Patterico's Pontifications


Brad Friedman, Partner of Convicted Bomber, Is Very Concerned About Glenn Beck’s Rhetoric

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:42 am

As I explained last night, Glenn Beck never told his supporters to shoot anyone in the head:

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.

Now comes Brad Friedman doing his typical “am I lying or am I stupid?” game:

Then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, referred to by Beck as a Marxist revolutionary in the comments above, represents San Francisco in the U.S. Congress.

But remember, both sides do it! Remember all of those quotes from the top stars in the Progressive media like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann imploring supporters to shoot Republicans in the head?

Me neither.

With this quote, Brad Friedman shows he is either lying, or has literally no idea what Beck was saying. He wasn’t calling Pelosi a Marxist revoutionary. He was saying she inhabits Washington by the grace of the fringe left, including Marxist revolutionaries.

In comments to his post, Friedman responds to his own commenters who try to explain the context. He doubles down in the process:

As to the nonsense that Beck was talking to “the left” and saying THEY should shoot someone in the head, that argument is absolutely absurd, and anyone who makes it — including Murray as you suggest he did — would have to be utterly disingenuous to even suggest such a thing. Unless they didn’t actually want to bother to find out, as is likely the case with Murray.

When Brad Friedman says an argument is “utterly disingenuous” that is usually a strong clue that it is true.

But if you want to talk “utterly disingenuous” . . . . ask yourself: why do I bring up Brad Friedman? Long-time readers already know, but for the rest of you, I’ll spell it out. Because, in his ranting about Glenn Beck’s violent rhetoric, Brad Friedman is business partners with a guy who was convicted of setting off numerous bombs — including one that literally blew off a man’s leg. (The maimed man later committed suicide as a result of his injuries.) Brad Friedman is partnered with a guy who was a suspect in the execution-style murder of a grandmother.

You want “utterly disingenuous,” Friedman, you embody it.

Brad Friedman might want to clean his own house before he flaps his lying gums about Glenn Beck, is what I’m saying.

But remember, both sides do it! Remember all those right-wing bloggers who are business partners with someone who actually blew a man’s leg off with a bomb?

Me neither.

84 Responses to “Brad Friedman, Partner of Convicted Bomber, Is Very Concerned About Glenn Beck’s Rhetoric”

  1. I had a little Twitter exchange last night with Charles Johnson, in which he tried to have his tofu and eat it too. After I proved that Glenn Beck never told his supporters to shoot anyone in the head, Charles denied having made that accusation. Why, goodness no! He never would have said such a thing! (In fact, he implied it, by omitting context.) At the same time, he told me I was “making excuses for a disturbing, incoherent rant involving shooting people in the head” and mocked my claim that context could explain Glenn Beck’s comments: “A ‘context’ exists in which it’s OK for Beck to say ‘you’re going to have to shoot them in the head?'”

    Pressed repeatedly for his interpretation of who the “you” was in the phrase Beck used, Charles cowardly declined to say.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. This willbelike catnip for crissyhooten and th e Freidman apologists.

    JD (3dddfd)

  3. Charles is just not all there.

    Friedman evidently likes being associated with dangerous criminals.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. Patterico at #1

    this is exactly why i handed the baton to you on this one. you said it frankly better than i would have.

    btw, coming soon is a post showing that Johnson is literally a liar.

    and, finally, it is not extreme to say that the dems might have to shoot their commmie revolutionary supporters in the head. people like piven have called for violence. one might wonder whether that call will be headed, but there is certainly an element in the left that wants violent revolution.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  5. “A ‘context’ exists in which it’s OK for Beck to say ‘you’re going to have to shoot them in the head?’”

    How can anyone (other than a committed Quaker, Mennonite, or other pacifist) deny that a context exists in which it’s OK for anyone to say “you’re going to have to shoot them in the head”? What does Johnson think you should say when the zombies are at the door? (Or the Nazis, the Islamists, the “Christianists” of his fantasies, or the people Beck was actually talking about, the Bolsheviks.)

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  6. “Now comes Brad Friedman doing his typical “am I lying or am I stupid?” game:”

    Why can’t it be both?

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  7. btw, coming soon is a post showing that Johnson is literally a liar.

    After that, kindly prove that water is wet and gravity makes things fall down.


    Jay Tea (6a7a54)

  8. And the sky is blue.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. “am I lying or am I stupid?” Love this comment. Hope to be able to use it someday.

    PatAZ (29affb)

  10. milhouse

    easy. He is saying that there are actually people who are violent revolutionaries. He is saying that the Democrats are using those people to help them get elected. And he is warning them that these people are dangerous, that they will literally have to fight them, when they realize that they are not willing to carry the revolution through.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  11. Brad’s attempt to say the truthful explanation of Beck’s comment is disingenuous is just a warning to ban anyone who keeps saying that.

    That’s how he debates. When I brought up ACORN’s many election fraud convictions, I was told I was spreading obvious lies. When I linked them, I was told that people are banned for spreading lies, and I was now warned.

    He just doesn’t want anyone to threaten the bubble.

    The more I think about it, the more I’m glad we are considering Beck’s comments. He’s right, and it’s important to let this be aired out. It’s not good enough to show that mainstream Tea Partiers aren’t violent, when left on left violence is a real phenomena.

    It’s not icing on the cake that Brad consorts with a terrorist in huge financial ventures. It’s proof of bad faith and an amazing degree of cynicism.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. btw, for the record, i vote for lying. friedman is alot of things, but stupid ain’t one of them.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  13. How can anyone (other than a committed Quaker, Mennonite, or other pacifist) deny that a context exists in which it’s OK for anyone to say “you’re going to have to shoot them in the head”?

    The whole game here is to be able to rip anything out of context. In 2011, when you do that, you get caught and called the liar you are. So the rules need to be changed. Now, you’re crazy just for saying the ripped out of context thing, in absolute terms, as a pathetic shield from the ‘context completely justifies that comment and reverses the meaning you gave it’ response.

    But you already understand all this. Your comments on this have been excellent, and anyone reading these threads is either convinced, or one of the people Beck was warning about.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  14. #10, huh? Who is saying that? Johnson?! That sounds like exactly what Beck said, and what Johnson attacked!

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  15. friedman is alot of things, but stupid ain’t one of them.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing

    No, he’s not stupid. He’s the director of Brett Kimberlin’s enterprise. He had the wherewithall to predict people would ask about it, and automatically delete anyone naming Brett. He’s working with a con man to spread this idea they are saving us from Republicans stealing elections and murdering officials.

    He’s not stupid, and it goes without saying that he will take what tidbit he can to convey the idea that his readers should donate cash to Brad and Brett’s operation ASAP. If they don’t, then Beck and the boogeyman are gonna get those readers!!!!

    It’s sad, because a lot of the readers are obviously disturbed, and their mental problems are being exploited, much like how Scientology works to make a buck.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. milhouse

    there is nothing wrong with pointing out that others are violent and dangerous. that’s what beck was saying.

    Charles was saying he was calling for violence with grossly edited clip.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  17. Well, I’m glad you spoke up, Patterico. To be topical, we need to recall good old Joseph Goebbels. Since few people study history any more, here are a couple of quotes that are sort of…familiar:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    And my favorite, when I look around me:

    “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

    For those who don’t know about the nasty old Nazi, here you go:

    I like the fact his nickname was “The Poison Dwarf.”

    Anyway, BF has to repeat his schtick. And CJ.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  18. Beck actually clarified it again, pointing out how Pelosi and Obama, led the left on, with promises of ‘fundamental trasformation’ and they will lash out against them, We can kind of see this in micro with the thug, he was clearly an Obama supporter, yet he ‘tuned in, and dropped
    out of the system’, taking his anger out on someone he had contempt. The students behind the Brigatte Rossi, the former Peronistas that made up
    the Montoneros, the SDS which became the Weatherman, are all exemplars of the type

    narciso (6075d0)

  19. 1 – Charles was being dishonest, it seems.

    2 – Do you guys really think that Beck’s viewers are mostly smart enough to get the nuance? Because I think he’s just feeding their distrust in all things liberal to sell books. He’s like Alex Jones lite.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  20. “btw, for the record, i vote for lying. friedman is alot of things, but stupid ain’t one of them.”

    A.W. – I’m not sure I agree. When it is easy to expose his lies and for reasonable people to see them as lies, is Brad being stupid or just catering to his fans. He has a lot of unreasonable fans willing to continue believing his lies even after they have been exposed for what they are. Does that make both Brad and his fans stupid?

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  21. Carlitos – I don’t even watch Beck, and I understood his point quite clearly, in it’s proper context.

    JD (3dddfd)

  22. btw, here is Piven calling for violent revolution. is wrong to point out that these people are dangerous?

    if they carry through with their ideology won’t it be necessary to shoot them in the head?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  23. daley

    well, maybe the correct term is “stupid lies.” he is lying when it is stupid to lie.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  24. Crissyhooten hearts BF

    JD (3dddfd)

  25. It’s ironic that while Ayers and Doehrn, and Kimberlin, have all been ‘rehabilitated’ while in El Paso, a man who served his country, being gullible enough to believe JFK’s ‘Ask not’preroration, who fought the marxist guerillas
    including the Red Flag, that Chavez was a member,
    is having his liberty and probably his life in jeopardy, in a sham perjury case

    narciso (6075d0)

  26. #16, Now you have me completely confused. Of course there’s nothing wrong with what Beck said. And in the tweet that Patterico quoted, Johnson admitted the true context of Beck’s remarks, but claimed that the words were wrong in any context. Which would only make sense if Johnson had turned Mennonite, something I highly doubt. I’m not quite sure what it is you’re disputing.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  27. milhouze

    i don’t read johnson the way you do.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  28. AW-

    It’s “interesting” (for lack of a better term) how commenters at the Youtube clip try to spin at as she is saying she generally expects “non-violence” is the way to go.

    As is characteristic of “true leftists”, the goal is the only value, it matters not how you get there. For her, “Non-violent” protests are not done out of principle, but simply at times an appropriate tactic if you can win more public support by letting the other folks do the violence, then do the violence yourself when it enables you to reach your goal.

    Apparently the talk was given in Madison, site of a campus bombing (by some of Bill Ayers’ buddies)that killed a researcher in 1970. Just another “mainstream” lecture there.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. Do you guys really think that Beck’s viewers are mostly smart enough to get the nuance?

    What nuance?

    He laid this out, very plainly and simply. It’s not like he’s being complex at all here.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  30. Oh Carlitos, you delightful troll. IT SEEMS Charles was being dishonest? Beck’s viewers are not mostly smart enough? I don’t think Beck has the scorn you think he does for “liberals” in the classic sense, it’s what they have come to represent through progressivism that turns his crank. What, pray tell, is wrong with pointing out the cancer in society that progressives represent? Knowing full well I’m falling into a trap by stating the following, it is your kind that would ban books and mock those who write them as being for personal gain when they warned of the folly of Nazism in 1930’s Germany. Sorry you find the truth teller (remember Beck’s mantra, don’t believe him, look it up youself) so offensive that you have to compare him to a liar.

    Nick Shaw (71b010)

  31. 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.

    Carlitos, what nuance do you see here?

    You have been operating under the impression that Beck is crazy, and that’s colored your interpretation of something he is accused of saying (and didn’t say). You’ve expressed the idea that his comment is wrong, no matter the context, which is exactly the smear being used, and grossly unfair (since he was, in fact, saying this was a bad thing, and when you say a bad thing is bad, that’s valuable context).

    Because you’re assumed the worst of Beck, you’re now assuming his audience must be pretty lousy, and thus the nuance must have been impossible to understand.

    But what nuance? Read the quote above (that I stole from Milhouse, let me add).

    This simply isn’t the dull or angry show you’re assuming it is. I’ve fallen for these same smears a couple of times, so I understand where you’re coming from, but the entire story you’ve pieced together here isn’t based on the truth at any point. I’d even suggest Beck’s program boasts a more informed audience than other cable news programs (damning with faint praise).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  32. So, in other words, because his business partner set off some bombs in 1978 with apparently no involvement or prior knowledge by Friedman at that time, and has served his time, Friedman is violent in 2011? Not buying that piece of this, Patrick.

    Jim (87e69d)

  33. FWIW, the last I heard on Beck (before the local station dropped him on Monday), he was going way out of his way to talk about the necessity for those interested in the US being what it was set up to be, rather than the leftist makeover, to be non-violent (and not just as a tactical maneuver).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. Carlitos is no troll, Nick.

    JD (85b089)

  35. A.W. @23 – You are probably right, stupid lies is a better description. When I think about fans like Chris Hooten, however, I have no problem describing him as both a liar and stupid.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  36. #

    Carlitos is no troll, Nick.

    Comment by JD

    I just want to note that I agree, and that’s why I’m responding to him by appealing to reason.

    I don’t see how Beck was trying to fool his audience, or being ridiculous. That’s not to say Beck isn’t at times way too emotional or annoying to me, but in this case, the comment in question is quite intelligent and well explained.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. Friedman is also an insecure, cowardly, douchebag who tries to get people fired from their jobs when he is on the losing end of a debate on the internet.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  38. Dustin – I’m judging Beck by what I have seen of his body of work, not just that quote.

    I happen to think that creating a fantasy about marxists wanting to shoot people in 2010, and then including prominent politicians in that fantasy is kind of stupid. Like most of the “dot connecting” he does on his chalkboard. It’s an appeal to paranoia in my opinion.

    Yes, I let that generalization color my opinion of what Beck is doing here, and my opinion of what he does in general. Since I already got the comments all Godwinned, I’ll let it be.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  39. Aaron, you have me completely confused. Unless it’s you who’s confused. How can you read Johnson’s tweet, as quoted by Patterico in comment #1, and not understand it as I do? I really have no idea what conversation we’re supposed to be having; your side of it seems to have no connection to my side.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  40. Yes, I let that generalization color my opinion of what Beck is doing here, and my opinion of what he does in general. Since I already got the comments all Godwinned, I’ll let it be.

    Comment by carlitos — 1/21/2011 @ 9:59 am

    OK, well, I understand why you’d say that, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to leap all the way to saying his comments must have been too nuanced to understand by his audience.

    I also don’t think it’s stupid at all to warn people who bolster extremists that these people indeed are willing to take it to a violent level.

    That isn’t unrealistic. I don’t know how it being 2011 makes it less realistic, though I am glad we see fewer communists shooting democrats than we did a couple of decades ago.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  41. I’m having a hard time following the Milhouse / Aaron conversation.

    I think Aaron in 10 was agreeing with Milhouse in 5. Milhouse keeps 5 more general in possibility, and Aaron lays it out specifically.

    I think both of them are reading Johnson’s tweet as mocking the possibility of something that isn’t just possible, but has obviously happened.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  42. Aaron’s comment #10 seems not to be talking about Johnson at all, but about Beck. Which is just strange.

    Johnson, in his tweet, denies that there is any context in which Beck’s words would be OK. In #5 I called him on that. It’s obvious that there are many contexts —including the actual context in which he said them— in which Beck’s words would be OK to anyone but a pacifist, which Johnson is not.

    I cannot understand what point Aaron was trying to make in #10, and can’t make heads or tails out of our ensuing exchange. It’s like we’re having two different conversations.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  43. Maybe just leave it be, then. You two seem to agree on this issue.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. I am glad we see fewer communists shooting democrats than we did a couple of decades ago

    See Dustin – we agree totally on this. It’s good to find common ground. :)

    carlitos (a3d259)

  45. Milhouse, his 10 is replying you in 5. You ask how someone could deny the possibility of context that makes this comment work.

    He replies, saying it’s easy to supply that context, and yes, the “he” is not Johnson, but rather, the person who made that context for the quote Johnson stripped from context.

    I agree, it’s not clearly defining what is easy, or how it’s responding by agreeing with you, and not meeting the challenge you set ‘how can someone possibly say X’?

    But read it this way and I think it’s clear enough.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. See Dustin – we agree totally on this. It’s good to find common ground. :)

    Comment by carlitos


    Dustin (b54cdc)

  47. Anyway, Carlitos, there are two different things to discuss.

    One is to determine what Beck was saying. That part’s easy. He’s saying violence is wrong, and warning about a potential for it, because of short term political idiots who are in bed with extremist commies. Rev Wright and Van Jones are no more palatable than the kookiest on the right.

    The OTHER thing to discuss is whether Beck is correct or mistaken. Maybe he’s just wrong. Maybe, once Pelosi and Obama got everything on their list, the ‘God Damn America’ and ‘We should be socialists’ people would give up.

    Or maybe Beck is overstating the problem. Maybe Pelosi and friends can delay these suckers, or control them, forever.

    Anyhow, two different issues. The first shows that Beck was making a legitimate point, arguing against violence, and rooted in realistic issues that have come up before. the second is harder to be objective about.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. Is the carlitos on this thread i.m.d.w. again?

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  49. Regarding AW and milhouse, it sounds like in #10 AW thought that milhouse was saying that there was no context – replace the word “deny” with “assert” and AW’s #10 makes more sense.

    That may not be what AW meant, but that’s what it sounded like and thus I understand milhouse’s confusion. I think the two actually agree, and the best idea is to stand down. :)

    AJsDaddie (79daea)

  50. It sucks for Carlitos that if he says something a little novel or unusual, about something controversial, people will wonder if he’s being sockpuppetted by IMDW again.

    What a dick move that was, imdw (who I assume reads everything on this site with mad obsession).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. justifying and agreeing with Glenn Beck talking about shooting someone in the head.

    Of course we agree with the fact that it’s wrong to shoot people in the head.

    You don’t agree with Beck that this is wrong?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  52. Do you guys really think that Beck’s viewers are mostly smart enough to get the nuance?

    I’ve watched less than one entire hour of any of Beck’s shows, and although I think he’s often a buffoon and a ridiculous drama queen, I don’t get the impression that his audience doesn’t understand the nuances he attempts. For example, on one of his recent books he posed as a STASI officer of East Germany – his rabid critics on the left went batsh-t crazy, saying that Beck was promoting Nazism. They had no idea who the STASI was, apparently, and didn’t understand what the uniform he was wearing actually represented. So in many cases I think his critics beclown themselves by not recognizing (or ignoring) the nuance themselves, as per usual.

    Dmac (498ece)

  53. Well, on the plus side, at least Beck’s dramatics will be more justified for the next few days than they often have been in the past.

    Dmac’s right that the people missing the nuance are the one’s who routinely misunderstand conservatives. Used to be Rush, now it’s Beck. I know who thinks their audience is dumb, and it’s Media Matters.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  54. So, in other words, because his business partner set off some bombs in 1978 with apparently no involvement or prior knowledge by Friedman at that time, and has served his time, Friedman is violent in 2011? Not buying that piece of this, Patrick.

    Jim’s usual MO is acting utterly clueless (or is he acting at all?) about the subject at hand – if he had bothered to even do a simple search of this site he would’ve understood the whole sordid history of Friedman and his assorted bitches coming over here to defend the undefendable. Either he’s one of Friedman’s quislings or he really is out of his depth – perhaps he’s both.

    Dmac (498ece)

  55. Great Christian ethic here boy, justifying and agreeing with Glenn Beck talking about shooting someone in the head.

    Yeah, that’s exactly what we’re saying, Jimmah. Calling you an asshat at this moment in time is unfair to acutal asshats.

    Dmac (498ece)

  56. “actual”

    Dmac (498ece)

  57. How much Salvia has to be consumed before this garbage makes any sense

    narciso (6075d0)

  58. Jimmy, do you watch the Glenn Beck show? Approximately how many have you seen? How many of Glenn Beck’s books have you read?

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  59. Thanks for the take on Beck, DMac. Maybe I’ll pick up the book, since I can’t stand the show.

    Color me surprised that “Jim” can’t correctly spell its.

    carlitos (cbd3cc)

  60. #54, Wait a sec, is Jim/Kim/whoever really claiming that no matter whom you’re addressing or why, it’s never OK to call on someone to shoot someone else in the head?! Really? “The zombies are at the door.” “Well, whatever you do, don’t think of shooting them in the head, that would be wrong.”

    Of course, Beck never did call on anyone to shoot anyone else, in the head or in any other part, but had he done so would he have been wrong, no matter the circumstances?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  61. muted cries of Jim
    such sweet sound after Colonel
    take out back kick ass

    ColonelHaiku (5430d1)

  62. Charles spend wayyy too much
    time watching boats, playing skin
    flute in jazz combo

    ColonelHaiku (5430d1)

  63. milhouse

    that’s a good point. i mean this country was founded on the right of revolution. obviously things would have to really go awry in our society to justify that kind of thing. but it has happened. i mean if you were living in weimar and decided to take up arms against this hitler guy, you would be quite justified.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  64. “The virulent denialists are out in full force at Patterico.”

    Jim – Yes they are. Thank you for coming.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  65. “Jim” brings his bigotry and hate speech again, I see.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. The only way “Jim” is getting comments deleted is if it is the midget hilljack racist coward from MTSU or iamadimwit

    JD (d4bbf1)

  67. Jimmah doesn’t read a lot of anything, it would appear. Bye, Jimmah – and please take care not to shoot yourself in the head as you go out the door.

    Dmac (498ece)

  68. JD, IMDW was always the one who was obsessed with Beck. For years, he would go from relative sanity (for him) to instant frothing crazy, if Beck was mentioned.

    It must burn imdw up to see Beck win another huge argument, bolstering his point about the people who could care less about our great country. Beck is simply more important to America than any media outlet imdw gets his marching orders from. And the attempts to tear him down always backfire.

    imdw has made Beck more successful. In a tiny way. I doubt anything imdw ever does is very significant.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  69. Someone has hijacked my name. My only comment was #32. What’s JD been up to?

    Jim (87e69d)

  70. This blog and it’s sheep

    Jimmah likes sheep, apparently. Draw your own conclusions. I also notice he never responded to my question regarding his erroneous question to our host.

    Dmac (498ece)

  71. It seems impossible that in the good ol’ USA we would ever have to worry about communist revolutionaries taking over, but a few years ago the possibility that the world would stop using the US dollar as the world’s currency measuring stick wasn’t staring people in the face, either.

    carlitos, hard as it is to believe, Piven and what’s his name seriously wish to implode the US welfare state to bring about a new social/governmental existence. Most people say, “Oh yeah, right.”, but their academic reputations are built on them actually believing this stuff. An FBI undercover agent stated that Bill (“my fiancee got blown up making bombs, so I found another on the FBI’s most wanted list) Ayers said in a matter-of-fact tone that “20-25 million Americans would probably have to die” in the revolution before it was all over.

    In the documentary The War at Home (not the movie) covering the anti-war protests in Madison, Wisconsin in the 60’s and early 70’s it is very clear that there were two types of protestors, the “make love not war” type which was 90%+, and the anarchist “We’re gonna’ burn it down” type. When Sterling Hall was blown up on campus and a researcher was killed, the “MLNW” type basically said, “Hey, we didn’t mean for anyone to get hurt” and stopped filling the streets. The “WGBID” type were momentarily elated, thinking the Time Had Come por la Revoluccion!! When they saw most of the kids bail out, they were angry and felt betrayed, but they didn’t have the numbers or power to do anything about it. That coincided with Alinsky and everybody deciding to inflitrate from within, bring collapse, and be in place to take control.

    It may sound crazy and hard to believe, but these people believe it. They stopped blowing people up 30 years ago only because they realized it was not going to work at that time in history, just like Pliven says in her clip, not because they decided the US didn’t deserve it or that they gave up their dream of revolution. The only thing that will make it possible is the majority of the public unwilling to believe it, and not taking necessary action- which is to pay attention and not listen to the lies of the “useful idiots” in the media and Dem party that aren’t hard core.

    How many societies that underwent revolution in the past saw it coming? Did then average German understand what was happening in the 1930’s, did the average Russian peasant or business man? No, the average person said the Cassandras were crazy.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  72. Stupid or lying? Who says you can’t be both?

    Sparky Satori (36e11f)

  73. I think Jim will tell us that sheep are well known liars.

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  74. Jim’s name was indeed hijacked. I have deleted the offending comments.

    But leftist Jim is wrong that it was JD who was taking Jim’s name. It was leftist imdw, who tried to appropriate Jim’s name, as well as the names of carlitos, Milhouse, and other regular commenters.

    imdw is the person who posted what he claimed was my home address. He is utterly and completely out of control.

    [I initially invited people to sock-puppet imdw, since he sock puppeted you guys. But on reflection, that is a bad precedent and I am withdrawing it. Even though he deserves it. — P]

    Patterico (c218bd)

  75. i.m.d.w. must be going through a lot of Jergens.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  76. P, Randi Rhodes simulated President Bush’s assassination on-air on Air America, remember? The Secret Service even paid a visit to the station after. For the sake of semantics, could that heinous assassination “joke” not be interpreted as a green light for any lefty Loughner-like psycho to shoot a Republican President in the head?

    Just wondering. Of course, Randi Rhodes was only joking. No incendiary rhetoric there, like you normally see from the Tea Party. Yes, I’m being facetious. Or am I just being a lefty?

    Johnny Simpson (6f4db7)

  77. On second thought, maybe Beck took President Obama’s advice about not bringing a knife to a gunfight :)

    TheMadKing (6f4db7)

  78. Brad Freidman is crissyhooten’s hero. Crissy’s has a poster of BF tacked to his ceiling.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  79. Brad Friedman has balls for being objective and honest, and displaying. You all around here lack that desperately. Verification of what you spew, honesty and objectivity, you all run a huge defecit around here, and you wouldn’t recognize it if it bit you in the ass. Brad Friedman is a thorn in your side because he can and does prove or disprove whenever it is needed. Seriously, you all on the Right wing, get proven as liars over and over and over and over and…..

    Blubonnet (60b8e5)

  80. Hey Blew, you wouldn’t mind backing that statement up with some facts, would you? The usual hateful lefty incivility doesn’t work here. We’re all onto you libtards now :)

    TheMadKing (6f4db7)

  81. Sounds like Blu blew Brad.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  82. #

    Brad Friedman has balls for being objective and honest, and displaying.

    Nope. He threatened to ban me for linking proof Acorn’s employees had dozens of election fraud convictions. He also didn’t like the idea of explaining away his implication about Iranian and Chinese hackers stealing some city council elections.

    And he automatically deleted any comment that mentions Brett Kimberlin.

    Go to bradblog right now and see for yourself. Any comment mentioning Brad’s financial planner, or asking questions about Velvet Revolution, will be deleted instantly.

    This is not how a brave man acts. It’s how a man acts when he hides from the truth like a coward.

    He does, however, love completely insane theories about Republicans murdering people and stealing elections. Just as Blubonnet loves theories about the GOP using holograms of airplanes, and lying about how how jet fuel can get (seriously, that’s stuff blubonnet has argued).

    Like Brad, Blubonnet does this for money. He hopes people will view websites registered by Domains by Proxy (how scammers register their sites) and it goes downhill from there.

    No one should take blubonnet seriously. He ks not sincere in his hysterical claims, but rather hoping to attract as much attention as possible. His own ridiculous theories contradict eachother without hesitation. Like Brad, this guy doesn’t go kooky because he’s a kook, but rather because he thinks money is more important than the truth or his own country.

    Brad hates scrutiny. He usually doesn’t even try to disprove his critics because he doesn’t want his marks exposed to reality.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  83. Brad’s financial planner

    That should say financial partner. the only thing I know that Brett Kimberlin planned was the bomb that sent an innocent man to misery and ultimately his grave. He’s Brad’s partner, because Brad doesn’t have a problem with people like Kimberlin when money is at stake.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  84. Wow, you still believe that about ACORN? Are you really that ignorant? As the full devious scandal of the Breitbart hoax has long been exposed, you all are still biting? Astonishing oblivion.

    You F-ing liar, who dares say I get money for posting! Unlike you, I post because I feel disgust that lies get put out there for the mean spirited baboons to bellow and snicker over.

    Apparently Dustin will say any daman thing he chooses, with absolutely nothing to back up his statements. Lying comes easy to him. Hideous character.

    “Kook” would be anything that he hasn’t dared look at, for fear it’s true, so screaming “kook” suits him.

    Sorry, Dustbin, neither I nor any other in the Truth Movement believes in the hologram theory you all try so desperately to discredit us with. You probably know that our government now pays people to attempt to discredit the Truth Movement, well of course you know that. Why are you trying so hard? What’s in it for you to discredit me? Oh, that’s right money. You absolutley cannot discredit all the Truth Movement has done in ample verifiable scientific research, which is why lies and name calling is your pathetic immature MO. The putrid nature of your operation is a stain on the Right wing, or should I say, yet another.

    Blubonnet (b83efc)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9401 secs.