Really? Can you give me an example of something that ‘looks like’ a riot but isn’t violent? Note that she didn’t leave ‘riots’ out of her call to action.
If she really wasn’t advocating violence she should have said something along the lines of, “I don’t condone the violence of the activities in Greece, but America’s unemployed need to employ the same amount of urgency and activity, without resorting to actual violence.” Or, she could have simply left out ‘riots’ and said “America needs something like the labor strikes in Europe.”
But she didn’t, did she? And since she has a history of calls to violence, why are you so willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, while immediately pouncing on Beck’s response, which doesn’t actually suggest violence at all?
And besides, I thought the new rule was that you can’t say anything that even suggests violence. After all, saying that you’re ‘targeting’ a congressional district is a lot farther removed from actual violence than saying that America needs ‘something like’ actual violent, deadly riots and strikes that are currently going on elsewhere in the world.
So tell me - if Glenn Beck pointed to violent anti-government riots in some country and said, “We need something like that here”, you’d give him the same benefit of the doubt? You’d assume that he wasn’t advocating violence because he only said ‘something like’ riots? What a joke.
I wasn’t aiming that at you specifically. I was talking about the general response.
You’re joking, right? You tell me that I pounced on Beck’s response, which I didn’t. You tell me what my response would be if Beck said something else, which he hasn’t. And then you ask me not to put words in your mouth. I mean, you’ve just got to be kidding.
Ooh, try this; I wasn’t aiming that at you specifically.
Is there something for the rest of us to read along with here? I’d like to see this “direct request.” I’d also like for you to explain how even a direct request for violence should be met with death threats if that is in fact the case you are making here.
I think it’s two. Didn’t the guy who shot up the UU church in Tennessee because he was out to get all the “liberals” have copies of Beck’s (and O’Reilly’s, IIRC) books lying around?
Jeez, here you guys are orchestrating a smear campaign against Good Glenn Beck, and you don’t even know on who’s behalf you’re doing it? I bet next you’ll deny George Soros has anything to do with this, am I right?
Gah, what a pathetic bunch of revolutionaries you are.
The right does this a lot. They’ll bring up some obscure figure or organization who most liberals have never heard of, let alone had an association with, and try to cast them as leading the left’s charge against America.
ACORN is a perfect example of this. Honestly, how many people here had ever heard of them before the right started obsessing over them in 2008 or even before O’Keefe pulled his stunt on them in 2009.
They have indeed. But violence wasn’t the point of the protests. If it had been, we would have seen an awful lot more violence than we actually did. Advocating mass protests is emphatically not the same as advocating mass violence. You can wish for one but not the other.
She specifically said ‘strikes and riots’. This wasn’t an offhand comment where she might have chosen her words poorly - this was in an article in The Nation.
