PDA

View Full Version : TX Republican house candidate backtracks on "rebellion" comments



Anti Federalist
10-23-2010, 01:28 PM
Didn't take long to beat him back into the corral.

Oh, and Glenn Beck is back on my shit list.

The comments at his site are noteworthy.

ETA - Poll included.



Broden Backtracks: Violent Revolution Is ‘Not on the Table Today’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/broden-backtracks-violent-revolution-is-not-on-the-table-today/

https://www.brodenforcongress.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/speaking%203%20resized.jpg

Impressed by his conservative views, The Dallas Morning News editorial board endorsed Stephen Broden back on October 4. But after his controversial interview with WFAA’s Brad Watson this week, they called him back to clarify what he meant by this exchange:

BRODEN: “Our nation was founded on violence.”

WATSON: “In 2010 you would urge that as an option, though?”

BRODEN: “The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as relates to our liberties and our freedoms.”

Speaking by telephone with the News’ William McKenzie, Broden tried to walk that statement back.

McKENZIE: “Are you saying, unequivocally, that violent revolution is not on the table today?”

BRODEN: “It is not on the the table today.”

But by the time he made that retraction, Broden was already drawing harsh reaction from former supporters like radio host Glenn Beck.

“Pastor Stephen Broden said that? That’s crazy!” Beck said.

Broden blamed the statement on Watson’s interview techniques, but when pressed by The News, he agreed that there might come a time for a rebellion.

BRODEN: “I believe that this is an option that is available to us as a nation, but only in the worst-case scenario, and we are nowhere near anything like that.”

Instead, Broden repeatedly told The News editors that violence is not the solution

BRODEN: “Let me be clear; the only way to protect liberty is through peaceable change at the ballot box.”

While The Dallas Morning News may have accepted Broden’s clarifications, its editors now question his judgment. In Saturday’s paper, they are withdrawing their endorsement.

They now offer no recommendation in the District 30 congressional race between Broden and Eddie Bernice Johnson.
fedup100
10-23-2010, 01:30 PM
Too bad. Today any talk of the founders or the founding documents is reason for arrest and death by taser.
phill4paul
10-23-2010, 04:48 PM
He's just proven that he is nothing more than a politician. Spineless while genuflecting at the alter of political correctness.
The option better damn well be on the table. Without it then any threats of reigning government in are toothless.
Icymudpuppy
10-23-2010, 07:46 PM
This is one of those times where a JFK quote is useful.


The government which would make non-violent revolution impossible, makes violent revolution inevitable.
FrankRep
10-23-2010, 08:14 PM
Oh, and Glenn Beck is back on my shit list.

History is on the side of Pastor Stephen Broden. However, people are afraid to admit the ugly truth and I understand why Glenn Beck would be afraid to support a guy who could be labeled a "terrorist" and "fringe/kooky" by the media.
Indy Vidual
10-23-2010, 08:20 PM
Non-Violent Change Is Still The Goal
(Modern) Violent Revolution is a foolish myth if you take a realistic look at their weapons.

Is this not obvious to everyone? :confused:
FrankRep
10-23-2010, 08:22 PM
Non-Violent Change Is Still The Goal
(Modern) Violent Revolution is a foolish myth if you take a realistic look at their weapons.

Is this not obvious to everyone? :confused:

Non-Violent Change was the goal when separating from Great Britain as well.

That was preferable obviously.
JoshLowry
10-23-2010, 08:37 PM
Non-Violent Change Is Still The Goal
(Modern) Violent Revolution is a foolish myth if you take a realistic look at their weapons.

Is this not obvious to everyone? :confused:

I'm sure very few here want any violence. Most want to be left alone.

The poll asks if it is ever justified.
Indy Vidual
10-23-2010, 08:43 PM
I'm sure very few here want any violence. Most want to be left alone.

The poll asks if it is ever justified.

left alone = Sounds good to me. :)
violence justified = Yes / Maybe
IMO, violence is 100% "off the table", since the governments weapons are now way too advanced.
Icymudpuppy
10-23-2010, 08:46 PM
left alone = Sounds good to me. :)
violence justified = Yes / Maybe
IMO, violence is 100% "off the table", since the governments weapons are now way too advanced.

The technology gap isn't stopping the Afghans.
Pericles
10-23-2010, 08:48 PM
How fortunate it is for the United States, that the Dallas Morning News did not exist in 1775 and 1776.
FrankRep
10-23-2010, 08:50 PM
IMO, violence is 100% "off the table", since the governments weapons are now way too advanced.

What if violence finds you? Great Britain attacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution) the 13 colonies.
Anti Federalist
10-23-2010, 08:54 PM
I'm sure very few here want any violence. Most want to be left alone.

The poll asks if it is ever justified.

True.

The violence is being brought to us.

I'm not out tasering cancer ridden, retired old men, or shooting people's dogs, or shooting young men in the back of the head.
Indy Vidual
10-23-2010, 09:00 PM
What if violence finds you? Great Britain attacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution) the 13 colonies.

My original point was that we stand no chance of winning, perhaps I am wrong.


The technology gap isn't stopping the Afghans.

I will admit my logic was a bit off, throw out my flower-bomb, and leave. :p

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/1556857692_6f296e622a.jpg