How can Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC2) think he can lay hands on someone for asking a question like that? Why did that question make him so angry? Look how much he believes in his own capacity and right to intimidate! Quite aside from the manhandling, where does Etheridge get the idea that someone who asks a question is required to divulge his name? Is he completely deranged? Does he not remember what a camera is? Has he never heard of YouTube? I bet he has now.
ADDED: Here's how WaPo's Dave Weigel minimizes the story:
But without any name or organizational support, just by riling up a member of Congress, the students have created the first conservative meme of the week. They seem to have learned from organizations such as ThinkProgress that any video of a member acting strangely, no matter how grainy, is grist for the Web.And Weigel is aptly embarrassed by the first comment:
You refer to this dismissively as "video of a member acting strangely." Sorry, this isn't so easily dismissed. It's video of a member acting thuggishly, committing an assault and battery. And it's video of a member who has the arrogance to claim he has a right to know the identity of someone who asked me a question on the street. He doesn't have any such right. What he has is the dangerous notion that he's exempt from the laws of the District of Columbia and from the dictates of a civil society. And by your so cavalierly dismissing his outrageous behavior, you're complicit.Of course, the big question now — for anyone with a Weigel-y mentality — is: Who's Rob_?
Posted by: Rob_ | June 14, 2010 10:52 AM...
MORE: This came in the email:
I'm Rob_(Rob gave me permission to copy this.)
I know your question at the end of the Etheridge post was facetious, but I figured I'd answer it anyway. I'm Robert Cantor, a retired lawyer and amateur photographer in Rockville, Maryland, unaffiliated with Andrew Breitbart or any other political or journalistic operation but fascinated both by Etheridge's outrageous behavior and the way it was covered in the media. Not only did Weigel mischaracterize it and treat it dismissively, but others like CBS chose to edit down the battery to eliminate Etheridge's very rough grabbing of the young man's neck as well as the repeated requests from the young man that Etheridge let him go. The New York Times, following the pattern of its coverage of Van Jones and Helen Thomas, waited to report anything about the incident until Etheridge had apologized, then made his apology the story and reported little about the incident itself. Thank goodness for Glenn Greenwald, who had the integrity to call for Etheridge to be arrested and the courage to call out the commenters to his post who defended Etheridge.
Posts
444 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 444 Newer› Newest»HDHouse said...
and this has what exactly to do with the story at hand..? Or do you think that these little pricks just stumbled upon the congressman by chance?
Please don't let the answer to that last question be 'yes they did'.
It doesn't matter you fucking moron. I should be able as a citizen of the United States of America, be able to walk up to anyone, much less my servant representative and ask him any question under the sun with a level of civility and expect the same if not more civility in return. It doesn't matter if it's gotcha this, or ambush journalism that, you festering douche. Jesus, you have the IQ of a dirt-clod at this point
Dead Julius wrote: "200! VOTE 'EM ALL OUT!"
Or we could emulate Sulla and fix their wagons permanently. You tell 'em, Julie baby, and don't divorce that girl, ya hear?
JoyD said...
I'm shocked to see how one-sided all of the comments are about this crude put-up job. Everyone is just so eager to play the same game. Playing "Gotcha!" is coming to surpass any kind of respectful and thoughtful discourse.
If I were approached so rudely by strange boys, I would react the same way: who are you? who are you? get your camera out of my MOUTH! if they would not step back, I would push back.
...and I am a sweet little white-haired preschool teacher.
Well, sweet little white-haired preschool teacher, if you conducted yourself the same way as congressman "death match" Ethdridge, well guess what, you would be committing a crime too. Ta-da.
JoyD must teach at one of those Satanist preschools.
wv: betul (n) a member of the famous paleolithic Neanderthal music quartet.
A criminal assault, pure and simple.
1. Then we can assume it wasn't a camera crew.
Sorry, it was the local public TV station. NPR, PBS, somewhat interchangeable in my mind.
2. It was on private property so they (NPR) must have had permission
And? Did these students need permission to ask questions on a street? What's the point of your argument?
3. You were in a bookstore so it is probably safe to assume you are/were interested in reading so the question was on point
Man, you are really bad at this. Did my presence in a bookstore indicate my desire to be interviewed? No.
and this has what exactly to do with the story at hand..? Or do you think that these little pricks just stumbled upon the congressman by chance?
Simply that the reasonable and rational response to being approached by a questioner is to respond or to decline to respond. Grabbing at cameras and assaulting your interlocutor is not kosher. But then your stated preference is to ass-rape people, so I guess you probably won't understand.
@Quaestor-
Sulla is dead and gone over two thousand years now. But situations like our present one are essentially the same as they always were. Each iteration creates the opportunity for someone to go directly to the people and ask them who the real criminals are.
JoyD before her class:
"Now children, let's all pledge allegiance to Our Infernal Father, then we'll all pair up for group sex ...and none of your back talk, Master Johnny Jones, or I'll send you home with a note for your mother!"
wv: oughma (it just fits in with betul, somehow)
Re: AC245's list of the DNC's excuses-
Sounds a little bit like "Forget about the fact that I raped her, everyone knows she's a slut and she was wearing a really short dress!"
@ Dead Julius
Don't get me wrong. Sulla may very well have had a valid point, and his method was certainly to the point. This Etheridge imbroglio has suggested Sulla's solution to my mind, at least briefly. But I'm willing to give the process a few more months to right itself.
If not, I'm going to prepare a list.
CNN.com did not think that this story was front page news.
The did, however, think that Sarah Palin's lack of breast implants was.
Surely had this man been a Rep, AA would have found SOME way to justify the behavior or violence. Where's the love? Oops, wrong party.
I am shocked the kid refrained from beating the crap out of this asshole.
I would postulate that's because they were prepared for his behavior.
Which means Etheridge has a pattern of such behavior. And either it's an open secret inside the Beltway, or the two youths had inside information somehow.
Either way, they took one of Washington's Dirty Secrets and made it public.
Which means a couple of kids with two video cameras just performed an act of journalism that would have been regarded as worthy of a Pulitzer back in the '60s and '70s. (And the '80s if Etheridge's name had an "R" after it).
This is the real reason Obamacrats want to regulate the media. This feral journalism is just too dangerous to the health of the herd.
Oh, and I LOVED the argument that just because he's a Democrat doesn't make him a "liberal".
Two retorts: how's his voting record compared with the Obamacratic agenda? And if he's not with the program, why do you want him on your team?
I don't know why Reps think they need to use fake players to beat Dems. There are real flesh and blood "deciders" who are Republicans in the Congress right now who can successfully debate Democrats. It happened (unfortunately for me) ALL DURING George Bush's administration. They beat us up and down. Not sure what these distractions add up to except maybe eyeballs for blogs like this (in terms of the scorekeeping).
Also, not that anyone cares, but I was going to add to the roster of fake Repub players Alvin Greene. Up until I saw the interview on the NYT yesterday, I assumed he was a plant. Afterwards, I thought about it some more and realized he probably is not. At least not planted by DeMint. Why would he need to? He'd beat anyone the Democrats put up, just about, except maybe Hollins' son if there is one who is even halfway successful. He might be a result of a fake Republican player, but he's certainly no DeMint plant.
If it's acceptable for this politician to assault a kid for asking a simple question, isn't the politician really a kind of nobility? A separate class of man, not bound by law or custom to respect the commoners?
He's the perfect symbol of this Administration. Arrogant, petulant, paranoid and duplicitous. His "apology" was just as offensive as his bizarre assault.
@ Mark
Feral journalism! Excellent! I love it. Hunter S. Thompson called his crap gonzo journalism, which has yet left me baffled and bemused since I first read "Fear and Loathing." He's dead now. And his crap is still crap. But he's famous and an iconic figure in the halls of academic journalism, but for no other reason than he declaimed a name for whatever passed for style in his writing.
So now we have a name for it, this thing, this weapon of truth, this slingshot to fell the Goliaths of politics, thanks to Mark. Long live the wolves of the web!
BTW, Fear and Loathing were the two demigods who accompanied Ares in his retinue.
If you believe that Etheridge acted reasonably and honorably, and was merely victimized by some unruly students (as in not knowing their place, the riff-raff scum), then you can look up his campaign web site and send some money his way.
If you think that he deserves to be sent home in shame and humiliation you might go here and join me in sending some money to his opponent.
Trooper: We need to vote out every member of both parties and start over with normal Americans of all persuasions who have some honesty and integrity.
MadisonMan:True. I wonder how long they'd stay people of honesty and integrity in the Cesspool of DC, however. Power does corrupt.
Precisely the reason to institute term limits. Ten years of feeding at the public trough is plenty.
MM continues: I think a law would be helpful that states Representatives/Senators can be lobbyists only after they've been out of office for 18 years (three senate terms), or whatever period of years defines an 80% turnover in the Senate.
Agreed. And it should be illegal for a lobbyist to give a member of Congress anything of value, even something as cheap as a $4 cab ride or a McDonald's Extra Value Meal.
Joe: So why is it that you wish to make the unelected STAFF of Congress the most powerful force on Capitol Hill, Trooper?
I can't speak for Trooper, but if you're saying that the bureaucrats would run the show if all of Congress got voted out, then there's a solution to that: Term limits for bureaucrats as well. Nobody gets to feed at the public trough for more than ten years. And ideally, nobody should be allowed to work in government without five years' experience in the private sector beforehand.
It's time for the productive class to take over. The unproductive class had its chance, and they messed things up pretty badly.
"Kev said....
It's time for the productive class to take over. The unproductive class had its chance, and they messed things up pretty badly."
Exactly right.
Marinus Willet a lonely nation turns it's eyes to you....koo koo ka chew.
What this video really demonstrates is the consequences of eight years of Bush-era deregulation. The FTC is working on this problem, and before too much longer, the plague of unlicensed, unregulated so-called "journalists" will end, and elected officials will once again be able to walk the streets without fear of unregulated questioning.
In which the Democratic party learns what Alinsky efforts feel like, that is, getting hit back twice as hard, up close and personal.
Get used to it.
And the dimwitted sauropod shackled by its own inertia eventually falls prey to the swift and feral raptors.
NYT - junk bond ratings, and still declining.
NewsCorp (WSJ and FoxNews) - doin' just fine!
wv: weadiash (n) a very unsatisfactory ersatz hashish.
Sadly YOU don't get it Trooper....there is a mass of EXISTING law, and to deal with it, you need to understand it.
Right, Joe, because the current "leadership" in Washington (such as, oh, Nancy "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" Pelosi) has such a clear understanding of existing law.
The FTC is working on this problem, and before too much longer, the plague of unlicensed, unregulated so-called "journalists" will end, and elected officials will once again be able to walk the streets without fear of unregulated questioning.
And at that time, the only recourse will be to start shooting these weasels.
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
Patrick Henry
The Democrats are afraid to show up at town hall meetings and won't answer questions except when posed by their own employees (e.g., the NYTimes).
It's government of the feds, by the feds, and for the feds.
If he's not a constituent then he can fuck off.
Where do the Althousian-rightists get off thinking that Congressman are politically responsible to anyone but their constituents?
Oh, that's right. From their vast ignorance of basic civics.
Garage: I'm sorry. I forgot that when I say tit you say tat. Very boring that. You might give having an independent thought a try. Very liberating. Very "progressive."
The FTC is working on this problem, and before too much longer, the plague of unlicensed, unregulated so-called "journalists" will end, and elected officials will once again be able to walk the streets without fear of unregulated questioning.
Elected by whom, John?
Oh, that's right. This dude was elected in an at-large, nationwide contest. I forgot how much the right was against federalism and local representation.
Even far left whackaloon Glenn Greeenwald "gets" it more readily than the few stupidly stubborn apologists hereabouts:
Rep. Bob Etheridge should be arrested for assault
One thing in this video is absolutely clear and that is that Ethridge has an awesome kung-fu grip.
If he's not a constituent then he can fuck off.
Maybe he should have just said that instead of physically assaulting the student.
Anyone with the brains the size of a walnut would have just continued to walk away from the student, ignoring him completely. That way the young man WOULD look like a stalker and look bad. Instead we see this moron get into a bar room brawl type of confrontation.
Even a "fuck off, I don't have time to talk to you" would have been better.
These so called "representatives" think that they are not accountable and that they don't have to play by the same rules as anyone else would have to in a civil society. They think they are our rulers.
November can't come soon enough.
Sulla's proscriptions, of course, were lists of citizens deemed to be enemies of the state. He raised a lot of money for the state by confiscating their proscribed's properties. I would think that thinking of Sulla in the context of Obama is more productive than thinking of him in relationship to Etheridge. The people should fear the proscription not believe it is a weapon for their own usage.
"If he's not a constituent then he can fuck off."
Actually, by Obama's Chicago rules, if he's not a communist dictator, union member, Democratic donor over $1000, or a BP corporate exec, then he can fuck off.
Since we have no way of knowing that the camera emanated, as if like a prosthesis, from the body of the alleged victim, there's no way of knowing that an assault took place. Assault, as far as I know, is not something that inanimate objects are subjected to. Inanimate objects can be defaced, not assaulted.
I am against this idea that anyone can get up in your face with a camera at any time. If you want to follow like a stalker from ten feet away, sure.
But I think someone's consent should generally be required (or at least sought) before you film them.
I think the kid came across as pretty innocent, and the congressman perhaps as intoxicated as the average Southern comforted. But he's just a product of a generation (and two before that) that doesn't have any respect for personal autonomy.
YouTube, all that stuff, are good things. So is asking permission.
And yes, so is wondering what stake someone holds in a congressperson's votes. It would be nice if the right realized the value of local representation, instead of taking out their tyrannical impulses on the choices of a district that none of you are represented by.
Thank you.
Maybe he should have just said that instead of physically assaulting the student.
We don't even know who this guy is. Could be a student, but who knows.
Good point, garage, he could have been an ax murderer for all we know.
Actually, by Obama's Chicago rules, if he's not a communist dictator, union member, Democratic donor over $1000, or a BP corporate exec, then he can fuck off.
I didn't see Obama anywhere in that video, Porgy. Maybe if you let me borrow those new-fangled lenses of yours, then I might have fantasized not only Obama, but Stalin and Hitler too!
What use is the instant-video era if your follwers can't even identify the people depicted in the clips? Pogo's imagination will just run wild regardless, apparently.
You shouldn't pick this hill to die on.
This worthless douchebag is so typical of the ruling elite of both parties. They look down and despise normal Americans. They will do anything to retain their power and wallow in their ill gotten gains. They never tell the truth wether they speak out of the left side or the right side of their mouths.
THEY ALL NEED TO GO!!! NOW!!!!
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Samuel Adams
We don't even know who this guy is. Could be a student, but who knows.
Oh for Christ's sake!! Are you that obtuse??
He assaulted the guy. PERIOD. It doesn't matter if the assaulted person is a student, a hairdresser, dog groomer, plumber, citizen journalist or anything else. It was assault..plain and simple.
Etheridge evidentally apologized for his behavior.
Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
George W. Bush
God, I love that one.
These so called "representatives" think that they are not accountable and that they don't have to play by the same rules as anyone else would have to in a civil society. They think they are our rulers.
Anyone from the district represented in question?
What?
I can't hear you?
Then you can screw off too!!!
(Gently, of course ;-))
As far as I can tell, unless there is any legal issue at stake vis a vis the kid, this is an issue that concerns no one but the people of a certain district in S. Carolina. I don't know what their laws, customs and norms are concerning assault by camera.
RitmoLibtard: I didn't see Obama anywhere in that video, Porgy.
Damn you are stupid. He was merely extrapolating off your own bullshit response: If he's not a constituent then he can fuck off.
The best thing the Democratic Party could do is get the Congressman to resign: then they could replace him with a better candidate, if they could find one. His opponent has an excellent campaign commercial, but letting it go viral on the internet would be a reasonable use of this material.
MadisonMan, I can't see where you explained what the students did which was rude. The Congressman could have kept walking and said something like "I'll answer your question in my office. Call for an appointment." and kept on walking. A video of him answering that way, waving and walking on wouldn't be very interesting at all. They weren't following him, and if they were waiting for him, well he could have kept on going. It wasn't like they jumped into an elevator with him, and he had no where to go.
While I generally don't approve of violence, had the student popped him in the chin when he was in the headlock, that would have made an excellent video. Except the student would then be charged with assault and the Congressman would then plead self-defense. Just as President Obama says "I would have done more to prevent the oil spill in advance, but you know those Republicans would have clucked their tongues at me, so I didn't." Whatever happened to being a stand up guy and saying the honest truth?
p.s. I read all 206 comments before mine to see MadsionMan's explanation for what the students did that was rude. Any time, let us know. Is he going to be allowed to continue to post here, and not explain himself?
I didn't see Obama anywhere in that video, Porgy. Maybe if you let me borrow those new-fangled lenses of yours, then I might have fantasized not only Obama, but Stalin and Hitler too!
What use is the instant-video era if your follwers can't even identify the people depicted in the clips? Pogo's imagination will just run wild regardless, apparently.
The question that triggered Etheridge's assault on this citizen-journalist was whether Etheridge fully supported the Obama agenda.
As Pogo noted, although Etheridge was not able to use his words (because he was too drunk, too enraged, or just too stupid), his actions spoke loudly enough to answer that question in the affirmative.
Ritmo said...
And yes, so is wondering what stake someone holds in a congressperson's votes. It would be nice if the right realized the value of local representation, instead of taking out their tyrannical impulses on the choices of a district that none of you are represented by.
Weren't Democrats (like me!) saying in 2008 that it was essential for all Congresspeople to act ethically, so that we could escape the political cesspool that we found ourselves in during the Bush years?
Remember "hope and change" and all that?
What did you think it meant, if not to ensure that those in government were more virtuous than they had been? And it was to apply across-the-board; we didn't offer disclaimers that you couldn't form an opinion about a national politician who didn't represent your district.
How quickly my Democrat friends forsake our shared values so that they can retain power! Now the special magic asterisks start to appear. 2008 is so long ago.
Oh, my! I'm so stupid that I think I have the right to interpret my words for myself rather than assume that Pogo and Fen have the right to speak for me! What was I thinking? That I lived in a free country or something?
The best thing the Democratic Party could do is get the Congressman to resign: then they could replace him with a better candidate, if they could find one. His opponent has an excellent campaign commercial, but letting it go viral on the internet would be a reasonable use of this material.
MadisonMan, I can't see where you explained what the students did which was rude. The Congressman could have kept walking and said something like "I'll answer your question in my office. Call for an appointment." and kept on walking. A video of him answering that way, waving and walking on wouldn't be very interesting at all. They weren't following him, and if they were waiting for him, well he could have kept on going. It wasn't like they jumped into an elevator with him, and he had no where to go.
While I generally don't approve of violence, had the student popped him in the chin when he was in the headlock, that would have made an excellent video. Except the student would then be charged with assault and the Congressman would then plead self-defense. Whatever happened to being a stand up guy and saying the honest truth?
p.s. I read all 248 comments before mine to see an explanation for what the students did that was rude. Any time, let us know. Is he going to be allowed to continue to post here, and not explain himself?
What ethical rule was violated, Julius?
Obama's slogans are Obama's slogans and personal autonomy should still mean something, in my book.
People here agree, they just think that personal autonomy pertains only to currency and material and financial assets and not to your personal space or your person generally.
We don't even know who this guy is. Could be a student, but who knows.
Maybe to save the mindless shills some typing, they could just shorten their comments to something like: "#2, #4, #6" to indicate which of the official Democratic Party talking points they endorse.
@ Ritmo.
A public person or anyone in public a public place for that matter has no expectation of privacy and can be photographed or filmed at any time. I don't think it is nice or even really like the idea....but that IS the law.
The congress critter committed battery for certain and possibly assault. He was told repeatedly by the young man to take his hands off of and to let go. Instead, Etheridge, upped the anti by even more battery.
You don't have to be hurt to be assaulted but battery involves touching.
"In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). "
Maybe to save the mindless shills some typing, they could just shorten their comments to something like:
A mindless shill accepts anything fed to them, then regurgitates it. That said, do you know if the interviewer is a student, or not?
Disclaimer: I already said Ehteridge was an asshole, and I hope he loses this election.
Since most Congressmen have law degrees, and you don't, I hope you don't mind if I forego passing legal judgment on what happened in spite of the definitions you cite.
The guy says he's got a right to know who wants to interview him. And the kid declines to say. The only touching (of a person, not a camera) is of the hand stubbornly holding out the camera or microphone.
We'll see how this plays out legally. Right now it's just a political blogosphere nothing. It could amount to more, but red meat has a way of making you guys inflating silly little scuffles into grandiose symphonies of revolutions-in-the-making.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
personal space or your person generally
Can you show me any treatise, law, or regulation(s) that define personal space? There is no such thing as a personal space. If people, willfully, and maliciously attack your person that is one thing, but to claim encroachment of a personal space as somehow being true much less meaningful is just symptomatic of ineptitude.
Be that as it may, Iron Grip Ethdridge violated another citizens rights by assaulting them and stealing their personal property without just cause, in a public space. Their constituency to Iron Grip Ethridge is irrelevant, you self-important, arrogant prig.
Is this the best you can muster as a defense for assault, battery, and theft of a citizen by a US Congressman, in public, and on camera as a means to defend and justify your ignorant worldview and ideology? Your patheticness has truly been realized. Hopefully the sword you consistently fall on has dulled a bit to ease the pain.
garage mahal said...
A mindless shill accepts anything fed to them, then regurgitates it.
Well, I guess you've finally clarified for us with true finality where your ideology has come from. You see how honesty is the best policy?
The only touching (of a person, not a camera) is of the hand stubbornly holding out the camera or microphone.
You must have seen a different video than the one Althouse has on her blog. Etheredge knocks the camera out of the young man's hand (probably breaking it) ...Grabs him by the wrist, refuses to let go when asked repeatedly, and then puts his other hand on the back of his neck and shoulder.
A bit more than just holding the student's hand, I would think.
If the student was brandishing a gun or seemed threatening, that would be another matter. He was not threatening.....annoying for sure...but not threatening. In fact the one who was acting in a threatening and unhinged manner was Etheridge.
You don't get to punch people in the face just because they are annoying or obnoxious. We might like to do that, but then WE are the ones breaking the law.
"I don't understand. Don't you know who I am?"
"Ken. Meet Dee."
"I'm Ken. It's interesting to meet you. Both."
"I don't understand. Don't you know who I am?"
"You can't arrest me. I'm Hang Wong"
"Did he just say he was hung wrong?"
(Blonde and Blonder 2007)
According to your definition, assault couldn't have taken place because if he feared for his safety he wouldn't have stood his ground and left the recording device(s) in his face.
Any touching was to restrain the recording that he claims he had a right to know who was behind it.
This seems like a basic courtesy. Any spontaneous recordings you see on YouTube, that result in actual questions answered at least, include the identification of the person or party who's doing the recording.
I can imagine the Congressman getting (and accepting) some kind of slap on the wrist - merely because it could be seen as bad publicity, and regardless of what foreseeable legal outcomes could result. But the idea that this is the stuff of revolutions sounds a bit far-fetched.
Public officials (perhaps not so fortunately) are expected to give up some privacy. They also incur greater risks to their safety. Think about that. Think of what your response would be if this nice little boy was the same nice little boy I grew up with in middle America who now works for al Jazeera.
Made you think for a minute on that one, I bet!
A mindless shill accepts anything fed to them, then regurgitates it. That said, do you know if the interviewer is a student, or not?
Disclaimer: I already said Ehteridge was an asshole, and I hope he loses this election.
And after that, you fantasized:
If he had a R behind his name we would hearing about Obama's SEIU/ACORN Thugs, and how it was a righteous smackdown by Ehteridge. Not saying you personally, but you know we would be hearing it. Because we hear when there isn't anyone being accosted at all.
So, you should use the shorthand I suggested when you're parroting the Democrats' talking points. If you're conjuring up apocryphal tales of Republicans physically assaulting people while other Republicans cheer them on, you'll probably need to type those out yourself. Not even the Democratic Party is stupid enough to go down that road.
Helpful reminder - number of Republicans who have committed unprovoked physical assaults: 0. Number of Republicans excusing or cheering unprovoked physical assaults by Republicans (as "righteous smackdowns" or otherwise): 0.
A mindless shill accepts anything fed to them, then regurgitates it. That said, do you know if the interviewer is a student, or not?
Immaterial, you moron. He has the same rights and protections whether he is a student or not.
Look! A red herring!
Hope your daughter never gets raped. You'd probably blame her for wearing that tight sweater, shit-for-brains.
Pukey-baby face avatar misuses the word "prig" in a post in which it applies moreso to himself! What a painfully dull sword Pukey-Baby Face Avatar has fallen on!
The only touching (of a person, not a camera) is of the hand stubbornly holding out the camera or microphone.
Lying shithead. The Congressman clearly wraps his arm around the student's neck.
You're pathetic.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Since most Congressmen have law degrees, and you don't, I hope you don't mind if I forego passing legal judgment on what happened in spite of the definitions you cite.
Since when did having a law degree absolve anyone from passing legal judgment on what assault and battery and theft of property are? Oh, it's you moving the goal post again or is it backpeddling? I always forget the little dances you do on here to make yourself appear to be important and above it all.
Adjudication is where hopefully this will take place and where hopefully this other self-important, arrogant prick, like yourself will be found guilty of assault, battery, and theft and summarily sentenced to prison for some lengthy piece of time. Afterall, you aren't going to suggest that Iron Grip Ethridge is above the law will you? Well, how the fuck should you know, you don't have a law degree and therefore you should summarily forego passing legal judgment on the situation. Funny how you aren't entitled to your own facts works out, huh?
I can imagine the Congressman getting (and accepting) some kind of slap on the wrist - merely because it could be seen as bad publicity, and regardless of what foreseeable legal outcomes could result. But the idea that this is the stuff of revolutions sounds a bit far-fetched.
Of course not the stuff of revolutions. But it is the stuff of lawsuits.
Were it me who was the battered student, you can bet that I would be pressing a lawsuit. I imagine that I would have no trouble finding a lawyer to represent me.
Also....not my definition....it belongs to an attorney. I merely cut and pasted from a website.
Equating the restraint of an unauthorized videotaping with punching someone in the face sounds pretty specious to me. But hey - whatever you need to do to foment a revolution and "overthrow" elected officials (on behalf of constituents you've never even met).
I'm sure the good people of Second District of South Carolina appreciate your efforts to speak on their behalf. What a benevolent dictator thing to do.
Public officials (perhaps not so fortunately) are expected to give up some privacy. They also incur greater risks to their safety. Think about that. Think of what your response would be if this nice little boy was the same nice little boy I grew up with in middle America who now works for al Jazeera.
Bwahahahaha!
Not to be outdone by garage's "rampaging Republicans" fantasy, MUL has decided to insinuate that the cameraman is an evil brown terrorist!
Do you guys have to work hard at being such laughable caricatures, or do you just have to type what really goes through your mind when you see this video?
Crazed violent wingnuts! Terrorists! That Congressman is lucky to have escaped with his life!
To the comments that the Congressman was being accosted by two younger men, it should be noted they were two younger men in suits; the one asking the questions at least.
Time was when there were dress codes, usually requiring suits and ties for men. The reason? Men are far less likely (according to the theory) to act brutish if dressed up. One would think the Congressman would notice that.
Then again, maybe he did. The only people who act brutish while in suits are attornies; perhaps that is where the Congressman's irrational fear came from.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Pukey-baby face avatar misuses the word "prig" in a post in which it applies moreso to himself! What a painfully dull sword Pukey-Baby Face Avatar has fallen on!
Oh, trust me, you are truly a grade-A, world class prig. And now little Shitmo resorts to the banal, "I know you are, but what am I" schtick. Pathetic and dull, just like your mewlings.
wv = samed = no kidding.
Not to be outdone by garage's "rampaging Republicans" fantasy, MUL has decided to insinuate that the cameraman is an evil brown terrorist!
Do you guys have to work hard at being such laughable caricatures, or do you just have to type what really goes through your mind when you see this video?
You pwned yourself (and proved my point) by insinuating that a journalist, on account of the news organization he works for, is a terrorist.
So the last paragraph is obviously projection. Very fitting given the subject matter.
Lying shithead. The Congressman clearly wraps his arm around the student's neck.
And you have evidence that the camera was embedded in someone's neck?
You have a shot in which someone's hand was seen around someone's neck?
Perhaps you don't realize how cameras work.
You're pathetic.
No. I just have eyes and don't make shit up. Your understanding of evidence is pathetic, though.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Equating the restraint of an unauthorized videotaping
Do, little schtickmo would have you believe that this videotaping was 'unauthorized' and then, and folks this is what makes it so funny, is that little schtickmo goes on to inarticulately remind us that unless you are a constituent of Iron Grip Ethridge, well, then you can't have the temerity to ask him any questions because, why, why, why that would mean that you are dictatorially doing it for them. And folks, that's just downright rude.
Really, schtickmo, thanks for the comedy. I should start calling you 'Shunk' from now on because that's the sound that is made as you fall onto your dull sword.
Helpful reminder - number of Republicans who have committed unprovoked physical assaults: 0. Number of Republicans excusing or cheering unprovoked physical assaults by Republicans (as "righteous smackdowns" or otherwise): 0.
Which Democrats are cheering physical assaults? Must have missed it.
Troop's rebuttal that the Constitution's intent against professional politicians "was the way it was supposed to be. We were supposed to have 'Citizen Legislators.'" is the point of the larger argument here and is what people like Joe, who are stalking horses of the Left, don't want. The idea we need professional legislators to write laws keeps the law something arcane, setting up a need for people like Jean Francois Kerry and Charlie Rangel to "protect" us.
The Constitution was written to be understood. Imagine if Chuckie Schumer and Slobbering Barney and Pelosi Galore and, of course, The Zero wrote the Bill of Rights. 2000 pages instead of one - and people would probably still be finding secret deals and traps in it.
PS The National Socialists apparently don't understand that the more they bitch about 'ambush journalism', the more they remind everyone who started it and how long they prospered off it.
The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1775
You pwned yourself (and proved my point) by insinuating that a journalist, on account of the news organization he works for, is a terrorist.
Ahem:
Public officials (perhaps not so fortunately) are expected to give up some privacy. They also incur greater risks to their safety. Think about that. Think of what your response would be if this nice little boy was the same nice little boy I grew up with in middle America who now works for al Jazeera.
Bwahahaha. Yeah, like I'm the one that wrote that an al Jazeera reporter would be a greater risk to the Congressman's safety.
(Thank you for - indirectly - answering the question of whether you have to work at being such a laughable caricature or not, though.)
'Lying shithead. The Congressman clearly wraps his arm around the student's neck.'
And you have evidence that the camera was embedded in someone's neck?
You have a shot in which someone's hand was seen around someone's neck?
I'm completely unsurprised that you've written another few thousand words on a topic before unintentionally admitting that you don't even have a basic grasp of the facts involved.
The comments over at WaPo are taking David whatzisname to the cleaners.
But one person noted (there is more than one video) the Congressman *walks off with the kids' cellphone!!!*
("Oh, sorry kid, [but now that I have your name, your home number, your dad's work number, and *every single other number* in your life ... hehe] I'll put your phone in the mail ...)
And Ritmo ... Etheridge grabs the kid's wrist, before he grabs him around the neck, and before he pulls him into himself while the kid clearly asks to be let loose. (The WaPo's version of a "hug.")
I love the internets.
Because "the truth will never find its way to your tv" (trademark Latma TV ;-))
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1775
Gurgling Baby-Face avatar pukes up eight uninterrupted lines of babbling, disjointed phrases in the form of one big run-on sentence. In this never-ending and pointless run-on sentence, he complains about how others need to be more articulate.
He also confuses the distinction between punching someone in the face and restraining an unauthorized videotaping with the distinction between a constituent questioning his elected official and just some random squeeb running around D.C. with a camera.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Gurgling Baby-Face Avatar has spoken and he wants your vote! When he is not puking up run-on sentences he anonymously ejaculates pure testosterone into the comments section of blogs with vituperation against all who dare question him!!!
In conclusion, he's just the kind of sociopath you need running your revolution!
Great publicity, Meth. BTW, I like how those four letters are the first four of your name. A sign of what's to come, I guess.
Which Democrats are cheering physical assaults? Must have missed it.
You miss quite a lot.
I never claimed that any Democrats were cheering physical assaults (although you could read through the comments sections at places like TPM and see that they are).
I was just highlighting how disconnected from reality your fantasy of rampaging Republicans was.
garage McStupid said...
Which Democrats are cheering physical assaults? Must have missed it.
Your personal symbol must be the facepalm. You really don't want to go down this road do you? Well, fuck it. I will.
DNC Spokesmouth Brad Woodhouse is defending it and the DNC itself is defending this action by sending out an email with talking points on how to continuously defend such actions. Seriously, did you get this fucking dumb on purpose or is it genetic. I don't know which.
Bwahahaha. Yeah, like I'm the one that wrote that an al Jazeera reporter would be a greater risk to the Congressman's safety.
Where did I write that?
I asked if Bunny thought that.
And for the record, she hasn't responded.
The rest of what you write is bullshit. I'm responding to what's in the video and the rest of the blog post. If there are facts not given there that you think I should be aware of, try arguing in good faith and providing and sourcing them.
Michael said...
HD House: If this turd had an (R) behind his name you would think he was the most evil piece of work yet. You really can't justify this kind of thing from any point of view. I assume you actually saw the videos."
(R) nope. the kid was flat out wrong and don't call him a kid. he was hired to do this by FauxNoise..its all over their network in case you are braindead
yes i can. He stalked the congressman and stuck a camera in his face with another person filming it for 'evidence'. he provoked it. he gets what he gets and he would have gotten far worse from me.
yes i saw the video.
The Congressman, no doubt, was disoriented from taking prescription drugs Ambien and Phenegran and thought he was late for a vote. Perfectly understandable.
DNC Spokesmouth Brad Woodhouse is defending it and the DNC itself is defending this action by sending out an email with talking points on how to continuously defend such actions. Seriously, did you get this fucking dumb on purpose or is it genetic. I don't know which.
No cheering Democrat links? Didn't think so. That was the assertion from AC245, remember.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Gurgling Baby-Face avatar pukes up eight uninterrupted lines of babbling, disjointed phrases in the form of one big run-on sentence. In this never-ending and pointless run-on sentence, he complains about how others need to be more articulate.
He also confuses the distinction between punching someone in the face and restraining an unauthorized videotaping with the distinction between a constituent questioning his elected official and just some random squeeb running around D.C. with a camera.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Gurgling Baby-Face Avatar has spoken and he wants your vote! When he is not puking up run-on sentences he anonymously ejaculates pure testosterone into the comments section of blogs with vituperation against all who dare question him!!!
In conclusion, he's just the kind of sociopath you need running your revolution!
Great publicity, Meth. BTW, I like how those four letters are the first four of your name. A sign of what's to come, I guess.
And Schtikmo swings and whiffs again. How do you find the time to write out such long winded diatribes on grammar and still end up saying nothing? Now that's talent. I'll hand that to ya.
Hey Skippy, send me your address so I can mail you a quarter to go buy a clue. Here priggy, priggy, priggy.
The rest of what you write is bullshit. I'm responding to what's in the video and the rest of the blog post. If there are facts not given there that you think I should be aware of, try arguing in good faith and providing and sourcing them.
MUL, your breathtaking ignorance is not my fault, and I feel no obligation to remedy it.
If you don't wish to continue to look like a babbling clueless moron, I recommend you spend more time educating yourself and less time clogging up Althouse comment threads with your ignorant, empty, long-winded screeds.
I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I can no longer believe that Ritmo is in any way serious. No one who can competently speak english believes that a person can't have been assaulted if he didn't run away (presumably before he was grabbed and restrained).
That said, didn't anyone else read that case in first year Torts where touching a person's camera was considered assault and/or battery? I don't recall the name, but it involved a car repair place or something. It was similar to this, the guy was trying to take pictures and the tortfeasor tried to knock the camera out of his hand. (it was a still camera, but I don't see how that would make a difference)
Of course, in that case, the tortfeasor didn't go on to restrain the guy by grabbing first his wrist and then his neck.
- Lyssa
More convinced than ever now that had that been a Republican, and had that been oh 4 years ago, AA would have been defending him to the hilt and attacking the snot nosed kid.
Ok, I see the arm around the shoulder at the end when they're standing side-by-side and not face-to-face (once any potential for a scuffle has ended). It seems a stretch to include that as evidence of assault or battery.
Confrontations occur face-to-face, not side-by-side. By then, it had de-escalated and it's pretty unlikely that anything was done in a threatening way. It was resolved by the point at which you allege battery or worse.
RitmoLibtard: It seems a stretch to include that as evidence of assault or battery.
I'd love to meet the guy that sends you out with this bullshit.
No cheering Democrat links? Didn't think so. That was the assertion from AC245, remember.
No, Garage Buchananite, my assertion was that your fantasy ("If he had a R behind his name we would hearing about Obama's SEIU/ACORN Thugs, and how it was a righteous smackdown by Ehteridge.") had no basis in reality.
And also, as I said, you could read through the comments sections at places like TPM and see that they are:
"go, Bob, go!"
"When I watched that video I felt like roughing the little sh*t up a little too."
"All true, which is why I'm not upset at what the man did to these idiots whose sole purpose is to harrass and harangue Democrats for the sake of it."
"I would have liked to have seen him pepper spray the dude. Just for larfs. "
"Pepper spray the fat pig Breitbart first. That would be a big hit on youtube!"
"Anyone sticking a camera in anyones face without identifying themselves, IS asking for a punch in the face if you ask me, so in my book, this Adult Student.... got off easy."
etc.
Geez Fen are you that lonely that you feel a need to put your arm around some guy who believe sends me out?
It doesn't matter how serious one is, Lyssa. This crew take debate about seriously as the WWF take wrestling.
Ah, Ritmo, you've set a new standard for talking out your ass.
Since we have no way of knowing that the camera emanated, as if like a prosthesis, from the body of the alleged victim, there's no way of knowing that an assault took place. Assault, as far as I know, is not something that inanimate objects are subjected to. Inanimate objects can be defaced, not assaulted.
The tort and crime of unlawful touching is battery. People confuse this with assault, but assault is causing reasonable apprehension of unlawful contact. Etheridge likely committed both.
In general, someone can commit a battery even if they're just touching an object that you're holding or wearing. If you knock off someone's hat, is that battery? Yes. Likewise, if you're holding a phone and someone slaps it out of your hand? Battery. Otherwise you'd get stupid defenses like "I didn't touch him, your honor; my glove touched his clothes."
But good job pulling shit out of your ass as a way to defend this guy. Your ignorance is almost heroic.
I am against this idea that anyone can get up in your face with a camera at any time. If you want to follow like a stalker from ten feet away, sure.
My god, is there anything you won't get wrong or backwards? It's unbelievable. In your world, black is white and white is black.
Stalking is a crime. Putting a camera in someone's face is not. It's not illegal to photograph or speak to someone in a public place. It is illegal to stalk, i.e. harass, someone. Can you step back from this incident and perhaps engage your brain as to why the laws are as they are and not the way you would have them?
But I think someone's consent should generally be required (or at least sought) before you film them.
Again, you've got it all wrong. Filming someone in a public place is not illegal. The act itself is not doing anything harmful to the person being filmed. You're not stealing their soul. What you can't do is profit from someone's image without their consent, which is why many street photographers carry release forms with them. Public figures tend to get less permission because they're public figures. Stuff they do and say is of public interest, so unless you're putting their faces in commercial ads, you're free to take pictures and ask them about their agendas.
If we followed your rule, not only would journalism be dead, but also any form of street photography. Henri Cartier Bresson, Garry Winogrand, and many others--they'd be banned because you think people have an expectation of privacy when walking down a public street.
No, Garage Buchananite, my assertion was that your fantasy ("If he had a R behind his name we would hearing about Obama's SEIU/ACORN Thugs, and how it was a righteous smackdown by Ehteridge.") had no basis in reality.
It does have basis in reality, how many "hits" would we have if we typed in SEIU Thugs, or ACORN Thugs, here on Althouse? I see it all the time, even when there isn't even an assault in question.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Ok, I see the arm around the shoulder at the end when they're standing side-by-side and not face-to-face (once any potential for a scuffle has ended). It seems a stretch to include that as evidence of assault or battery.
Confrontations occur face-to-face, not side-by-side. By then, it had de-escalated and it's pretty unlikely that anything was done in a threatening way. It was resolved by the point at which you allege battery or worse.
Now, you see, you are just pulling our third legs here man. Jesus, why the hell didn't you tell us that you are just a clown with big, red floppy shoes, a big red nose, and a big red wig that goes around honking his horn and throwing confetti around laughing insanely at the cool little illusions he and only he sees and tries to convince us that we should see them too?
Being a leftard really is rooted as a mental disorder. Schtickmo, my God man, medication is your friend.
Thanks for explanations more cogent than the gnats that swarm here could come up with, Blue. And as for ignorance as a form of heroism, I guess that explains a lot when it comes to Meth and Friends.
garage mahal said...
It does have basis in reality, how many "hits" would we have if we typed in SEIU Thugs, or ACORN Thugs, here on Althouse? I see it all the time, even when there isn't even an assault in question.
Hey Husky-Pants, the only strawmen that you should be going anywhere near are the ones that are embedded in a lifetime supply of a super big-gulp okay? Seriously, you really don't have the brain power to set up moral equivalency arguments okay? Leave that to the real thinking adults. I don't recall anyone asking you to be invited to the big adults table.
So go back to the kiddie table where you can play with your G.I. Jews and you set them up for ambush, okay?
HD: You are a broke old blowhard living out here amongst your betters. You couldn't harm a flea. And, by the way, if a news story is on a network it does not mean that the network created the news story. Unless, of course, we can blame NBC for the oil spill. Or the BBC.
Wonder how much faux noise pays? You might get a stinger role confronting conservatives out here in the nicer places. If you could get in.
I love it. The people on here saying it's assault. And back during the HC debate, when there were cut gas lines, and bricks or was it bullets through windows, people including AA were saying, oh chill, it's just the heat of the battle. But a little manhandling, and katie bar the door! It's damned assault I tell you! Poor male student. Yall accused the dems of being whimps then, but now it's yall who sound like whimps.
Assault. Really.
"Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents."
Roger Sherman 1787
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Thanks for explanations more cogent than the gnats that swarm here could come up with, Blue. And as for ignorance as a form of heroism, I guess that explains a lot when it comes to Meth and Friends.
Who needs alternative energy when your arm flailing creates hurricane force winds. Maybe as a prospect for a new aerobics program you can start Schtickmo's Back-Peddling spin class.
The Ritmo cavalcade of ignorance continues.
He also confuses the distinction between punching someone in the face and restraining an unauthorized videotaping
What is an "unauthorized videotaping" on the streets of Washington DC? Is there some agency from which you must obtain a license before filming? Strange, but I recall walking around DC with a camera and I never had one of these authorizing documents.
And before I go on, it is battery. Battery doesn't have to involve punching someone or drawing blood or even causing physical pain. It's just intentionally causing nonconsensual harmful or offensive contact. If you walk down the street and grab a person by the arm, that's battery. Here, Etheridge is clearly grabbing the kid by the arm against his will, followed by grabbing the collar and then around the shoulder. This is battery, whether you want to believe it or not.
with the distinction between a constituent questioning his elected official and just some random squeeb running around D.C. with a camera.
There's no effing difference under the law. There's no First Amendment distinction between a constituent questioning an elected official and some "random squeeb" with a camera. Both are entitled to the same rights. Etheridge is entitled to walk away. What he's not entitled to do is batter his interlocutor. Do you understand? Questioning -- NOT ILLEGAL. Filming -- NOT ILLEGAL. Grabbing at cameras, arms, necks, and shoulders -- ILLEGAL and TORTIOUS.
The meth that Meth's mind runs on can produce a quantity of energy that surpasses the most powerful turbine. It's like listening to someone who's having a seizure while he's talking to you.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster
Garage: "Which Democrats are cheering physical assaults? Must have missed it."
I would go to the comments section of Althouse and go to the thread on the N.C. congressman who assaulted a guy. Scroll down and find one or more comments from a HD House. I think you will have found a Democrat cheering physical assault. And doing a Walter Mitty bit about committing the violence himself. As if he could.
Lyssa: I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I can no longer believe that Ritmo is in any way serious.
Lyssa: Ritmo is argumentative for argument's sake. That's basically his whole schtick. I'm not sure whether he has any definitive convictions and I'm reasonably sure that if he did he would talk to himself about them just for the sake of argument.
He does a good job when he gets the others exercised. Jeremey basically does the same thing. If you begin to see him in that light, it's actually kind of cool.
Oh, get a grip already. What you responded to "continued" after the first part you had already responded to.
It does have basis in reality, how many "hits" would we have if we typed in SEIU Thugs, or ACORN Thugs, here on Althouse? I see it all the time, even when there isn't even an assault in question.
There's no doubt that people have pointed out on this site - and around the internet - that the SEIU thugs have engaged in actual assault and battery against various people. That is reality. Objective facts.
Once again, here's your fantasy:
If he had a R behind his name we would hearing about Obama's SEIU/ACORN Thugs, and how it was a righteous smackdown by Ehteridge. Not saying you personally, but you know we would be hearing it.
Feel free to provide any links to where Republicans have cheered or excused an unprovoked physical assault against someone asking a question as a "righteous smackdown" or anything similar.
“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward”
~ Henry David Thoreau
"CNN.com did not think that this story was front page news.
The did, however, think that Sarah Palin's lack of breast implants was."
In addition, CNN (and CBS News) is referring to this as a "scuffle", when you can dig around and find the story. Of course, the "hug" was after the "scuffle". Certainly makes it seem like there were 2 folks pushing back & forth.
I'm sure if a Republican had done something similar to say...Michael Moore...the media would have a different take on the "attack" by a "violence-prone" Republican Tea Party supporter...
Pollo, it must be a real pleasure to live in a world where everything is already known and even if it weren't, your mind is made up with convictions that precede such things as facts, arguments, and the like.
But really, I appreciate the defense. That's too kind.
I love it. The people on here saying it's assault. And back during the HC debate, when there were cut gas lines, and bricks or was it bullets through windows, people including AA were saying, oh chill, it's just the heat of the battle.
HT, ignorantly lying isn't working out too well for MUL or the Buchananite.
You might want to reconsider emulating their strategy of trying to rewrite reality to fit your narrative.
Ritmo: While you are correct that the errant congressman can tell all non-constituents to pound salt he cannot tell them not to contribute to his opponent. Money, if not votes, is fungible. I would expect this is a good day for her money wise.
Ok, I see the arm around the shoulder at the end when they're standing side-by-side and not face-to-face (once any potential for a scuffle has ended). It seems a stretch to include that as evidence of assault or battery.
Confrontations occur face-to-face,
not side-by-side
He was told not to touch and and Etheridge continued. Unwanted contact=battery.
So if Etherigde wacked the guy on the back of the head from behind...you wouldn't say it was battery?
And.... the reason I didn't respond to your idiotic question about Al Jazeera is that it was a stupid question. I didn't feel like wasting my time with it.
Some of us also have a life, so while you were spinning yourself into the ground, I was closing up my office, visiting with a client to deliver some papers, watering the garden, turning on the sprinklers in the orchard, pulling some weeds, chilling a bottle of wine, cutting up some apples and making a plate of brie cheese, fruit, crackers and olives for dinner.
Trooper
Love the quotes, keep em coming.
As for Professor Blue, I'll continue to argue one thing for argument's sake:
How was the kid harmed by any contact?
Of course, he wasn't. So we just rely on the whole "offensiveness" bullshit, which means so many things precisely because it doesn't mean anything.
But again, thanks for the lecture. I feel edified beyond belief. 16th-century England has never been this influential ever before.
How's that Pollo? Are you still trying to figure out whether I was being serious?
;-)
Some of us also have a life, so while you were spinning yourself into the ground, I was closing up my office, visiting with a client to deliver some papers, watering the garden, turning on the sprinklers in the orchard, pulling some weeds, chilling a bottle of wine, cutting up some apples and making a plate of brie cheese, fruit, crackers and olives for dinner.
Your life is so exciting, beautiful and awe-inspiring that I am just bursting with passion and wonderment just from hearing about it.
Insert offensive statement here!
Oh, Dust Bunny! Where your logic fails your life inspires me... to go shopping and run errands! Please excuse me as I flush and faint!
How was the kid harmed by any contact?
You don't have to cause harm to be guilty of battery.
"A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery. "
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html
AC245, Buchanan for President button wearing Palinite:
So I have some google results [which at first blush I'm sure is giving you ragin hard-on] on SEIU Thugs, and ACORN Thugs, just on Althouse.
Now to continue we must have some links of SEIU and ACORN Thugs unprovoking an assault on "various people" to compare reality with "fantasy", as you out it. Shall we?
“each candidate behaved well in the hope of being judged worthy of election. However, this system was disastrous when the city had become corrupt. For then it was not the most virtuous but the most powerful who stood for election, and the weak, even if virtuous, were too frightened to run for office.”
~ Niccolo Machiavelli
Turns out that Garage Buchanan is projecting again when he says that Republicans would be excusing and cheering assaults:
garage mahal said...
'Oh shut up. It's on tape. Anyone can watch it. Anyone can see nothing approaching the description "union thugs beat up a black man" occurs..'
That clip of not getting beat up had the ring blogosphere quivering solid for a week. And the guy is out protesting against healthcare while not having healthcare. LOL
9/1/09 4:07 PM
Anyone from the district represented in question?
Ritmo, he's a United States Congressman. He votes on and authors legislation that affects all Americans, not just the people in his Congressional district. The students (or whomever they were) asked him about his support for the "Obama agenda".
Do you think only the people who live in California can ask Senators Boxer or Feinstein questions about national issues?
Jesus Christ, Bunny! I know that imagining yourself in Tuscany and Middle America at the same time leaves you too incapacitated to read things in full, but I already responded to Professor Blue's discourse on how the element of OFFENSIVENESS covers the sort of touching that ACTUAL HARM did not when it comes to battery.
So, I get it. The kid was OFFENDED by the contact. Point taken. The congressman should have been more politically correct and MORE SENSITIVE TO WHAT caused, you know, "OFFENSE".
Wahahaha, etc.
AC245, Buchanan for President button wearing Palinite:
No, garage, you don't get to start making shit up about me just because you're pissed that I exposed you as a racist, jew-hating Buchananite.
garage mahal said...
Palin's church can't be any weirder than Obama's, and if she is a Pat Buchanan Republican I feel safer. He is about the only sane Republican I've heard these past 8 years. An truthfully I thought Buchanan's joke about Washington D.C. being "Israeli occupied territory" years ago friggin hilarious, with some truth behind it. But, I'm in the minority of liberals who like Buchanan.
9/3/08 7:20 PM
Do you think only the people who live in California can ask Senators Boxer or Feinstein questions about national issues?
I don't think they should believe their stake in the questions and how they are framed are as great as those decided upon and agreed to by, you know, actual constituents.
What on earth is wrong with saying that?
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
The meth that Meth's mind runs on can produce a quantity of energy that surpasses the most powerful turbine. It's like listening to someone who's having a seizure while he's talking to you.
Sctickmo the parrot bawk bawks again. Shovel, meet hole. Will someone tell this fool to stop digging?
"If he's not a constituent then he can fuck off."
By that logic, no one committing journalism should be allowed to question anyone they don't actually live under. (Oh, I'm sorry, who isn't represented by them.)
These kids are simply committing journalism. And everybody in Congress supporting the guy I didn't vote for is someone I want to see go down, so if I get a chance to catch out a random Congressional Obamacrat in a blatant act of political stupidity, I'm a gonna do it.
Oh, and Ritmo, you're better when you're not playing the knee-jerk partisan hack.
wv: prilm - A prim liberal. Also, prick.
"In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a lesser or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class, a ruling class, instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Jesus Christ, Bunny! I know that imagining yourself in Tuscany and Middle America at the same time leaves you too incapacitated to read things in full, but I already responded to Professor Blue's discourse on how the element of OFFENSIVENESS covers the sort of touching that ACTUAL HARM did not when it comes to battery.
So, I get it. The kid was OFFENDED by the contact. Point taken. The congressman should have been more politically correct and MORE SENSITIVE TO WHAT caused, you know, "OFFENSE".
Wahahaha, etc.
A really interesting thought experiment just occurred to me as a direct result of your willful ignorance towards Iron Grip Ethridge. If Kung-Fu Grip Ethridge had done this to a female, I wonder what your conclusion would have been. Would it have been the same? Faux outrage, perhaps?
Your life is so exciting, beautiful and awe-inspiring that I am just bursting with passion and wonderment just from hearing about it.
LOL Better than being you: sitting in front of your computer with your finger up your nose trying to justify Etheridge's assault and battery.
Here is something exciting. I made over $5000 today...how about you?
"A decent and manly examination of the acts of government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged."
-- William Henry Harrison
I don't think they should believe their stake in the questions and how they are framed are as great as those decided upon and agreed to by, you know, actual constituents.
But you didn't initially make that claim.
You said:
Where do the Althousian-rightists get off thinking that Congressman are politically responsible to anyone but their constituents?
Congressman write and vote on national legislation; not just laws that affect their own districts.
These students (or whatever they were) didn't ask about some parochial issue. They asked about "Obama's agenda."
Look, he should have just smiled and kept walking. He was a jerk.
But he was good enough to apologize so this story is dead.
"I wish that someone had told me about the problems of running a business; that I would have to pay taxes, meet a payroll, deal with government... I wish I had had a better sense of what it took to do that when I was in Washington." -
- Senator George McGovern
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
I don't think they should believe their stake in the questions and how they are framed are as great as those decided upon and agreed to by, you know, actual constituents.
What on earth is wrong with saying that?
So many conditions to your willful disdain for citizenship and civics. where does your little hole end, I wonder.
How's that Pollo? Are you still trying to figure out whether I was being serious?
Just my hypothesis which I do check from time to time against the facts to see if I've been proven wrong.
See, the big difference between what goes on here amongst the commenters and say a refereed courtroom or a sporting event is the unwillingness of people to acknowledge their own mistakes. Often times, people come out here with what they think are strong supportable conclusions based on facts but then somebody with a mean streak comes along and shoots them down. Other times, the people who do the attacking/policing of unsupported opinion are themselves incorrect. Yet this will also go unacknowledged.
I suppose that some of this has to do with perceived penis size because I don't see the females as gulity of this as many of the males.
Just my $0.02
I would suggest that we all contact our Representative and Senators, and ask them if they support President Obama's agenda. That way we'll know, and we won't need to worry about "unexpectedly" provoking them in public. After all, if we don't ask the wrong questions, we won't have to worry about answers we don't want to hear.
Were those students rude? I think not. The Congressman chose to stop and make an issue of things. I wonder what Madam Speaker said that would have him all riled up. "Be ware students with cameras!" Again, two or more cameras are better than one.
SMGalbraith said...
But he was good enough to apologize so this story is dead.
Actually it isn't. A crime was committed on tape. It won't end there.
where does your little hole end, I wonder.
Probably right where your hungry tongue begins.
God damn are you a disgusting and offensive little one. Really, you need to either get a grip or a fully charged meth pacifier.
Turns out that Garage Buchanan is projecting again when he says that Republicans would be excusing and cheering assaults:
Anyways we must have evidence from you of assaults by SEIU or ACORN on "various people", to continue on. What do you have? For evidence, that is. Youtube links? Law proceedings? More Politico links directly pulled from a press release from a campaign spokesperson? LOL
This thread needs a "troll" tag.
200 of the 300 comments amount to troll lorem ipsum
See, the big difference between what goes on here amongst the commenters and say a refereed courtroom or a sporting event is the unwillingness of people to acknowledge their own mistakes. Often times, people come out here with what they think are strong supportable conclusions based on facts but then somebody with a mean streak comes along and shoots them down. Other times, the people who do the attacking/policing of unsupported opinion are themselves incorrect. Yet this will also go unacknowledged.
Pollo, numerous checks reveal that I am many times more willing to admit mistakes than are some of the meth-addled, steroid maniacs that thrash about here.
What I am also willing to do is to perceive the difference from an opinion and a fact. I use both of them to form my convictions, yet understand the distinction.
The arena you mention do not allow for much intrusion by opinion, the space here does. So that makes things a little more contentious.
At least, it does for people who either can't form their own opinions or at least appreciate the distinction between those things and actual, you know, facts.
The one thing our Founding Fathers could not foresee -- they were farmers, professional men, businessmen giving of their time and effort to an idea that became a country -- was a nation governed by professional politicians who had an interest in getting re-elected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then eagerly looking forward to getting back to the farm.
RONALD REAGAN
Here is something exciting. I made over $5000 today...how about you?
I did something you didn't. I made money and felt and appreciated the value of my life in non-financial terms.
But then again, I don't have a disease that makes it harder for me to relate to people than to numbers and materials.
Just sayin'.
These students (or whatever they were) didn't ask about some parochial issue. They asked about "Obama's agenda."
Yes, yes, yes, SMG (to the other bits at least as much). But I believe the good people of North Carolina's 2nd congressional district have the right to define something as vague and bullshitty as "Obama's agenda" in terms as specific and parochial as they want to.
Again, what the heck is wrong with that?
I would suggest that we all contact our Representative and Senators, and ask them if they support President Obama's agenda.
That's a great idea. Darrell Issa is my congressional rep. and so I already know where he stands. Barbara Boxer on the other hand cannot refrain (or her designated letter writer(s) cannot refrain from offering tutelage on points of disagreement. Some would call that welcome push-back on her part. I see it as her not representing my views and just wishing there were more like me.
Oh, and Ritmo, you're better when you're not playing the knee-jerk partisan hack.
There's something about using legalisms in a threatening way that brings out the partisan hack in me, Mark. Can't explain it. Must be something like how everyone here goes batshitty when anyone dares to question the legality of Bush-Cheney's waterboarding program or whatever.
But as SMG had the sense to say, this will end civilly, with an apology. And therefore, the "offensiveness" that made the touching actionable will be made to disappear and we will all grow up and be adults and play nicely with our cameras and go on to depicting the Obama administration in terms simple-minded enough to (rhetorically) allow us to thrash each other about the heads with it.
Then things will be much nicer, right?
I did something you didn't. I made money and felt and appreciated the value of my life in non-financial terms.
Really?
My clients seemed pretty appreciatiave that their estate planning worries have been assuaged, that they now have a guaranteed future income stream, that we avoided a disasterous tax issue, that their financial accounts are going to be consolidated instead of scattered all over the place and that they now feel more comfortable about how to take care of their disabled child after their own demise.
Ah well. You can win them all.
But back to talking about your friend Etheridge and his legal troubles.
Battery!!!
... numerous checks reveal that I am many times more willing to admit mistakes than are some of the meth-addled, steroid maniacs that thrash about here.
Oh, really? Care to point out any instances of your admitting a mistake?
@DBQ, wish you were providing financial advice to me. I'm going to be retiring in a few years and I'd like to not run out of money before I kick the bucket.
"I did something you didn't. I made money and felt and appreciated the value of my life in non-financial terms."
The delusion is complete. "Rock a bye baby ..."
Anyways we must have evidence from you of assaults by SEIU or ACORN on "various people", to continue on. What do you have? For evidence, that is. Youtube links? Law proceedings? More Politico links directly pulled from a press release from a campaign spokesperson? LOL
Keep laughing and posting, you racist, Jew-hating little turd. The more you do, the more that other commenters here get to see you for what you really are. Eventually even Trooper won't want to put up with all the fleas.
assaults by SEIU or ACORN on "various people"
"union organizer" assault on Nathan Tabor
SEIU/Acorn thugs manhandle town hall participants in Tampa
Youtube links?
YouTube: SEIU thug assault
Law proceedings?
Gladney SEIU Assault Charges
Actually it isn't. A crime was committed on tape. It won't end there.
Well, a DA would have to decide to prosecute. I wonder how many phone calls are being made about this. And by whom.
Milwaukee: Rude is taking a picture without asking. I understand that there is no presumption of privacy while walking down the street. Yet I come from a long line of photophobes, starting with my Mom's mom. Please. No Photos. As a result, I have 3 pictures of her.
Now, of course any one in Government is going to have a vanity streak a mile long, and I'm sure they like the attention (Well, most of the time), narcissists that they are. Still, I see someone taking a picture of someone else, without asking, and it's rude to me. And they were clearly taking his picture -- it's not like he was in a crowd.
I have noticed that althouse will occasionally mention asking the people she photographs for permission. That's classy.
I am honestly glad that you felt a sense of value and worth in the impact of your actions on others, Bunny. Perhaps if you could see things through that prism in more ways in the future, then there would be less for us to disagree about.
Bernie Madoff might not like it, but who needs him, right?
"I'm going to be retiring in a few years and I'd like to not run out of money before I kick the bucket."
Drink harder, drive faster and draw Mohammad.
IMAO the question of whether Etheridge has committed assault and battery is a smoke screen.
What is abundantly clear from the video is that Bob Etheridge is an alcoholic. He needs to resign from office and spend the next couple years in rehab.
As a friend once put it, she didn't know that he was a drunk until one day she saw him accidentally sober.
The delusion is complete. "Rock a bye baby ..."
So says someone deluded enough to think that the effectiveness of the entire U.S. healthcare system can be judged by how well it cared for a company C.E.O.
Hey Ritmo, I go batshitty when I see Liberals NOT going batshitty over Obama holding poor goat herders in Gitmo without trial, launching drone strikes at civilians, shipping "suspects" to nations that torture, removing the limitations on the Patriot Act, etc.
Apparently Obama is a war criminal or George W. Bush was right all along. Which is it?
garage mahal said...
Anyways we must have evidence from you of assaults by SEIU or ACORN on "various people", to continue on. What do you have? For evidence, that is. Youtube links? Law proceedings? More Politico links directly pulled from a press release from a campaign spokesperson? LOL
Hey Chunky, why don't you LOL to this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/eye_witness_to_st_louis_scuffl.asp
Oh, there is this little ditty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hznSuacEN_I
Union Thuggery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IInBP9D_s&feature=related
Wow, more SEIU thuggery:
http://www.kcra.com/news/21545402/detail.html
I don't know. Do you want more you hapless sack of putrid whale shit?
But I believe the good people of North Carolina's 2nd congressional district have the right to define something as vague and bullshitty as "Obama's agenda" in terms as specific and parochial as they want to.
No one has argued otherwise. But your argument was that ONLY the people of his district have the right (authority?) to question him.
His salary comes from the federal coffers. And any legislation he authors is funded by federal coffers.
Coffers that aren't filled with just tax dollars from his district. They're filled by all of who pay federal taxes.
Besides, do we know that those students/questioners weren't from his district? How did they recognize him?
@bag, or I could support ObamaCare I suppose.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
I did something you didn't. I made money and felt and appreciated the value of my life in non-financial terms.
So you went trolling for ass and failed. Again. Poor Schtickmo. Not attractive to men. Or women.
wv = fanti
No one has argued otherwise. But your argument was that ONLY the people of his district have the right (authority?) to question him.
No. I'm sorry. If that is what you got from my comments, then you have misunderstood.
What I am reacting to are these angry Republican frenzies that seem to take place every 16 years or so. They were originally (a bit) more benign, but the intensity with which outsiders seek to throw elections in districts they are not represented by is seriously disturbing.
There are all sorts of legal ways to bring money in, bring supporters in, etc. That's fine, but the people have a right to call out carpetbaggers or their benefactors for what they are if they so choose. And so do I.
And that's what the opposite of what this blog, and every blog that seeks to look at a congressional election as if it could only be a referendum on the national, "Tea Party" movement, is doing.
I find it incredibly unseemly and antithetical to the right constituents have to be represented by someone who speaks to their interests. All politics is local and it's high-time this unitary, conservative mindset constantly on display here took account of that.
The irony is that contempt for the diversity of this nation is what makes the conservatives here so disdainful of local control over how congressional issues are interpreted in one's district.
The meth-addled gurgling baby face is not only obsessed with every comment I make, but my sex life as well. Should that not creep me out? Should I claim "offense" to this pervert's obsession with me?
Talk about the need for getting a life.
Pogo said...
The Democrats are afraid to show up at town hall meetings and won't answer questions except when posed by their own employees"
Jesus you have the memory of a brick. I am sure you have forgotten Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney having town hall meetings in public places where you had to sign documents just to get in and no non-republicans allowed..even in public places.
Didn't matter much. all you got out of Cheney was "I don't remember" and from Bush just one big collective "duhhh".
You rightwing fools really need to get a grip or you'll be seeing moonbeams and calling them sunlight.
Apparently Obama is a war criminal or George W. Bush was right all along. Which is it?
The answer to that is obvious. Bush was right all along. The libs involved were for the WOT but were upset because the Dems didn't "own" the prosecution of the war. Senators like Obama and Reid at the time could not get their minds around the logistics. But now that they're in power, it's OK because it makes political points.
Trooper York said...
"They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then eagerly looking forward to getting back to the farm...."
Or in Regan's case, retiring back to the farm and then serving a couple hitches....or in Sarah's case, just quiting mid stream.
ya'betcha ya'll trooper...ya'big lug ya.
SOMEONE SAID
"There wasn't then, and still isn't, any evidence that those things were directly caused by the Tea Party, and you know it. "
Please, I beg of you. Please do not tell me what I know. Call it a lie, fine. But please please don't assume you know what I know. You know??
I thought I read somewhere that the address of the brother of the va congressman was pasted on someone's home page. Has that story been discredited?
Elected by whom, John?
Thank you Ritmo. You didn't get my joke (at 5:08 p.m.) at all.
I wondered if anyone was going to be snared by my rhetorical mimickry. You made my day.
Anyway...I think there's no controversy that the congressman would have been fully within his rights by saying, "I'm not talking to you." Even if it had been a constituent. Nobody has a right to demand that someone answer questions on camera.
It was the way he did it. Treating his interrogators like he was their abusive parent. Punching, grabbing, all of that. Plus that whiny-man-played-back-at-a-slow-speed voice. So over the top. He's fucked, and deservedly so. His own children wouldn't vote for him after that performance.
Please, I beg of you. Please do not tell me what I know. Call it a lie, fine. But please please don't assume you know what I know. You know??
I thought I read somewhere that the address of the brother of the va congressman was pasted on someone's home page. Has that story been discredited?
HT, you're asking if some unspecified "story you think you read somewhere about someone's brother's address being posted on someone's home page" has been discredited?
Seriously?
Well, sure, some guy I know's cousin's fiance said that her friend's roommate found out from this dude she met at the bookstore that he got an email saying it all a big mistake and that it wasn't actually the brother's address on a home page but was the sister's phone number on a facebook wall message posted by Colonel Mustard in the study with the candelabra.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
The meth-addled gurgling baby face is not only obsessed with every comment I make, but my sex life as well. Should that not creep me out? Should I claim "offense" to this pervert's obsession with me?
Talk about the need for getting a life.
Here is the basic summation of your entire tenure at Althouse:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
[self-important, snarky comment] blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's okay Schtickmo. It's completely understandable that you be offended and scared of a baby avatar. I mean, your ability to be deluded by not seeing what is clearly in front of your face, ala assault, battery, and theft and pass it off as a really mean hug only adds to your level of disassociation.
Frankly, your act has been pretty well used up here in this thread. Sctickmo defends the indefensible just like a good little leftard should. Bawk bawk little birdy.
AC245 said...
HT, you're asking if some unspecified "story you think you read somewhere about someone's brother's address being posted on someone's home page" has been discredited?
Seriously?
Well, sure, some guy I know's cousin's fiance said that her friend's roommate found out from this dude she met at the bookstore that he got an email saying it all a big mistake and that it wasn't actually the brother's address on a home page but was the sister's phone number on a facebook wall message posted by Colonel Mustard in the study with the candelabra.
roflmao!!!
I'm digging the out-Alinsky the Alinsky acolytes meme.
Pretty soon we'll be sending bus loads of protesters out to a guy's home in the Hamptons for a delightful Saturday of protest.
Ritmo Brasiliero wrote: ”As far as I can tell, unless there is any legal issue at stake vis a vis the kid, this is an issue that concerns no one but the people of a certain district in S. Carolina. I don't know what their laws, customs and norms are concerning assault by camera.”
What a pathetic loser you are, Ritmo. Is this an attempt at humor? If so it is a miserable one at best. If those two sentences comprise what you deem to be rational thought… well, I’m glad you’re operating a mouse and keyboard as opposed to doing something dangerous for a person as “differently abled” as yourself, such as cooking, or bathing without supervision.
"Apparently, to North Carolinians, the words "Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" are fighting words."
Only to Democrat Congressmen up for re-election. The rest of us here in North Carolina know better.
"I'm digging the out-Alinsky the Alinsky acolytes meme."
Me, too.
Interesting how the left is going Full Metal Nixon on free speech. Role reversal will be complete when they do a Mayor Daly at the DNC, then four dead in O-hi-o.
They forgot Nietzsche's warning that when fighting the monster, beware of becoming the monster.
Ritmo Brasiliero wrote: ” I'm sure the good people of Second District of South Carolina appreciate your efforts to speak on their behalf. What a benevolent dictator thing to do.”
There you go again. You have no grip on this situation at all. I suggest you LEARN at least a few facts before you pontificate like the raging asshole you are. It would be less embarrassing for us all.
Ok, you can go fuck yourself, Quaestor. Thread's over. Fun's been had and you're late. Only meth-head remains too lost to find anything else to do.
Which reminds me:
It's completely understandable that you be offended and scared of a baby avatar.
Not so much offended, just interested in avoiding the appearance of pedophilia with someone whose life (or lack thereof) revolves around an obsession about what I do sexually and taunts me with references to my "hole".
Meth is an absolute sociopath.
Quaestor, why the phrase "raging asshole"? That sounds like you're searching for a way to describe a really bad hemorrhoid. Is there a cream or balm that would help you with that problem of yours?
The lack of thought that predominates here would fascinate zoologists. In the future, it will be a testament to a non-viable segment of the species that attempted to diverge from humans, but without brains.
Ritmo Brasiliero wrote: "Not so much offended, just interested in avoiding the appearance of pedophilia with someone whose life (or lack thereof) revolves around an obsession about what I do sexually and taunts me with references to my "hole"
Your "hole" is your whole self, holistically speaking.
The Delphic oracle's advice to the would-be wise was "Know thyself." But since you don't know your "hole" from a hole in the ground, it leaves you holding the short end of the stick wisdom-wise, if you know what I mean.
Pogo: Interesting how the left is going Full Metal Nixon on free speech. Role reversal will be complete when they do a Mayor Daly at the DNC, then four dead in O-hi-o.
They forgot Nietzsche's warning that when fighting the monster, beware of becoming the monster.
Worse, the Left imagines everyone a Monster to justify behaving like one. Like the SEUI Goons and the MoveOn Thugs - they pretend we are violent so they can justify their own and then settle into their tu quoque.
When they start accusing us of shooting down people in street, consider it a warning to check your ammo supply and evac plan.
It's not just that one author. Several others are spinning it as 'an altercation' during a 'heated discussion'.
What a crock. Those terms describe it as a mutual thing that happened. In reality (seen on the tape) the congressperson assaulted the kid / it was all one way violence. All they did was ask a question.
Fen said...
"They forgot Nietzsche's warning that when fighting the monster, beware of becoming the monster."
The only problem with that is the other side doesn't really act as bad. Which means, it's more projection than fighting fire with fire...
The Oracle, Quaestor. The Oracle.
Don't you have an oracle to consult so that you can be provided with more predictions of gloom and doom to come from the Obama administration? I mean, with your newest blog post dated back nearly nine months, one would think your tea leaf-reading abilities are waning or something.
ahhhh Mathadras...
you appear to be the same dumbshit in a different toilet.
to all of you who posted here...
Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.
I can see plainly that, not knowing the intentions of the "student" the congressman was assualted. he had every reason to believe that the kid was in the midst of striking him when he pushed the camera in his face. the congressman may have committed battery but I doubt the kid was harmed or offended.
You kids. I swear.
Wow.
Just...
Wow.
So much bullshit, so little time.
Did Ritmo ever define what the fuck an "authorized taping" was?
Being offended is an adult's way of claiming that their feelings were hurt.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
It's completely understandable that you be offended and scared of a baby avatar.
Not so much offended, just interested in avoiding the appearance of pedophilia with someone whose life (or lack thereof) revolves around an obsession about what I do sexually and taunts me with references to my "hole".
Meth is an absolute sociopath.
Oh sure, now you claim victimhood. Oh wait, I'll tell you what, let me give you the last word. Oh no, no, no. I insist that have the last word. I don't want your hypersensitive ego and inflated priggishness to think or feel that you've been left out of the process. Heaven knows, plenty of people in this thread have been left scratching their heads at what you've been talking about.
Please, the floor is yours.
HDHouse said...
ahhhh Mathadras...
you appear to be the same dumbshit in a different toilet.
to all of you who posted here...
Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.
I can see plainly that, not knowing the intentions of the "student" the congressman was assualted. he had every reason to believe that the kid was in the midst of striking him when he pushed the camera in his face. the congressman may have committed battery but I doubt the kid was harmed or offended.
You kids. I swear.
Seriously, old boy, your dementia ladened delusions sure are coming on strong lately. Listen, you rancid old fool, you could rub the last two functioning neurons you have left to form a coherent thought much less try and defend your leftard cohorts assault and battery. You're so mired in your repugnant ideology that you now need to go out of your way to manufacture a defense of the indefensible. You reap what you sow, dead-bolt.
ya motherfuckin' betcha.
Did Ritmo ever define what the fuck an "authorized taping" was?
It's whatever I or the lawmaker says it is.
BTW GMay, has anyone ever defined what "offense" is and what "offense" the kid suffered?
(They've already admitted he suffered no actual harm).
Just wondering.
HDH imagined: "I can see plainly that, not knowing the intentions of the "student" the congressman was assualted. he had every reason to believe that the kid was in the midst of striking him when he pushed the camera in his face. the congressman may have committed battery but I doubt the kid was harmed or offended."
Because young adults in suits with recording equipment are prone to striking congressmen on public streets. The congressman's words even reflected this concern, especially when he moved toward the camera. He can clearly be heard to say:
"Did you try to hit me with that? Why are you in my face? Please step back, you are too close."
*sigh*
Lemme see if I have this straight. You think the hooligan with the camera was trying to hit him with his equipment, so the congressman is righteous in assaulting and battering the other young hooligan who wasn't holding the camera?
Why the FUCK is this site infested with such stupid, inspid liberals and leftists? Can we get some higher cstrolls around here?
400! VOTE 'EM ALL OUT!
Ritmo declared: "It's whatever I or the lawmaker says it is."
Thank you for at least boiling your constitutionally indefensible relativism down to 2000 words or less.
"BTW GMay, has anyone ever defined what "offense" is and what "offense" the kid suffered?"
All over the thread, but hey, who's reading all this shit anyway?
The congressman took the student's cellphone by force. He then proceeded to get the student in a wristlock (not a great one mind you, but decent). He didn't release the student after he was asked to.
Only in the alternate reality that is HDHouse World is a congressman authorized to respond to an event like this (which you coin "unauthorized taping" or whatever) with force.
Tell ya what Ace, whip out your cellphone to take a picture of me and I'll be glad to steal it and show you how easily I could put you on the ground and/or ensure that wrist never functions properly for the rest of your life from that very position the congressman had.
"(They've already admitted he suffered no actual harm)."
Irrelevant. This scenario is textbook assault and battery. Full stop.
Keep laughing and posting, you racist, Jew-hating little turd.
Weekly Standard, Washington Examiner, a Youtube proving nothing, and a google search? I hope you ain't a lawyer! All pre-packaged bullshit right-wing talking points. Blah blah blah. I've had more support here than you have,you libelous little dipshit. To think I had a tiny sliver of hope for you debate even remotely honestly.
AC245\To ward off your bullshit, tell me precisely where in the youtube/weekly standard clip that shows the SEIU assault. Don't weasel out, you ticky-tack roof-running buck-tooth little rat, tell us at what time stamp the "assault" occurs.
Post a Comment