• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

Ockham said:
You've presented no evidence there is such a context therefore, there's nothing else to consider until such time as that occurs.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken. You've chosen to dismiss the contexts, but that doesn't mean they don't exist nor does it mean I haven't posted them.

You claimed to be a conservative... what "party" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

For the record I'm a member of the Republican Party.

And let me point out that's exactly the problem and why you've gotten such hard push back ... you're for "party" instead of for "equal justice under the law".
Click to expand...

I disagree. In fact I've called for accountability for Etheridge many times. People keep making this assertion against me, and it's a false claim. I've responded to it every single time with the same line, "Find even one post in this thread that in any way what-so-ever defends Etheridge." You won't. In fact, I've called for him to be held accountable. I think he should be prosecuted. This is not an acceptable response from a member of our government.

Once again, you've made the same accusation against me more than once, and I have answered it more than once. I won't stop answering it no matter how often it's repeated. Each time I answer it it lends crediblity to me, and undermines your own. The attempt to misportray me only works if I stop responding, and I assure you that this is not going to happen.

You can either stop trying to levy false accusations against me, or I'll repeatedly challenge you to do what I've now challenged several of you to do several times; find any one shred of excuse I've offered for Etheridge. Find any one statement by me made on this web site or any other that defends him. You won't. You'll find quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not going to stop responding to these false accusations, and each time I do it shows my credibility and I get a chance to remind people that you're making things up about me.

Feel free to continue to pursue this course of action. It will not result in any different outcomes than it already has.




On the topic of accountability, I'm also interested in who sent the trackers. I think any intelligent person would be.



Frankly, I find it ironic as hell that you're claiming integrity when your fictional demonization of these kids
Click to expand...

I haven't demonized them. I've said that they certainly do appear to be political trackers. Nothing more. I've never discounted that they could be telling the truth. I've simply pointed out that the claims that they were "just students" working "on a project" does not make sense as it has been presented here. The story doesn't jive. That's reality.

I didn't call them baby-eaters. I didn't call them thugs. I've said the story explaining them doesn't make sense, and that the longer that remains the case the more solid I think the case becomes that they were indeed political activists rather than students just working on a project.

But again, making false statements about me doesn't really harm me, and I will continue to address them each time they come up. My character has remained consistent. My integrity is present. I'm not afraid of going over this again and again. I'm not the one making things up to try to silence someone else's points.




I see no reason other than cowardice to not acknowledge that the story being portrayed about who the two cameramen really were does not jive. I see no reason other than the fear of finding out an answer we don't like for not asking where they came from and how this situation came to pass.

I think anyone not asking those questions, already thinks they know the answer, and just doesn't want anyone to confirm it.
 
Last edited:
Alastor said:
I see no reason other than cowardice to not acknowledge that the story being portrayed about who the two cameramen really were does not jive.
Click to expand...
Because you've provided no evidence. Let me define "evidence" for you because you seem to not know what it is, or do not acknowledge what it is.

And btw, if you're a Republican conservative, I MUST be a communist progressive.



What is evidence

In this case, your personal views or experience are not considered. Nor is your observation and opinion based on that observation considered. Due to this medium, we require physical evidence... either more video, a video or written dialoge, or at the very least - journals or periodicals which can be verified. You've provided none of that.

Alastor said:
I see no reason other than the fear of finding out an answer we don't like for not asking where they came from and how this situation came to pass.
Click to expand...
The reason is because you've not provided a foundation nor enough substance to convince anyone of your opinion... and it IS opinion. :shrug:

Alastor said:
I think anyone not asking those questions, already thinks they know the answer, and just doesn't want anyone to confirm it.
Click to expand...
Lack off evidence does not equate a conclusion. You need to get the basics of logic, debate and understand concepts of evidence. You're circular logic may work on some generic Yahoo forum but it doesn't work very well here --- but you'll find that out.

Good luck!
 
Ockham said:
Because you've provided no evidence. Let me define "evidence" for you because you seem to not know what it is, or do not acknowledge what it is.
Click to expand...

Now you've resorted to being condescending. You really do want to silence me don't you? Willing to use any method to do so - except actually engage the question at hand.

I've posted the evidence before.

You continue to make things up about me, call me names, and generally try to insult and antagonize me. That's fine. You keep doing that. I don't mind the admission that you don't want to engage the question.

Why don't you want to know who these cameramen were, Ockham? What are you afraid the answer will be?

Why are you afraid to ask the question and find the answer?
 
Alastor said:
Now you've resorted to being condescending. You really do want to silence me don't you? Willing to use any method to do so - except actually engage the question at hand.

I've posted the evidence before.
Click to expand...
You've posted nothing. And I was much more condescending in prior posts.

Alastor said:
You continue to make things up about me, call me names, and generally try to insult and antagonize me. That's fine. You keep doing that. I don't mind the admission that you don't want to engage the question.
Click to expand...
Taken right out of "Rules for Radicals". Now the accusation and victimization phase begins. Next will be attempts to discredit or maybe I have that reversed... :think:

Alastor said:
Why don't you want to know who these cameramen were, Ockham? What are you afraid the answer will be?

Why are you afraid to ask the question and find the answer?
Click to expand...

Post it and I'll take a look. Everyone else ditched this thread except me because I have a tendency to feed trolls... flaw of mine. But now, even I'm bored. :yawn:
 

You are on a debate board to make the world a better place? You may want to rethink your strategy
 

Here are some teabrains as you describe them for using the term "Agenda" for the president or the democrats. (NBC, LA Times, Time, Media Matters, Huffington Post, Obama, the DNC)

The Democratic Party

Matt Finkelstein: Rep. Boehner Embraces Extremism: "No Difference" Between GOP And Tea Party

Obama's agenda may not add up - Los Angeles Times

First Read - Obama agenda: Turning to health care

A New New Deal - Obama's Agenda: Get America Back on Track - TIME

and here are some that used the term when Bush was president....

CNN.com - Homeland security tops Bush agenda - Nov. 8, 2002

Bush agenda faces some GOP resistance - The Boston Globe

Amazon.com: The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (9780060878788): Antonia Juhasz: Books

Bush agenda faces uphill climb in lame-duck Congress - USATODAY.com


So keep arguing all you want. It's a common term used by both sides. You have no legs to stand on with this one.
 

What you should be aware of his how you are being laughed at for proposing wild conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence.

And yeah, I'm content to sit where we're at: you are creating fairy tales and I have made statements based on facts. By all means, we can let it rest here. Like I said, end of discussion.
 
You keep calling me a liar, but I've never lied about anything in this thread.

I've called for accountability and I got on Hazlnut when he tried to put the blame on the camera men instead of on Etheridge. I believe Etheridge should be held fully accountable for his actions. I've said as much from the start of this thread.

You can keep calling me a liar all you want, but you have yet to show anything I lied about. Why do you keep trying to insult, antagonize and silence me?

You asked for evidence. I've posted it many times in this thread.

Here's a refresher:


That's the same thing I've said from the get-go.

Also, how did they know where he'd be? How did they get there? They knew him on sight, despite that I've never even heard of the guy before.

Despite appearing to be "scared" they refused to say their names, what school they were from, or what project they were working on. A genuinely scared person would probably answer those questions.

It's obvious that they weren't trying to have a private, off the record conversation, so there wasn't any reason to try to remain anonymous, was there? I mean they had cameras there, they were acting like reporters. They obviously didn't intend to just ask the Senator a question off the record - so why refuse to identify themselves?

There are other interesting things to consider as well.




So there you go. Common sense. I've endured your repeated insults. Now, tell me why you're afraid to find out who these camera men really were.

If you can muster the character to do so.

I doubt you will, but maybe you'll surprise me.
 
jallman said:
I hope you aren't directing that to me as I have not once called you a liar.
Click to expand...

No, it was not directed at you. Apologies if it seemed that way.
 
Alastor said:
No, it was not directed at you. Apologies if it seemed that way.
Click to expand...

I was just making sure because I didn't want you taking offense over a misunderstanding. I don't think you are a liar at all.
 

So, you list a bunch of articles and sites where the Obama agenda is describe in detail... as a COMPARISON to two little twerps asking a dumb, dickish question to a congressman walking from one place to another...:roll:

Are you serious?:doh
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
No I'm not. It is a form of legal harassment.


I never said it should be illegal. And I have stated previously that it should be be legal.
Click to expand...

You're correct. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I'm sorry but sticking a camera on the street and banging off questions is a form of harassment. I know I have done it.
Click to expand...

They weren't "banging off questions" or "harassing" anyone. They introduced themselves and proceeded to ask a single innocuous question of an elected representative.

Harassment - to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

Harassment | Define Harassment at Dictionary.com

"Do you agree with the Obama agenda?" Is a simple question?
Click to expand...

Yes, as it can be answered simply and easily - that's how you know if something's a simple question.

A complex or hard question would have been: What is your understanding of general relativity as it applies or does not apply at the subatomic level?

That question cannot be answered simply or easily, thus it is a complex or hard question.

I'm all agree with at least one thing he has done
Click to expand...

Come again?

They ambushed himm with a camera.
Click to expand...

Your misuse of words is starting to become a pattern.

Ambush - an act or instance of attacking unexpectedly from a concealed position.

Ambush | Define Ambush at Dictionary.com

And they want to stay anon.
Click to expand...

So what?

Why do you get to define what appropriate or acceptable journalism is? Are you the journalism czar or something?
 

Why do you get to dictate the standards for acceptable and ethical practices in journalism? Why should your personal beliefs and morality hold anymore sway on the topic than mine or these college students'?

I don't think their "journalistic integrity" is at issue because they refuse to identify themselves. Who in their right mind would want some political machine to start coming through their lives? Anonymity is a powerful tool in the free dissemination of information; there is nothing wrong with employing it when you have prima facie evidence of a wrongful or illegal act.


Journalism teachers are just human beings, overpaid ones at that. You nor they have some divine mandate to define what the acceptable or ethical standards of "journalism" are.

I deny your morality and substitute my own. Anonymity is a powerful tool in the free dissemination of information, which is a check on centralized power structures. My sympathies lie with liberty, not some politician's privacy or sense of entitlement.

They work for us. We can ask them questions whenever the hell we please. We're the boss.
 
hazlnut said:
So, you list a bunch of articles and sites where the Obama agenda is describe in detail... as a COMPARISON to two little twerps asking a dumb, dickish question to a congressman walking from one place to another...:roll:

Are you serious?:doh
Click to expand...

It is a loaded question and "Agenda" is a vague basis (though both parties use it so no one can act high and mighty like they are in the right somehow)

Well you see, the appropriate thing to do would be to A) Ask them to clarify (I agree that it is a loaded question, if you ask them to clarify though then you can whittle it down or turn it around on them and come out on top) B) Reply with a non-answer (any of the BS statements that politicians are masters at conjuring) or C) Keep on Walking

The INAPPROPRIATE response to such as question is to commit assault. (Albeit the bare minimum of Assault, though it still is Assault)
 
Last edited:
I would like to hear from the posters that have a problem with the question the kids asked, about the "Obama Agenda" if they had a problem with Sarah Palin being asked in an interview about the "Bush Agenda"
 
Just an observation. I don't think the Congressman reacted that way because of the content of the question.

It looked to me that he would have had that reaction with any question.

I am not even sure he heard the question.
 

You don't ask questions of the LORDS of parliament... they are like royalty for as long as they are in power and peasants aren't allowed to approach royalty. Weren't they saying on the news that it was the kids that attacked Etheridge?

Regardless... he didn't even really give them time to finish asking the question. They didn't block his path or anything, so IMO Etheridge was fully in the wrong.
 
Re: Congressman Assaults Student Asking if he supported the Obama Administration Agen

We need to remind these asshats that the people are in charge, we are the bosses and if we ask them a question they best answer the question. Perhaps the people should start throwing these people down the steps of Congress by their boot straps.
 
Mason66 said:
I would like to hear from the posters that have a problem with the question the kids asked, about the "Obama Agenda" if they had a problem with Sarah Palin being asked in an interview about the "Bush Agenda"
Click to expand...

Too bad that's not what the question was...

Get your facts straight Mason66.

Bush 'Doctrine' -

 
hazlnut said:
Too bad that's not what the question was...

Get your facts straight Mason66.

Bush 'Doctrine' -
Click to expand...

Doctrine or Agenda. what's the difference.

The point is the question did not cause his reaction, it was just the fact that the kids were tehre and asked him anything.
 
Re: Congressman Assaults Student Asking if he supported the Obama Administration Agen

deltabtry said:
We need to remind these asshats that the people are in charge, we are the bosses and if we ask them a question they best answer the question. Perhaps the people should start throwing these people down the steps of Congress by their boot straps.
Click to expand...

You ever see a president just wave off the questions from reporters while he is walking across the White House grounds?
Ever hear the phrase " I am just going to take one more question"?

Again this was a gotcha prank that got its desired results. I thought everybody was happy.
 
hazlnut said:
The "Obama Agenda" is a stupid little teabrain talking point.
Click to expand...


So asking if a demo congressman supports the current Presidents policies, and goals is now an uncomfortable "talking point"? Why aren't we allowed to know how the Congressman lines up on the issues of the day?


It's code for anything Glenn Beck says is wrong with the country.
Click to expand...


Boy, Beck really, really gets under you liberals skin doesn't he? He must be spot on to illicit such hatred from you.




Clearly by this statement alone you have a serious problem with people that disagree with your perception of things. And to that end you display a near violent intolerance of opposing viewpoints.


Etheridge should have said: "What the hell does that even mean? Call my office when you have a serious question."
Click to expand...


The Congressman had every opportunity to just keep walking, instead he chose to assault the young man. That is a crime.


Bull****. Go read up on how this country works. Etheridge works for his district. He's a REPRESENTATIVE. Go look that word up.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse a congressman is a representative of his or her local constituency, just as when home, he or she serves as a representative of the larger body to that constituency. Lee Hamilton said this:

"A congressman must perform the ceremonial function, serving the dual role of "ambassador" from the nation's capital and local dignitary...."

The Job of a Congressman
Click to expand...

to that end, you think he served his district well with is half drunken assault on two students that asked a question he didn't like? Did he represent the district in a good light?

Is that how you, or other liberals in general would like to come off to the public? As intolerant douche bags that physically attack people with questions that you don't wish to answer, or like?

These little cowards wouldn't even identify where they were from, so how do we know they even live in his district??
Click to expand...

You seem to have quite a little totalitarian thing going on here? Threats, name calling, bullying tactics? Very becoming.....




Yes, God forbid that anyone show any pride what so ever in this country. :roll: But the larger question that you seem to be completely dodging, and instead inserting your own brand of what you think is intimidation is, Do you or do you not find it acceptable to assault those who disagree with you and possibly ask an embarrassing question?


It seems like the story didn't have legs beyond the internet. I'm glad Etheridge is not catching too much flack over this.
Click to expand...


Oh it has legs. Just because Etheridge is being protected by his own in congress, working feverishly to sweep this away doesn't mean that there aren't some who are still looking into this.


so this is a pattern for the liberal congress slime. I still think charges should be filed.


j-mac
 
Re: Congressman Assaults Student Asking if he supported the Obama Administration Agen

Your right but the President doesn't assault those who attempt to ask the question, besides this was just a congressman the direct representative of the people. Whatever the motive is of the questioner is does not give the green light to be assaulted. Now in regards to the president, if the media and that is all of them where persistent in the request to have questions answered the president would probably accommodate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…