"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.
"Here is my advice when you're dealing with people who believe in something that strongly — you take them seriously. You listen to their words and you believe that they will follow up with what they say."
Huh. Now, I wonder which irreposible knucklehead said that?
Oh, it was Glenn Beck last June.
I wonder if somebody took him seriously. I wonder if somebody who believed in Beck's words that strongly, took Glenn Beck seriously, listened to his words, and believed they needed to follow up before the "Communist Democrats" in Washington destroyed America first.
The odds of this being the exact incident that made Jared Loughner shoot Gabby Giffords in the head seven months later? Astronomically low. But how many weeks and months and years has Glenn Beck said things like this about Democrats? He gets paid to say stuff like this about Democrats, and he says them to millions of listeners and viewers every week. And he's far from the only one.
So how many times does Glenn Beck need to tell people to shoot Democrats in the head before a Democrat gets shot in the head?
That's maybe a question somebody should have asked Glenn Beck before January 8th.
Just saying.
Then again, we still need to ask the question now.
Police in Arlington, MA this week seized a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition from local businessman Travis Corcoran after he wrote a blog post threatening U.S. lawmakers in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). In a post on his blog (which has since been removed) titled “1 down and 534 to go” — 1 referring to Giffords and 534 referring to the rest of the House of Representatives and the Senate — Corcoran applauded the shooting of Giffords and justified the assassination of lawmakers because he argued the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limits. “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone,” he wrote in the post.
But we don't have a domestic terror problem in the US assisted by a climate of irresponsible eliminationist rhetoric.
And the wingers will be proclaiming this right up until the next astronomically low coincidence where people get hurt or killed happens. Then they will go after anyone who points out it may be a coincidence and browbeat the media into silence again.
The cycle will then repeat.
But, if everyone had a gun, I'm sure there would be nothing to worry about.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of the massive demonstrations in the major cities protesting the about-to-become-a-massive-boondoggle that was the Iraqi invasion. I ask myself; if they had all been armed, what exactly would have been the general consensus at Fox?
I'm sure there's a loophole somewhere for that eventuality.
Anyway, Beck is either a mendacious ass or a madman, and Concoran... I'm sure he's a closet liberal somehow.
No, Concoran is a liberal plant to make conservatives look bad by shooting liberals.
ReplyDeleteAs a plan to make conservatives work bad, though, I think I'd much prefer one that doesn't kill people.
One day, SteveAR is going to stop posting here.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we'll ever draw a link between his disappearance and the news that another deranged Glenn Beck fan has gone on a murder spree, but this one only managed to kill an infant in her mother's arms before blowing his own dick off.
Moving on from Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck, eh?
ReplyDeleteWe know for a fact that Loughner has had run-ins with Giffords since 2007. We know for a fact that Moulitsas had a "bulls eye" on Giffords in his own "target list". We know for a fact that another Kos contributor named BoyBlue, a Tuscon resident like Loughner, had a post (initially scrubbed, but now restored) saying Giffords was "DEAD to me!", a post that was put up two days before Lougner's murderous spree. We know for a fact Barack Obama said that when dealing with Republicans, "if they bring a knife, bring a gun." And we know for a fact that Loughner hated George W. Bush, as do most on the Left.
That's maybe a question somebody should have asked Kos and BoyBlue and Obama before January 8th. I know Zandar would never ask questions about the Left's "eliminationist rhetoric" because to him it doesn't exist, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, evidence that goes back 10 years.
Right because anything Code Pink or Move On or Zandar says has the same reach as Glenn Beck so they're entirely equal.
ReplyDeleteEvent Horizon:
ReplyDeleteRight because anything Code Pink or Move On or Zandar says has the same reach as Glenn Beck so they're entirely equal.
Do you not know how to read plain English? Where did I mention Code Pink? Where did I mention MoveOn? I mentioned Kos, who has a great reach upon those on the Left and Democrats in general, and Obama, who is the President (I think his reach is quite a bit greater than Beck's).
And Zandar? I mentioned Zandar because Zandar ignores the "eliminationist rhetoric" from his side so that he doesn't even consider asking questions on whether it would have been a factor to Loughner.
Do you not think that Beck transcript is terrifying, Steve? Or the article about Cochner? Because he said that to thousands of viewers, implored people to shoot Democrats in the head. Nothing cute like putting a target over a district to gun references. That was a direct statement of action. And it really looks like someone was taking him seriously.
ReplyDeleteThat the Right hates the left is a consistent drum beat, a call to arms to defend the country from the other half of it, even when the threat is from a centrist policy decision designed with input from the other side.
The left isn't nearly this tenacious; Obama has far more request for reconciliation and compromise with the GOP than he has tough talk. The Left is mostly concerned that the Right has lost it's freaking collective mind, and would very much like to not have to worry about their own safety just because they thought Bush/Cheney were asshats. Kos isn't a drumbeat of 'shoot em in the head' and 'violence in the streets' blog - go on and read that blog as much as you want, but you won't find it day in day out as you can find crazy conspiracies and dark mutterings as I can find on any given day on the right.
(PS- look at your own Kos link - what bullseye are you talking about? Boldface ain't bullseyes)
So yes, if Obama and Kos say something violent, then they get a pass from Zandar.
ReplyDeleteBut we know he's a useless, lying, deceitful, sock-puppeting, self-trolling, attention-craving jackass.
As for the rest of you, what's the answer? Either you believe in free speech for both Gleen Beck and Obama to use words like this or you don't. Choose.
By the way, maybe Zandar (and abanterer) should actually read the transcript of Beck's show that Zandar linked to. Because Beck wasn't calling on anyone to shoot Democrats in the head. What he was saying is that Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) should start being responsible and stop listening to the revolutionaries on the Left (he names a few) by using the metaphor quoted in the post. The "them" Beck is talking about are the revolutionaries on the Left, not Democrats.
ReplyDeleteBack to the "shoot them in the head" reference. Is this any different from what I quoted earlier from Barack Obama? No. It's a metaphor. Rhetoric. And it isn't as if Obama has less influence than Beck; Obama is the President.
Oh, fuck you, Problem - when Obama calls for the elimination of the GOP leadership through assassination on TV, then you'd have a point. When Kos starts demanding violent resistance to GOP obstructionism, then you'd have a point. As it is, your point is lame at best. You comparing occasional tough talk to decades of increasing hate. Which one is likely to pull the trigger first?
ReplyDeleteabanterer:
ReplyDelete(PS- look at your own Kos link - what bullseye are you talking about? Boldface ain't bullseyes)
Can any of you leftists read?
Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.
To paraphrase Zandar, the odds of this being the exact incident that made Jared Loughner shoot Gabby Giffords in the head two and a half years later? Astronomically low. But how many weeks and months and years has Kos said things like this about Democrats he wants out of office? Quite a long time.
The left isn't nearly this tenacious;...
See? You deliberately ignore 10 years of very tenacious "eliminationist rhetoric" from the Left, which I linked to earlier. Deliberately ignored it.
Kos isn't a drumbeat of 'shoot em in the head' and 'violence in the streets' blog - go on and read that blog as much as you want, but you won't find it day in day out as you can find crazy conspiracies and dark mutterings as I can find on any given day on the right.
And yet, on Kos' site, we have a Tuscon resident, like Loughner, and someone who lives in Giffords' district, who put out a post titled "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!" two days before Loughner shot Giffords and those other people. Coincidence? Probably. But how do we know that the Bush-hating Loughner, like those Bush-haters who post at Kos, didn't take the words in that title that strongly, took BoyBlue and Kos seriously, listened to the words, and believed he (Loughner) needed to follow up before Giffords destroyed America first?
abanterer, read the Beck transcript again. Beck wasn't telling people to shoot Democrats in the head. That is a fact.
ReplyDeleteHe was saying people should shoot liberals in the head. That's so much better.
ReplyDeleteBeck, schmeck.
ReplyDeleteCausation or correlation?
And from June, too!
Oh, well. The knee jerking bigots have it.
Zandar has set the bar.
Yet, if true, by this bit of illogic, gub'mint should ban all "B" films with an ax murderer wearing a hockey mask; Hockey itself; RAP music, collegiate pep rallies with fierce mascots, and Lefty pundits.
But be sure to get in their faces, and bring your gun to a knife fight - ala President Obama - because he was obviously in deadly earnest.
Hate monger.
Gee, I wonder what radio shows inspired Bill & Bernadine?
Upon closer analysis, Beck seems to be saying that the one faction of the Congressional Left must shoot the the other in the head, as if they don't, then the other will do so to the one, first. Let's be intellectually honest here, at all times.
ReplyDeleteBut to the law, it won't matter that his incitement is aimed only at a select group. The point will be that he is inciting the assassination of a member of Congress. And then it was attempted. I'd say he's in deep shit, and there are going to be some attorneys who will be receiving some big paychecks from Murdoch.
I also find it amusing that the Right is suddenly very, VERY committed to intellectual honesty when it comes to the detail of who Beck is addressing in the sentance "You're gonna have to shoot them in the head." Gee, why the sudden rigor, wingnuts?
Just last week they were holding up a metaphor for consensual combat ("bring a gun to a knife fight") as the equivalent to incitement of armed insurrection, and holding up unattributed, obscure blog posts and quotes from foreigners that suggest violent acts in the second degree (implied to further a lefty agenda) as the equivalent of statements by leading figures on the right (like Beck, Limbaugh, and Angle) that not so subtly argue that it's acceptable to use guns as part of a strategy to further a political agenda (clear premeditation).
It just goes to prove that the Right is not stupid, and that their intellectual dishonesty is as calculated as their projection, their ad hominem and their zombie fallacies.
(this is crossposted with edits from Brad Blog, cuz I have to leave for work and don't have time to compose another original... but I wanted to share with my friends here at ZVTS)
You want to play that game, Event Horizon? Fine by me.
ReplyDeleteLet's go back to the Beck quotes:
You're going to have to shoot them [the revolutionaries on the Left] in the head. But warning, they [the revolutionaries on the Left] may shoot you.
Loughner hated Bush. Liberals hate Bush. Event Horizon says liberals are revolutionaries on the Left. Loughner shot a Democrat (Giffords). Guess Beck was right, wasn't he?
Look. Based on the evidence, Loughner was not influenced by Palin, Beck, the right, Kos, Obama, the left, none of it. Loughner was very probably influenced and triggered by his own demons, although we may never know that either. But Zandar is determined to tie Palin, Beck, and conservatives with this, while at the same time deliberately ignoring what those on the left have said, even someone on the left who lived in the same city as Loughner.
There is plenty of information tying Loughner to leftists like Zandar and those leftist revolutionaries Beck mentions. No matter how much Zandar ignores it, it is there.
It's funny, every time these stupid liberals open their mouths they get fisked to pieces by their own words.
ReplyDeleteAs I have time time and time again, if Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are responsible in any way for Jared Lee Loughner, then so is every liberal commentator, pundit, politician, and blogger.
If you're right and "eliminationist rhetoric" is responsible, for nearly two weeks now you still will not admit your guilt for creating an atmosphere of violence.
If you're wrong, then you're advocating for the unconstitutional muzzling of free speech.
So you will admit to one or the other, or you will continue to lose every argument you make about the right and Loughner.
I will see to that.
Which are you, an accessory to murder or a fascist?
Woah. Looks like you struck a nerve with the wingnuts, Zandar! Well done. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
ReplyDeleteComparing Beck to Code Pink is just plain stupid. Set aside "reach" ... not even the left likes Code Pink.
Also, since the right seems obsessed with the idea that the left wants to "ban metaphor" consider this: "bring a knife to a gunfight" is a metaphor; "resort to second amendment remedies" is a threat.
If you want to be offended that we ignored your "evidence" you should at least acknowledge that this has to do with the actual argument that was made. Unless, of course, you don't understand it. Given that you think the difference between Beck foreseeing the murder of politicians and Beck foreseeing the murder of "left-wing revolutionaries" is substantive -- and evidence of the MSM willfully pulling the clip out of context -- I suspect that you lack the subtlety to see it.
Look, crazy exists on the fringes of both sides. Fine. Difference is that a thick layer of crazy has been spread all over the gooey-center of today's mainstream right. No one can say the same about the mainstream left.
And, no, Grayson and Piven don't count. No one would call them "mainstream."
Christopher Walker:
ReplyDeleteAlso, since the right seems obsessed with the idea that the left wants to "ban metaphor" consider this: "bring a knife to a gunfight" is a metaphor; "resort to second amendment remedies" is a threat.
According to who, you? You don't even list the actual argument Zandar has been making. You said:
If you want to be offended that we ignored your "evidence" you should at least acknowledge that this has to do with the actual argument that was made.
Zandar's actual argument is that only conservative metaphors could have led to Loughner's shooting. That's it. He doesn't acknowledge that fringes on the left (which are more mainstream than you let on) could have had an inkling of responsibility. None at all. Zero. And since you refuse to acknowledge that as well, you are in no position to say that references to "second amendment remedies" are threats.
Comparing Beck to Code Pink is just plain stupid...
And, no, Grayson and Piven don't count. No one would call them "mainstream."
You don't read very well either, like Zandar. I never compared Beck to Code Pink (go ahead, read my comments above), and never mentioned Grayson or Piven. I compared metaphors used by Beck and Obama. Even you have to acknowledge that Obama has quite a bit more influence than Beck, Grayson, Piven, and Code Pink, right?
Look, crazy exists on the fringes of both sides.
That's a cop out. A lazy one.
Christopher Walker:
ReplyDeleteGiven that you think the difference between Beck foreseeing the murder of politicians and Beck foreseeing the murder of "left-wing revolutionaries" is substantive -- and evidence of the MSM willfully pulling the clip out of context -- I suspect that you lack the subtlety to see it.
I know exactly what Beck is saying. I suspect that you are being deliberately misleading to make your point about who is actually speaking metaphorically.
Sarah Palin agrees that inflammatory rhetoric can inspire acts of violence against its target.
ReplyDeleteShe said so in her video statement, though it was somewhat distracting to watch her compulsively trying to scrub the blood and brain matter off her hands while she talked.
She said that people accusing her of being responsible for the assassination that she instigated would lead to people doing something violent against her.
The thing is proved, and by the defendant in the docket.
Sarah Palin killed six people and wounded 14 more with her rhetoric.
Maybe SteveAR can be there at her execution, holding her hand as the chemicals are pushed into her bloodstream?
"Sarah Palin killed six people and wounded 14 more with her rhetoric."
ReplyDeleteIf these are the people "defending" your side of the argument Zandar, you've already lost.
You don't need better trolls, you need better regulars.
If these are the people "defending" your side of the argument Zandar, you've already lost.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need better trolls, you need better regulars.
That's perfect!!! I love it.
I'm sorry, ZCP, I didn't mean to leave you out.
ReplyDeleteI blame you for shooting little Christina Green in the chest, child killer.
Every lie you type kills another little girl, murderer.
Go eat the barrel of your daddy's revolver.
Allan, you are the unaborted dribbilngs of a drunken fuck. And the best part of you ran down your momma's leg.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't you be out assassinating abortionists, Steve, in hopes that you'll get the one that botched your momma's?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's "lazy" to point out that the left ignores its crazies but the right embraces them?
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the US government is currently run by a tyrannical regime hell-bent on destroying its core principles is fundamentally different than cross-hairs on a map. You can either acknowledge that or look like the wingnut you are.
To call this a problem on "both sides" ignores that fundamental difference. If you don't see the difference between the "gun at a knife fight" metaphor and the "second amendment remedy" threat, then you cannot be helped. The former is a metaphor for heated political dialogue; the latter is a thinly-veiled call for armed insurrection. I have no problem with metaphors for heated political dialogue -- on either side.
I'm done with you. Fisk away. You clearly don't even know what "metaphor" means, so I have no reason to take anything else you say seriously. Suffice it to say, I find it convenient you cut out the money quote from my last graf when you called me "lazy".
Christopher Walker:
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with metaphors for heated political dialogue -- on either side.
Sure you do. You can't stand heated political dialogue from conservatives. Otherwise you wouldn't be here agreeing with Zandar. He hates it, you hate it. It's not that this hatred has anything to do with what conservatives say, but that conservatives would dare to question the "wisdom" of the left. I've argued enough with Zandar to know this is exactly correct. That's why he throws out the race card so often in many of his posts, because he has no real argument.
I've provided plenty of information above that could tie Loughner with the likes of a leftist like you. I don't know if it's true or not; I'm just, as Zandar would say, "asking questions".
I'm done with you.
Good. You're latest argument is more pathetic than the one before. You were done before you started.
ladies and gents: steveAR! he has a full-time job AND runs his own business yet still has enough time to write lengthy rebuttals to almost everything zandar posts (along with anything put up by folks who agree with zandar). as george bush famously said when he met that woman with three jobs: "uniquely american".
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently has no problems with Glenn Beck telling people to shoot liberals, as long as they are 'radical revolutionaries'. Because the first person I want to have the authority to judge and execute people is an ex-Morning Zoo DJ. I wonder if we can make Dr. Don Rose a Minister of Truth when the GOP begins their Day of the Long Rope, because I did always like him.
ReplyDelete