Reply #4: I tried to compare Glenn Beck's style or comments to post made during Bush years

[RandomThoughts]

The intent was to try and understand if free speech could be blamed for nutty people doing bad things. And if thinking the actions or words of them could be to blame.

Many people advocated concepts of civil disobedience during the Bush years, they felt his illegitimacy and actions made it where people should protest his actions, in that it is sort of like what Glenn Beck does.

However Bush's elections were very dubious, his actions illegal in our nation and under laws of humanity, the evidence of his wrong doings and incompetence were very confirmable.

In contrast President Obama seems to have improved and reinforced rule of law. (However there is an argument that could be made that he could be impeached for not arresting the Bush Administration, however I have not heard The Right make that argument.)

It was possible under Bush rule to make a case of breach of social contract, or right to revolution, it has not been made under the presidency of President Obama.

So without that argument, I think they only make their argument, as said by many, from just being the looser of the election. And in support of tyranny or lack of democracy, they want to change that. Which makes sense from the point of view of a Bush supporter, since he was anti democracy.

So I think resistance to Bush was a valid argument, and they have not made one against President Obama. But more importantly what is the method they speak of.


During Bush years many posted about possible peaceful protest, I remember posting of how bullets don't work, and any violence always hurts the cause it claims to support, many people tried to act in the beliefs of pacifism and non violence. Thinking on the most fervent news comments made on TV, I remember calls for Bush to resign, be ashamed, and apologize to Americans, but not violence or guns.

But they speak of succession, not impeachment, again outside of law, and they also speak of gun ownership as a method to retake America. Things like 'the ones with the guns make the rules' again this is not an anti-violence message.

Because of my posting in the past questioning the legitimacy of Bush President, I really wanted to think on this, and what it comes down to is their choice of method. But again this defines the difference in the sides of the argument. It seems the same application of attack first, don't use diplomacy, and 'they are the enemy', 'might makes right' that Bush used, is the actual same way his followers think, and they carry those ideas into the public square.

To be fair, I am curious, has any of the right wingers consistently explained why violence always hurts society, and how they are against violence. Have they explained what they think people that are buying guns should do with them? Or why they need guns? Have they said who they think those guns will be used to intimidate or shoot?

If there is advocacy for buying guns, and it is not to blame for use of those guns, you would think they should answer those questions.