Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am reminded of what Henry Rollins said about Detroit riots, "tonight's a blast; tomorrow you're homeless."

From Popbitch..

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.

..we're doomed, doomed beyond any redemption.


Also.. branding FTW http://adage.com/article?article_id=146663

Turns out the woman suffered a concussion. Hopefully she presses charges.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/10/26/2010-10-26_lauren_valle_head_stomping_victim_i_saved_myself_from_rand_pauls_tea_party_suppo.html

Frazzled wrote:
So says the gym club guy...

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?

So in other words, your experience is minimal, but you like to question others. Got it.

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?

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

Frazzled wrote:So in other words, your experience is minimal, but you like to question others. Got it.

I'm reading this thinking either I am high, or you are. One of us HAS to be because that makes no sense at all.

Didn't dogma just list several good instances of times that he came into contact with unions?

ShumaGorath wrote:

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

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.

Yad wrote:

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.

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.

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.

They don't have to to, but they sure are.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
So says the gym club guy...

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.

Love it or leave it indeed it seems.

Frazzled wrote:

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:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.