Media Matters' Burns talks to Countdown about violent rhetoric from Glenn Beck and Fox News
March 24, 2010 8:43 pm ET
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
HOW DARE YOU, HOW DARE YOU..ATTACK MY GOD.. MY HERO, MY PROFESSOR , MY LORD GLENN BECK .. on FOX the only NEWS STATION that brings TRUTH,JUSTICE , and the AMARICAN WAY into my life 24/7 360 days of the YEAR!
HOW DARE YOU, HOW DARE YOU.. Go after the only AMARICAN WOOMEN who can SAVE US...SARAH PALIN !
HOW DARE YOU, HOW DARE YOU.. bring on that NUTCASE from Media Matters... WHO hates FOX,Rush, the MANNEQUIN MAGNY , and the D@MNABLE GLENN BECK!
HOW DARE YOU, HOW DARE YOU... I NEED TO GET MY..GUN---GUN--
GUNGHOism...to find away to EXPOSE the FOX And BECK for TREASON!
We fill your brain with mush
Cheat, steal, and lie
We have Hannity and Glenn Beck
For the masses to listen clear
Instill fear in the minds of the public
So gun toting tea baggers you shall cheer
The racist rhetoric, with Ailes at the helm
Live in our violent bubble
Where torture and murder is seen through our realm
So forget about peace and tranquility
Forget everything that you knew
Come on watch, we promise you'll like us
So cheer for the red, go ahead, take shots at the blue
kill
1 /kɪl/
–verb (used with object)
1.
to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
Sounds like the man was a baby killer to me. Have you ever watched an abortion procedure? If not, I would suggest you do. There will be no question what it is after that. It's killing, plain and simple.
It is your business if I want to kill someone. We have standards in society. When one commits a crime the case is titled People v. defendent. We prosecute people in society's name because it is everyone's business when someone commits a crime.
Abortion takes a human life - it stops a beating heart. Just as a bank robber is prosecuted in my name, abortion most certaily is my business.
Where abortion is concerned, I subscribe to the feminist position - "one penis, no vote".
Another point that I don't understand is when the feminist cries of "one penis, no vote" or "get your government out of our bodies" are okay when talking about abortion, yet does not apply when speaking of government takeover of health care?
"Get your government out of my body" was basically what a majority of Americans who were against health care were saying, yet it didn't matter. Where is the difference?
Going by that definition, masturbation would be killing. You're depriving the baby that would result from your sperm reaching an egg of life.
No, I have not, but if there is any one thing that could change my views on abortion, that may be it. Murdering doctors and the hate directed at pro-choicers stands absolutely no chance of changing my views. You could talk until your blue in the face. With that said, I'm gonna google for a videos to watch some abortions. You could post some links to the task easier for me if you are truly concerned about changing someone's views on abortion and not just spewing for hate and trying to gain some political points by using "dead babies" as a tool. As a matter of fact, it would probably be more effective for that whole movement to just shut up with the rhetoric, especially the violent and personal attack rhetoric, and just say, here look at these abortion videos and decide for yourself. Then actually leave the person alone to decide for themselves. The lot of pro-lifers who say stuff like "you're a worthless piece of sh*t and I hope you die of cancer" to pro-choicers are really shooting themselves in the foot. Nobody's gonna change their views off of hearing someone spew hate in their face like that. As a matter of fact it just reinforces in people's minds that pro-lifers aren't really pro life at all.
I don't recall telling anybody that they were a worthless piece of sh*t, or wishing anyone ill-will, or spewing hate. I think most pro-choicers have a monetary stake in the abortion industry (a billion dollar a year industry, that's huge!) and certainly don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, but that is another issue.
I am not out to change anyone's view, that is a near-impossible task in here. I know you need to earn a paycheck just like the rest of us. I was simply reinforcing the fact that abortion is killing.
I am also not going to waste my time with links to videos for someone who really doesn't give a sh*t. If it's ignorant bliss you prefer, that is your prerogative.
A couple of examples:
Gen. 2:7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and formed a man from it. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nose, and the man became a living person. New Century Version (NCV)
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God created me,and the breath of the Almighty gave me life.(NCV)
There are more verses with this theme, but here is one that makes the same point from a little different angle:
Exodus 21:22 If men contend with each other, and a pregnant woman [interfering] is hurt so that she has a miscarriage, yet no further injury follows, [the one who hurt her] shall surely be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman's husband, as much as the judges determine.(NCV)
Since a three year old is dependent should we kill them as well if they become inconvenient?
A baby inside the womb has a different blood type than his/her mother and his a seperate heart beat. The baby is a seperate life - this is biology, not politics.
I do not approve of the attack on Tiller the Baby Killer. The person who attacked him is hypocritical and not pro-life. Howver, I do not deny that I am pleased that Tiller the Baby Killer's death mill is now closed and can no longer harm babies.
With the understanding that this is an issue that ignites a great deal of passion, the fact is Dr. George Tiller performed abortions which terminates pregnancies and results in the death of the fetus. He acted within the laws, laws that have the backing of a very well known Supreme Court decision.
A fetus is not considered a baby.
I understand that those cold, clinical terms are repugnant to many, but abortions are legal, and Tiller did not deserve to be murdered in cold blood, in a church, for performing that procedure.
With respect towards those on the Pro Life side I pointed out that the laws of this nation did not see Dr. Tiller as a "baby killer."
I would say using that phrase in order to slander a man who was guilty of no crimes with the intent of some how justifying his murder is a tool that is not valid.
An early term fetus has the potential to become a baby;
therefore, like it or not, they are two different states of being.
So, rather than it being a matter of MidnightWriter attempting to manipulate the debate by introducing "polical correctness", it is you who are guilty of being less than above board, when you intentionally conflate the two different terms for inflammatory effect.
and BJ there will say the same thing
Absolutely. Of course. He is a murderer and deserves to rot in jail. One negative aspect of the murder is that unfortunately Tiller the Baby Killer will never see the inside of a jail cell.
I thought one went to jail for breaking the law, not for breaking someone's moral or ethical code. Even if abortions became illegal in the future, it is law that he couldn't be prosecuted for past actions. So the only way he would've seen a jail cell even he wasn't murdered, is IF the law was changed AND IF he continued to perform abortions after that law change. Regardless of your own personal beliefs about abortion and your beliefs that what he did was immmoral, he did not break the law.
What would your reaction be?
Would you maybe get a gun yourself, to defend yourself?
Would you start having thoughts in your mind about defending yourself against that neighbor, the one who's antagonized against you and maybe you against him, and start planning for how you may have to shoot him first, because you're damn well not going to let him shoot you first, right?
A lot of people would and do think like that, you know, and they would arm themselves if they were told that their enemy, their antagonist, "he's got a gun, he's got a gun and he's going to use it!"
Isn't beck antagonizing his audience against you and me? Isn't he telling them that we're his and their enemy?
Of course he is.
And isn't he saying you and I are armed, we're going to make an armed assault against America, an armed revolution, isn't beck saying that?
Don't tell me he isn't, because it's right there in the video clip!
And so you see what he's doing, and what kind of reaction he's trying to get out of his audience, you see now why he keeps referencing guns, don't you?
Of course you do.
He's calling his own audience to arms, by telling them that their enemy, you and I, are going to shoot them, and so what do you think his audience is going to do, wait for us to shoot first?
Of course not, nobody's that weak or that stupid, if they're being told about their enemy, "he's got a gun, he's got a gun and he's going to use it!"
Then beck's audience, they have only one sensible recourse: arm themselves, and shoot first!
The guy is trying to incite violence, and at the same time he's evading any and all responsibility for that violence, by saying not only are 'tea baggers' being prodded and provoked and "poked" to do these things, but it's "progressives" and Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration, they're the "pokers"!
Again, beck is at once inciting violence against us, and at the same time saying we're asking for it, we're the cause of it, we're "poking" him and his 'tea baggers'!
While I am opposed to Glenn Beck's views, he has a right to speak them all he wants. This thing about inciting violence though, it is beyond politics. Even the 1st admendment is subject to the shouting "Fire!" in a crowded venue. Beck is essentially shouting "Fire!" and hoping his listeners respond appropiately. His later follow up that violence is not the answer is akin to a lawyer knowingly saying something that he knows will objected to and overruled. The lawyer knows this but says it anyway so that it will be in the mind of the jurors. Beck objects and overrules his incitements to violence, but he knows they are still in the minds of his viewers. He put it out there. Issuing the retraction is but a cover up and alibi for when something actually does happen.
You know how I can discredit Media Matters... they go on countdown to no ratings.
and good god, your president is weird looking. no wonder he runs an internet company
Anybody who thinks this "radio clown" is anything more than a professional crackpot, needs mental help.
I sure hope President Obama put some mental health benefits for Republicans into his ginormous package before he shoved it down their throats!
Beck's "war": Fox host responds to passage of health care reform with violent rhetoric
the goverment was coming to take your guns? what was that? and then that guy who shot up a class of people learning english. that wasn't a call to violence? or when that guy admitted he watched beck and beck made him afriad?
no violence right?
or what about his slaughter references? no violence there right?
or how about your brain? none there right?
I'm dead serious that the FCC should at the very least start thinking about giving some warnings about lifting some licenses and pulling plugs. This crap is a hell of a lot more serious then some four letter words slipping through AND it is deliberate. Do we have to actually wait for somebody to be killed before they think it might be considered a problem? This is going beyond the realm of commentary. Believe me, I am one of the staunchest supporters of free speech but when anybody gets this close to provoking lethal actions over the airwaves it becomes an abuse of privilege, it is not a right!
Am I off base on this?
The "right" speaks of using their "rifles" when referring to self-defense, something guaranteed by the Constitution.
I find it interesting that the threats received by Congress if they voted "no" on health care are not as easy to find these days.
Your version of reality is warped. The left has always been the party of violence, it always will be, and your attempts to manipulate people into thinking otherwise will not work without solid proof.
You're a fraud.
"The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually pi**ed-off. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It has long ceased being an earnest gathering of broad minds where man's timeless problems are examined against the backdrop of the Constitution and solutions to them proposed based on the actual realities of the human condition. It is now the political province of the intellectually deceased, where frightened, lock-step ideologues and other small men and women concoct and promote divisive, destructive, weird and cowardly policies developed within a not-so-quaint, quasi-Marxist stricture of gender, class and race."
The claim of violence from the parties on the right is nothing more than a liberal fantasy.
What about the right wing blogger who said supporters of health care reform should be drawn and quartered. That's not even regular violence. He's talking about hanging people for a little bit taking them down before they they die then cutting their bodies into 1/4ths.
What about the bricks through the windows of Democratic offices?
What about the audio that Rachel Maddow played on her show where of people threatening Stupak?
My version of reality is warped? Nah, buddy. I don't think your version of reality is warped. I think you're just out right lying.
It's hard to see from this clip but the "progressives on the board" appear to be President Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Paul Krugman, and Van Jones? Which "some" of these have ever been violent? It's frighteningly absurd. What are you not willing to believe? Egads man, have some introspection, honestly consider your "opinion". Power grab? The American people overwhelmingly voted for those in power. Remember 2006 and 2008?
My friend said to me the other day in reference to glen beck fans, "I don't want to know no facts I just want to be mad." Perfect.
I thought he was talking about the founding fathers.
The tea party groups are not the one's inciting violence or hatred. It is the progressive "revolutionary group" that have finally attained the power that they have been after for generations who are inciting violence, hatred, race-baiting, etc., and those too young (they love the young, naive minds) to remember have fallen in with them lock-step.
I have not seen or heard of one instance of violence that can be traced to the tea party groups, yet I have seen plenty of violence, hatred, accusations of racism from the left. Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, I would say that your accusations and "fears" are fabrications coming from simple minds.
Link to audio of threatening voice mails.
The recorded audio of actual voice mails starts at 2 min 05 seconds mark.
Militia guy encouraging breaking Democratic windows and bragging about rifles being cleaned, threatening that Democrats better "wake up"
Why didn't Maddow also report on the threats that Stupak had publicly commented on a week before the vote, when he was still going to vote "no"? Apparently some people didn't like the fact that he was going to vote against the bill and were sending him threats for it.
Sorry, but I can only stand so much of Maddow's grinning puss. The fact that Biden's foul mouth is so amusing to her did me in. I guess everything's always funny if it's coming from the left. I only watched part of it.
Why is nobody reporting the fact that Republicans have been receiving threats for months for their "no" votes. These incidents happen all the time, and most members of Congress choose to not make them public because they don't want to give publicity to those making the threats, nor do they want to encourage the ones making the threats.
BTW, a brick thrown through a window is one of the oldest forms of protest. Now a brick thrown at the head is a completely different story.
Power grab? Oh, you mean running for office and winning? You mean winning a majority in the House and Senate by getting the most votes? You mean winning the Presidency by getting the most votes? Is that the power grab you speak of?
I would suggest you read Beck's emails sometime if you want to see some threats of violence. Not just against Beck, but to his family also.
BTW, Burns is a sensationalist and a nutjob.
This is whats happening now beacause of Fox and Beck. They have provoked the Right into violence. With all of their mentioning of revolution, and hinting at taking matters into their own hands... Theres your evidence.. how much longer before someone actually gets hurt...
Your claims are void of substance. You blame "Fox and Beck" when in actuality it is a democrat-controlled Congress who has made the decision to alienate the nation by ignoring its demands of no gov't run health care.
What about Chris Matthews talking about and laughing about Rush Limbaugh as Mr Big? Could that be considered provoking violence?
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdSU8zqGSU
The G20 violence in Pittsburgh....leftists
ELF....leftists
Code Pink....leftists
Are there individual nuts on both side....sure.
But by far, the violent fringes on the left far outnumber those on the right. The 'progressives' are setting up and labelling groups on the right as being violent. It serves thier agenda perfectly.
CODEPINK is a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities.
Oh, I see. They are against war, and for life-affirming activities, so they must be leftists.
Gee, what was I thinking???
'Hating' the fact that the Government is spending our country into oblivion DOES NOT have a racial component. Dont give me that 'George Bush did it first' crap. #1 - He was not a fiscal conservative and the Tea Party folks are not Bush fans (although comparatively speaking both he and Clinton look MUCH more appealing than Obama), #2 - Obama has tripled the financial mess that Bush put us in.
'Hating' that the Obama administration is pushing socialistic policies that redistribute wealth, encourage government dependence and grows the size of government DOES NOT have a racial component.
Funny, if YOU had any scruples, you might actually watch Beck instead of relying on the ultra-biased MMFA for any and all info you get about him. Then you would have seen him denounce violence, on every side, several times. Or, should Beck devote his entire show to peace, love and happiness and leave it to you statists create your utopia? Hell no.
However, you do bring up a good point about the Conservatives having more guns than most other political groups. Yes, many of us choose to exercise this right as granted by our beloved and revered Constitution.