That joining of arms happened after the alleged racial slurs and spitting incident.
No, Pelosi walked through the crowd with a gavel and locking arms with Lewis on their way into the Capitol building. This was designed to provoke a reaction from a very large, and very upset crowd, while on camera.
The LIE about Clybern being spit on took place as he was entering the building as well. Video does exist of that and I posted it.
And despite all the hand held cameras and agitators, no video exists of anyone threatening Lewis with the racial slur. Despite all of those cameras running that day, and despite a
$100,000 offer by Andrew Breitbart.
But, if you really thought this was a dangerous crowd of racists, why would you jeopardize your safety and burden your security details by walking through it? Congress people don't usually walk back and forth between the buildings, certainly not through the middle of agitated and passionate crowds.
It is still hearsay on both sides,
No it's not. It's an unsupported claim by a politician and opportunist.
Isn't that the video from after the 'spitting incident' as well?
It's funny you have to ask.... That was supposedly where the "incident" took place. Clearly, it did not.
Is that hearsay too?
Beck is so full of his own self importance...
You're on the attack here.
Is this the new tactic to eliminate Beck. Thanks for sharing it with us before the rest of the drones pick it up.
Ah, so you do get the tie-in - mention Mao as one of your favorite 'short spoken' philosophers and suddenly you embrace all that is Mao...
No, but I recognize your effort to mislead.
The association and embrace of Mao philosophy doesn't end with the one convenient quote. You don't judge a person by their use of a single quote, NO ONE would suggest that the case. But if their use of quotes is consistent with the rest of their actions, it does reinforce the case.
Is your argument here that Dunn, or any of the other associated czars and advisers, are being misrepresented by Beck? Let's be specific?
Do you think that Dunn does NOT have respect for Mao's governing and economic policies? I'm sure she isn't supportive of his mass starvation, but the social and economic principles?
Are you arguing that this administration IS NOT overwhelming staffed by people who embrace social and economic theories that are associated with Marxism?
Because what your doing is obvious. Rather than addressing the charge, you instead attack the person making the charge. It's little more than a distraction.
So, take Beck out of this. She's not Catholic.
But does she embrace Mao?
And more importantly, isn't it alarming when SO MANY members of one administration are identified and exposed as being so radically left by their own words?
It's not a centrist, post-partisan administration. They are radicals and they are aggressively advancing a radical agenda without the consent or awareness of the governed. And people like you are working with them to deceive the public.
And that's pretty reprehensible on your part.
Your words deceive you foxpaws. You are too well informed to not know what's really going on here. If I have the time or motivation today, I might go dig up some old public posts of yours (if I can tolerate the awful "search" feature here) that, with the benefit of hindsight, really betray you.
Mention MLK as one of your inspirations - post his guidelines for peaceful protest on your site - in fact post them and have a cute little 'sign this' at the end...
Again, this isn't about MLK.
While Beck will be the first to recognize that he doesn't agree with the government POLICIES that MLK may have embraced at the END of his life, and I'm sure Beck wouldn't endorse his behavior at times either, but he respects the man and the fundamental principles for which he's identified.
And while people should be able to disagree with policy, we still can agree on principles and values. Freedom of speech. Civil Rights. Equal Rights. Equal Justice. Non-violent Resistance. Faith in God and the goodness of the American people.
Unfortunately, propagandists and opportunistic racial antagonist like you insist on using identity politics to expand your political power. Rather than embracing the commonality and unity here, you insist on driving a wedge between people, for purposes of political power and manipulation.
But to address your recent charge, he actually HAS done this.
Sign the Pledge of Non-Violence.
Or you can see it discussed right here:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39574/
Do you think that if MLK looked out on the rally on August 29, 2010, he would feel comfortable about addressing that group.
That's not important, isn't an event about MLK. The fact that the two share the date is a convenient and interesting historic coincidence.
But, since I've already taken your bait on the issues of MLK, I might as well respond. I can't presume to know where MLK would be in his life right now. As I stated earlier, he started out as a Republican he was being swayed by the socialist left as the decade persisted. But it's of no importance.
He certainly COULD feel comfortable at that event. Because he'd be at an event where he wouldn't be judged because of his color. Unlike the culture of the left where racial identity and identity politics define and separate us, the people attending the 8-28 Restoring Honor will be united by shared values and principles.
I am so pleased to see that Beck's viewership has fallen by 30% since the first of the year. And large corporate sponsors continue to avoid his show.
If that were infact true, I'm sure you'd be thrilled.
Of course, you have little respect for the constitution or the first amendment.
Of course the 30% viewership story you're mentioning was false. Infact, the week it was reported, originally ON MEDIAMATTERS,
Beck had the HIGHEST rating television show on Cable TV that week.
But I wouldn't expect the truth or context to interefere with your lies, foxpaws.
And didn't Obama shelve Cap and Trade - I am not sure - but someone might want to check that out.
So, rather than address this issue honestly, you basically lie about it.
You know full well what is going on regarding this issue. It's even addressed on the front page of this forum.
But, once again, I cannot stress this enough - do not give any money to the rally -
Don't give money to the rally, UNLESS you support
the rally.
That's a fairly obvious statement and one that's made abundantly clear. The point is that any money raised BEYOND the cost of the event is going to go the SOWF fund.
One day that a man will be judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character.
Not that power hungry politicians would seize power and impose a totalitarian government upon us, stealing our liberty, and discarding the Constitution, while people like you actively worked in support of it, by lying and engaging in efforts to silence dissent.
If the personal attacks on him, and the growing awakening resistance, continue to fail, how much longer before the feds find legal ways to shut him up, or it down?
It's interesting how, despite the fact the man spend 20 hours a week speaking, foxpaws, you don't respond to anything he says. You don't challenge the facts he presents of the conclusions he's drawn. In fact, you avoid those threads. Instead, you periodically pop up with threads are are deliberately designed to divide people. You're last effort was to isolate him from religious people. This thread is basically to paint him as some kind of insensitive racist.
You also threw in the cliche, "he's only doing it for money" dig too.
It must be frustrating for you, the public is becoming aware of the little playbook of personal attacks and smear techniques you guys use.
You're sudden passion for Beck is really very telling.
I guess he's getting harder for you and your statist
ilk to dismiss
Again, let me quote The "regulator czar" or more accurately the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a no less ominous title.
He's the man who wrote that government agents,
"might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
...it's interesting.. Because Cass Sunstein once proposed a "New Fairness Doctrine" almost IDENTICAL to the one you proposed here last year.
What an incredible coincidence.
