- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
And you talk about selective outrage? My, but yours is showing right now.
Will "I" be doing violence? What in heck are you talking about?
Has maturity really flown the coup? And all sense with it? What the heck are you on about?
(Christ, I'm glad I live in Australia.)
I think violence > shouting. I made no other claim.
Oh so you were not suppporting the union thugs when you said in response to a conversation regarding violence:
"Outrage oughta be quelled for the greater good. Shame some people wouldn't know the greater good even if it sat on their face and waved at them and said hello..."
My bad....
:lol: I guess you need to think your statements through so you don't have to comment on "maturity" in an effort to deflect from your commentary. :shrug:
Nowhere in the article does it make clear other than both sides scuffled. In the fox article it said most of the protesters were against reform and scuffled with organizers.
There already was a thread on this. What would be the point of being redundant when there's a thread on the topic? From the video it is unclear that Gladney was even assaulted. It looks like he tripped and fell then got back up again walked it off. For a guy who was "repeatedly kicked in the head" he seems to have no head injuries.
I never stated which side I was on Rev so you're being disengenuous. I never stated my opinions on health care so again you're being dishonest. I started a thread where I stated multiple times the protesters were shouting down people even on their own side. Each time I mention it you ignore it as if its not part of the equation. Selective reading on your part. I responded by condemning the intimidation. What you want me to say they should burn in hell? What are you looking for in terms of the appropriate amount of outrage?
Its not dishonest thus far you've only condemned the unions but no mention about the protesters stifling debate, shutting down town halls, disrupting the democratic process. Where are all your threads on that? Again you're accussing me of things you're guilty of.
The interview from the woman who got shouted down saying she talked to people before hand and they said they were from NY. What about the politician I already said it was wrong of him to do that. How about Dick Armey's group spreading disinformation and helping fund these protests? How do you feel about that?
I don't have a side Rev again you keep trying to attribute a position to me that I have not taken. I condemned both sides something you won't, or are afraid to do but all the while accussing me of something you're guilty of. Give it up Rev this pinning of stuff on me isn't working I'm not a partisan hack I'm not beholden to any party.
There's no proof of assault from your videos and from the articles it is unclear
Nothing dishonest about it. No condemnation of people stifling debate
Rev if she meant that she'd come out and say what her actual position is. Again maybe its best if you just sit in a corner and talk to yourself you seem good at having a debate with yourself where you ascribe whatever position you feel to the other debater without them stating it then you try knocking down that position.
I think at this point you would chime in and say "is that irony?"
Rev, for the record, it's quite pathetic of you to insinuate that I would use violence.
Will I be using violence? Where the heck do you get this nonsense? The inference is particularly on the nose and far from being remotely rational or conducive to anything at all. I find the inferences you make, and have made in the past to be incredibly irrational and far from being of any use to anything at all. Enjoy your "nonsense making" if it entertains you. But it goes nowhere, and means nothing. But good for you if you like that kind of thing.
Again when you don't get the answer you want you complain. I try not to make multiple topics on an existing subject it clutters up the board.Excuse making 101.
I don't have a side as I read new information I vet it and continue to seek more. What exactly do you do with new information?So what side are you on? Please I am all ears....:roll:
Well from your news articles both sides were violent but then you're only condemning the union.Violence > shouting loudly.... How many times shall I say it?
And you believe her without confirmation? What motivation would she have to lie? :lol: hmmmm......
"wrong" such strong words! :lol:
Link please to dick army "funding THESE protests", I'll wait....
So what is your position? Please show a thread you started against union thugs. or other pro UHC goonery, I'll wait...
Man, lets see, the woman claims that people came from new york with no independent confirmation.
You take her at her word....
This man says he was assaulted, union thugs were arrested....
Not enough evidence for you.....
I think this speaks for its self,
I think the "Side" you are on is apparent to anyone.... Be honest about it.... :lol:
Violence is more abhorrent than loud talking.... :shrug:
Hmm... So you took my response to her as an opportunity to attack me?
Uhm, we were talkning about violence in these protests, you made an affirmative statments about quelling said protests because we are "Stupid humans"...
Logic dictates one would assume you were supporting violence.
If you are not, that's great. Perhaps you should be clear next time. :shrug:
Again when you don't get the answer you want you complain. I try not to make multiple topics on an existing subject it clutters up the board.
I don't have a side as I read new information I vet it and continue to seek more. What exactly do you do with new information?
Well from your news articles both sides were violent but then you're only condemning the union.
So rev's equation again town hall shouter violence < union violence
Why don't you tell me what motivation she has to lie? You believed Gladney straight off
Again what is the appropriate amount outrage Rev? No matter what I say you don't think I'm outraged enough.
Dick Armey's organization Freedomworks who helped stage many of the tax protests also are involved in the town hall protests. They've been around since 1984 under a different name. They also formed a fake grassroots website called angryrenter.com to oppose Obama's housing bailout. Before that they used an employee as a regular folk who supported Bush's privatization of social security. This year a freedomworks volunteer leaked a memo that stated "Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put tIle Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up ... You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses -- call him on it, yell back and have someone else follow-up with a shout-out ... The goal is to rattle him"
The protesters are not as entirely random as you like to pretend.
How many threads have I started here Rev? Something like 6 and you want to jump on one thread because I don't have the kind of selective outrage that you do? You make a mistaken assumption that a lack of something somehow means support for one position. Again you try to ascribe rabid partisanship to others when you yourself are partisan.
Sure why not
People were arrested unrelated to the specific incident. Have they been charged? I await your link to their court filings.
The video doesn't show any evidence he was assaulted. I see an SIEU guy on the ground and another trying to stand between Gladney and the guy on the ground. Gladney falls over and gets back up. Again for someone beat in the head he sure has no signs of being hit. I remember when Rodney King was viciously beaten he had signs of trauma. No signs from Gladney.
Not everyone lives off in their own little world like you seem to rev. Again you're trying to ascribe a position I have yet to take. Its partisan hackery at its finest from you.
Stifling debate is a serious matter whereas I can condemn both you only condemn the other side.
If she meant what you think she said she'd come out and say it. Again you seem to have made up your mind what everyone's position on DP seems to be. I suggest from now on you start a thread then post everyone else's replies for them and then debate your own replies. That's pretty much what you're trying to do here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?