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.

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!

mattyrm wrote:

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?

Frazzled wrote:

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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:
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.

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.

Ask and ye shall receive:
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/10/28/shock-poll-americans-think-bush-doing-a-better-job-than-obama-and-more/

Oh and one more to grow on:

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.



Awesome.

The man clearly was wronged, as his back could have sustained injury if he were to bend down to sock her in the back of the head.

First off, that wasn't a stomp. If it were, she'd still be in the hospital. Or the morgue.

He just used his shoe to keep her down. That's fair play as far as I'm concerned.

Girlie, you want to play agitator, go ahead, but accept the consequences. Don't complain when you get put in your place.

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's a damn pity that he showed such restraint.




I only *wish* that he curb-stomped her.

It might be just me but I do not see any real value in anyone continuing to post anything in this thread.

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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

mattyrm wrote:American politics is far more interesting that ours.

...
...

I've got to call you on that.

Here's the former Deputy Prime Minister in full effect.

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.

You're probably correct.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/how-a-new-jobless-era-will-transform-america/7919/

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.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99136097

Wrexasaur wrote: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.

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.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/seiu-thugs-teach-protestors-the-chicago-way-of-politics/

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.

Fun times. Fun, republican times.

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.

I remember those cartoons, they were great.

Indeed.

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.

I don't hold it against you, mate.

Anyway... onto hilarious pictures of presidents, leaders, etc.. etc...



At any rate, hopefully the wave of paperwork won't plague you for too long.

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.

Shame.

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.