Except that Beck and Company aren’t simply complaining that she wants strikes and riots like those in Greece and England (with the goal, she says, of stronger safety nets for the unemployed and job-creating initiatives).
And as extreme as some of the protests in Greece got, they didn’t come anywhere close to being the 1917-style New Bolshevik Revolution that they’re heavily implying that Piven is working towards.
So your claim is that she directed and/or incited readers to commit violent acts in that article? Do you have a cite for that, or is this another time that you make a claim about something that is not supported by facts? I mean, you do have a bad habit of doing just that.
No, you really don’t know me at all. Caught you in another baseless assertion not supported by facts right there.
But my real point stands: you made a claim about what was said in the article, and when challenged you resorted to your usual MO of claiming an article you provided a link to said something that, in fact, is not said in the text. You do this so often it’s almost comical.
And yes, I will continue to point it out every time I see you do it.
Be specific. What did I say the article contains that it does not, in fact, contain? Surely you can do that, right? I mean, you wouldn’t toss around accusations of mendacity lightly, would you?
And every time I refute you and provide a cite like I just did, you’ll vanish, then you’ll pull the same trick next time. You’re a one-trick pony.
Well, well. The thread seems to have turned from what horrible words Beck supposedly* said to the degree to which Piven’s actual words call for violence.
So again. Do we have Glenn Becks words? Anyone? If I’m wrong, I’d like to know it. Not that I wouldn’t take someones word for it. Happens so often that I’m able to tell that I’m wrong by the tired looks on peoples faces. This being the internet though, I can’t quite make the expressions out. I’ll simply have to settle for the words of Mr. Beck to know for sure.
I’ll call you a liar if you want, you sickening piece of shit.
Look, I know why you do this. You believe hard that your side is correct, and that means sometimes you have to be like this in order to blindly defend them. I’m not saying that your responses are okay, I’m saying that given how utterly and mindlessly ideological you are I can see how you are forced to act like this.
She doesn’t call for riots. That is a lie, and since you say that it makes you a liar. This isn’t the first time you’ve bent the truth.
What she called for, liar, is protests. She said they will have to look like the recent unrest in Europe, not be like, as in similar levels of energy. Nowhere does she call for violence, at least in that article. If you weren’t a delusional liar who had a compulsive need to whitewash the right’s bullshit you would see that.
So get off your high horse and swallow your faux indignation, you lying scumbag.
Thanks for the hilarious post, Chuckle Head. Talk about irony!!! But the part that really tickled me was the way you got up on your percheron and then argued—and this was really good— that Piven merely called for “protests”. Protests that looked like those in Europe, yessiree, many much of which were riotous, but she never actually called for actual riots.
Ahh, if only you weren’t so blind yourself to see how fucking weak and pathetic your defense is. But because you can’t, yet you bellow from your mighty steed with the righteousness of Mother Teresa, it’s a friggin’ knee-slapper. Your friends in clown school would be envious.
You want to spin her letter as a call for non-violent protest only?
Let me quote some choice passages:
Perhaps she’s talking about peaceful unruly mobs? And describing CEOs as ‘robber barons’ isn’t inciteful at all. Oh no.
So… they have to turn anger and blame on others. They need targets. Preferably accessible ones who will then cave in to ‘angry demands’. Not exactly Gandhi, is she?
You know, I’m pretty sure another public figure got in hot water recently for using a ‘target’ metaphor. I can’t remember who she was. I’m pretty sure her first name starts with an ‘S’. Of course, she was talking about targeting a district in an election - a get out out the vote campaign. Piven is talking about ACTUALLY targeting individuals who are ‘accessible’ (i.e. who can be threatened).
Continuing…
Hmm… They’ll have to be more ‘disruptive’, will they? With the Greece riots held up as an example of the kind of disruption required. How could you ever assume from that her desire to see protests turn angry and violent? It’s so confusing!
We’ve talked about her examples of Greece and the student protests, but here she’s specifically describing them as ‘angry street mobs’. She also mentions the 1934 protests as something to hope for. Are you familiar with them? What distinguished 1934 from previous years of strikes and protests is that in 1934 the Trucker’s unions and others turned violent. They started ‘roving pickets’, which meant trucks full of goons driving around town looking for ‘scabs’, blocking their way, then hauling them out of their trucks and dumping their loads. Beatings and threats of beatings were common. You also might want to look up “The Battle of Deputies Run”, in which thousands of protesters armed with clubs started violent conflicts with police that resulted in two deaths and 48 serious injuries, and ultimately the declaration of martial law.
Here are some eyewitness accounts from those 1934 strikes. Let me quote from one:
THIS is what she’s hoping for. All you need is enough ‘disruption’.
You are all making this too hard. Just remember that when a liberal advocates someone using their first amendment rights it is a call to violence, and when a conservative calls for second amendment remedies they are referring to fuzzy kittens.
That must be why your mom keeps following me around. I don’t mean a particular insult by that, I was just stating that your mom is a whore. And probably you are the result of her frantically fucking a homeless man in the gutter.
PROTIP: You aren’t charming or clever enough to burn people. It sounds awkward. You should stop.
Colossal fail. Maybe you should hang around a grade school and listen to their taunts (before you diddle them) to improve your schtick.
And hey, I wasn’t the one who claimed you looked like a penis, you did, Chuckle Head. Now that you’ve shared a bit about your appearance I see “Chuckle Head” works in more ways than one. Assuming you look like a funny/malformed penis? Is that the case, or do you resemble just a run-of-the-mill penis?
