I don't know of any other way to slice it than, "you're going to have to shoot them in the head" amounts to "incitement to murder."

So, where is the prosecution, Mr. Holder?

Where is law enforcement? Why is he allowed to talk like that over the airwaves? Why do so many people watch his show? We have a spiritual crisis in this country. There's also way too much talking and not enough thinking.

AEI blogger Charles Murray wrote (1/18) an article entitled "Who Are the Worst Polluters of Public Discourse?" ( http://blog.american.com/?p=25046 ), in which he suggested not this false equivalence meme of late but rather that the rhetoric on the left was actually consistently worse. The article was the usual drivel of comparisons, but one sentence stood out WAY beyond the rest: "My impression is that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity seldom use the kind of language that Keith Olbermann uses routinely." The total absurdity of this was remarkable.

Shortly after reading this, I heard the clip you've featured here, and e-mailed Mr. Murray a link to it, merely suggesting that he might want to reconsider his Beck/Olbermann assessment. I received a single sentence in reply:

"Unless I missed something, Beck was saying that the left was going to have to shoot people on the right in the head. No?"

Now forget for a moment that this answer doesn't even seem to address the issue of his Beck/Olbermann comparison. Murray sees NOTHING WRONG with this sort of rhetoric.

Brad, these people are lost. There is no getting them back. It is not (as we might have been hoping) that their side was simply missing the outrageous antics of their right hate shock jocks. They simply see nothing wrong with this hard-core promotion of violence on their side, all the while breaking into their own panic that someone like Keith Olbermann might direct a average of 20 minutes/week of mere righteous indignation at them. And the only way they can hold these contrary positions at once is if they have no consciousness of our side as even being human.

Too bad all the FCC worries about is Janet Jackson's wardrobe failure.

Brad: There seems to be some confusion here in who Beck is actually telling to do the shooting. (No doubt Byron Williams shared this confusion.) Beck seems to be actually telling some part of the left that they are going to have to shoot some other part of the left.

Now I say "seems" because as I examine the lead in to this in Beck's dialog, there doesn't seem to be a clear (if any) definition of who these two parties are, and indeed insome portions of the lead in, there doesn't seem to be two parties at all.

My best guess is that Beck himself isn't even aware that he's making this back and forth shift while he is speaking, and if this is the case, he is literally dillusional as he is saying it.It would be interesting to ask Beck now if he even remembers saying this. I doubt it.

Benedict@Large said:

Brad, these people are lost.

Depends which people you're referring to. I'm quite certain that the guy you allude to from AEI knows exactly what he's doing and knows that he's full of shit. If he doesn't, you'd be right.

For the most part, however, though who are selling the "both sides do it" false equivalencies know exactly what they are doing. Those who are buying it, out there in the general public, yeah, they are "lost" and have become well used to accepting whatever nonsense they hear without bothering to check it out.

The AEI blogger does a slightly different, perhaps even more subtle trick. He moves the ball to a discussion about "invective" and "polluted public discourse."

The problem is not "invective", per se, it's incitement to violence.

You can call someone a creep, a jerk, or, with evidence to support it, a war criminal. Those are opinions and/or substantive arguments.

Telling people their very way of life is under attack and will soon be gone unless they stand up and take action "with bullets if ballots don't work", and with "2nd Amendment remedies", and that "they're gonna have to shoot them in the heads," well that's another matter entirely. That's the concern. Not "invective".

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.

IMPORTANT: The wingnuts at Reddit are downvoting this piece like crazy. PLEASE upvote it by hitting the REDDIT button at the end of the story! It takes two seconds! Thank you!

For those that are having trouble accessing that video, for whatever reason (I did) here is the clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcvbw6ExTQ

all israel all the time glenn beck

Hey all, let's take on Patterico's whose trying to claim that it was misinterpreted.

http://patterico.com/201...ne-in-the-head/#comments

Sorry, Blubonnet, but I've found pathetic Patterico, aka LA County Deputy DA Patrick Frey, and those who inhabit his site, not to be worth the time or the effort.

Brad, why don't you add a likes/dislikes feature to comments(wp plugin)? It'd be nice to be able endorse some really great comments.

I agree that Beck seems to be saying that the one faction of the Left must shoot the the other in the head, as if they don't, then the other will do so to the one, first.

But to the law, it won't matter that his incitement is only to 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.

Last week, I emailed the chairman and each commissioner of the FCC with a request that they investigate right-wing talkers such as Beck for incitement. Beck has actually made death threats on his show (he said, for instance, that he'd like to poison Nancy Pelosi); I reminded the FCC of this. Would anyone else like to join me?

NewsBusters: Sorry Liberals, Glenn Beck Did Not Tell Viewers to Shoot People in the Head
http://newsbusters.org/b...iewers-shoot-people-head

Mark Levin is worse than Beck.
Beck also seems to the source for the "Nazis were Socialist" Why would anyone think this? If the Nazis were Socialist than the right can't be fascist, the liberal/democrats/socialists, who these people also claim,constantly,are mentally ill, must be fascist.

*Hamilton. Points stands, however.

Brad

Is it true that your partner blew someone's leg off?

Oh, and Brad- Jared Loughner did exactly what Obama asked. Obama said that people should remain angry, "bring a gun" and "punish" their enemies.

That's exactly what happened.

I hope you're not going to get all bothered about context.....

Ernest, yes, I know, they are lying, ranting, drooling animals over at Patterico's. Bring them evidence, and that really gets the lying and ranting into gear. It does seem to be a worthless endeavor, but, I always remember that the number of people that come along and read far surpasses the ones commenting. The problem I have is that the true nature of these CONServatives, is that they care more about fitting in with their shameless buddies than they do about truth and the good of the country. I've seen it over and over. One can only walk away with jaw hanging open by their complete lack of integrity and basic decency. Yes, it is discouraging. But, considering that many more read than post, and that there is a large group that frequent Patterico's, the chance reaching some increases.

Incidentally, as I am an advocate for the Truth Movement, and especially, when the subject makes its way into the media, as the recent shooter in Tuscon was aware of the lies regarding that day in September nearly 10 years ago(despite his obvious insanity otherwise) tagging the Truth Movement as those of violence and insanity, required it.

Well, TWICE a fellow by the name of Icy Texan, suggested I be killed, by the way.

Then, I copy/pasted (yes it was legal by the fair use policy) many of the very prominent military intelligence officials, former CIA, pilots, firefighters, Pentagon officials, engineers, and soooo many others, and as one of the scum balls there chose to complain, and the words of those many that spoke out were deleted. Free speech? Only the speech they want apparently. Scoundrels!

mmm, yes, let's hear from the friend of a convicted terrorist on the incitement of Glenn Beck.

Disclaimer - I am not a Glenn Beck fan. I think he is overly dramatic and obnoxious. I am also not a republican. I think both the left and the right are ridiculous and provocative, but I also believe in a free society that is the risk that comes with free speech. You weather the risk because the alternative is far worse. That being said, I have a huge problem with less than honest reporting and blatant hypocrisy. So, here we go!

Read the context of his words.
http://www.foxnews.com/s...ry/0,2933,594343,00.html

He is talking TO lefty politicians who he believes have co-opted radicals who have called for violent revolution. He is saying, (I'm paraphrasing) "because you (democrat politicians) promised them something you're not willing to ultimately give them (socialism) in order to get their voting support, you are gonna have a choice down the line when they become angry about this. Either you take them down or they will take you down"

Whether you believe his premise or not, his meaning is quite clear. To say otherwise is dishonest or ignorant. Neither excuses it.

Both sides don't do it?

“I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”
Kieth Olbermann about Dick Cheney

“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?” Ed Shultz

"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida."
--Paul Kanjorski(former Dem. Congressman) about Repub. candidate Rick Scott

A few months back when ted Stevens plane crashed Kieth Halloran a Dem rep candidate in NH tweeted this: "Just wish Sarah and Levy were on board,"

“Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.” Ed Shultz

Just this week:
Steve Cohen (D) from Tennessee called the republicans Nazis in a healthcare debate and accused them of "blood libel" like the Nazi's did to the Jews

Dem. Rep Shiela Jackson "...this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill."

You see what happens when you visit a Right-Wing smear site, like Patterico's Pontifications, Blubonnet? You cause a couple of their deluded wingnuts, like Aaron Worthing and TGOg, to pollute a site (The BRAD BLOG) which is devoted to telling truth to power, with damnable lies.

This then requires that we take the time to disprove one Right-Wing lie after another.

Take, for example, TDOg @26 who writes:

Steve Cohen (D) from Tennessee called the republicans Nazis in a healthcare debate and accused them of "blood libel" like the Nazi's did to the Jews.

The Facts

All that Cohen actually said was:

When he was challenged on CNN about this remark, Cohen said that he never compared Republicans to Nazis, but, instead, made a comparison between the "Big Lie"/propaganda by repetition of simplistic, but false propaganda talking points used by the Republicans and by Goebbels.

Had TDOg bothered to read the post immediately preceding this one, and specifically my comments, he would have learned why Cohen had made an academically valid comparison --- though Cohen's reference to the repetition of simplistic talking points comes not only from Goebbels but from Hitler's Mein Kampf.

I would challenge any and all of the Patterico/Breitbart/Beck followers to demonstrate a valid academic distinction between the propaganda techniques now employed by Corporate America's wholly owned subsidiary, GOP, Inc., and that employed by Goebbels and Hitler.

Next, TDOg states:

Dem. Rep Shiela Jackson "...this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill."

And?

One has to respectfully question TDOg's comprehension skills.

Unlike Beck, who should be charged with incitement, Jackson was referring to the 45,000 Americans who die each year simply because they cannot afford to buy health care under the current corrupt, dysfunctional and deadly for-profit system that places the profits of a few healthcare insurance CEOs and their Wall Street investors above the health and very lives of our citizens.

That's 45,000, in addition to the countless others who've lost their lives, because, as poignantly demonstrated by the sworn Congressional testimony of Dr. Linda Pino, recounted in Sicko!, insurance carriers, through a process known as "utilization review," routinely deny vital procedures.

The "Big Lie" was that last year's less than adequate "reform" provided for "death panels."

The "truth" is that there are "death panels" in the existing system that the GOP, Inc. is touting --- panels of utilization review doctors, who, without ever examining a patient, issue such denials.

TDog -

Our few rules for commenting here require that you choose a name to post under and stick to it. So thank you for respecting that from now on.

Looks like your copy and pasting of various out-of-context and/or obscure clips from folks on the Left, in hopes of offering false equivalency to the multitudes of direct incitements of violence and eliminationist rhetoric from top officials and media personalities on the Right (stuff like "where ballots don't work, bullets will", "use of 2nd Amendment remedies", "I want to murder Michael Moore", etc. etc.), many of which have directly resulted in violence and murder against folks on the Left, has left you short. You probably should have actually looked into those things you copy/pasted here to check context, accuracy, attribution, etc.

So here's some help for ya, responding to the various anecdotal, sometimes misattributed, sometimes offensive, and often out-of-context quotes you posted above.

Steve Cohen (D) from Tennessee called the republicans Nazis in a healthcare debate and accused them of "blood libel" like the Nazi's did to the Jews

Actually, Cohen, who is Jewish himself (first Jewish Congressman from TN) actually said this about Republicans in his remarks on the House floor during debate of the "Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Bill Act":

While I have no particular problem with that factually accurate quote and fail to see an incitement of violence within it, he has now been condemned from many on the supposed Left, including both Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart yesterday. So not sure what the point is in your quoting it here.

Dem. Rep Shiela Jackson "...this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill."

Here's what she actually said during the debate on repeal of the Democratic health insurance law:

Again, perhaps I'm missing the incitement to violence that you are seeing in that comment? BTW, as a Harvard study has found that some 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance, her comments are also factually accurate, whether you care for them or not.

“I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” Kieth Olbermann about Dick Cheney

Actually, that was the very "politically incorrect" (not particularly Leftish) Bill Maher, not Keith Olbermann, making a comment that was, though clearly not meant to incite violence against Cheney, but rather part of a politically incorrect discussion on Real Time about whether more people would live if Cheney had died. It was, at the time, during the height of American deaths in Iraq, condemned by folks on Right and Left (here, for example, is Left-ish Mark Kleiman doing so at Huffington Post after it happened.)

Are you suggesting Maher should not have been condemned for that? Is that something he does with any regularity, btw? Does he regularly incite violence against folks on the Right? If so, I haven't seen it, but if you believe he does, I hope you'll condemn him for it!

“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?” Ed Shultz

Lots of interesting stuff replaced by that ellipses there, as well as both before and after the text you quoted. The comment in question was made by Schultz after Cheney had charged that Obama's policies in the "War on Terror" were going to lead to Americans being killed (an opinion which Cheney has since changed, btw, given that Obama's policies there, shamefully, are virtually identical to Bush/Cheney's).

Here's what Schultz said in full there:

So, still want to condemn Schultz' comment? Feel free. Believe that he's inciting violence against Cheney? Okay. Calling him an "enemy of the country" is certainly disturbing, certainly when taken out of context of the rest of the remarks as you did. Nonetheless, feel free to condemn Schultz for the remarks if you like!

"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida." --Paul Kanjorski(former Dem. Congressman) about Repub. candidate Rick Scott

The full quote, which Kanjorski said during an interview with the editorial board of the Times-Tribune is actually this:

Even in context, and even correct on the facts of the "crook" remark, it's still completely appalling, and certainly worth condemning, as most folks on both Right and Left did. Happily, he lost the election last year shortly thereafter, so there was at least some accountability for the remark.

For the record, he was correct in that Scott's private health insurance company Colubmia/HCA was found guilty of the largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud scandal ever seen in this nation. Scott was ousted as CEO due to the scandal, and the company was forced pay a record $1.7 billion in fines and civil settlements for it. Then he was elected Governor of Florida last November.

A few months back when ted Stevens plane crashed Kieth Halloran a Dem rep candidate in NH tweeted this: "Just wish Sarah and Levy were on board,"

That quote was apparently a comment left on someone's Facebook page and quickly removed by either the owner of the page or whoever left the comment. It's never been confirmed, to my knowledge, as coming from Halloran himself (whoever he is) and it was seen by almost nobody as a comment on a web page --- at least until Rightwingers started copying and pasting it around as "evidence" to prop up the false notion that the Left is someone as bad as the Right in inciting violence.

Whoever made the comment should be condemned for an ugly remark nonetheless, though calling it an "incitement of violence" seems a stretch.

“Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.” Ed Shultz

That was Chris Matthews, not Ed Schultz. You can watch the segement, in context here.

The full quote, coming at the end of a segment in which he was talking about the unelected Rush Limbaugh's inordinate power in the Republican Party, was:

To be frank, I don't actually understands what he means there by "a CO2 pellet", but if you'd like to condemn him because you feel that he was inciting violence against Rush, while it seems a bit of a stretch to me, particularly after watching the full segment from which that quote is taken, that's absolutely fine. If you feel Matthews was inciting violence against someone, you are more than welcome to --- and, in fact, should --- condemn him for that. Nobody should be inciting violence against anybody. Why is that so difficult for you guys to understand?

For each (usually out-of-context) quote you may be able to scrape up from someone on the supposed Left, no matter how obscure the comment, I could cite well more than 10 from top figures on the Right in response to each of them, each heard over our public airwaves, on the largest cable news channel or in a NYTimes best-selling book.

In the meantime, do people set out to assassinate politicians and groups on the Right, citing --- as would-be assassin Byron Williams did in regard to Glenn Beck (as noted in my original article above), or as Jim Adkisson did in TN after shooting up a "liberal" church when citing Bernie Goldberg (and O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.), or as Richard Poplawski did after killing 3 cops in Pittsburgh because he thought Obama was coming to take away his guns, just to name a few examples --- a top political official or media personality on the Left as their teacher and/or inspiration for such acts?

If so, I'd be happy to join in the condemnation of such incitement. Why you guys seem to actually be defending such behavior remains beyond me.

BTW, if something happens to the obscure Professor Frances Fox Piven (who, like the Tides Foundation that Beck disciple Byron Williams had tried to shoot up, I had never heard of until threats were made on her life following targeting by Glenn Beck on Fox), I hope you'll quote some of the death threats she has been getting of late, as noted in a letter sent to Roger Ailes of Fox News yesterday by the Center For Constitutional Rights [PDF]. Here are some of those threats as posted --- many still remaining as of yesterday --- on Beck's own website, The Blaze in response to their Dec. 31, 2010 article headlined "Frances Fox Piven Rings in the New Year by Advocating Violent Revolution":

But, yeah, the 78-year old professor probably would have gotten those threats all by herself without Beck (and Breitbart's) help, right? And, after all, "both sides do it", so really, it's not a problem.

Hmmmm, Brad. You covered a lot more in responding to TDOg's cut-and-paste job than I did, which underscores the undue labor created when we are bombarded with disinformation.

While you've thoroughly dissected this mess, there is one amusing point with regard to Ed Schultz asking the Lord to take Cheney to Heaven.

As both an Atheist and an Attorney, I'm having trouble understanding how one can apply the charge of "incitement" to anything someone asks God (as opposed to living, breathing human beings) to do.

Why when I open an extremist Marxist blog 90% of the time they are Jewish operations? Aren't they only 2% of America?

So Dennis D, can you provide a list of blogs that you regard as "Marxist" and the basis for your allegation that they are Jewish.

Or did you make that up as part of an anti-Semitic rant?

Keith Olbermann just resigned from MSNBC.

Ernie, I did not mention Bradblog there at all. Patterico apparently took note of Brad's piece, with no help from me here. I only mentioned for those on the Left here to talk to them there to set them straight. Just so you know that.

Palin to be prosecuted for inciting violence if she visits Australia, attorney says
By Stephen C. Webster
Friday, January 21st, 2011 --- 2:58 pm

Sarah Palin better watch out.

Under Australian law, inciting violence is a serious crime: an offense which could even trigger the prosecution of members of the US political class and mainstream media who called for the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to his attorney.

http://www.rawstory.com/...olence-visits-australia/

The context behind beck's 'you're gonna have to shoot them in the head' quote

http://www.examiner.com/...hoot-them-the-head-quote

BluBonnet (& Ernie) -

Looks like Charles Johnston at Little Green Footballs did a fine job of smacking down Patterico's latest horseshit today.

angry right-wing rhetoric has consequences

http://www.rawstory.com/...rst-poll-numbers-career/

spin it anyway you want righties, I'd say the evidence is pretty damning against your party of teabaggers.

Fox pundit: Palin admitted rhetoric can cause violence

http://www.rawstory.com/...ical-discourse-violence/

Tucson Arizona Shooting Rampage Victims blame right wingers like palin, beck, angle, tea party

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics

Eric Fuller, 63, who was struck by a bullet in the hail of gunfire in Tucson that killed six and wounded 13 on Saturday, claimed Thursday that conservative figureheads such as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Sharron Angle were to blame for the violence in Arizona."How many more demented people are out there? It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target," Fuller, a former campaigner for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), told Democracy Now. "Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled --- senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic-fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even nine-year-old girls," he added, reading from comments he said he had written down while being treated for his wounds.

now what do you teabaggers have to say?

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cg...311S82.DTL#ixzz1BkInYVRP

MediaMatters has a whole section dedicated to right-wing hate rhetoric.

Sadly, Media Matters dissing the Truth Movement, so they have quite simply dismissed themselves from being taken seriously now, in my book. Damn, I liked them. They lost respect of millions in this country by doing that. They too got bought by someone with an agenda. My observation.

Beck must have taken President Obama's advice about not bringing a knife to a gunfight

Last thought and question, Brad. Were you this outraged when Randi Rhodes simulated President Bush's assassination on Air America? Secret Service even responded to that one.

You lefty psychos spent eight years spewing the most heated and violent vitriol at President Bush, conservatives and Republicans. All of a sudden you want US to act civil? lol! NEVER! I will come back here and verbally scorch your eyebrows every time you post this kind of hypocritical lefty idiocy. Count on it!

Welcome to the First Amendment, Brad, where I can say all the things that you don't like, much as you offend me with your moronic associations and ideological blathering. Have a nice day. Not.

TheMadKing @40 seeks to dismiss the issue of incitement raised by the Glenn Beck statement "you're going to have to shoot them in the head" with:

Welcome to the First Amendment, Brad...

News flash! In case your friend Patterico, aka L.A. County Deputy DA Patrick Frey failed to inform you, MadKing, the First Amendment does not protect incitement to murder.

re BluBonnet @23. I stand corrected. My apologies for an erroneous assumption that your taking on Patterico's lies at his site sent his trolls to this one.

Actually, I did suggest we go there. I did not suggest they come here. Over there, a piece about Brad, I feel needs addressing, by Brad. That is why they are here, the bully in them made them do it.

But, you know what, that is what we do, and the opportunity, despite the daunting task of taking on soooo many of their deluded perceptions, or outright deceit, despite the immense efforts involved makes for the goal of us, turn around the delusions. Yeah I know, the enormous amount of
it is daunting.

Hats off to you all for doing it well. I'm not sure they are capable of shame though. However, readers can see you all are correct. Also, it is apparent who maintains the most composure, the "cool factor" is on our side.

And of course the facts are on our side.

"But, you know what, that is what we do, and the opportunity, despite the daunting task of taking on soooo many of their deluded perceptions, or outright deceit, despite the immense efforts involved makes for the goal of us, turn around the delusions. Yeah I know, the enormous amount of it is daunting."

...I adore your astounding chutzpah-moxie, Blubonnet. I do. And Brad's (and Ernest's) tireless attempts to Right-mind the right in these threads has been a great example - mountainous proof, in fact - that engaging them is a Grand Waste of Time.

Lord knows if you all have the time to engage the lowest common demon-inator on behalf of those of us who don't - Grand. But I feel Ernest's legitimate frustration re: all this extra labor is a good chance to point out (again, FWIW)that in doing so you are playing to intractable hecklers, and giving them all the attention they (come here) to demand.

It's baby-blog sitting. It's for amateurs.
It's stooping to not-conquer.

I realize (and am quite familiar with) all the right reasons you give for engaging them, especially when besieged like you have been in this gloomy lack-witted slip of a thread full of hateful, unfounded, stupid accusations that often accompany their ramblings and never relate to the original post.

And btw, all it takes to bring em' here en masse is a little linky-dink from that aborted-soul of a dailywakinghatefest Michelle Malkin, or that bitch-cracker Fredderico Pat-er-whats-his-gut, or for Brad's latest to make the list of whatever the new bastard-incarnation the DIGG PATRIOT's might be (I guess now they're using REDDIT? The Reddit Tighty-Righties, maybe?)hit up their sick rounds of favorite items to "bury" so opposing viewpoints don't see their rightful play.
If Brad builds it, they will come.

"Hats off to you all for doing it well. I'm not sure they are capable of shame though."

...they're not.

However, readers can see you all are correct. Also, it is apparent who maintains the most composure, the "cool factor" is on our side.

As for the posterity / integrity of the blog archives...I get that. Having to set the record straight is a very big deal.

...but long-winded responses only exhaust and drains your resources. And your readers. And you.

Maybe it's time for a new BRADBLOG rule? (Tho most of these could fall under posting knowing disinfo...that's a sticky wicket because you all are so very gracious in giving them the benefit-of-the-lout.)

Maybe something re: "unless cited evidence / sourcing is given for outrageous claims and accusations - your comment will may be intentionally ignored."

Then you could cite the rule as hotlink; maybe provide another link that sets the record straight (so many to choose from right here in these archives!) that explains in great detail why they are flat-out dead wrong and why they *should* be ashamed of their post.

That gives the moral rest of us more leverage to take back our Bradblog threads, more time for rational discussions.

I miss those. Seen glimpses of them with the return of some old regulars recently...
remembering what kind of resource for sanity this blog can be.

Jeannie Dean @ 45 said:

attempts to Right-mind the right in these threads has been a great example - mountainous proof, in fact - that engaging them is a Grand Waste of Time.

Not sure I entirely agree, even as I hear ya and certainly appreciate where you're coming from. The "proof" is actually that most of these disinformed and/or disinformer folks don't return with responses. Because they can't. But more importantly, far more folks read comments(both phony claims and fact-based rebuttals) than actually participate in them. Where a guy like TDog puts forward phony RW talking points, you can be assured that thousands more like him are passing on such points and/or reading them elsewhere, as well as here.

Having a cogent rebuttal to follow them is useful for many, whether they reply here or not. And, whether such rebuttals are read now or later (for history, posterity, when these Zombie Lies continue to crop up again and again, and the rebuttals to them get found via search engines, as you also suggest yourself...)

They certainly can exhaust me. No question. And it's certainly arguable that my time may be better spent in original articles, rather than rebutting their nonsense. But informing myself through the research of smacking down these yutzes here also informs me for other purposes (radio, TV and/or future articles), so I don't mind it.

On the other hand, if you guys beat me to such rebuttals, I wouldn't have to do it myself! (hint, hint! )

What was the context in which Beck made these comments? If he was talking about some apocalyptic type crisis, then what he said would be true. If Communists actually took over our government, as has happened in many countries around the world, there would be civil war. There would be bloodshed. Any student of history knows how the Communists do such things and there is always bloodshed.

Can anyone tell me specifically what Beck has said that makes him so dangerous. Can you be specific please? I know he made a comment that Obama may hate white people early on but he retracted that. I don't watch him very often so I don't know. All I have to go on is what I have seen, which isn't a lot. If that is all there is then I have to conclude that he pretty innocuous. You may not like his program but I can't say I have ever witnessed anything dangerous about what he says.

I watched the "shoot them in the head..." video clip and it is taken out of context. Beck was talking about internecine warfare between the far left radicals and the centrist liberals who might "betray" the far left's agenda. Apparently the radicals have said they are willing to kill to achieve their agenda and any one who gets in their way or betrays them is in danger. It is about liberals having to defend themselves from the fringe elements of the far left. It had nothing to do with the right.

Most people want to do the right thing but recently it seems folks are too willing to buy off on the demonizing on both sides. May I suggest we just ignore the crazy comments and read a variety of sources before we decide what the real story is? Go to sane sources for your information and ignore the others. Read conservative, moderate and liberal writers but stay away from those incite others.

The misinformation that makes it onto the airways is literally dangerous, as our democracy falls farther and farther down the hell-hole. It is literally an information war going on, and the Cons own most of the MSM. That is why we have so many maniacal Patterico pets, barking their delerious, unresearched rhetoric, oblivious of all that is verifiable, ignoring that which is verifiable, and replacing honest, objective discussion with jokes, name calling, and darn near shooting spit wads, and I'm sure if it could be accomplished by way of the internet, they would be doing just that, shooting spitwads. I don't think they ever came to realize that adulthood has visited them. They really don't seem to be there.

J L Fuller said, at various...

Apparently the radicals have said they are willing to kill to achieve their agenda and any one who gets in their way or betrays them is in danger. It is about liberals having to defend themselves from the fringe elements of the far left. It had nothing to do with the right.

First, there is no "apparently" here. Yet, if you believe that, it sounds like you got it from Beck. And if you believe there are "radicals...willing to kill to achieve their agenda...on the far left", then I suppose the only thing to do is risk your life to stop them, eh? Or so that is the message sent by folks like Beck in the clip above.

That message was received by Byron Williams. And others. And acted upon to deadly ends.

Most people want to do the right thing but recently it seems folks are too willing to buy off on the demonizing on both sides. May I suggest we just ignore the crazy comments and read a variety of sources before we decide what the real story is?

You may "suggest" that, if you wish, but it will do little to bring back the lives of those who have been murdered after being inspired by the likes of so many on the right. Did you bother to read what Byron Williams had to say after he was stopped from shooting up the Tides Foundation (brought to his attention by Beck) and the ACLU?

I have seen no such similar behavior based on demonization from "both sides". Have you? If so, please show us all the evidence for that claim.

Can anyone tell me specifically what Beck has said that makes him so dangerous. ... You may not like his program but I can't say I have ever witnessed anything dangerous about what he says.

Then you're not paying attention. Or reading what Byron Williams had to say. I would also recommend that you read the death threats received on Beck's website in regard to "enemy of the Constitution", as he calls her, 73-year old professor Frances Fox Piven as I detailed in comment #28 above. Then tell me he's not dangerous.

As to more specific and dangerous incitements he offers regularly, please feel free to use Google. There are tons from him, Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter etc. etc. etc. If you don't know about them already, it's because you likely don't care to.

I've just read many of the comments here. I love this community. Bless you all, especially for taking on Tdog, and trying to show him where he was misinformed. I hope he may begin to notice, that right-wing websites virtually always make claims without backing them up with any citations, so you have to just take it on faith that they are accurate. And if you do go looking, you find that the story is vastly different, and frequently opposite of what was told. You should keep surfing and get to the truth of things, TDOG. Keep talking here. I used to believe a lot like you do. Keep asking your questions, and keep listening here. Peace to you.

It concerns me that the likes of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn could actually commit violence for leftist political reasons yet and get away with it without a peep from the left and yet there is no one on the right who has ever been charged or convicted of such a thing. We see here above proof that leftists have deliberately lied about what Beck said and the apologists writing in this board continue to deny it. What was it that the good Congressman from Tennessee said the other day in the House about telling lies so many times it becomes embedded in people's heads as truth? By the way it was Walter Lippmann who promoted the idea of manipulating the population by means of the mass media. He said we needed "a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality...." composed of experts, specialists and bureaucrats. He said in his book Public Opinion that manufacturing public opinion was a laudable and necessary thing. It was Lippmann's ideas that the Nazi's used as foundation for their propaganda machine. Thank you Mr. Lippmann. Jews of the world will ever hold you in high esteem. People some commenting above continue your work.

JL Fuller @54 wrote:

We see here above proof that leftists have deliberately lied about what Beck said...

News flash, my deluded right wing spinster. Quoting Beck verbatim, and posting the actual video, can never be considered a "lie"!

If you want to post such drivel, return to Patterico's Pontification where logic and truth are irrelevant.

Oh, and if you want to examine a classic example of "manipulating the population by means of the mass media," turn on the Fox "News" network and listen to the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or any of there other assembly of propagandists--Oh, my mistake. You're one of their regulars already.

I stand by my contention that most people want to do the right thing. They don't always know what that is. I suggest we all loath liars. That includes politicians and those who lie for the "greater good" as they see it. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to view our political opponents as deliberate liars. I do not see all Democrats as lairs but rather just uninformed when it comes to people like Beck.

I have asked for examples of where Beck has said something designed to incite violence towards anyone and yet no one has provided it. Even on this board all I get is ad hominem, attacks against me and Beck. Notice I asked for proof that Beck deliberately choose to inflame passions to the point where violence could be expected. I am still waiting.

Question: If I post a response that is a bit lengthly (similar in length to your Mr. Friedman) will it be posted? I tried orginally to put my orginal comments in one post, but it was rejected and I had to break into a bunch of smaller posts. That makes it very difficult to respond.

Thanks!

@ #56 (JLF999?) ~ No one here has attacked you, here, ad hominemally or otherwise. It's against the very few commenting rules, here. (Where did you even get that? Every one in this thread - except me - has been exceedingly patient. *)

Beck on the other hand, is a public figure, and therefore is fair game to tease and mock him as we see fit, especially as he continues to ramp up his *DANGEROUS* rhetoric against Frances Fox Piven.

Don't know why I should bother to provide you with yet another link that addresses your repetitive, time-suck of a question. Brad (and others)just gave you about a ga-zillion examples in response to your request for 'just one' example of how Beck's rhetoric is ramping up the crazies, and how that is, yes - *DANGEROUS*.

Yet you magically manage to ignore them all. That makes you pre-dispositioned to pre-selection; intractable, no matter the facts. While you will not be "attacked" here for that, ad hominemally or otherwise - I for one, will just ignore your posts completely.

If (said) evidence doesn't exist to you no matter what evidence we cite, why should we continue to respond to you at all?

Oh no! Are you one of those people who can't read at all but can type / write / form sentences perfectly well? Are you one of those 'all output, no input?' types?

BETA TEST, for JFL999 / Mr. Fuller: ARE YOU READING THIS NOW? If so, try reading this, too:

http://www.huffingtonpos...8.html?ref=fb&src=sp

(*I wonder at the over-sensitivity from the public figures on right regarding their self-perceived victimization while simultaneously bullying and inimidating the rest of us. It's seems such a favorite fallback past-time for them, they've practically FETTISHIZED it.

Calling them BULLY-PUSSIES: Bullies before they take the punch, pussies after they bleed.)

OH, I see! You want proof that Beck is DELIBERATELY inciting violence?!...I see the game you're playing, now JLFwhatevs.

Sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt even as you confirmed my original, more cynical notion earlier on this very same thread about why this type of debate is a waste of time.

Ok then: I don't think Glenn Beck does *anything* deliberately. I think he's crazy. Patently so.

I'm not sure he's entirely accountable for whatever is wrong with him, but that is precisely why his being on my public airwaves, ginning up his not-so-stable followers with guns(of which my Aunt Sue is now a cult-y member) to incite violence - is yes, also, once again, yet another example for you of why Beck might be considered *DANGEROUS*.

Deliberately so? Maybe not. I don't care.
But what about the 'not crazy' right wing people DELIBERATELY keeping him on the air, or the MODERATE right wing people who are DELIBERATELY defending him, all the while knowing full well what kind of rage and crazy skitzo paranoia he's invoking? I'm sorry - INCITING.

That was the nugget at the center of this very article, in fact, for those of us who were keeping up.

Jeannie Dean - Well apparently no one is willing to provide what I asked for. I can only assume it doesn't exist. Just so I am clear, ad hominem is belittling another person in order to make a point. It is usually considered a personal attack. And as to the You Tube clips, they do not provide context or the whole story. They are not conclusive. Just like the "...Shoot them in head..." clip, you can't know if it was taken out of context or even had anything to do with the subject at hand. Given I may be unclear let me give you an example of what I am asking for.

Van Jones was alleged to have been associated with a Marxist group in the 1980's or 90's and as such would not have been suitable for public service in the White House. A person who wished to be credible would acknowledge Jone's involvement and proved a clarification statement (which Jones made) as a counter to Beck's comments and conclusions. That is what I am asking for. What I get are comments demonizing Beck because they don't like what he says not for his conclusions. No one offers evidence just hyperbole and accusations.

Jeannie. Our posts crossed in mid electron. I see what you are saying. I disagree with your conclusions however. I think you are confusing mentally unstable people with conservative gun owners. That is an awfully wide brush you are painting with and very unfair to a great many lawful people. Mixing military metaphors into the political debate is a time honored and widely used practice. I can't think of any time where an otherwise law abiding conservative person ever attacked anyone over a political disagreement. However I have witnessed the left do it for decades.

JL Fuller (Please use the same name each time you post here, as per our rules for commenting! Thanks!) said:

It concerns me that the likes of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn could actually commit violence for leftist political reasons yet and get away with it without a peep from the left and yet there is no one on the right who has ever been charged or convicted of such a thing.

a) Have never heard of Bernadine Dorn, and as to Bill Ayers, you're really referring to what some guy did in the 60's (and was never charged for?).

b) You're really saying "no one on the right ... has ever been charged or convicted of such a thing"? Have you even read anything posted/linked in either the original article above or this lengthy comment thread? Doesn't seem so.

So PLEASE read at least these three links before you comment here again. Thank you:

• Insurrectionist Timeline of last two years.
• Eliminationist Rhetoric from years prior to 2007 (after which is has gotten much worse.)
• Timeline of recent politically motivated violence in AZ alone.

I stand by my contention that most people want to do the right thing.

Right. I concur. Unfortunately, when you're told (falsely) day in and day out that the people running the country are hoping to destroy your way of life and everything you have ever know, the "right thing" often becomes killing people to keep that from happening. Where most people "want to do the right thing", it's also true that a large number of both Republicans and especially self-identified "Tea Party" people believe that violence against the government right now is justified.

Now where did they come up with that idea, JL? Just a coincidence that that end of the political spectrum has hundreds of thousands of "lone nutjobs" in it? If so, do you think it's a good idea to keep fomenting with rhetoric that incites violence, as cited by one "lone nutjob" after another now? (Again, have you read any of the links above yet?)

Notice I asked for proof that Beck deliberately choose to inflame passions to the point where violence could be expected. I am still waiting.

The "proof" is that people who listen to him, cite him as a mentor, point to his specific rhetoric etc. keep killing and/or trying to kill people.

While I have a far smaller audience than Beck, even I appreciate that words matter and so I am constantly taking care not to incite --- and even force myself to modulate my rhetoric so that someone won't accidentally take something I say or write as an incitement. That you don't feel the power Beck (et al) have comes with any responsibility to do that whatsoever, you probably have no problem that Beck is now targeting a 78-year old widow (who, in turn, is receiving hundreds of direct death threats from Beck supporters), or that O'Reilly spent months identifying a doctor as "Tiller the Baby Killer" over and over again until one of his supporters actually went out and shot Dr. Tiller in the head in his church.

To you, I presume, the number of mounting dead bodies citing the same RWers and their rhetoric over and over again as their inspiration, is "proof" of nothing as you continue to serve as an apologist for these folks.

You're a great American, sir!

Well apparently no one is willing to provide what I asked for. I can only assume it doesn't exist.

We have. Over and again. You just haven't bothered to read it and/or have moved the goal posts once the evidence you asked for was provided.

Just like the "...Shoot them in head..." clip, you can't know if it was taken out of context or even had anything to do with the subject at hand.

The complete context was offered for Beck's "Shoot them in the head" comment in the original article. Both a lengthy excerpt from the full transcript, as well as a link to the entire transcript at Fox "News" was provided. Your argument is false.

Van Jones was alleged to have been associated with a Marxist group in the 1980's or 90's and as such would not have been suitable for public service in the White House.

We have no political tests for public service in the WH or anywhere else. Niether "allegations" of "association", or actual "association" (both of which were bullshit in re: VJ, btw) make any person "[un]suitable for public service in the White House." That you have come to believe as much is a testament to the lies you are being told, and are happily believing, from Glenn Beck and friends.

That you believe Bernadine Dorn, whoever the hell that is, is some sort of threat to you or the nation or has anything to do with the majority of Americans (most of whom are progressive, but even the ones who are regressive) is also a tribute to the horseshit you seem willing to buy without bothering to question why it is being fed to you by people who do not have your interests anywhere near their own.

I can't think of any time where an otherwise law abiding conservative person ever attacked anyone over a political disagreement.

Then, again, you haven't bothered to read a single link that has been posted here. Not on Byron Williams, not on Jim David Adkisson, not on Richard Papalowski, not on those who are right NOW sending death threats to Frances Fox Piven (or those many who have sent similar to me.)

Before you comment in reply, I will ask you one last time to read the links provided above before doing so. Thank you.

TDog asked @ XX:

Question: If I post a response that is a bit lengthly (similar in length to your Mr. Friedman) will it be posted? I tried orginally to put my orginal comments in one post, but it was rejected and I had to break into a bunch of smaller posts. That makes it very difficult to respond.

Not sure why that comment was put into moderation. There are many different criteria used by the software in guessing whether or not something may be spam (though I don't believe that length is one of them.) So apologies for the problem you had.

Try again. Though if it's a lengthy copy and paste from elsewhere, please see our Rules for Commenting at The BRAD BLOG before you do that. Thanks.

Brad,

Sorry I wasn't clear. I usually type up longer responses in word and then paste them into the comment box. Is that maybe the issue? Too many times in my life has a page reloaded or a connection been lost and I lose all my stuff after typing away for a long time. If I keep having trouble, maybe I'll just break it into parts.

BTW Although I disagree with much of what you have to say on this issue I do wish to say that I appreciate that you respond and keep the thread going. Often times people do not converse and follow up contentious opinions but rather fling insults and sarcasm and nobody gains an understanding of the other. A willingness to listen and respond is essential to learning. Anyway, whether it be laziness or lack of care most bloggers and authors don't follow up like you do, and I appreciate it.

Thanks,

JLF @ #61 ~

I think you are confusing mentally unstable people with conservative gun owners.

No, I'm not conflating mentally unstable people with conservative gun owners at all. Perfectly willing to concede, even agree with you 100%, (tho I can't believe I should have to say so) that:

a) yes - there are mentally unstable people without guns, and
b) that there are also plenty of mentally stable, conservative gun owners...
c) ?? Really, do I have to...okay:

The problem, as I see it JFL, is the crossover demographic in between the two straw-men you've so lovingly constructed: the mentally unstable people with guns. Semi-automatic ones. That lock n' load 30-clip magazines. Crazy people who happen to be highly suggestive to violent rhetoric as it spews in to their living rooms and cars and offices over their free public airwaves; most of whom believe that Obama is a secret Arab coming to take their guns away...

In other words: Beck's listeners.

Are you sure you are not confusing conservative Republicans with Libertarians? They are not the same you know. And yes, you do have to make the distinction. All conservatives are not the same any more than all Democrats are hard core leftist radicals like Bill Ayers and the Black Panthers who blow up buildings and kill cops. But they do exist and they do have an agenda that is antithetical to American values. Try not looking for code words if you are having trouble making the distinction.

[ED NOTE: JL - I have asked once or twice already, but as you originally posted here as "J L Fuller", I would ask that you continue doing so, rather than as "JLF9999". I have changed your user name above, again, to reflect that and would appreciate if you did so yourself, as per our rules for posting comment here, from now on. Thanks! - BF]

Let me add something to my last comment. By code words I mean words or phrases the cause an automatic response. You can call it a knee jerk response. I admit it can be confusing telling the players without a score card but it can be done. For example. True conservative are not given to wild eyed passion about a particular candidate. Instead, they want to find a logical and less ideological solution to problems. Take the illegal immigrant issue. Most real conservatives accept hat we are not going to kick 12 million people out of the country. I think, personal opinion here, that we need the 12 million illegals to bolster our aging work force and pay for the baby boomer social security benefits. That is the practical side of the issue. There are no hysterics, no hyperbole and no bad guys.

J L Fuller said:

Are you sure you are not confusing conservative Republicans with Libertarians? They are not the same you know. And yes, you do have to make the distinction. All conservatives are not the same any more than all Democrats are hard core leftist radicals like Bill Ayers and the Black Panthers who blow up buildings and kill cops.

I have asked you very kindly, several times, to both read the links that have been posted for you here before commenting again, as well as asking you to use your original name "J L Fuller". Please do both of them.

Your comment above, pointing to radical actions from some on the left which occurred nearly 50 years ago, reveals that you did not read what I requested you to. You continue to hold onto the propaganda that you've been shoveled by folks like Beck who rely on folks like yourself --- theoretically non-insane folks --- to repeat over and over without bothering to look into.

My patience with you is nearing an end. Please do not test me in that regard. Again, thanking you in advance for respecting these requests (and rules).

TDog asked @ 64:

I usually type up longer responses in word and then paste them into the comment box. Is that maybe the issue?

Shouldn't be, though Word does have a way of including invisible characters which may then trigger the spam filter if it persists when you do your paste. Try using Notepad (or another non-HTML, text-only word processor) for composing instead. That may help avoid the problem that you had.

Beyond that, appreciate your thoughtful response to mine and happy to have you participating here in the conversation.