So let's take each of those in turn.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech.
"Target demographics" isn't even remotely violent, since "target" can also mean "goal", and not just something you shoot at.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.
With the "We will keep a boot on the throat" quote, context matters. For one, Gibbs was quoting Ken Salazar, and for another it's clear from context it's a metaphor for "keep pressure on BP", and not meaning that Ken Salazar plans on literally putting a boot on someone's neck, especially since BP, as a corporation, doesn't actually have a neck.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech.
This one is in another category. It isn't really a metaphor; we're supposed to take it to literally mean he's never going to voluntarily surrender his guns under any circumstance short of, or even including, lethal force. But it's not coupled with statements that people will likely be coming to threaten to kill you if you don't give up your guns. He's not saying that only violence will stop gun control advocates. It's a colorful and bombastic expression of a deeply held belief, but he's also explicitly trying to have a conversation with the other side, not saying that talk will never work.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech.
Now, this one in isolation would be very similar to the above. But it's not in isolation. It's followed by this:

They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
...
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

That's the part that's equivalent to blood libel -- calling people like Van Jones violent revolutionaries who seek to destroy the country, people who can't be negotiated with and who can only be stopped by violence.

That's the thing that made blood libel so insidious. It wasn't an explicit call to violence, it was that it portrayed Jews as implacable murderers who couldn't be reasoned with. Just like Beck says his enemies are.

Oh, and they're both lies, which isn't true of your other examples.

Not really. Incitement to violence is illegal. Hell, even libel and slander are still technically illegal.

I said "criticize". Moving the goalpost to incitement to violence, libel, and slander is the application of a completely different subject. I said in the US you can criticize anyone you want about anything you want. Switching targets to inciting violence, libel, and slander makes a discussion on criticism implausible, as the terms have clear legal definitions - none of which are applicable to a discussion about generic 'criticism'. If that's what you wanted to talk about, then that's what you should have said in the first place, and I am not responsible that inaccuracy.

You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent.

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

What's the moral difference between this, and "the liberal Jews are stealing the blood of Christian babies for their rituals, and they're such total zealots for their religion that the only way you, Nancy Pelosi, can stop them from doing this is to put a bullet in their head. And you better do that before they put a knife in your children"?

I said what the difference was quite clearly above. One is a falsehood about a genetic race inspired by a government pogrom. The other is an opinion in a public forum by a private individual. The blood libel issue was a falsehood meant to be taken as a literal description of Jewish religious practice. Bombastic political rhetoric in a free society does NOT in any way equate to blood libel. If it did, then you'd have to shut down every political rally, every newspaper, every news broadcast, every radio station, or personal discussion in the nation. That includes the Videosift - including this very thread. I ask you... What is the moral difference between blood libel and the mischaracterization of what Beck's statement as a call for actual violence? Is not your attempt to falsely equate Beck's comment with actual violence against others just another form of blood libel or 'propoganda'?

Lies that dehumanize people, and make them sound like a direct threat to your safety are at best laying groundwork for justifying violence, and at worst are an explicit incitement to violent acts.

Does that mean you are comfortable with censoring speech and thought in the name of the greater good? Does that apply to the political left and thier "contextually violent" rhetoric as well? And who gets to make the decisions about what is or isn't crossing the line?

Nope - I reject the soft totalitariansim of censorship in the name of subjective, whimsical, biased political correctness. Freedom of speech trumps other concerns. The only time freedom of speech becomes dangerous is when it is limited by government, or self-appointed arbiters.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime.

Not really. Incitement to violence is illegal.

Hell, even libel and slander are still technically illegal.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

Sorry, but you're doing it again -- asserting conclusions without making an argument. You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent.

Beck's is more explicitly violent than actual blood libel (though perhaps quite a bit less visceral and imaginative) because he's talking about shooting people in the head.

Here's your own paraphrase of Beck:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[H]e gives them a warning that - like conservatives - you're going to have to shoot them in the head before the stop fighting for what they believe in - or they just might turn on their former allies and shoot them when 'the revolution' comes as the radicals define it.

What's the moral difference between this, and "the liberal Jews are stealing the blood of Christian babies for their rituals, and they're such total zealots for their religion that the only way you, Nancy Pelosi, can stop them from doing this is to put a bullet in their head. And you better do that before they put a knife in your children"?

All I'm really changing is adding a gratuitous mention of Jews, and changing "violent communist revolution" into "uses the blood of Christian babies for rituals", which I think are close substitutes in terms of the kind of effect on their audience.

Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who's distributing it. Lies that dehumanize people, and make them sound like a direct threat to your safety are at best laying groundwork for justifying violence, and at worst are an explicit incitement to violent acts.

If the idea of blood libel bothers you, so should Beck libel.

O snap, I think everyone just got pwned! Who can we take out of context next!

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:

actually Beck here is referring to Nancy Pelosi having to shoot communists in the head to keep American office safe. [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments
/f5r9c/glenn_beck_61010_youre_going_to_have_to_shoot/c1dhop2] It's not better; actually i think it's worse. it's a means of veiling violent "shoot xperson in the head" rhetoric that is inflammatory, divisive, and from my own personal "slant," as it were, seems completely lacking in research or connection to reality. I listen to all sides and I find that the more I listen the more I hear baseless arguments on either side of media that I would call Disinformation with a capital D. The simple fact is that nobody in a news outlet is willing to step up and brave the political ramifications of digging into some real fact and actually changing the tides. I think Assange's current work has people scared of consequences... not to mention what may happen if all of the sudden some truth got leaked into American homes. Truths like "The Cold War is over" or "Communism was never really a threat in the first place," perhaps with the exception of the Cuban Missle Crisis- which was a total SNAFU. I guess point being that anyone who says if you find a communist in the US government, shoot them in the head- is either completely insane or is playing a part that pays very, very well. /end rant

actually Beck here is referring to Nancy Pelosi having to shoot communists in the head to keep American office safe. [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f5r9c/glenn_beck_61010_youre_going_to_have_to_shoot/c1dhop2] It's not better; actually i think it's worse. it's a means of veiling violent "shoot xperson in the head" rhetoric that is inflammatory, divisive, and from my own personal "slant," as it were, seems completely lacking in research or connection to reality. I listen to all sides and I find that the more I listen the more I hear baseless arguments on either side of media that I would call Disinformation with a capital D. The simple fact is that nobody in a news outlet is willing to step up and brave the political ramifications of digging into some real fact and actually changing the tides. I think Assange's current work has people scared of consequences... not to mention what may happen if all of the sudden some truth got leaked into American homes. Truths like "The Cold War is over" or "Communism was never really a threat in the first place," perhaps with the exception of the Cuban Missle Crisis- which was a total SNAFU. I guess point being that anyone who says if you find a communist in the US government, shoot them in the head- is either completely insane or is playing a part that pays very, very well. /end rant

In the interest of fostering a proper discussion instead of a focus on a cherry-picked selection...

"But what the politicians don't understand, the ones who have co-opted these revolutionaries and brought them in the process, is they are dangerous. Why? Well, because a lot of them have called for violent revolution in the past and they never distanced themselves from it…

Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. You will need to shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you. They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about."

I don't condone over the top rhetoric. If I had a TV show, I probably would not be using a phrase like 'shoot in the head'. Just isn't the way I roll. However, it is a patently false accusation to say that Beck was telling people to shoot "his opponents" in the head.

Quite clearly the context of his quote dismisses such an interpretation.

1. He's talking about left-wing "radicals" and "revolutionaries" - people who are determined, dyed-in-the-wool left extremists who have and still have never renounced their proclaimed determination to bring about a revolution, by violence if necessary. Guys like Van Jones and Bill Ayers and their ilk.

2. Then he's talking about conservatives like himself that you are going to have to shoot in the head to stop them from speaking about the founders & conservative ideals.

3. Then he's talking about Democrats who have supposedly 'co-opted' these radicals as allies in order to advance leftist, liberal causes. And he gives them a warning that - like conservatives - you're going to have to shoot them in the head before the stop fighting for what they believe in - or they just might turn on their former allies and shoot them when 'the revolution' comes as the radicals define it.

If you're going to bring up a topic, at least do it accurately.

Your ideas were funnier than mine. In your honor, I have put your ideas in the description area.

Thanks for discarding your post. I am trying to make Bronze level -- this video puts me one star closer to more POWER. Byahh ha ha.


>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

I had sifted this earlier but I discarded it thinking no one would get my jokes pertaining to the fact that his name is supposedly pronounced bainer. Anyway the title was "Theres a Boehner in da house!" and for a description Nancy Pelosi succumbs to the Boehner.

I had sifted this earlier but I discarded it thinking no one would get my jokes pertaining to the fact that his name is supposedly pronounced bainer. Anyway the title was "Theres a Boehner in da house!" and for a description Nancy Pelosi succumbs to the Boehner.

>> ^quantumushroom:

peloser didn't say one thing and do another....she's done EXACTLY what she set out to do! COMMUNISM...HO!

That's less catchy than "THUNDERCATS...HOOOOOO!"

In reply to this comment by bobknight33:
*promote.


know your place

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

If he is, most likely he will be marginalized, driven out or called a racist like Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Or he'll just quietly go down to defeat in a district that's heavily Democratic.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You won't find change in politicians until you have widespread change in the population. I don't know if it is possible to stop the momentum of factionalism that is greatly represented in this thread. ... And mostly gone are the protections from the damage that human nature brings.

I totally agree. Everything is falling apart, all our old norms are failing. From where I sit, that's happened due to a combination of Republicans ruthlessly working to erode those standards and norms, and Democrats failing to put up much of a fight at all for the ideals they claim to believe in.

You and blankie think that's exactly backwards, thus the factionalism.

The problem isn't the parties -- blankfist wants a new party that more consistently follows the ideology of the Republican party, but he wants to scrap the New Deal first. He doesn't want to focus on things where he can find support from people like me.

For my part, I want Democrats to follow their principles and ideals more closely, and while that includes a lot of things blankfist would like (end the wars, end the drug war, repeal DOMA, repeal Patriot), he's ready to call me a Nazi for supporting our very market-based health care reform (or even just scary people like *scary voice* Nancy Pelosi!).

We need to find a way to coexist under the same federal government. Unfortunately, I just don't see how that's going to happen anytime soon. All trendlines point to escalating hostility, which is really, really bad.

@BoneyD and @Psychologic, let me see if I can clarify what I mean.

I'm also suspicious of what corporations will be able to get politicians to do, and worry that another conservative President will wash through and basically put all the regulators on paid vacations again.

I don't see how a public option or single payer would serve as protection against that. If a conservative intent on making government look bad gets to run it, they're going to try to run it into the ground. They'll try to outsource functions of the public option or Medicare (like they did with, you know, Medicare). If it's a public option competing against private insurance in the exchange, they'll hamstring the public option with all kinds of stupid requirements like pre-paying retiree health benefits (a poison pill they rammed down the throat of the Post Office, BTW) to make it look on paper like it's a huge fiscal mess. Or if they're feeling particularly ornery, they may try to abolish or privatize it outright.

I'm not so sure that campaign finance reform is a silver bullet for fixing that.

I tend to think that being a shill for a big industry gets Democrats mad (see our treatment of Lieberman, Lincoln, and Landrieu), while standing up to them makes you a hero (see Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and to a large degree Nancy Pelosi). For Republicans it seems like as long as their corporatism sounds conservative (tax cuts....for just oil companies, and the top .05%), their base rallies around them.

It's hard to establish accountability on issues of corporate influence when conservatives can't ever be caught dead saying anything bad about big business. Ever.

he should probably do this once every 6 months.

you know, like at a job, when your job is stressful and everyone you work with is frustrated and annoyed and stressed out and all your customers are freaking out and breathing down your necks and your "leader" is locked away in his office somewhere and you never get to talk to him. so what happens? you start bitching, and complaining and exaggerating and gossiping. and to you, it sounds like venting, but to everyone listening to you it sounds like the fucking world is ending. and things can very easily spiral out of control. and nothing gets done, but you all keep getting more and more stressed.

and i think that the best way to deflate those feelings is a "meeting" where everyone sits together with the "leader" and asks questions, says whats on their mind, gets face time and feels heard and validated and gets a better understanding of what everyone else is going through and where they are coming from. and then everyone feels better and works together nicer. for a while, until things get out of hand again.

i imagine congress is kind of like that.

i also imagine that nancy pelosi is a raging fucking bitch.

Good on Carter again. WTF is with Brian Williams' uncomprehending Frankenstein stare?

Because Brian Williams is one of the few news persons on the air that at least TRIES to be a little bit logical and sensible. So when his half-insane guest said something patently ridiculous, Williams had a natural reaction. Carter isn't serious, sober, or presidential. He's a small, petty man seeking significance the only way he knows how - by lying about people he politically opposes and making a further @$$ of himself in the process.

The opposition to Obama isn't race motivated. Such a statement is nothing more than a self-delusional neolib fantasy being trotted out of the standard stable of Democrat political tactics as justification to ignore the massive public rejection of Obama's policies and agenda, and his own inability to lead his party. This is nothing new. Democrats always call Repubicans racists & bigots merely for opposing Democrat policy. It is patently absurd, but they keep doing it.

This is the same utter garbage that Nancy Pelosi is trying to pull with her uber-fake "I'm concerned about hate speech inciting violence" stunt yesterday. Oh PLEASE. Democrats have been the primary source of hate speech for the past 8 years and now they're all worried about it? What a load of garbage. They're hypocrites. Complete hypocrites.

"Racism". It's the new McCarthyism! Don't like someone? Call them a racist. Disagree with someone politically? Call them a racist. It's easy and fun!

Dupe-y: http://politics.videosift.com/video/Congressman-Yells-Liar-At-Obama-During-Health-Care-Speech

And yes, though really it's Nancy Pelosi giving the look of death, not Obama.