Glenn Beck has NEVER incited violence or hatred

Thus spake my right-wing-to-the extreme old college buddy.

He recommended that I consume liberal quantities of Beck, both radio and TV. When I told him to go climb a tree he grew incensed, told me I was just listening to the left wing hype, and that Beck was "reasoned and non-partisan". Then when I referred to the above, he got real mad and said Beck has NEVER done such a thing.

So I'm compiling a "worst of Beck" mountain of evidence at the moment to throw back at him (this is on Facebook, so it's not so much me trying to convince him of anything, but I'm aware that others are reading (I've gotten some "thank you" messages, even!) so I can't let his ridiculous noise machine talking points go unchallenged...it's kind of a mission for me lol). Any particularly nasty rhetoric he has used that anyone can recommend?

1. The obvious

2. He can't spell

All I can think of is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFWOLSIhYMg

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvMqHiiL1lI&feature=channel

for a start.

his real damage is far more subtle. He tells people that America is under siege and being taken over by fascists. What is a good patriotic person to do about it? His whole schtick is inciting violence and hatred by making people afraid (and stupid, but that's another point).

If you are patriotic, love your country and believe in the Constitution, and you are told the President is DESTROYING your country and THROWING OUT the Constitution, what are you justified in doing about it? After all, the President is an EXISTENTIAL THREAT . . .

we are destroying the country (and the world)
we have no future unless we make changes, etc.

and there will always be extremist environmentalists (a la ELF and ALF - organized EVEN!) that will use violence

it doesn't mean environmentalists are to blame.

In one case, it's highly personalized; in the other, the "bad guy" is diverse.

The rhetoric also isn't comparable. Environmalists may be demonized as HINDERING business/progress/whatever, but not "destroying".

And EMPLOYMENT of violence by environmental extremists is an entirely different subject from the issue of INCITEMENT.

first of all, they mention specific companies all the time a la weyerhauser

second of all, your analogy is off. it would be polluters that were destroying the environment, not environmentalists

and it is NOT an entirely different issue than incitement

the point is that just because some fringe believers commit violence after listening to you (and others) doesn't make you responsible for incitement

that holds true for environmentalist extremist as well as rightwing extremist

the analogy is apt. environmentalists/beck claim that corporations/liberals are destroying america

and a few fringies resort to violence

incitment?

no

I feel like I'm on a different planet from these wingers. There's just no connect between their one liners and reality.

But they are looking for numbers first.

This is an excellent roundup of Beck's violent rhetoric.

but not the king of the road,Rush is.

:D



Edit: in 1990 :evilgrin:

How about the time that he called the President (along with Congressman Barney Frank of the U.S. House of Representatives) "Vampires" who need to be staked through the heart?

Glenn Beck said: "These vampires are not going to be satisfied with just sucking the blood out of GM's top guy... Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable. They will not stop. There is only two ways for this movie to end. Either the economic becomes like a walking dead or you drive a stake through the heart of the blood suckers?"

I was unable to obtain the original source on this one but I saw it myself...I suppose you can simply claim "he never said that!", and then I'll just have to go searching through YouTube, but he DID say it, and here's even a graphic from his own show (let me know if you desire further evidence, I'll be happy to search for it since apparently FOX NEWS has thrown it right down the Memory Hole)...



Or perhaps the time he claimed that Progressives were a "Cancer" which needed to be eradicated?

http://news.gather.com/viewArt...78060978

"This is the disease. This is the disease in America. It’s not just spending, it’s not just taxes, it’s not just corruption. It is progressivism"

"Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution"

"It is big government – it’s a socialist utopia. And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot co-exist. And you don’t cure cancer by – well, I’m just going to give you a little bit of cancer. You must eradicate it. It cannot co-exist."

You don't in any way see these sorts of attacks as inciting hatred or violence? Stake through the heart? A cancer to be eradicated?

Irresponsible is a mild way of putting it.

And of course there was that time he joked about desiring to poison the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States.

Yeah, that's cool. Just "political discourse", right?



AND (as if that weren't enough!), here's more.

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure."

http://www.associatedcontent.c...ml?cat=9



Oh, and then there was that "Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people" bit of hate-mongering which he had to try and walk back on Couric's show (unsuccessfully, of course).

Yeah, that's not hateful or inflammatory whatsoever, right?

Uh huh.

or other similar sources. :)