Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
• I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation. Does that include fantasizing about choking the life out of Michael Moore or beating Rep. Charles Rangel to death with a shovel? • I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country. Does that include your guest Michael Scheuer who said that the only hope for America was for Bin Laden to attack again? • I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be. Does that include yourself who has said that “progressivism is a cancer in America, and it’s eating our Constitution” and that America needs to be “re-founded?” • I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system. Does that include Rush Limbaugh who said “Screw the world – Riot in Denver” in an attempt to sow unrest at the Democratic Convention? • I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system – regardless of their underlying ideology – whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven. Does that include Sharron Angle who advocated “2nd Amendment remedies” and Joyce Kaufman who said that “if ballots don’t work, bullets will?” • I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen. Does that include yourself who even today blamed political opponents for politicizing Tucson simply because they called for toning down the rhetoric? • I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic. Does that include accepting an administration that campaigned (and won) on a platform of “fundamental change” within the constraints of our constitutional Republic?"
I guess I can understand not everyone wanting to sign something penned by Glenn Beck. (I happen to like and respect him but he is known as a controversial pundit, whom some vehemently dislike/distrust & fear.) So, the fact that many choose not to automatically sign his Pledge, I understand.
What I do not understand, is why Media Matters, if you read the link, chose to highlight and specifically object to this particular pledge out of the seven that were listed:
"I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be."
Why is this part especially objectionable to MM? Other than that they approve of tearing down our government; can someone please provide a reasonable explanation for the specific objection to this one of seven pledge statements?
Please don't bother to just provide rants on how you don't like Beck or links to Beck videos. That does not answer the question. The question is why MM objects to the pledge to not support those who want to "tear down our system."
I guess I can understand not everyone wanting to sign something penned by Glenn Beck. (I happen to like and respect him but he is known as a controversial pundit, whom some vehemently dislike/distrust & fear.) So, the fact that many choose not to automatically sign his Pledge, I understand.
What I do not understand, is why Media Matters, if you read the link, chose to highlight and specifically object to this particular pledge out of the seven that were listed:
"I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be."
Why is this part especially objectionable to MM? Other than that they approve of tearing down our government; can someone please provide a reasonable explanation for the specific objection to this one of seven pledge statements?
Please don't bother to just provide rants on how you don't like Beck or links to Beck videos. That does not answer the question. The question is why MM objects to the pledge to not support those who want to "tear down our system."
They picked that quote out directly because beck has numerous times knocked obama and the democrats, stating they are on a mission to tear down the country.
They picked that quote out directly because beck has numerous times knocked obama and the democrats, stating they are on a mission to tear down the country.
But if this is untrue, what is the objection? Isn't the specific objection to this part making it look like they they may support the other statements BUT NOT THIS ONE?
Seems like this would provide a golden opportunity to disprove Beck. At least by verbally stating an agreement with all the pledge intentions even if not choosing to sign.
But if this is untrue, what is the objection? Isn't the specific objection to this part making it look like they they may support the other statements BUT NOT THIS ONE?
Seems like this would provide a golden opportunity to disprove Beck. At least by verbally stating an agreement with all the pledge intentions even if not choosing to sign.
I think MM's response makes them look suspicious.
The reason they are picking that one out is because THEY ARE out to destroy the country and their supporters WANT them to do that. If they sign this thing, George Soros, his minions and the useful idiots will howl at the moon about them not doing what the csupporters want them to do. It is THAT simple. They CAN'T sign it!!!! It goes against everything they stand for and are trying to do.
The reason they are picking that one out is because THEY ARE out to destroy the country and their supporters WANT them to do that. If they sign this thing, George Soros, his minions and the useful idiots will howl at the moon about them not doing what the csupporters want them to do. It is THAT simple. They CAN'T sign it!!!! It goes against everything they stand for and are trying to do.
Sour, I think you view politics as extraordinarily black and white when in fact, it is certainly shades of gray.
Let's just say that Democrats are in fact, bringing the country down. Do you think they think they're doing that or do you think they think they're helping or improving things for future generations?
You see, it doesn't actually matter what's happening. It matters what they think is happening.
As much as I disliked GWB, I never thought for a second that it was his goal or his minions' goal to knowingly hurt America. I think both Bush and Obama believe they are and they were trying to make things better for Americans. However delluded either one of them are/were (or both), I guarentee that both felt that any bad that occurred under their watch was happenstance, and possibly unavoidable.
Part of the reason I don't adhere to political sensationalist talk show hosts like Beck and O'Reilly and Maddow and that other goon on MSNBC, the problem with them is that they must speak surely and without hesitation that the other side is wrong, that the other side is evil, has an evil agenda, is stupid, etc, and it's just not honestly not that simple and not that black and white and no one is trying to destroy America.
I wish there were more moderates on this forum who didn't view other viewpoints or ideologies as being so dangerous or hostile.
Sour, I think you view politics as extraordinarily black and white when in fact, it is certainly shades of gray.
Let's just say that Democrats are in fact, bringing the country down. Do you think they think they're doing that or do you think they think they're helping or improving things for future generations?
You see, it doesn't actually matter what's happening. It matters what they think is happening.
As much as I disliked GWB, I never thought for a second that it was his goal or his minions' goal to knowingly hurt America. I think both Bush and Obama believe they are and they were trying to make things better for Americans. However delluded either one of them are/were (or both), I guarentee that both felt that any bad that occurred under their watch was happenstance, and possibly unavoidable.
Part of the reason I don't adhere to political sensationalist talk show hosts like Beck and O'Reilly and Maddow and that other goon on MSNBC, the problem with them is that they must speak surely and without hesitation that the other side is wrong, that the other side is evil, has an evil agenda, is stupid, etc, and it's just not honestly not that simple and not that black and white and no one is trying to destroy America.
I wish there were more moderates on this forum who didn't view other viewpoints or ideologies as being so dangerous or hostile.
I guess you just don't get it. The Democratic party has been hijacked by the Progressives, those are the voices you hear when you hear all the bitching and moaning coming from the left. Those are the poeple I'm talking about, not normal "old school" Democrats. THOSE are the people who are afraid to sign that thing because it contradicts what they promised their supporters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
