  181. “Brian – Are you saying Jews cause World Wars? Please confirm.”

    No. That clear enough for you?

    Aren’t you aware that was one of Hitlers claims? I was showing facts that one could use hyperbole and false deduction to arrive at the wrong conclusions about.

    Point being that even if Beck is quoting facts about past communists like Stalin that doesn’t mean than Pelosi needs to shoot other Democrats in the head.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 1:59 pm

  182. Daleyrocks,

    Do you hate children? Do you hate sex? Please clarify? Do you hate Jews, like the Austrian economists, please clarify? Do you hate, libertarians, please clarify? Do you hate, atheists, please clarify?

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:01 pm

  183. “Right, you just like their economic theory. Got it.”

    Austrian economics has been around long before the libertarian movement.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:03 pm

  184. Why do you hate honesty and rational discourse, Señor Macker?

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:03 pm

  185. Daleyrocks,

    Why are you seeking confirmation that the Jews cause World Wars? You a Hitler fan? Please clarify.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:04 pm

  186. “Your real name? You mean your screen name. No way for people to verify your claim, not that it makes a difference, does it?”

    Of course it makes a difference. Those pro-Israel comments are mine.

    “George Soros is a Jew and is not pro-Israel in fact seems anti-semitic as do a lot of Jewish progressives.”

    So your main evidence that they are anti-semitic is that they are not pro-Israel. That evidence kinda falls flat in my case.

    “What is your point.”
    That kind of evidence falls flat in my case.

    “Talk to me about Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul.”
    Lew Rockwell isn’t an Austrian economist. Although from what I understand he has a lot of Jew friends. sorta like Hitler, right?

    “What about Ron Paul?”

    What about him, you hypocrite? I betcha get all riled when someone calls you a racist for criticizing Obama on his economic policies.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:15 pm

  187. OOOh, not feelin’ the luv on here today.

    Comment by elissa (310f0e) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:22 pm

  188. 1) How many people does Beck say should be shot in the head including himself?

    2) Who else does he say should be shot in the head?

    3) Did he imply Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler are revolutionaries of equal danger to our country?

    Comment by Chris Lynch (a25f81) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:27 pm

  189. _________________________________________

    Mark, and I understand where you are coming from

    As a side note, a few months ago I read Glenn Beck’s book “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” and he comes off like a mostly sensible, humorous and self-deprecating kind of guy—I don’t watch his TV show because my local cable provider is lousy.

    If he had the dogmatism and personality traits of Keith Olbermann or Mark Levin (on the right), then I could understand why you’d suspect his remarks about Pelosi weren’t in regards solely to the tactics of ultra-liberals. I could see why you might believe he was also trying to cast a shadow on liberals/Democrats in general. But I have no doubt that Beck is fully aware of just how power hungry and, most crucially, unkind and ruthless, extremists on the left can be. Moreover, I recall seeing some of his shows when he was on CNN, and there were moments when he sounded concerned about rightism in America becoming too heavy-handed.

    Beck probably keeps in mind the sort of individual symbolized by ultra-leftist Lee Harvey Oswald, who, after all, shocked America and the presidency in 1963 like few other people have ever done. And now, 48 years later, the killer in Arizona has biases that are closer to Oswald on the political spectrum than someone like Timothy McVeigh.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:28 pm

  190. ColonelHaiku, JD, Daleyrocks, Carlitos, Dustin,

    Mark seems to be the only one willing to take up rational discourse here, and it becomes tiresome debunking the children.

    I leave you to your echo chamber.

    The left is right about you. You are just a bunch of unthinking anti-intellectual bullies. Beck’s hyperbole serves you well. It’s quite clear you don’t give a damn about the truth. No wonder so many criminal Republicans get voted into office. You don’t care about behavior as long as they are on your side.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:29 pm

  191. Mr. Macker,

    You included me, a person who

    quoted one of your points and agreed with it

    , as someone who doesn’t give a damn about the truth. You might want to work on your style a bit, now that you’ve proven my clairvoyance vis a vis poopyheads.

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:34 pm

  192. formatting skillz fail on my part there.

    Comment by carlitos (a3d259) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:38 pm

  193. __________________________________________

    Beck’s hyperbole serves you well.

    But, Brian, I suddenly realize that — bing, bing, bing — Beck’s cautioning liberals like Pelosi about what (or who) they should be worried about actually was both reasonable and sadly prophetic. After all, Jared Lee Loughner has a history that points to his being of the left. While he also is deranged, if that mental illness could be pulled back enough, he easily comes way too close to mirroring someone like Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:42 pm

  194. Carlitos – it is like we are psychic. And Señor Macker was predictable.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 2:57 pm

  195. To people like Mr Wacker, it seems that an echo chamber means any group of people that do not fall to their knees in awe of his awesome awesomeness and wisdom from on high. Sould you dare to disagree wih his awesomeness you are an uneducated illiterate imbecile that needs an echo chamber to survive. Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you, Señor Macker.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 3:02 pm

  196. _________________________________

    No wonder so many criminal Republicans get voted into office. You don’t care about behavior as long as they are on your side.

    Actually, way more of the contortionist-watusi routines that people use to rationalize away the lousy behavior of someone they like politically or the idiocy of an idea/policy they agree with emanate from the left than the right. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, much less the political leadership (and machinery) of various large cities — much less the very checkered background of the current president — are classic examples of that.

    Scrape away the surface, Brian, and you’ll find your inner self revealed.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 1/22/2011 @ 3:15 pm

  197. By a show of hands, who thinks comment #190, authored by Señor Whacker, is one from a rational independent thinker?

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/22/2011 @ 3:32 pm

  198. Colonel Haiku wear
    Epic Macker Rejection
    like Badge of Honor

    Comment by ColonelHaiku (5430d1) — 1/22/2011 @ 4:02 pm

  199. Brian Macker, projection dude. Look it up on Wikipedia or something.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/22/2011 @ 4:11 pm

  200. Wow, this Brian guy really hates me. All I did was try to have a discussion with him, and now he’s generalizing over 100,000,000 he doesn’t even know.

    I think I know why he’s so sensitive to Beck’s accurate point. Gee…

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 4:15 pm

  201. people can be so mean

    Comment by happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/22/2011 @ 4:20 pm

  202. Dustin – Brian reminds me of Christoph.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/22/2011 @ 5:18 pm

  203. I just read through today’s portion of this thread, and all I can say is good grief! Has reading comprehension disappeared from the land? Brian has been making a perfectly reasonable point, and arguing it in a perfectly rational fashion, and you guys have consistently distorted his words, mocked him, and refused to expend the minimal thought it would take to follow his argument. Instead of engaging him, you take cheap shots at him, accuse him of antisemitism, and behave like a bunch of bullies.

    I understood his point about the Jews immediately, and it’s not because I’m particularly smart; it’s because his meaning was obvious. His point about Beck wasn’t quite so obvious at first, but he made it and defended it valiantly. I think he’s wrong, but he’s not in the least irrational or trollish.

    Brian, I think the fundamental flaw in your argument is your assumption (at least it seems to me that you’re making this assumption) that Beck is engaging in hyperbole. You compare this hyperbole to that of those who smeared Palin. But Beck isn’t being hyperbolical, he’s being deadly serious. He literally expects the Van Jones types, sooner or later, to launch a violent revolution, if an opportunity ever presents itself.

    Now that opportunity may never present itself, or Mr Jones may drop dead tomorrow and never see the revolution, so Beck is not predicting with absolute certainty that Jones himself will try to shoot Nancy Pelosi. But the people he named, and their cohorts, are committed to a communist revolution, they look forward to it and watch for their chance to launch it, and it’s not unreasonable to expect that sooner or later, if given the chance, they will try it.

    Now it may be that he’s wrong. You don’t believe Code Pink or Van Jones are ever likely to engage in violence. And perhaps you’re right. But Beck disagrees with you, as you will surely concede is his right; and given his premise that the revolution will one day come, he is perfectly right to warn the Clintons, Bidens, Pelosis, etc. to be careful whom they pal around with. This warning is in no way like the Palin smear.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:16 pm

  204. Milhouse, that’s bullshit.

    He’s generalizing people in an hysterical fashion, and he’s being completely unreasonable.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:19 pm

  205. You make it sound like Gabby Giffords isn’t considered by the right wing crazies in Arizona as a “radical leftist friend”.

    Comment by Ryan Colpaart — 1/21/2011 @ 5:18 am

    She’s a blue dog. Can you show some evidence she’s considered a radical? Surely, if there’s a large number of right wingers who see her this way, you can easily prove it with a link or two.

    Not holding my breath.

    milhouse, sorry, he took reasonable disagreement and started lumping everyone in, at the drop of a hat, calling it an echo chamber. That’s not valiant defense of his ideas.

    Some people just have to condemn everything. Beck didn’t do anything wrong in this case.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2011 @ 10:27 pm

  206. Dustin, he only started lumping everyone in after everyone seemed to gang up on him, refusing to address his argument, calling him names, and shamefully accusing him of antisemitism. You all treated him as if he were Yelverton.

    I agree, Beck didn’t do anything wrong, but Brian has a good point: if, as he assumes, Beck was being hyperbolic, then he would be wrong, and he’d be wrong in a way at least somewhat similar to the way Palin’s smearers were wrong.

    Brian agreed from the beginning that 1) Beck did not call for anyone to shoot anyone else; and 2) Palin was horribly smeared. And yet many commenters treated him as if he disputed one or both of those propositions. That means they just weren’t listening to him, because they weren’t interested in hearing any opinion that might differ from theirs. Look, I’ve from time to time been accused on this site of being a leftist! We have commenters here who just don’t pay attention. And it’s wrong.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 5:53 am

  207. BS.Macker started off by calling us hypocrites, and went down from there. Apparently he also established rules for mockery. He led with his chin, claimed a whole lot of superiority without any basis for same, and then predictably devolved into pure troll when he made his grand departure.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 7:52 am

  208. “Brian agreed from the beginning that 1) Beck did not call for anyone to shoot anyone else; and 2) Palin was horribly smeared. And yet many commenters treated him as if he disputed one or both of those propositions.”

    Milhouse – You are correct about that part, but when he said we ARE NOT ALLOWED to point out the left’s failure to criticize it’s own violent rhetoric, even if there was nothing to criticize in Beck’s rhetoric, because of MACKER’S RULES, that’s where he ran off the rails. Good morning i.m.d.w./Milhouse.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 8:42 am

  209. “I understood his point about the Jews immediately, and it’s not because I’m particularly smart; it’s because his meaning was obvious.”

    Milhouse – Right, the Austrian School of Economics attracts a bunch of kooks who hate central banks, conspiracy theorists who think the ability of governments to influence the money supply is the root of all evil and caused world wars. Jews have major influence in financial institutions and caused world wars. His meaning was perfectly clear, he just was not going to go as far as Hitler and say Jews should exterminated in a blog comment. Reread his comment #141. Like you said, it is perfectly clear.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 8:49 am

  210. If you do not follow Mackers’ rules, then you are a paranoid nutter.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 2:41 pm

  211. Huh, I read the transcript and he says “you will have to shoot them in the head” because they are supposedly trying to start a bloody revolution. Not really sure how this means he’s not actually saying they need to be shot in the head.

    Comment by Anya O (07fa90) — 1/24/2011 @ 3:03 pm

  212. I suspect there are lots of things that confuse Anya O.

    Comment by JD (b98cae) — 1/24/2011 @ 3:30 pm

  213. Check out Chuck’s old Anti Idiotarian links:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-anti-idiotarians.php

    Patterico, JammieWearingFool, Gateway Pundit, Israellycool, Bill Whittle, Zombietime.

    DOH!! Someone screen grab that before the dumbass finally deletes it.

    Comment by wannabe (085125) — 1/25/2011 @ 2:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5317 secs.