Nevada voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid's name; voting machine technicians are SEIU members
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
10/26/10 6:12 PM EDT
Clark County is where three quarters of Nevada's residents and live and where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory is a county commissioner. Rory is also a Democratic candidate for governor.
Since early voting started, there have been credible reports that voting machines in Clark County, Nevada are automatically checking Harry Reid's name on the ballot:
Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.
Ferrara said she wasn't alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."
Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the touch-screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time.
Now there's absolutely no independently verified evidence of chicanery with the voting machines (yet), but it is worth noting that the voting machine technicians in Clark County are members of the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU spent $63 million in elections in 2008 and is planning on spending $44 million more this election cycle -- nearly all of that on Democrats. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is formerly the SEIU's top lobbyist, and former SEIU president Andy Stern was the most frequent visitor to the White House last year.
Just in Nevada, the SEIU has given a lot to groups that are heavily vested in the state -- in just one prominent example, the SEIU gave $500,000 to the Patriot Majority PAC, which has spent $1.3 million against Reid's opponent Sharron Angle. They've and have dropped large sums directly on candidates:
NV-3
Joe Heck (R)
Oppose
$140,000.00
NV-3
Dina Titus (D)
Support
$344,984.00
NV-Senate
Sharron E. Angle (R)
Oppose
$225,000.00
Now the county voting technicians aren't unique here -- many of Clark County's employees are also represented by the SEIU. But it is worth mentioning, the SEIU is hyperpoliticized and has seen its fair share of corruption. (It certainly seems more questionable than Diebold, the voting machine manufacturer with Republican ties that was at the center of many conspiracy theories on the left during the Bush administration.)
Unions increasingly have a major financial stake in election outcomes, both as a matter of their own election expenditures, and as a function of what they stand to gain if their legislative agenda is enacted. Should they really be responsible for tabulating the votes? That's certainly something voters ought to think long and hard about.
Below is Clark County's SEIU contract -- On Page 75, in Appendix A, voting machine technicians are listed as positions represented by SEIU.
garret wrote:That doesnt bode well for republicans sadly. Either paul will have to denounce the people and forget about them.
Or...?
Come on man, don't leave me hanging!
Yeah, this looks pretty muffed up. Why stand on her head? It's not like she was going anywhere. It looked like he was trying to get a good ol' fashioned 'shoe-ing' started but no-one wanted to join in. Major faux pas. It's like holding up your hand for a high-five and not getting one.
Do you think they thought that the guy was in danger? Maybe they thought she was a man? She did have a short hair cut(once wig was removed) Possibly they thought that it was a man in disguise?
Yeah "Nah she got the attention she wanted" is a ridiculous thing to say. She got her head stood on by a bloke!
The staggering hypocricy of the Republicans astounds me, i have no doubt that If the roles were reversed Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity would have gotten involved and attempted to laud their moral superiority over the democrats via their laughable shows on radio and television.
Scrabb wrote:Despicable. He should do time for that.
Nah she got the attention she wanted. Now the Democarats can go back to questioning Paul's religion some more.
Meanwhile how's that tax increase going to help the recovery again?
You know full well that if it was a Tea-party or Republican protester this happened to, you be screaming like an infant over it.
No. There have been instances where that has occurred already. She was a protester that disrupted a rally. If it had been a union organized rally, she might not have been breathing after.
This is great entertainment, but I think we need to go Babylon Five, have each side pick purple or green, and let the two sides go at it bar fight style until one side wins or the other side figures out how to vent all the air from the opposing side's living spaces. In the interim:
Frazzled wrote:
No. There have been instances where that has occurred already. She was a protester that disrupted a rally. If it had been a union organized rally, she might not have been breathing after.
Been to a lot of union rallies? Have a lot of personal experience with union politics? Studied the history of political violence in the United States?
No?
Trying to make yourself feel knowledgeable through speculation? Forming opinions without any sort of experience with, or knowledge of, what you're discussing? Assuming ignorance is an intentional stance equivalent to knowledge?
Frazzled wrote:
No. There have been instances where that has occurred already. She was a protester that disrupted a rally. If it had been a union organized rally, she might not have been breathing after.
Been to a lot of union rallies? Have a lot of personal experience with union politics? Studied the history of political violence in the United States?
Grandfather was one of the founding members of a union thank you very much. Negotiated with one. Yea I have a bit.
Trying to make yourself feel knowledgeable through speculation? Forming opinions without any sort of experience with, or knowledge of, what you're discussing? Assuming ignorance is an intentional stance equivalent to knowledge?
So says the gym club guy...
Indeed whats your familiarity with unions there boyo?
Nevada voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid's name; voting machine technicians are SEIU members
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
10/26/10 6:12 PM EDT
Clark County is where three quarters of Nevada's residents and live and where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory is a county commissioner. Rory is also a Democratic candidate for governor.
Since early voting started, there have been credible reports that voting machines in Clark County, Nevada are automatically checking Harry Reid's name on the ballot:
Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.
Ferrara said she wasn't alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."
Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the touch-screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time.
Now there's absolutely no independently verified evidence of chicanery with the voting machines (yet), but it is worth noting that the voting machine technicians in Clark County are members of the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU spent $63 million in elections in 2008 and is planning on spending $44 million more this election cycle -- nearly all of that on Democrats. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is formerly the SEIU's top lobbyist, and former SEIU president Andy Stern was the most frequent visitor to the White House last year.
Just in Nevada, the SEIU has given a lot to groups that are heavily vested in the state -- in just one prominent example, the SEIU gave $500,000 to the Patriot Majority PAC, which has spent $1.3 million against Reid's opponent Sharron Angle. They've and have dropped large sums directly on candidates:
NV-3
Joe Heck (R)
Oppose
$140,000.00
NV-3
Dina Titus (D)
Support
$344,984.00
NV-Senate
Sharron E. Angle (R)
Oppose
$225,000.00
Now the county voting technicians aren't unique here -- many of Clark County's employees are also represented by the SEIU. But it is worth mentioning, the SEIU is hyperpoliticized and has seen its fair share of corruption. (It certainly seems more questionable than Diebold, the voting machine manufacturer with Republican ties that was at the center of many conspiracy theories on the left during the Bush administration.)
Unions increasingly have a major financial stake in election outcomes, both as a matter of their own election expenditures, and as a function of what they stand to gain if their legislative agenda is enacted. Should they really be responsible for tabulating the votes? That's certainly something voters ought to think long and hard about.
Below is Clark County's SEIU contract -- On Page 75, in Appendix A, voting machine technicians are listed as positions represented by SEIU.
Your side look bad? Do what Fraz does and post a totally unrelated article then start making unrelated jokes in poor taste adding nothing to the thread! Its a mods duty to pull a thread down as fast as possible!
It's America's midterm elections next
week and this time round there's a
fair few wingnuts standing. Why
this is might be explained by this,
our favourite story from the
campaign trail:
Bob Inglis, of South Carolina, lost a
vicious Republican primary fight with a
right-wing insurgent named Trey Gowdy
to stand for a Congressional seat.
Inglis said he was amazed that when
he was out canvassing he kept meeting
voters who were convinced that the
numbers on their Social Security cards
meant that they had been bought at birth
by a secret bank.
See, the interesting thing is that I'm not asking those questions because I think you lack experience with unions because you're lawyer. I'm asking those questions because, more than most people, you tend to form your opinions based upon how you feel things are (and therefore how you want them to be in order to justify your personal stance regarding the world), rather than how they actually are.
Frazzled wrote:
Indeed whats your familiarity with unions there boyo?
I grew up in Chicago, studied political violence in the West, worked with union contractors, worked on a union political campaign, and dealt directly with service union workers when I managed the gym that you're deriding.
Frazzled wrote:
Grandfather was one of the founding members of a union thank you very much.
And? Are you your grandfather?
My grandfather was in the Air Force, does that mean I can claim his experience as mine? Am I a WWII veteran?
Because, as far as I see it, you have experience with having a grandfather, not with the operational nature of a union. Unless of course your grandfather entrusted the secrets of political violence and intimidation to his grandson, which obviously begs a certain question regarding whether or not your grandfather was simply blustering. After all, your personality certainly didn't appear from nowhere.
Frazzled wrote:
Negotiated with one. Yea I have a bit.
Did they threaten your family during negotiations? Did they beat you, maybe hang you off a bridge?
Frazzled wrote:So in other words, your experience is minimal, but you like to question others. Got it.
This is exactly why I can't take most of what you say seriously. Deflect, project, rationalize, and/or avoid is the most typical response anyone can get from you. Your responses to this thread typify this. What I've read from you is neither witty or funny.
A non-violent opposition protester at a political rally was viciously attacked. Though the investigation has just started, there has been no documented evidence of any wrong doing on her part. Rather than acknowledge that fact (while credibly stating that this may change after a full investigation), you immediately try to deflect and avoid the incident. Though I should be used to it by now, I still find it shocking each time I encounter it.
If the situation were reversed, I would be one of the first on here decrying it. It's just wrong. She should be so lucky that she only got a concussion. She could have just as easily gotten a skull fracture and died.
No, that wasn't disagreement. Disagreement would have been "Ok, you've had experience with unions, maybe more than I have, but my experience tells me otherwise because I saw X happen in my time working with unions."
Don't assume that age indicates greater experience with a specific thing.
Frazzled wrote:So in other words, your experience is minimal, but you like to question others. Got it.
This is exactly why I can't take most of what you say seriously. Deflect, project, rationalize, and/or avoid is the most typical response anyone can get from you. Your responses to this thread typify this. What I've read from you is neither witty or funny.
A non-violent opposition protester at a political rally was viciously attacked. Though the investigation has just started, there has been no documented evidence of any wrong doing on her part. Rather than acknowledge that fact (while credibly stating that this may change after a full investigation), you immediately try to deflect and avoid the incident. Though I should be used to it by now, I still find it shocking each time I encounter it.
If the situation were reversed, I would be one of the first on here decrying it. It's just wrong. She should be so lucky that she only got a concussion. She could have just as easily gotten a skull fracture and died.
-Yad
Wait, I am supposed to care if you take anything I say seriously? Why do you think I am being serious in the first place? Did you not note the discussion about strapping ICBMS onto M1 Tanks and launching them over the Grand Canyon (the wife did)
" I forgot for a moment I was telling this to my husband who's first reaction to anyone being a problem (to a family member) is to get the world's biggest shotgun and blow up the world."
-She Who Must Be Obeyed, 10/27/2010
Aren't you the one who believes the Democrats will retain the House? Clearly no one should take anyone seriously on this board, or the intranets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:No, that wasn't disagreement. Disagreement would have been "Ok, you've had experience with unions, maybe more than I have, but my experience tells me otherwise because I saw X happen in my time working with unions."
Don't assume that age indicates greater experience with a specific thing.
You questioned my experience in the matter from a postion of authority, which turns out to be quite minimal. But you're correct, I should have just noted, pot meet kettle.
If a protester/wack job/what ever ran up to a vehicle with Pres Obama in it, jammed a sign through an open window, and got put to the ground and subdued by secret service agents would you all be as outraged?
Her actions were not acceptable, she was there to cause trouble and she did. She did not deserve the head stomp, but when you go looking for trouble you often do not get to pick the size of the trouble you find. The dude that did the stomping will likey get prosecuted. The victim will hopefully decide a concussion is too high a price to pay and will consider that before repeating her actions.
Mannahnin wrote:None of which has anything to do with the 23 yo girl who got a concussion trying to get a satirical photo.
Usually you go off differently when people talk about violence against women or children.
You are correct. In this instance, she was a protestor trying to make a scene at a political rally. She wanted something like that to occur. Politics is a rough game and you can't jump into a Bull Ring and then complain when the bull charges you.
Besides its all a distraction. the Democrats have to run screaming from their record so put stuff like this up to distract from the issuer, like a shell game. In the mean time, they left Congress without dealing with the largest tax increase in history.
I call bullpucky. She wanted to get a photo. She did not want to be assaulted by a gang of men. She did not want a concussion. If Genghis Connie gets involved in politics at some point and someone punches her in the face, you are going to react a whole lot differently. Even if she's older than this chick when it happens.
The Democrats don't have to run screaming from their record. They should have done more, but overall they need to be proud of what they did manage. Stand up and fight for what you believe in. Hell, put the tax rate back up to where it was under Reagan or Nixon and we can start fixing the deficit too.
American politics is far more interesting that ours. Im eagerly looking forward to the elections, my missus has a bet with me, cause i think the tea party guys are going to out perform in everones expectations, and she claims "everyone knows they are all crazy and they have no chance"
She is from California and has only ever lived there, ive seen way more of the US than her, and travelled and trained in about 8 states, and i know how wacky our gun toting Jesus loving American cousins in the red states are...
Anyway, its interesting to me, and as a Brit i care little for the outcome, i find dems to be too left leaning for my somewhat Conservative tastes (I prefered McCain to Obama, but then he had a wingnut for his VP....) but dislike the Republicans despite agreeing with most of their military/immigration views because so many of them are Jesus freaks with a staggering lack of common sense if it isnt written in scripture....
Lets see who is right. What do you guys thinks afoot?
Mannahnin wrote:I call bullpucky. She wanted to get a photo. She did not want to be assaulted by a gang of men. She did not want a concussion. If Genghis Connie gets involved in politics at some point and someone punches her in the face, you are going to react a whole lot differently. Even if she's older than this chick when it happens.
And I call bullpucky back! She wanted to create an incident as a pretext to show how evil the Tea Party is. She got it.
The Democrats don't have to run screaming from their record. They should have done more, but overall they need to be proud of what they did manage. Stand up and fight for what you believe in. Hell, put the tax rate back up to where it was under Reagan or Nixon and we can start fixing the deficit too.
See, the interesting thing is that I'm not asking those questions because I think you lack experience with unions because you're lawyer. I'm asking those questions because, more than most people, you tend to form your opinions based upon how you feel things are (and therefore how you want them to be in order to justify your personal stance regarding the world), rather than how they actually are.
I think an important thing to bear in mind with Frazz is that the opinions he posts are not necessarily the same opinions that he holds when it comes time to make real life decisions. At this point he's got the Thousand Yard Stare when it comes to virtually anything posted in OT and rarely posts with real sincerity or nuance, because that's more work and he doesn't see the point of it. He keeps a constant internal stance of "nothing posted here really matters".
Frazzled wrote:And I call bullpucky back! She wanted to create an incident as a pretext to show how evil the Tea Party is.
Sure is lucky they were too smart to fall for this then and didn't instead assault a woman who was exercising her Constitutionally protected rights then.
As far as I'm aware -- feel free to point out any errors here --- creating "an incident", nebulous as that phrase is really, isn't illegal as such ( within certain reasonable limitations of course.. like not using violence for example ) so, again, I really don;t see how this action is in the slightest bit defensible.
I note when it's Westboro nutjobs doing something terribly reprehensible, we heard no end of "it's their right though" posts. This happens and, apparently, her rights are unimportant.
Mannahnin wrote:I call bullpucky. She wanted to get a photo. She did not want to be assaulted by a gang of men. She did not want a concussion. If Genghis Connie gets involved in politics at some point and someone punches her in the face, you are going to react a whole lot differently. Even if she's older than this chick when it happens.
And I call bullpucky back! She wanted to create an incident as a pretext to show how evil the Tea Party is. She got it.
Take off your tinfoil hat. Her expressed reason for being there is perfectly believable. Her part of the campaign is linked to making the point that Repubs are corporate stooges. She had a sign for that purpose. She was not there to be punched, grabbed, or stomped on by older men. And blaming the victim is pretty disgusting, honestly.
The Democrats don't have to run screaming from their record.
They don't have to to, but they sure are.
A lot of them are cowards. The Daily Show calls them out constantly.
I think an important thing to bear in mind with Frazz is that the opinions he posts are not necessarily the same opinions that he holds when it comes time to make real life decisions. At this point he's got the Thousand Yard Stare when it comes to virtually anything posted in OT and rarely posts with real sincerity or nuance, because that's more work and he doesn't see the point of it. He keeps a constant internal stance of "nothing posted here really matters".
Shhh! They're not supposed to know that!They're not supposed to know what I'd do as a bystander there...
Except this:
(the quote form the wife is a real one from yesterday though)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
I note when it's Westboro nutjobs doing something terribly reprehensible, we heard no end of "it's their right though" posts. This happens and, apparently, her rights are unimportant.
Love it or leave it indeed it seems.
There is a difference between the two that strangely supports it. This was actually IN the rally-a private event on private or at least rented property. Thats akin to the Westboro guys throwing their sign onyo the coffin and then being surprised when their faces get readjusted.
Frazzled wrote:So in other words, your experience is minimal, but you like to question others. Got it.
Can't you ever just troll dakka discussions or the WARMACHINE board?
Disagreement.
-Shuma's definition of trolling
How about wikipedia's definition?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Despite what her intentions were, the fact remains that the crowd’s response was completely inappropriate and fundamentally un-American.
What was her expressed reason Raggie baby? I can't get the sound to owkr and am just seeing a protestor appearing right square in the middle of a political rally.
If you read the last link I posted, the news article explains it very clearly, JFrazell.
Republicorps is a Moveon idea, trying to make the point that Repubs are corporate stooges. She was carrying a sign naming Rand Paul Employee of the Month, and was trying to present it as an award and get a photo with him and the sign. I'm sure she expected some resistance and maybe to be blocked off. There's a difference between that and being thrown to the ground by a group of guys and stomped on.
Frazzled wrote:There is a difference between the two that strangely supports it. This was actually IN the rally-a private event on private or at least rented property. Thats akin to the Westboro guys throwing their sign onyo the coffin and then being surprised when their faces get readjusted.
Exactly. Since it was private property, it's totally okay to beat a woman. Why else does a man buy a house?
Mannahnin wrote:If you read the last link I posted, the news article explains it very clearly, JFrazell.
Republicorps is a Moveon idea, trying to make the point that Repubs are corporate stooges. She was carrying a sign naming Rand Paul Employee of the Month, and was trying to present it as an award and get a photo with him and the sign. I'm sure she expected some resistance and maybe to be blocked off. There's a difference between that and being thrown to the ground by a group of guys and stomped on.
So my point still stands. She's trying to disrupt a rally with a stunt, in effect violating their right to free speech and assembly. We need to have a 100 bikers join his oppornent's next rally then.
Disrupting rallies or speakers is just another method to stifle free speech. She comes to this with unclean hands.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Despite what her intentions were, the fact remains that the crowd’s response was completely inappropriate and fundamentally un-American.
Quite American. She attempted to stifle their free speech with a disrupted and they reacted.
but to be fair to those arguing what she did was fine, lets have 100 Republican paid stooges at every Democratic rally, firing off air horns and fireworks.
BS. That's not stifling free speech. She tried to get a quick photo on his way INTO the venue, and he would have been able to speak freely at every other point. It's not even vaguely similar to 100 people sounding air horns while a person is trying to speak.
Keep standing up for the gang of guys assaulting a woman, though.
Bunch of patriotic guys, standing up to a 23 year old girl who was oppressing them with her wig and little sign. How did they ever find the courage?
Mannahnin wrote:BS. That's not stifling free speech. She tried to get a quick photo on his way INTO the venue, and he would have been able to speak freely at every other point. Protesting is another form of free speech and debate.
Keep standing up for the gang of guys assaulting a woman, though.
She was by the central podium no? Thats a disruption. Thats violating their rights under the First Amendment with a stunt. Again if this is acceptable than I am all for the paid biker option attending all political rallies, just because turnabout is fair play and I hate politicians.
Mannahnin wrote:BS. That's not stifling free speech. She tried to get a quick photo on his way INTO the venue, and he would have been able to speak freely at every other point. Protesting is another form of free speech and debate.
Keep standing up for the gang of guys assaulting a woman, though.
She was by the central podium no? Thats a disruption. Thats violating their rights under the First Amendment with a stunt. Again if this is acceptable than I am all for the paid biker option attending all political rallies, just because turnabout is fair play and I hate politicians.
Exercising free speech now stifles free speech? You can truly justify anything to yourself can't you?
NO. It's extremely frustrating when you don't read even a single article on the incident before shooting off wrongheaded opinions based on your lack of information and understanding.
She tried to get up by his CAR as he was arriving IN THE PARKING LOT. Like journalists do every day, in perfect expression of THEIR first amendment rights.
Only instead of just a crowd of reporters and Rand Paul, there was also was one girl and her photographer, and a crowd of his supporters, who felt it necessary to physically assault her by throwing her to the ground and stomping on her. She was literally pushed down on the curb, and the guy curb-stomped her. She was in the fetal position with her head on the sidewalk and that scumbag stomped on the side of her head. In one of the video clips you can actually hear a "crunch" sound, which thankfully was probably her glasses. I was surprised when was standing upright and talking to reporters afterward that she looked okay; though that was evidently adrenaline as she went to the hospital after and the doctors found a concussion.
Mannahnin wrote:BS. That's not stifling free speech. She tried to get a quick photo on his way INTO the venue, and he would have been able to speak freely at every other point. Protesting is another form of free speech and debate.
Keep standing up for the gang of guys assaulting a woman, though.
She was by the central podium no? Thats a disruption. Thats violating their rights under the First Amendment with a stunt. Again if this is acceptable than I am all for the paid biker option attending all political rallies, just because turnabout is fair play and I hate politicians.
Exercising free speech now stifles free speech? You can truly justify anything to yourself can't you?
So you don't mind if I send someone to walk behind you everywhere you go playing a kazoo then? Its just free speech.
Frazzled wrote:
So you don't mind if I send someone to walk behind you everywhere you go playing a kazoo then? Its just free speech.
lol.
Mate send him to me!
No we have a special one for you Matty. He will loudly declaim the vices of demon alcohol, especially when you are in the pub.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:NO. It's extremely frustrating when you don't read even a single article on the incident before shooting off wrongheaded opinions based on your lack of information and understanding.
She tried to get up by his CAR as he was arriving IN THE PARKING LOT. Like journalists do every day, in perfect expression of THEIR first amendment rights.
Only instead of just a crowd of reporters and Rand Paul, there was also was one girl and her photographer, and a crowd of his supporters, who felt it necessary to physically assault her by throwing her to the ground and stomping on her. She was literally pushed down on the curb, and the guy curb-stomped her. She was in the fetal position with her head on the sidewalk and that scumbag stomped on the side of her head. In one of the video clips you can actually hear a "crunch" sound, which thankfully was probably her glasses. I was surprised when was standing upright and talking to reporters afterward that she looked okay; though that was evidently adrenaline as she went to the hospital after and the doctors found a concussion.
I tried to reopen its been pulled. What the? Anyway when I saw it, it looked like a podium. I will see if I can find it again. Parking lot attacks are not cool.
OK found another version. Thats slightly rude. They should have genetly ushered her aside, give her a neck massage and some nice tea as they did so.
Whats up with the wig?
Mannahnin wrote:BS. That's not stifling free speech. She tried to get a quick photo on his way INTO the venue, and he would have been able to speak freely at every other point. Protesting is another form of free speech and debate.
Keep standing up for the gang of guys assaulting a woman, though.
She was by the central podium no? Thats a disruption. Thats violating their rights under the First Amendment with a stunt. Again if this is acceptable than I am all for the paid biker option attending all political rallies, just because turnabout is fair play and I hate politicians.
Exercising free speech now stifles free speech? You can truly justify anything to yourself can't you?
So you don't mind if I send someone to walk behind you everywhere you go playing a kazoo then? Its just free speech.
Can't really do much about it so long as they are always doing it in public spaces and nothing they do legally becomes harassment or stalking. For the most part thats a civil matter anyway. Besides, if you wanted to draw an actual comparison, which you don't because you're a giant troll with an even bigger axe to grind, would be if someone planned to play a kazzoo after I got out of my car. Once. In a public rally. Where there are hundreds of people with kazoos.
Feel free to post another unrelated article then talk about democrats losing the house though. I very much doubt you're going to respond to this (or any other) post in a way that does much other then deflect and troll.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Can't really do much about it so long as they are always doing it in public spaces and nothing they do legally becomes harassment or stalking. For the most part thats a civil matter anyway. Besides, if you wanted to draw an actual comparison, which you don't because you're a giant troll with an even bigger axe to grind, would be if someone planned to play a kazzoo after I got out of my car. Once. In a public rally. Where there are hundreds of people with kazoos.
You know how this is going to end, don't you...
Feel free to post another unrelated article then talk about democrats losing the house though. I very much doubt you're going to respond to this (or any other) post in a way that does much other then deflect and troll.
Mannahnin wrote:Take off your tinfoil hat. Her expressed reason for being there is perfectly believable. Her part of the campaign is linked to making the point that Repubs are corporate stooges. She had a sign for that purpose. She was not there to be punched, grabbed, or stomped on by older men. And blaming the victim is pretty disgusting, honestly.
More or less. This story is so obviously one sided I really can't have an opinion that goes much farther than this.
There was no bull, and this rally was not a bullring. The woman is indeed lucky that it didn't get out of hand, it could have been much, much worse. I can't imagine that she really wanted that to happen. If she did want to get her head stepped on, from all accounts she did a very bad job of it, and the Rand Paul supporters obliged her anyway. Messed up gak, really.
Frazzled wrote:So you don't mind if I send someone to walk behind you everywhere you go playing a kazoo then? Its just free speech.
I dunno Frazz, that could be pretty cool. I might have to bring along tiny cymbals so I could clash them when the guy on the Kazoo passes out from hyperventilation.
Frazzled wrote:
You questioned my experience in the matter from a postion of authority,
Why are you giving me authority? I questioned your authority because most of your posts rest on flimsy logic, and arguments from emotion. I thought that was obvious.
I don't need to have authority to recognize when someone is probably talking out his ass.
Frazzled wrote:
which turns out to be quite minimal.
Does it? I mean, I've been around unions quite a bit, they're everywhere in Chicago. Honestly, the only way I could be closer to them would be by being a member of one. You can call that minimal if you want, and I'm sure you will because this is the internet and, despite apparently not taking an interest in anything that goes on here, you have no ability at all to reconcile your opinions with those of anyone else.
Frazzled wrote:
But you're correct, I should have just noted, pot meet kettle.
Yeah, I know that game too. Make a controversial statement and then try and drag anyone that disagrees down to your level in order to illustrate that they're just as bad. Its cute, and it was lots of fun when I was 12, but you're in or nearing your 40's, and a MOD. Not really stellar behavior.
And, quite honestly, you really aren't very good at it. If you were, then you wouldn't need to use rhetorical force in order to jam the responses of others into your 'tactical' mold.
Mannahnin wrote:I call bullpucky. She wanted to get a photo.
She got her photo.
Good for her.
Mannahnin wrote:Like journalists do every day, in perfect expression of THEIR first amendment rights.
She was literally pushed down on the curb, and the guy curb-stomped her.
She was in the fetal position with her head on the sidewalk and that scumbag stomped on the side of her head.
She's not a journalist. She's an agitator and a disruptor. Get it straight.
If she were curb-stomped, she'd be in the hospital or dead. A curb-stomp is like in American History X. You open the victim's mouth over the curb, and stop on the back of the head. This destroys their teeth, and can dislocate their jaw. With a bit of luck, he can stomp the base of the skull and break their neck, severing the spinal cord and killing them.
If he actually stomped the side of her head into the ground, we'd see blood coming out her ear. A fully grown man should be able to stomp hard enough to shatter the soft bones of either temple, destroying the eardrum in the process. Or, a bit lower, and breaking the jaw.
Based on the limited damage, I think he only stepped on her head to keep her down.
It hasn't been very smooth. I hardly think that the effort put forth by the derailment squad has been all that effective.
I am quite shocked, though. Shocked and appalled.
This thread should remain open so we won't need a new one when we find out what happens in the near future with this story. It would be a safe guess to assume that the man will be charged. I would like to know how this effects Rand Paul's campaign as well.
Mannahnin wrote:Like journalists do every day, in perfect expression of THEIR first amendment rights.
She was literally pushed down on the curb, and the guy curb-stomped her.
She was in the fetal position with her head on the sidewalk and that scumbag stomped on the side of her head.
She's not a journalist. She's an agitator and a disruptor. Get it straight.
If she were curb-stomped, she'd be in the hospital or dead. A curb-stomp is like in American History X. You open the victim's mouth over the curb, and stop on the back of the head. This destroys their teeth, and can dislocate their jaw. With a bit of luck, he can stomp the base of the skull and break their neck, severing the spinal cord and killing them.
If he actually stomped the side of her head into the ground, we'd see blood coming out her ear. A fully grown man should be able to stomp hard enough to shatter the soft bones of either temple, destroying the eardrum in the process. Or, a bit lower, and breaking the jaw.
Based on the limited damage, I think he only stepped on her head to keep her down.
It's a damn pity that he showed such restraint.
I only *wish* that he curb-stomped her.
John, I never said she was a journalist, I said she was exercising her first amendment rights in the same exact place and in a similar manner to the way they do. Making it simple for Fraz.
He did not stomp on her like Ed Norton's character in American History X or obviously she would be dead. But her head was on the curb, and he stomped on it. He did not merely(!) put his foot on her to hold her down. He stepped first on her shoulder, then stepped on the side of her head, against the curb, with both an audible crunching sound and sufficient force to give her a concussion.
The fact that you are cheering him doing so and wishing he had killed her is revolting.
While applying pressure to her head with a foot has been the focus of this issue, it does little to change the fact that a group of fully grown men were pushing her to the ground.
There is little to argue about on this point. The guy who stepped on her head will be charged with the appropriate crimes, and the woman will most likely recover from her injuries. None of that makes what occurred at this event acceptable.
Beyond all of that it is not fair to call all republicans thugs. The reaction in this thread does not help in that respect, and I am mildly amused at the effort going into spinning this unspinnable story.
Certain actions are completely uncalled for, and the actions against this woman are definitely among those. It is not so much revolting to suggest that "she should have been killed", as it is cognitive dissonance. Nothing too complicated. GET ANGRY! Then we can blame you for both World Wars and the lack of jobs in the U.S.
The men in question are in the wrong. There really isn't much more to it than that. "She deserved it" is a ridiculous argument that deserves little response.
When I first posted the thread, I thought it was out of hand, but it didn't look like the amount of force used against her had been very much. The diagnosis from the hospital brought it to another level.
No one here has called all Republicans thugs. People have stated that the specific men involved in this incident have committed a cowardly, violent, un-American, and antidemocratic act which should be repudiated and prosecuted.
Their tribalistic and territorial urges proved stronger than their adherence either to the democratic principle or the simple, classic, manly code that you don't beat up a woman. Their actions are in complete contradiction to the ideals both of traditional masculinity and of those who love the Constitution.
Saying "she should have been killed" is not mere cognitive dissonance. It is a morally repugnant statement deserving of public scorn, at a minimum.
Mannahnin wrote:No one here has called all Republicans thugs. People have stated that the specific men involved in this incident have committed a cowardly, violent, un-American, and antidemocratic act which should be repudiated and prosecuted.
It was the second post in the thread, not counting the OP. I have not suggested that there was a strong suggestion from the thread in it's entirety. I am, however, pointing out that such suggestions have been made, and they don't help this kind of discussion.
Their tribalistic and territorial urges proved stronger than their adherence either to the democratic principle or the simple, classic, manly code that you don't beat up a woman. Their actions are in complete contradiction to the ideals both of traditional masculinity and of those who love the Constitution.
Agreed, but I will again point out that I consider such actions to be easily attributed to a small minority of Republicans. There are serious discussions about the effect of partisan rhetoric on their respective constituencies. In this year alone, rhetoric from the right has reached a level that is not only false, but blatantly ridiculous.
Saying "she should have been killed" is not mere cognitive dissonance. It is a morally repugnant statement deserving of public scorn, at a minimum.
As I previously stated, "deserves little response". Sure, that is quite vague, I'll certainly admit that. The coverage of this incident has been quite overwhelming, and in my opinion it can be considered a non-partisan issue. It isn't okay when anarchists smash windows and lob glass bottles at police officers, nor is it acceptable when campaigners step on the head of counter-protesters.
Public scorn is "little response" in my opinion. It carries some weight, but lacks what can be considered extreme reactions. That is all I am saying.
Well... I am saying something a bit more complicated than that. Basically, "public scorn" can be seen as "taking the flame-bait" in the context of an online forum. Something about not feeding the trolls food that they like, if at all.
Frazzled wrote:Arguments are over rated. Just skip the middle man and fix the voting machines.
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise if that was true. Like it wouldn't surprise me if plenty of the discrepancies over Republican voter frauds.
It'd be nice to see a proper reform of US electoral laws. Of course, you only see concerns about Democratic shenanigans coming from Republican mouthpieces and concerns about Republican fraud coming from Democratic mouthpieces. It seems voter fraud is only bad when it gives the other side votes. The same mindset can be seen in this thread, the only people who seem concerned a woman got attacked came from the Democrats.
So good luck with stopping the voter fraud.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know, I think we just hear more about the Republican excesses, because they are in opposition at the moment.
The Tea Party, for example, wouldn't exist if the Reps had won the election.
Sort of. What we're seeing now is certainly the result of the 2008 election - in the wake of which two camps formed in the GOP, one group thought the backlash was the result of being too rightwing, the other thought it was the result of not being right wing enough. The latter was better organised and more enthusiastic and won a pretty clear victory, and the result is probably the most insane mainstream party in any Western democracy in the world.
It's likely a the power they get from retaking the House will be poison to their extreme positions, and they'll quickly move back to the centre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:If a protester/wack job/what ever ran up to a vehicle with Pres Obama in it, jammed a sign through an open window, and got put to the ground and subdued by secret service agents would you all be as outraged?
Are you trying to suggest the physical safety of the President is treated in the same way as the physical safety of some guy at a rally? Seriously?
Her actions were not acceptable, she was there to cause trouble and she did. She did not deserve the head stomp, but when you go looking for trouble you often do not get to pick the size of the trouble you find. The dude that did the stomping will likey get prosecuted. The victim will hopefully decide a concussion is too high a price to pay and will consider that before repeating her actions.
There's a difference between being a smart arse and being a violent loon. They're just not comparable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Besides its all a distraction. the Democrats have to run screaming from their record so put stuff like this up to distract from the issuer, like a shell game. In the mean time, they left Congress without dealing with the largest tax increase in history.
Oh for feth's sake. American politics has just about reached the point where the slogan is only thing that matters, hasn't it?
That's the standard of debate, and you guys are in a lot of trouble because of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:American politics is far more interesting that ours.
Yeah, they're so much crazier than yours and mine. We end up debating the most minor points of social policy, and have systems entirely dedicated towards filtering out the whackos. The US has people calling each other all sorts of ridiculous things, and has political systems that actually favour the crazies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:I think an important thing to bear in mind with Frazz is that the opinions he posts are not necessarily the same opinions that he holds when it comes time to make real life decisions. At this point he's got the Thousand Yard Stare when it comes to virtually anything posted in OT and rarely posts with real sincerity or nuance, because that's more work and he doesn't see the point of it. He keeps a constant internal stance of "nothing posted here really matters".
If that were true he'd be playing a part in minimising the craziness. Instead he provokes it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:So my point still stands. She's trying to disrupt a rally with a stunt, in effect violating their right to free speech and assembly. We need to have a 100 bikers join his oppornent's next rally then.
Disrupting rallies or speakers is just another method to stifle free speech. She comes to this with unclean hands.
Turning up with a sign doesn't harm or limit their right to free speech in any way. Stop being ridiculous.
sebster wrote:Oh for feth's sake. American politics has just about reached the point where the slogan is only thing that matters, hasn't it?
That's the standard of debate, and you guys are in a lot of trouble because of it.
How do you raise that standard?
It seems reasonable enough to assume that people with extreme views are gaining bully pulpits, or those with bully pulpits are gaining extreme views, because of the current economic climate.
People start to get pretty freaking reactionary when faced with such serious threats. They begin to look for people to blame, and when that happens, they are often left pointing at the people who they believe stand in contrast to their views. Our standard is lowered because our economic structure is failing to sustain itself.
I want that standard raised, but I do believe that it is lowered through natural human tendencies. How can we raise that standard?
Turning up with a sign doesn't harm or limit their right to free speech in any way. Stop being ridiculous.
JohnHwangDD wrote:She's not a journalist. She's an agitator and a disruptor. Get it straight.
Analogies do not state two things are the same, they simply note a similarity for the purpose of illustration. You should know this.
If she were curb-stomped, she'd be in the hospital or dead. A curb-stomp is like in American History X. You open the victim's mouth over the curb, and stop on the back of the head. This destroys their teeth, and can dislocate their jaw. With a bit of luck, he can stomp the base of the skull and break their neck, severing the spinal cord and killing them.
Are you aware you're now defending the attackers by pointing out how much more violence they could have done to this woman? I mean, I know people get a little crazy at election time but that seems a bit much.
sebster wrote:Oh for feth's sake. American politics has just about reached the point where the slogan is only thing that matters, hasn't it?
That's the standard of debate, and you guys are in a lot of trouble because of it.
How do you raise that standard?
It seems reasonable enough to assume that people with extreme views are gaining bully pulpits, or those with bully pulpits are gaining extreme views, because of the current economic climate.
People start to get pretty freaking reactionary when faced with such serious threats. They begin to look for people to blame, and when that happens, they are often left pointing at the people who they believe stand in contrast to their views. Our standard is lowered because our economic structure is failing to sustain itself.
I want that standard raised, but I do believe that it is lowered through natural human tendencies. How can we raise that standard?
It started before the economic downturn and this country has been stagnating economically for 30 years. This is an old problem coming to a head.
How should we characterize the economic period we have now entered? After nearly two brutal years, the Great Recession appears to be over, at least technically. Yet a return to normalcy seems far off. By some measures, each recession since the 1980s has retreated more slowly than the one before it. In one sense, we never fully recovered from the last one, in 2001: the share of the civilian population with a job never returned to its previous peak before this downturn began, and incomes were stagnant throughout the decade. Still, the weakness that lingered through much of the 2000s shouldn’t be confused with the trauma of the past two years, a trauma that will remain heavy for quite some time.
...
All of these figures understate the magnitude of the jobs crisis. The broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment (which includes people who want to work but have stopped actively searching for a job, along with those who want full-time jobs but can find only part-time work) reached 17.4 percent in October, which appears to be the highest figure since the 1930s. And for large swaths of society—young adults, men, minorities—that figure was much higher (among teenagers, for instance, even the narrowest measure of unemployment stood at roughly 27 percent). One recent survey showed that 44 percent of families had experienced a job loss, a reduction in hours, or a pay cut in the past year.
It seems reasonable enough to assume that people with extreme views are gaining bully pulpits, or those with bully pulpits are gaining extreme views, because of the current economic climate.
Part of the craziness is due to the economic climate, that's true. But the US isn't the only place with economic problems, but it is the one where the political debate has broken down almost entirely. The people in this thread trying to defend headstomping a woman aren't unique, they're the product of an increasingly partisan system where substance just doesn't matter, all that matters is arguing for your side.
Improving it or arresting the slide is a pretty tough issue. Ultimately, responsibility lies with the party leaders, when they won't contribute to the nonsense or tolerate it from others, you see a culture change, but leaders are given power by the majority, so there must be at some level a number of supporters who desire a more substantive, less partisan approach.
I remember those cartoons, they were great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:It started before the economic downturn and this country has been stagnating economically for 30 years. This is an old problem coming to a head.
Fair point, but the decline in political dialogue seems about as about as long to me.
Now, I know there are plenty here who feel that the GOP and Conservatives are nothing more then the great white devil, but I wonder if anyone posted about this encounter some time back.
SEIU members attacked and beat up a black conservative protester.
Barack Obama told a crowd of supporters in Philadelphia back in 2008, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” He added, “That’s the Chicago way.”
Last night in St. Louis, Missouri, a local conservative found out firsthand about the “Chicago way.” Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative from the city, was handing out “Don’t Tread On Me” flags after a Russ Carnahan town hall meeting on health care in Mehlville. This didn’t go over well with the Obama supporters and union thugs who attended the meeting. They punched him in the face, kicked him in the head, and stomped on him on the pavement. So much for hope and change.
Now, I'm not bringing this up to give the OP topic a pass. It's wrong period. But your acting like an ignorant fool if you think conservatives have a lock of political violence. I could spend hours providing links to news stories about intimidation tactics and attacks conducted by the left.
No one here has called all Republicans thugs. People have stated that the specific men involved in this incident have committed a cowardly, violent, un-American, and antidemocratic act which should be repudiated and prosecuted.
Putting women back in line since 1950! Good ole GOP.
Say what?
Look, I understand that the general sentiment in this thread has not been so extreme. But suggesting that no such suggestions were made is disingenuous.
You can split hairs on this, but the conversation jumped quite quickly into this point. It didn't necessarily stay there long, and it moved from one side way to the opposite side quite fast.
Now we are moving away from that conversation and instead discussing the nuances of the issue. There is a whole lot that can still be discussed in a reasonable and polite manner.
sebster wrote:Part of the craziness is due to the economic climate, that's true. But the US isn't the only place with economic problems, but it is the one where the political debate has broken down almost entirely. The people in this thread trying to defend headstomping a woman aren't unique, they're the product of an increasingly partisan system where substance just doesn't matter, all that matters is arguing for your side.
Improving it or arresting the slide is a pretty tough issue. Ultimately, responsibility lies with the party leaders, when they won't contribute to the nonsense or tolerate it from others, you see a culture change, but leaders are given power by the majority, so there must be at some level a number of supporters who desire a more substantive, less partisan approach.
I believe that the majority of folks in this country are still quite reasonable. Bringing those people into a position where they feel encouraged to balance public discourse is definitely a difficult task. I mean, why would anyone want to have a conversation with the sides that maintain maximum LOUD NOISES. It is in many ways pointless, and that is discouraging.
When I have conversation about many topics with average people, their knowledge is limited, but overall they are able to recognize the obvious when given the opportunity. Beyond recognizing it they need a platform to move towards reasonable discourse. Not happy go lucky fun time, but something better than we have now.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't a fething clue how to go about making that happen on a national scale.
but the conversation jumped quite quickly into this point. It didn't necessarily stay there long, and it moved from one side way to the opposite side quite fast.
Quite, I would be keen for it not to descend into a futile tit for tat " oh yeah well they did..X/Y/Z " "argument", which will just lead to hilarious pictures of presidents, leaders etc etc.
I should have expanded upon the point more it seems but time -- and the poxy safety office with their incessant demands over paper work with regards to an incident that happened last poxy week FFS -- were/are against me. My bad.
From a British perspective the interesting thing about both main US parties is how similar they are.
In my view this makes the extreme wings look more extreme by comparison, as well as encouraging them to be extreme by removing broader platforms nearer the centre.
I don’t know how much of an extreme left wing there actually is in the US. That may be partly because what a lot of Americans regard as extreme left-wingism is in Europe merely ordinary politics.
Wow, Frazzled made Shuma and Dogma look good in this thread. I did not know that was even possible! And then JohnHwangDD made even Frazzled look good.
They took a non-resisting female, put her on the ground, then jammed a foot needlessly into her neck as she was just laying there! Whether you call it a stomp or not, it was violent and uncalled for.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Based on the limited damage, I think he only stepped on her head to keep her down.
It's a damn pity that he showed such restraint.
I only *wish* that he curb-stomped her.
A hateful comment like this has no place on this or any other board. It is incitement to violence, if not murder. I love American History X, it is a film with an important message, especially for someone like me who lives in one of the most multi-cultural environments in the world. Sadly, you seem to want to glorify the violence of it, rather than shun it.
Kilkrazy wrote:From a British perspective the interesting thing about both main US parties is how similar they are.
In my view this makes the extreme wings look more extreme by comparison, as well as encouraging them to be extreme by removing broader platforms nearer the centre.
I don’t know how much of an extreme left wing there actually is in the US. That may be partly because what a lot of Americans regard as extreme left-wingism is in Europe merely ordinary politics.
The extreme left wing in the US is small. Not as small as I would say the extreme right wing is, but not large enough to truly control politics like they do in Europe (or atleast in the near past). Obama is definitely the closest President we've had to these people in a long time, but he's not has far out as can be.
I personally find them to be ugly. Spend a few days reading websites like DemocraticUnderground (which boasts 150,000 registered users), and you'll see what I mean. People who frequently wish for the death of conservatives. Support insane 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hell, I've even read this one thread about a man who blamed the sinking of the Titanic on a Jewish plot. These people are crazies to put it bluntly.
I'm not a fan of the extreme right by any measure, but they don't have the organization that the left here has.
I'm not a fan of the extreme right by any measure, but they don't have the organization that the left here has.
I don't know I would agree with that. The militias, the Freeboro Baptists, the white supremacists and various other right wing groups seem to be pretty well organised.
When I say that much left wing extremism in the US is just normal in Europe, what I mean is that things like the health reforms are presented by right wingers as left wing extremism, while in Europe having a national health service (much more socialist than your health reforms) is simply a normal part of mainstream society.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:It might be just me but I do not see any real value in anyone continuing to post anything in this thread.
curb stomping underwear man makes me want to light up the emergency weiner dog alarm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of the extreme right by any measure, but they don't have the organization that the left here has.
I don't know I would agree with that. The militias, the Freeboro Baptists, the white supremacists and various other right wing groups seem to be pretty well organised.
When I say that much left wing extremism in the US is just normal in Europe, what I mean is that things like the health reforms are presented by right wingers as left wing extremism, while in Europe having a national health service (much more socialist than your health reforms) is simply a normal part of mainstream society.
Of course this is all a matter of perspective.
"Militias" are minor in number and have a tendency to hole up. We don't have the neo Nazi crowds resurging in Europa.
The Freeboro Baptists? They are like 50 people in that congregation.
The largest group was the KKK but that was smashed pretty heavily by the FBI. Same to same for the Nazis here-heavily infiltrated by the FBI. Plus their Leader kinda lost and the US hates losers.
At the old house, there was a militia/nutjob cult group of about three families. They got rousted by the BATF one day-about ten cops. They really should take lessons from the LA though. When Pomona PD would smash one of the drug houses in the apartments they'd come with troopers, SWAT, helicopters, it was epic cool. Fun for the whole family!
A significant portion of the tea party is made up of conglomerated right with extremists and conspiracy theorists. Really, both sides have nutjobs in equal measure as a portion of their population.
She wanted to create an incident as a pretext to show how evil the Tea Party is. She got it.
