‘You’re going to have to shoot them in the head,’ Beck said of Democratic leaders

[Avatar4321]

Regardless of whether I took the comment out of context or not, Beck still remains a cheesedicked demagogue hellbent on making a buck off of the jerkoffs who actually support his hucksterism.

Got ya. You're wrong but somehow you are still right.

Maybe you should actually listen to Glenn sometime. You'd be surprised what a "cheesedicked demagogue" who encouraging individual empowerment can do for the wellbeing of the nation.

 

[Truthmatters]

How many times are the left leaning posters here called commies?

Under Becks ideas anyone who isnt far right is a commie.

Beck wants me shot in the head by saying Im going to shoot someone if they dont shoot me in the head.


Why cant you see that this is going to destroy this country?

 

[Bones]

Well, whataya know...he's got something in common with Obama, then.

Yes he does, along with every other sack of flaming dog crap politician as well. I wonder how their salaries would compare. Shady backdoor money grabs included.

Whether it's Oprah, Dr. Phil, Beck or Anderson Cooper their schemes to rake in the dough are failsafe.

 

[California Girl]

Regardless of whether I took the comment out of context or not, Beck still remains a cheesedicked demagogue hellbent on making a buck off of the jerkoffs who actually support his hucksterism.

Taking comments out of context makes you a liar.

And.... since this subject already has a thread, that makes you a fucking idiot.

All by yourself, you have confirmed that you have no credibility whatsoever. Congratulations.

 

[California Girl]

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature would ask for the actual context. And yet, no one does. Why is that? What are the left afraid of? Is it that y'all know this is bullshit?

 

[The Infidel]

How many times are the left leaning posters here called commies?

Under Becks ideas anyone who isnt far right is a commie.

Beck wants me shot in the head by saying Im going to shoot someone if they dont shoot me in the head.


Why cant you see that this is going to destroy this country?

HOW ABOUT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID?
Your one of those dumb cows that need to hered.... dont actually go and see what he ACTUALLY said.... just go along with the herd.

Dumbass....

Regardless of whether I took the comment out of context or not, Beck still remains a cheesedicked demagogue hellbent on making a buck off of the jerkoffs who actually support his hucksterism.

Taking comments out of context makes you a liar.

And.... since this subject already has a thread, that makes you a fucking idiot.

All by yourself, you have confirmed that you have no credibility whatsoever. Congratulations.

 

[The Infidel]

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature would ask for the actual context. And yet, no one does. Why is that? What are the left afraid of? Is it that y'all know this is bullshit?

 

[Liability]

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature would ask for the actual context. And yet, no one does. Why is that? What are the left afraid of? Is it that y'all know this is bullshit?

I spelled it out very carefully, just yesterday, in a different thread, for the dishonest louts like truthdoesntmattertoheratall and sangha and Fly Catcher.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-romper-room/149596-politicizing-a-tragedy-360.html#post3227156

Of course, it had too many of those annoying "word" things in it to suit sangha.

The relatively new troll, Bones, at least acknowledges that maybe he was mistaken about the claim concerning Beck. Sadly, that didn't deter him from making or repeating his now unsupported claims about Beck.

Robin Williams said it best:

"Reality? Wow! What a concept!"

 

[rikules]

Actually, he said it to the Democrat leaders in reference to dealing with violent revolutionaries who are active in their party.

so you DO advocate shooting SOME Americans....

I see...


can you name any Americans you think should be shot?

 

[Tank]

Even though Beck said that, none of his listeners did it.

 

[xotoxi]

Actually, he said it to the Democrat leaders in reference to dealing with violent revolutionaries who are active in their party.

Which means that he is advocating shooting someone in the head, right?

 

[Liability]

Actually, he said it to the Democrat leaders in reference to dealing with violent revolutionaries who are active in their party.

so you DO advocate shooting SOME Americans....

I see...


can you name any Americans you think should be shot?

ridikulous:

What Beck said tells nobody (not even you) what Avatar "thinks."

So, there is no basis for your "concluison." As always, your words are proof of how dishonest you tend to be.

And Beck himself didn't advocate shooting anybody, either.

In CONTEXT, you moron, he was issuing a warning -- even to the libs he doesn't much respect -- that they have taken into their camp some very dangerous murderous evil fuckers.

He wasn't suggesting anything. He was shouting out a word of caution.

So, seriously, ridikulous, smarten the fuck up. You are FAR too dopey for this place.

With all due respect, and civilly yours,

your pal,

Liability

 

[Liability]

Actually, he said it to the Democrat leaders in reference to dealing with violent revolutionaries who are active in their party.

Which means that he is advocating shooting someone in the head, right?

No.

Not even close to being right.

He advocated no such thing.

 

[The Infidel]

Even though Beck said that, none of his listeners did it.

He didnt say it....



Nice try though.

 

[xotoxi]

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature would ask for the actual context. And yet, no one does. Why is that? What are the left afraid of? Is it that y'all know this is bullshit?

We discussed this the other day and looked at it in context.

He wasn't advocating his supporters to shoot democratic politicians in the head.

He was advocating that normal democrats shoot the leftist revolutionaries who have infiltrated the democratic party in the head.

Either way, he is suggesting that someone needs to shoot another person in the head.

 

[xotoxi]

Actually, he said it to the Democrat leaders in reference to dealing with violent revolutionaries who are active in their party.

Which means that he is advocating shooting someone in the head, right?

No.

Not even close to being right.

He advocated no such thing.

Then why did he say it?

Maybe "advocate" was the wrong word. How about "suggest"?

 

[Liability]

Which means that he is advocating shooting someone in the head, right?

No.

Not even close to being right.

He advocated no such thing.

Then why did he say it?

Maybe "advocate" was the wrong word. How about "suggest"?

What he was saying (and I have already conceded that in my opinion he rambled somewhat less than clearly) requires CONTEXT.

I addressed it earlier in this trhead by linking my post about it in another (similar) thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-ro...ml#post3227156

The shorthand version? He was suggesting that liberal Democratics had embraced into their fold a variety of "revolutionaries" who were very comfortable with violence. He used (somewhat jarringly) the term "co-opt." And when you get violence-inclined revolutionaries into the camp, there is indeed an increased chance of violence breaking out IN camp.

What Beck was suggesting was that the standard liberal Democratics (like Bubba Clinton) should be careful because the violence-prone revolutionary types whom they had taken into the Democrat Camp might someday need to be be shot in the head (self protection) but that they were also likely to be shooting back.

Look. Let's be blunt. Beck was fucking babbling. But he was not advocating violence. In his somewhat unclear way, he was suggesting that the Dims had taken in some wolves and that violence within the ranks of the Democrat Party might ensue. He referred to it explicitly as a "civil war." Review my other post and look at the transcript. It's not a mystery even if Beck articulated it all rather poorly.

 

[California Girl]

Which means that he is advocating shooting someone in the head, right?

No.

Not even close to being right.

He advocated no such thing.

Then why did he say it?

Maybe "advocate" was the wrong word. How about "suggest"?

Basically, he said the Dems may need to decide whose side they're on.... the side of their radical element or the side of the American people.

 

[Ravi]

No.

Not even close to being right.

He advocated no such thing.

Then why did he say it?

Maybe "advocate" was the wrong word. How about "suggest"?

What he was saying (and I have already conceded that in my opinion he rambled somewhat less than clearly) requires CONTEXT.

I addressed it earlier in this trhead by linking my post about it in another (similar) thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-ro...ml#post3227156

The shorthand version? He was suggesting that liberal Democratics had embraced into their fold a variety of "revolutionaries" who were very comfortable with violence. He used (somewhat jarringly) the term "co-opt." And when you get violence-inclined revolutionaries into the camp, there is indeed an increased chance of violence breaking out IN camp.

What Beck was suggesting was that the standard liberal Democratics (like Bubba Clinton) should be careful because the violence-prone revolutionary types whom they had taken into the Democrat Camp might someday need to be be shot in the head (self protection) but that they were also likely to be shooting back.

Look. Let's be blunt. Beck was fucking babbling. But he was not advocating violence. In his somewhat unclear way, he was suggesting that the Dims had taken in some wolves and that violence within the ranks of the Democrat Party might ensue. He referred to it explicitly as a "civil war." Review my other post and look at the transcript. It's not a mystery even if Beck articulated it all rather poorly.

Do you think Obama was one of those revolutionaries he was talking about needing to be shot in the head? After all, Beck has labeled Obama a Marxist, a communist, and a radical.

 

[California Girl]

Then why did he say it?

Maybe "advocate" was the wrong word. How about "suggest"?

What he was saying (and I have already conceded that in my opinion he rambled somewhat less than clearly) requires CONTEXT.

I addressed it earlier in this trhead by linking my post about it in another (similar) thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-ro...ml#post3227156

The shorthand version? He was suggesting that liberal Democratics had embraced into their fold a variety of "revolutionaries" who were very comfortable with violence. He used (somewhat jarringly) the term "co-opt." And when you get violence-inclined revolutionaries into the camp, there is indeed an increased chance of violence breaking out IN camp.

What Beck was suggesting was that the standard liberal Democratics (like Bubba Clinton) should be careful because the violence-prone revolutionary types whom they had taken into the Democrat Camp might someday need to be be shot in the head (self protection) but that they were also likely to be shooting back.

Look. Let's be blunt. Beck was fucking babbling. But he was not advocating violence. In his somewhat unclear way, he was suggesting that the Dims had taken in some wolves and that violence within the ranks of the Democrat Party might ensue. He referred to it explicitly as a "civil war." Review my other post and look at the transcript. It's not a mystery even if Beck articulated it all rather poorly.

Do you think Obama was one of those revolutionaries he was talking about needing to be shot in the head? After all, Beck has labeled Obama a Marxist, a communist, and a radical.

He also withdrew the accusation against Obama, but, please.... don't let the facts get in the way. It's far more politically expedient to only take the quotes that suit your purpose. It's similar to calling a recovering alcoholic 'a drunk'.... technically not wrong, but not exactly true either.