Breitbart Incites Violence Against Liberals, Says Military Will Back The Tea Party Up

[Tony]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/0...als-says-military-will-back-the-tea-party-up/

Tea Party favorite Andrew Breitbartz told a conservative audience in Massachusetts that conservatives outnumber liberals and have most of the guns. He also claimed that the military is ready to take action against liberals if violence ever erupted between liberals and conservatives.

“I’m under attack all the time. They call me gay, there are death threats… There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.

I don't see the event or the date that this supposedly happened. The article only says "audience in Massachusetts". If this is true, at the very least, it should be investigated. Military members telling this guy they would support him is clearly a violation of their oath to the Constitution.

 

[foxholeatheist]

I make up for a couple dozen gunless liberals.

 

[rwguinn]

I think I need a better, more reliable source...

ETA : from the "About us" section

Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads.

Hardly an unbiased reporter...

 

[bookitty]

I make up for a couple dozen gunless liberals.

Hey! Me too. But I think you're probably like waaaaay better at it. I just own, can shoot, fire, and reload. I hug trees, hear me roar.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Breitbart Incites Violence

The guy that wrote that is a complete moron.

If this isn’t proof that conservatives want a civil war, I don’t know what is.

That's because you're a complete moron. I challenge you to point out a single statement that evidences a claim that anyone wants a civil war. I didn't see any.

This is a call for violence, pure and simple, and an investigation should be opened immediately.

A moron such as yourself might think so. But only because you're a moron, and not because of anything that was actually said.

If Breitbart is telling the truth about military officials backing up the Tea Party, they should be investigated and tried for treason.

Treason? Really? You're a moron. So far as I'm aware, no military officials have been levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

You. Are. A. Moron.

And Breitbart should be questioned by federal authorities as well. This is a serious threat that Breitbart is making and it should concern all liberals.

No threat has been made, unless you're a moron, and then everything's a threat.

The right wing wants to kill liberals.

Some of us might want to kill you, but only because you're a moron, not because you're a liberal.

At any rate, this claim is not supported by the quotes.

They want a civil war.

Not supported.

Look for this kind of threat to increase as the 2012 Election nears.

No threats were made.

The Party that cheers for executions and the deaths of the uninsured are fantasizing, and probably are planning, to kill the opposition to grab absolute power.

Hysteria and paranoia by... a moron.

Moron.

Several reports were made of this post. While it initially looked like an attack on the OP, GA is actually responding to the author of the article cited in the OP, Stephen Foster. This is not a breach of the MA. The infraction was given incorrectly If appealed, it will be lifted. and will be reversed.

Members might ask themselves if it is clear to whom they are responding so as to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

*NOTE: Edited by Locknar (strike and italics)

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Robrob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LHslkhZWzUQ
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breitbart-fantasizes-about-killing-liberals-we-outnumber-them-and-we-have-the-guns-video/politics/2011/09/18/27146

1) Brietbart is a deceitful nutcase.

2) Brietbart is a libertarian.

3) Brietbart is something of an internet stalker (from my personal experience).

4) RW nutbags like to make bold, self aggrandizing threats behind closed doors in front of appreciative audiences. E.G. Coulter, Palin, et. al.

5) Like almost every other RW conservative nutbag, Brietbart never served in the military.

6) Like almost every other RW conservative nutbag (E.G. Limbaugh, Savage, et. al.), Brietbart is soft, pudgy, "feminine," and overreacts to being called "gay." He married late in life (38) in 1997 and now has four children. Over compensate much?

Brietbart is lying to his audience and to himself when he makes claims about the military, officers or their preference for supporting him and/or a political party over the Constitution.

 

[Jeff Corey]

But is he a moron?

 

[Drachasor]

I wouldn't get worked up over any idiocy like this. Democrats and Republicans seem pretty united in disliking both parties at the moment. I don't think it is likely the PEOPLE are going to start attacking each other.

 

[theprestige]

Tony, your thread title is a lie.

Breitbart is actually inciting violence by liberals against the Tea Party. It's right there in your OP.

Actually, strictly speaking, your thread title is only half a lie. The truth is, the military will certainly back up the victims of liberal violence, whoever they might be.

 

[Robrob]

Feel free to indulge your fantasies. OTOH, the military will continue to follow the Constitution.

BTW, here's the quotes"


I’m under attack all the time. They call me gay, there are death threats… There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.

Then he says that unnamed senior military officials have personally assured him that they’ll throw in with the right-​wing in a civil war.

And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’

They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know.

As I said, there's no proof, he's simply making things up.

 

[tyr_13]

Breitbart is actually inciting violence by liberals against the Tea Party. It's right there in your OP.

"‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side."

No, you're wrong. That's his reaction to death threats (fair enough) and being called gay. He (reportedly) goes on to say that liberals won't engage in the violence first because they 'know' they'll lose at that, but win at 'propaganda'. That's a pretty clear implication that they should 'fight the war they can win.'

Of course it could also be that 'cold comfort/sour grapes' type of chest thumping too.

 

[Mumbles]

Wow, Andrew Breitbart's words are possibly being taken out of context? Why that's terrible. What's next, using deceptively edited video to discredit community groups like ACORN or the NAACP, or individuals like Shirley Sherrod that have dedicated themselves to equality?

Oh, wait, Breitbart already did that, and far more. It would be nice if this would completely discredit him, but the right wing in the US seems to love their bigots and lunatics, so I expect we'll be hearing about his latest deceptive and evasive video soon enough.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Okay, I'm clearly no fan of the sleeze-meister, but taking his blowhard rhetoric for a call to arms is a bit much.

It's one of those My Daddy Can Beat Up Your Daddy arguments. He's living in a fantasy world like we used to have with the armchair revolutionaries in the 60s and 70s. We won The Battle of the Pentagon a hundred times prior to the actual demonstation. The troops, many of whom were draftees and many of whom had friends who were dodgers or deserters were going to surely rally in support of the "peaceful" demonstrators.

Yeah, in our wildest dreams. Those guys in uniforms take their oaths sort of seriously, we found. We also raided Fort Dix a thousand times over coffee in The Figaro - same general idea, that the troops were all draftees and would surely join our army-that-never-left-the-coffee-shop.

The problem is, though.... Just as the SDS spawned the Weathermen and various other talk-and-protest organizations spawned some violent out-lyers, Andy could spawn other idiots to take his macho crap seriously.

And, as usual with these paper tigers, he's going to get out there and fight Jeaneane Garafolo and Katie Couric? Maybe the teachers union in WI, too?

How about the Teamsters and the Police Union in Milwaukee, tough guy?

Does anyone have a link to Alex Jones getting his butt kicked in the parking lot of his studio? Maybe that ought to be sent to Andrew before he walks into a serious whupping. (Different ideologue, but the same general blowhard idea.)

 

[Chaos]

"‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side."

No, you're wrong. That's his reaction to death threats (fair enough) and being called gay. He (reportedly) goes on to say that liberals won't engage in the violence first because they 'know' they'll lose at that, but win at 'propaganda'. That's a pretty clear implication that they should 'fight the war they can win.'

Of course it could also be that 'cold comfort/sour grapes' type of chest thumping too.

So, if "liberals won´t engage in the violence first", why´s the little coward so afraid of death threats? Last time I checked, making good on death threats was violence, too.

 

[Chaos]

Tony, your thread title is a lie.

Breitbart is actually inciting violence by liberals against the Tea Party. It's right there in your OP.

Actually, strictly speaking, your thread title is only half a lie. The truth is, the military will certainly back up the victims of liberal violence, whoever they might be.

"It´s right there in the OP" that liberals won´t start the violence - conservatives should do it. That is not "inciting violence by liberals", that´s inciting violence AGAINST liberals.

It never ceases to amaze me how right-wingers can effortlessly ignore things that their role-models have stated explicitly, and believe the polar opposite to be fact, if these things would conflict with their self-image as blameless victims of liberal aggression.

 

[Brainster]

"It´s right there in the OP" that liberals won´t start the violence - conservatives should do it. That is not "inciting violence by liberals", that´s inciting violence AGAINST liberals.

1. Note that the original question is cut off so that we don't know what Breitbart was responding to.

2. Even without knowing the context it's pretty clear that Breitbart is not threatening to initiate violence, he's saying "Go ahead, punk, make my day."

 

[Foolmewunz]

1. Note that the original question is cut off so that we don't know what Breitbart was responding to.

2. Even without knowing the context it's pretty clear that Breitbart is not threatening to initiate violence, he's saying "Go ahead, punk, make my day."

I concur. I think he's posturing and playing to the audience. And I do not hear him promoting violence so much as hypothesizing about possible violence and as I said before a childish "Our Side Could Beat Up Your Side".

He even takes pains to say that he thinks of this stuff when he's less than totally lucid (or rational or whatever term he used). I do think he knew what he was saying and that he was dancing along the thin line, but there's no call for armed insurrection here, just like there wasn't in Hoffa's speech. (Now that "Second Amendment" lady?..... Hmmmm?)

 

[leftysergeant]

He even takes pains to say that he thinks of this stuff when he's less than totally lucid (or rational or whatever term he used).

I have seen no sign that the sludge monster is ever anything like lucid. He lives in a perpetually deluded state, thinking himself an adequate man.

"Fire the first shot," to me, suggests that, if it looks like the masses might rise against an oppressive government, such as the one those nitwit governors in the Midwest are building, the teatards should meet them with armed resistance, and count on the Army to back them up.

And who has been strutting about in public with firearms on display?

It will not take much to set those lunatics off, as tenuous as their grasp on reality is.

I will put them on notice right now:

Don't get froggy. At least one liberal out near Tacoma is ready to arm an entire squad if need be.

 

[Tony]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LHslkhZWzUQ
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breitbart-fantasizes-about-killing-liberals-we-outnumber-them-and-we-have-the-guns-video/politics/2011/09/18/27146

1) Brietbart is a deceitful nutcase.

2) Brietbart is a libertarian.

3) Brietbart is something of an internet stalker (from my personal experience).

4) RW nutbags like to make bold, self aggrandizing threats behind closed doors in front of appreciative audiences. E.G. Coulter, Palin, et. al.

5) Like almost every other RW conservative nutbag, Brietbart never served in the military.

6) Like almost every other RW conservative nutbag (E.G. Limbaugh, Savage, et. al.), Brietbart is soft, pudgy, "feminine," and overreacts to being called "gay." He married late in life (38) in 1997 and now has four children. Over compensate much?

Brietbart is lying to his audience and to himself when he makes claims about the military, officers or their preference for supporting him and/or a political party over the Constitution.

Ok, sounds like the article is somewhat legit. With that established, shouldn't this be investigated? It seems dangerous to allow officers to serve who have preemptively thrown support behind insurrectionists should armed conflict ever happen.

 

[tyr_13]

1. Note that the original question is cut off so that we don't know what Breitbart was responding to.

2. Even without knowing the context it's pretty clear that Breitbart is not threatening to initiate violence, he's saying "Go ahead, punk, make my day."

And implying that the other side are 'wimps' who won't do anything anyway because they know they will lose.

It is an incitement for violence, but a schoolyard bully style one. He's not really calling for violence, he's just beating his chest.