Can’t we all just get along?
Complaints and demands for a retraction and an apology are flooding CNN today after Neo-Con host Glenn Beck and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive.
Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war, claiming that those he would later identify as Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left and link with terrorists, were a “physical threat.”
“When you enlist in the U.S. military, you have take an oath that says you’re gonna support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies – foreign and domestic – we talk a lot on this program about the foreign threats – maybe we should spend some time tonight on the domestic one….the physical threat may be developing domestically as well,” said Beck. Beck then goes on to make the absurd insinuation that Ron Paul supporters are a terrorist threat because they are causing disenfranchisement with the government. His evidence? The November 5th donation drive coincided with a 400-year-old piece of British history and Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
A record setting 4 Million dollars was raised for Paul’s campaign on Nov. 5th.
How can you trust a source that doesn’t know the difference between “infer” and “imply”??
(corrected, thanks……ed.)
Thank God that the NeoCons are willing to protect us from that Catholic terrorist Guy Fawkes. He must be stopped at all costs!
we would need a bigger military if we were going to silence all the annoying monomaniacs on the web …
1, 2,
How can we debate the issue if we fixate on grammar? Hell, I hate bad writing as much as the next guy, but I’m tired of seeing ideological discussions get distilled down to an issue of rhetoric.
How do you feel about the allegation itself?
It is an affront on the freedom of speech and the freedom to associate. They should be ashamed.
I know both of those freedoms seem to be ‘dispensable’ these days, but we will all live to regret allowing these freedoms to be eroded.
It is hard to believe we will in a day and age that open hostility towards our basic freedoms is so nonchalantly displayed.
oh, and the ex-Marxist seems to have held onto his totalitarian impulse, I see.
and if ‘divided we fall’ is the peril – shouldn’t the pro-war voices be silenced?
they are the minority opinion, after all.
#5 — come on now — the dream of a single party system and the outright banning of political dissent. is fascism which has kind of a bad reputation, so pundits cannot actually call for it.
so what happens is subject gets changed by some of the following techniques:
1.) drag debate into the trenches of of semantics/grammar,
2.) grind out time-based revelation (who knew what when), until the media stops caring
3.) plausible deniability (i.e. only say things in ways that can later be blown off as being speculative, joking or what-have-you)
4.) speak only in passive voice, allowing all of your sentences to be missing an actor, a responsible party.
these are all actually quite predictable and low-grade rhetorical tactics that armchair pundits jump to like sad fat guys playing softball in a loser beer league.
really mercurial guys like rush limbaugh and ann coulter are masters of saying nothing while, through implication the hideous underbelly of the neocon totalitarian wet dream — this craig scott guy’s an amateur, but he’s getting there and idiots like me are helping his career by getting bent out of shape over — shame on me.
but anyway, by all outward appearances, neocons in general certainly seem like cowardly passive-aggressive bitches that will stab you in the back the very second it suits their needs. I’d be careful about trusting them.
(see how it works? i never said a thing.)
>>How can we debate the issue if we fixate on grammar?
Sorry, but that blunder was just too bad to ignore.
>>How do you feel about the allegation itself
I think any fucktard who listens to the slander/ libel attacks of bobbleheads like Beck, Anal Cyst Limbaugh, and Loofah Pad O’Reilly is so far beyond salvaging that it’s pointless to debate them.
Time is better spent discussing issues with people whose IQs go beyond the single digits.
Typical Douche Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Hannity Program;
Hour 1;
Democrats bad! Republicans good, don’t agree? You are a liberal and liberals suck!
Hour 2;
Democrats bad! Republicans good, don’t agree? You are a liberal and liberals suck!
Hour 3;
Democrats bad! Republicans good, don’t agree? You are a liberal and liberals suck!
Hour 4;
Democrats bad! Republicans good, don’t agree? You are a liberal and liberals suck!
etc, etc, etc….
I used to think I was a conservative, until these morons came along.
There’s been a number of anti-war fundraisers, for Obama, and before that Howard Dean. There is something unseemly about linking your message to Guy Fawkes Day, but if the British consider it a holiday I guess it’s ok.
Beck completely overstates the case. The fact is Americans hate losing and incompetence. Bush delivers both in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a non-partisan issue.
The Mexican-American War was completely immoral, but we won it in 3 years, so all parties were cool.
When they outlaw liberty only outlaws will have it. Let’s hope we can change our government at the ballet box instead of going the Guy Fawkes route.
In the case of Beck I believe we are dealing with a “dry drunk”.
Horowitz, still a commie just changing his tactics.
Link to the video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MuM5ZSqet1s
#13. Actually, the Whig party (including the young Abe Lincoln) furiously opposed the Mexican War.
So basically if you want to make it as a conservative talk show host you only need to attend a university and there after a few semesters drop out. After this, you claim that how system is liberal and your views are being oppressed by the man (centralized government). After a few years of pleading and whining you get a syndicated radio show and a few years later you are on your way to conservative stardom.
This is of course only true of males, if you are a woman you actually have to graduate from college before anyone will take you seriously. Still, you can go against the “system” as well: Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace.
Glenn Beck, dropped out of Yale University
Sean Hannity, dropped out of NYU
Rush Limbaugh, Southeastern Missouri State College
Ann Coulter, graduated from Cornell University and got her J.D. from the University of Michigan
Nancy Grace, J.D. degree from Mercer University and LLM from NYU
Finally, I am not sure how Glenn, Sean and Rush can claim liberal indoctrination if they have not actually stayed in school long enough to actually experience this.
Who the eff watches a traitor like Glenn Beck ???Only fellow traitors, KKK, Neo-Cons, and assholes would watch, … oopps, Never mind, I answered my own question.
It really is astonishing that CNN gives their microphone to that asshat.
I may not like Ron Paul or understand his appeal, but…
Reason #137 Why I Don’t Watch the News or Political Pundit Shows.
Glenn Beck is just an ex-cocaine fiend who has found religion in the Mormon cult.
Yes, he’s a Mormon. Worshipping space aliens, visiting the planet that orbits the Star Kolob, and believing the spirit god Elohim is his lord and savior.
Oh and he wears the magic mormon underpants too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsXzHLiHTOU
I love the Ron Paul supporters. They really love free speech and the constitution, at least until someone dares disagree with them. They are the true Fascists in this situation. They follow “Dr. Paul” blindly, and smear, insult, and even go as far making physical threats against his detractors. If anyone here actually listens to Glenn Beck, they would know that he actually agrees with many of Ron Paul’s domestic policies, but was rather turned off by the groupthink and behavior of many of his supporters.
Talk about taking someones words out of context. You nutjobs arent even doing that. I cant a specific quote anywhere that implys in anyway that Ron Paul supporters are terrorist? WTF are you people talking about?