FRIHOST ē FORUMS ē SEARCH ē FAQ ē TOS ē BLOGS ē COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama and Dems Using Unions to Attack





jmi256
Obama and the Democrats are so upset that people have dared voice questions and opposition to their hair-brained "healthcare" scheme that they have sent their union members and supporters to put down anyone who tries to voice anything other than the party line. We Americans are getting pushed, punched, kicked, stomped and beaten by these DNC thugs, and some of us are even going to the emergency room because of the injuries.

Obviously we are concerned at the prospect of Obama's far-left agenda being forced down our throats, but it seems the Democrats would rather the American people just shut up, sit down and take whatever Obama prescribes to us, no matter if we want it or not.

And conservatives are the violent ones?

Here are some videos of the attacks.

Obama Supporter, SEIU Union Goon, Arrested after Attack at Russ Carnahan Health Care Town Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbOjfq_M8_8

Union Thugs Attack Peaceful Protesters At A Townhall Meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyh3HYtSes

Victim of Attack at Healthcare Townhall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLpHbD5cy0s


Nick2008
jmi256 wrote:

Obviously we are concerned at the prospect of Obama's far-left agenda being forced down our throats, but it seems the Democrats would rather the American people just shut up, sit down and take whatever Obama prescribes to us, no matter if we want it or not.


Yes, and the last 2 presidents were any different?

The president is the president I guess, everyone had a chance to give their voice during elections, Obama was voted through, so it was obviously in the interest of the people, now as you say, we must all shut up, sit down, and take our prescriptions.

I personally hated both McCain and Obama as presidential candidates, I knew that neither were fit for the job. Why they got voted trough? Definitely wasn't because of experience, status, and fitness.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
scheme that they have sent their union members and supporters to put down anyone who tries to voice anything other than the party line.


The worst part is that they justify this by saying that it's the same thing as the Republicans are doing. They say the Republicans are sending 'rent-a-mobs' to disrupt meetings.
But, while I've seen no evidence to back up these claims, they're doing exactly what they're accusing the other side of doing, and they're doing it openly.

Personally, I don't know if the meeting-distrupters are on the payroll of the vast right-wing conspiracy or not, but either way, 'sending in the unions' is a reprehensible moral choice.
deanhills
Well maybe your posting is a little dramatic jmi, but the part I would agree is that Obama seems to like to impose the healthcare bill on people without their real participation in it. It is obvious that it needs to go back to the drawing board. I.e., he is giving it to only legislators to work on, whereas this is something that really needs to be discussed and debated in hearings on a regional and state level first. Healthcare is definitely something that belongs to the States, and since Obama is President of a Federal Government, State level discussion and participation would be essential for the success of such a bill. Not only to get it straightened out, but once it has been chewed and digested at that level, it would be much easier to get it voted in. Perhaps a factor here is that the Presidency is only 4 years, and he tried to drive the bill through during his "honeymoon period" when his popularity would have been at its highest. Also before the budget, which should already have been discussed by now, and that is obviously going to look very bad. We have one good example of a healthcare system that works in Massuchusetts, so why not have the States look at this template and deliberate what they can do for themselves first, before making it a Federal controlled exercise that is going to work out completely unaffordable for everyone in the long run.
jmi256
Nick2008 wrote:

The president is the president I guess, everyone had a chance to give their voice during elections, Obama was voted through, so it was obviously in the interest of the people, now as you say, we must all shut up, sit down, and take our prescriptions.


Quite honestly, unless you're being sarcastic that's probably the saddest thing I've heard in a while. Our rights don't exist only within the 60 seconds that we spend in the voting booth. They should be exercised as often as possible.


Nick2008 wrote:

Yes, and the last 2 presidents were any different?


That's a whole other issue, but regardless, are you saying it would then make it OK for Obama and the other Liberals to send out goons to attack people who just want to be heard?

I recall during the Bush years extremely violent protests by the Liberals where they burned effigies, destroyed property, etc. There are always a few extremists out there, but the vast majority of people at these town halls and protests just want to be heard. Obama, Pelosis and Reid may want to characterize all of them as "the mob" full of Nazis, etc. but that's just not true.

Here are some pictures from Liberal protests. But somehow the elderly attending the town halls to protest Obama's scheme are the violent ones, huh?







deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Quite honestly, unless you're being sarcastic that's probably the saddest thing I've heard in a while. Our rights don't exist only within the 60 seconds that we spend in the voting booth. They should be exercised as often as possible.
Totally agreed, and I don't think this is the case only in the United States. Looks as though democracy is only 60 seconds. And then the participation very sadly stops. If anything, the healthcare issue should have been debated and deliberated in every region and state, and there should have been proper forums set up by the President for this. Totally boggles the mind that he needs to fight and market to get "Obama's" healthcare bill through, instead of getting everyone to sort out healthcare so that it could be the "people's" healthcare bill.
Nick2008
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though democracy is only 60 seconds. And then the participation very sadly stops. If anything, the healthcare issue should have been debated and deliberated in every region and state, and there should have been proper forums set up by the President for this. Totally boggles the mind that he needs to fight and market to get "Obama's" healthcare bill through, instead of getting everyone to sort out healthcare so that it could be the "people's" healthcare bill.


Agreed, our democracy only lasts 60 seconds, and also when we vote our senators, reps, mayors, and governers.

Before Obama won he seemed to know what he wanted, but not how to do it properly. Many Americans were hypnotized by all of this "change is coming" bs. People believed in a future of change, but Obama never set the bottomline of how it was to be done in the present. I remember he would jump views and never truly picked a side on critical subjects. That was a red flag for me that Obama wouldn't make a good leader.

It's not the actual idea of socialized healthcare that's causing so much trouble, but instead Obama's urgency to pass this health bill is raising eyebrows whether it will actually work, and lots of people have made up suspicions of how bad this healthcare idea without the proof, Obama hasn't even unveiled all the details of this plan yet, so my guess it's still on the drawing board. Here's the website about this healthcare reform: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

It's missing a good chunk of information too.

I didn't like Obama or McCain from the very beginning. Obama is now president, and probably will be president for 4 years. But yes, he is ruining this country one small step at a time. First he apologizes to the whole world for our ways making us look like a bunch of cowards. He calls a policeman an idiot for doing his job, he's giving away billions of dollars for us to buy new cars when there's more important things at hand, he's been holding religious holiday events at the White House, and I could go on and on. He hasn't been a year in office yet, and boy has he accomplished a lot recently! It's a sign of many many more things to come.

But what can I do about it? I'm not a millionaire or politician to have my voice truly heard by Obama, so generally so to speak, waiting and going on with my regular activities is all I can do right now.

jmi256 wrote:

Our rights don't exist only within the 60 seconds that we spend in the voting booth. They should be exercised as often as possible.


Where can I exercise this right? If I could I would.
jmi256
Nick2008 wrote:

Where can I exercise this right? If I could I would.


Attend town halls, write/call/email your representatives, write letters to editors, speak your mind, etc.
Nick2008
jmi256 wrote:
Nick2008 wrote:

Where can I exercise this right? If I could I would.


Attend town halls, write/call/email your representatives, write letters to editors, speak your mind, etc.


Your the one who's talking about the Democrats taking away our rights at town halls, and your telling me to go to the town halls? Laughing and by going to town halls, talking to my reps, writing leaders to editors, etc, who's going to hear it? Not Obama or any of the high level politicians.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
But what can I do about it? I'm not a millionaire or politician to have my voice truly heard by Obama, so generally so to speak, waiting and going on with my regular activities is all I can do right now.
I don't agree. You can write to your local Governor, try and get your voice heard like you are doing right now, in other forum discussions. In fact, I have been pretty impressed lately with all the people who have been protesting publicly. That is really a good start.

I must say Obama does give the appearance of "pressure selling" his Healthcare bill. Healthcare has to be more than that, I still maintain that it needs to be deliberated on in the first place on a regional and state level, not from federal and then imposed on the states, as all states are different and unique in their needs. Federal can help by creating forums for discussion, perhaps an overall Federal Commission of Enquiry, and then hearings conducted in each State. Bottomline is that everyone does want change in healthcare, reform is badly needed. The healthcare providers, doctors, medical practitioners and people who want healthcare insurance need to work out how they want this to happen, and focus on solutions that will work for them, such as Massachusetts has already made great progress in.

What gets me right now is that Obama has received a very clear message that people are confused and unhappy about his bill. Maybe he should do the right thing and give it for the people to deliberate through.
liljp617
Nick2008 wrote:
But what can I do about it? I'm not a millionaire or politician to have my voice truly heard by Obama, so generally so to speak, waiting and going on with my regular activities is all I can do right now.


Well, you could start taking guns to town halls or calling people Nazis...seems to be doing well these days.
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:

Well, you could start taking guns to town halls or calling people Nazis...seems to be doing well these days.


How so? Violence against the people attending the Town Hall meetings as seen above has failed. And Pelosi and Reid calling the protestors Nazis and claiming that they are all carrying around swastikas has also failed. The swastikas that have been present have been used to protest the totalitarian power grab that Obama and the other liberals are attempting with this new healthcare scheme. Pelosi can't present a rational debate over the issues, so she has resorted to making it an issue about the people represented rather than the policies they are protesting.

As you can see below they are not wearing swastikas as their symbol, but rather there was an instance where a woman used one in a sign as a protest. She's saying she doesn't want Nazism, not that she supports it.



And are you saying that liberals are above calling people Nazis? How quickly you forget.




Quote:

Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare." This is a blatant lie, American has seen the footage of town hall meetings and no Swastikas were present.

Source = http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d6-Nancy-Pelosi-suffer-mental-disorderseeing-Swastika-everywhere

Again, this is just a typical liberal tactic of attacking the people rather than tackling the issues.


As we've seen speaking up to your representative and letting him/her know that you don't support these far-left schemes does have an effect. No need to follow the liberal tactic of violence and name calling, but rather rational protest as the people have done. Obama and the other far-left liberals seem to have at least heard and listened to what the people are saying, but as we have seen they say one thing and do another, so weíll see.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't support any threats on our president.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

Well, you could start taking guns to town halls

I highly approve of this.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms, and doing this is a great way to remind people of it.

Think of the gay man saying "I AM gay, there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm proud of it!"
Carrying a gun to a meeting like that sends a similar message: "I have an assault rifle with me, there's nothing illegal about it, and I'm proud of it!"

Among other things, hopefully doing this can reduce the amount of wrongful arrests/police harassment when people are carrying weapons in accordance with state laws. (Yes, unfortunately, that does happen sometimes.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

Well, you could start taking guns to town halls

I highly approve of this.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms, and doing this is a great way to remind people of it.

Think of the gay man saying "I AM gay, there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm proud of it!"
Carrying a gun to a meeting like that sends a similar message: "I have an assault rifle with me, there's nothing illegal about it, and I'm proud of it!"

Among other things, hopefully doing this can reduce the amount of wrongful arrests/police harassment when people are carrying weapons in accordance with state laws. (Yes, unfortunately, that does happen sometimes.)
Laughing Laughing Laughing This reminds me of Denny Crane in my favourite show "Boston Legal". There was a court case about guns, and so he came in traditional dress (mountain man type) with rifle under arm. He felt very passionately about what you are saying Ocalhoun, and he was proud of it. He kept a whole box of guns and arms in his office Smile
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

Well, you could start taking guns to town halls

I highly approve of this.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms, and doing this is a great way to remind people of it.

Think of the gay man saying "I AM gay, there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm proud of it!"
Carrying a gun to a meeting like that sends a similar message: "I have an assault rifle with me, there's nothing illegal about it, and I'm proud of it!"

Among other things, hopefully doing this can reduce the amount of wrongful arrests/police harassment when people are carrying weapons in accordance with state laws. (Yes, unfortunately, that does happen sometimes.)


You can do it all you want and I'll happily defend your right to do so. That doesn't make it necessary. It's just not necessary to walk around outside a town hall with an AR-15. You're not accomplishing anything more with an AR-15 strapped to your shoulder than you would without one strapped to your shoulder. Protest, rally, scream all you want; assault rifles aren't needed in the mix. These things are heated enough without guns in the picture.

I have no doubt the people actually bringing the guns have no intentions of using them, but there are way too many nutcases out there who wouldn't hesitate to rip that rifle off the owner's shoulder and start carrying out horrible things. I'm more concerned about the safety of the people around the guns than I am about the politicians holding the town halls...they have plenty of security.

In addition, in 2007, a couple wearing matching anti-Bush T-shirts (censorship sign over "Bush") attended the President's Fourth of July appearance in WV....and were arrested. Just something to think about.

jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

Well, you could start taking guns to town halls or calling people Nazis...seems to be doing well these days.


And are you saying that liberals are above calling people Nazis? How quickly you forget.


No I'm not. I'm well aware both sides throw around the Nazi insult like it means something. I'm well aware both sides play the victim when they're both the culprits.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

You can do it all you want and I'll happily defend your right to do so. That doesn't make it necessary. It's just not necessary to walk around outside a town hall with an AR-15. You're not accomplishing anything more with an AR-15 strapped to your shoulder than you would without one strapped to your shoulder. Protest, rally, scream all you want; assault rifles aren't needed in the mix. These things are heated enough without guns in the picture.

Actually, you are. It sends a pro-gun-rights message loud enough that people actually notice it. It has spread all over the place... this forum, for example. You think we'd be talking about it if he was just holding a sign?
Quote:

I have no doubt the people actually bringing the guns have no intentions of using them, but there are way too many nutcases out there who wouldn't hesitate to rip that rifle off the owner's shoulder and start carrying out horrible things. I'm more concerned about the safety of the people around the guns than I am about the politicians holding the town halls...they have plenty of security.

You'd be foolish to rip somebody else's gun of their shoulder.
You don't know if it is even loaded or not, for one thing, and you don't know if the person you stole it from is going to take you down (with another weapon, or bare-handed) while you're still cambering a bullet and figuring out how to disable the safety.
Besides all that, you'd be in BIG trouble if you failed to rip it off, and get control of it.
deanhills
I believe in the right to have arms, but of course there needs to be a license that goes with it too, indicating that the person who has the gun has been trained to use it. I wonder whether there should be periodic spot check inspections too, to check whether the guns are kept under lock and key, that they are in good care, i.e. regularly cleaned. May be good to keep people on their toes too, and look out for children who may not have been taught how to handle a gun with tragic consequences and accidentally get to handle these when they are not locked up as they should be.
Stubru Freak
Please, could you stop calling Obama far-left? He would be considered center-right in every country except the US. Far-left is when the government chooses your job.
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:
He would be considered center-right in every country except the US.

This isn't 'every country except the US'. This is the USA, and here, he is considered far-left.
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
He would be considered center-right in every country except the US.

This isn't 'every country except the US'. This is the USA, and here, he is considered far-left.


What would you call a communist then? And a social-democrat? I understand that, according to US standards, Obama is quite to the left, but calling him far-left is an exaggeration.
deanhills
handfleisch
Quote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
He would be considered center-right in every country except the US.

This isn't 'every country except the US'. This is the USA, and here, he is considered far-left.


Stubru, you got to see things like an American wingnut (formerly known as neocons; kooky extremists who will reject the basic reality of general standards if it conflicts with their views). To them, it doesn't matter if the rest of the world calls the sky blue, they can call it polka-dot. Every other country says someone is standing straight, the wingnut can say they are doing a limbo dance. So of course they must reject what is obvious to the rest of the world, that by the international standard which takes history and ideologies into account, Obama is center-right, as is the Democratic Party.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
He would be considered center-right in every country except the US.

This isn't 'every country except the US'. This is the USA, and here, he is considered far-left.


Stubru, you got to see things like an American wingnut (formerly known as neocons; kooky extremists who will reject the basic reality of general standards if it conflicts with their views). To them, it doesn't matter if the rest of the world calls the sky blue, they can call it polka-dot. Every other country says someone is standing straight, the wingnut can say they are doing a limbo dance. So of course they must reject what is obvious to the rest of the world, that by the international standard which takes history and ideologies into account, Obama is center-right, as is the Democratic Party.

Why, exactly, should I be judging American politics from a foreign viewpoint?
I wouldn't expect that of any other country...
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
He would be considered center-right in every country except the US.

This isn't 'every country except the US'. This is the USA, and here, he is considered far-left.


Stubru, you got to see things like an American wingnut (formerly known as neocons; kooky extremists who will reject the basic reality of general standards if it conflicts with their views). To them, it doesn't matter if the rest of the world calls the sky blue, they can call it polka-dot. Every other country says someone is standing straight, the wingnut can say they are doing a limbo dance. So of course they must reject what is obvious to the rest of the world, that by the international standard which takes history and ideologies into account, Obama is center-right, as is the Democratic Party.

Why, exactly, should I be judging American politics from a foreign viewpoint?
I wouldn't expect that of any other country...

Example one: In a country with customs based on strict orthodox religion, person A thinks women should not be allowed to go outside their homes at all. Person B thinks it's okay as long as they wear clothes covering their entire body and have a male relative with them. The rest of the world considers them both to be extremely conservative, strict, orthodox people. By your logic, person B is a liberal.

Example two: Stalin was opposed by Trotsky. History and the rest of the world informs that they were both Marxist-Leninists with differences of how to pursue Communism. But by your logic, Trotsky was a rightist conservative.

Example three: The abolition of slavery was once a progressive cause. Now it is generally a standard overwhelmingly accepted by all nations. It is status quo. By your logic, it is still a liberal cause.

Do you see the simple fallacy of your approach?

The original poster was simply pointing out that, by any rational standard taking the status quo of the world and history into account, Obama's policies are centrist or center-right.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Why, exactly, should I be judging American politics from a foreign viewpoint? I wouldn't expect that of any other country...
Ocalhoun, I thought this was an internal point of view as well. The article I quoted came from US discussions, not international ones:
Quote:
According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent), and Republicans have dominated presidential politicsóin many ways the most personal, visceral vote we castófor 40 years. Since 1968, Democrats have won only three of 10 general elections (1976, 1992 and 1996), and in those years they were led by Southern Baptist nominees who ran away from the liberal label.
The closest I can get to left for the dems are their presidential campaigns!
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Example two: Stalin was opposed by Trotsky. History and the rest of the world informs that they were both Marxist-Leninists with differences of how to pursue Communism. But by your logic, Trotsky was a rightist conservative.

If I were a Russian in Russia discussion Russian politics, then I would compare them both to other Russian politicians.

Yes, political stances seem to shift when seen from different viewpoints, but I maintain that when discussing the internal politics of a country, an internal perspective is the appropriate perspective.
Quote:

The original poster was simply pointing out that, by any rational standard taking the status quo of the world and history into account, Obama's policies are centrist or center-right.

Oh, so 'rational' is synonymous with 'international' now?
Really, why are you trying so hard to make the USA into another Europe when roughly half the population doesn't want that?
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Example two: Stalin was opposed by Trotsky. History and the rest of the world informs that they were both Marxist-Leninists with differences of how to pursue Communism. But by your logic, Trotsky was a rightist conservative.

If I were a Russian in Russia discussion Russian politics, then I would compare them both to other Russian politicians.

Yes, political stances seem to shift when seen from different viewpoints, but I maintain that when discussing the internal politics of a country, an internal perspective is the appropriate perspective.
Quote:

The original poster was simply pointing out that, by any rational standard taking the status quo of the world and history into account, Obama's policies are centrist or center-right.

Oh, so 'rational' is synonymous with 'international' now?
Really, why are you trying so hard to make the USA into another Europe when roughly half the population doesn't want that?


You're forgetting that America also has a socialist party. They don't have a lot of voters, but they still deserve a place on the political spectrum. If you call Obama far-left, what would you call the socialists?
It's not because certain views aren't common in America, that they don't exist. I'd bet that, if you include all voters, the American political spectrum looks exactly like the international one. The only difference is where the majority of voters are on that spectrum.
And on that spectrum, Obama just isn't far-left. I'm not saying that for ideological reasons, but just because it's a fact. I know far-left sounds far worse than centrist, so it's tempting to describe political enemies that way. But you have to realise that doing that is a form of propaganda commonly used to enforce dictatorships, or at least to get elected more easily. It doesn't help at all when you try to have an intelligent discussion about politics.
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:

You're forgetting that America also has a socialist party. They don't have a lot of voters, but they still deserve a place on the political spectrum. If you call Obama far-left, what would you call the socialists?

Left-wing fringe elements.

Just like the right-wing has fringe elements in the form of home-made militia movements.

Quote:

It's not because certain views aren't common in America, that they don't exist. I'd bet that, if you include all voters, the American political spectrum looks exactly like the international one. The only difference is where the majority of voters are on that spectrum.

So, if one of those right-wing fringe members moves to a (internationally) left leaning country, then that country becomes (internally) extremely far-left by comparison?

Where the voters are on the spectrum defines the spectrum, not the endpoints.
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:

You're forgetting that America also has a socialist party. They don't have a lot of voters, but they still deserve a place on the political spectrum. If you call Obama far-left, what would you call the socialists?

Left-wing fringe elements.

Just like the right-wing has fringe elements in the form of home-made militia movements.


Then what would you call left-wing militia movements? Comparing a legitimate political party to a militia movement doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not because certain views aren't common in America, that they don't exist. I'd bet that, if you include all voters, the American political spectrum looks exactly like the international one. The only difference is where the majority of voters are on that spectrum.

So, if one of those right-wing fringe members moves to a (internationally) left leaning country, then that country becomes (internally) extremely far-left by comparison?

Where the voters are on the spectrum defines the spectrum, not the endpoints.


That's not true. A good political spectrum should, by definition, include all opinions found in a society. So the most logical place to call centrist is the centre of that spectrum. In theory, you could also define the centre as where the majority of voters are, but then you get a spectrum like this:

<-- Extremely far left -- Very far left -- far left -- left -- centre -- right -->

That's not practical. Especially because the left is actually on the right half of the spectrum.
handfleisch
Stubru Freak wrote:

That's not true. A good political spectrum should, by definition, include all opinions found in a society. So the most logical place to call centrist is the centre of that spectrum. In theory, you could also define the centre as where the majority of voters are, but then you get a spectrum like this:

<-- Extremely far left -- Very far left -- far left -- left -- centre -- right -->

That's not practical. Especially because the left is actually on the right half of the spectrum.


Thanks for this. It's quite brilliant as a simple display of the way the US media and US politics frames the debate. Yes, if people do see reality this way, then the center of the scale is the "left". Hence the media and centrist politics is "leftist". A fascinating, and twisted, mentality.
jmi256
The out-of-touch Dems' latest strategy is to bus HR3200 supporters from outside their districts to create a false atmosphere of support for their hairbrain scheme, but as you can see the real people in the district are against the bill. The union members with their mass-produced signs and shirts tried to keep the public from participating, but the public demands to be heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LafXjFtkFAI
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
The out-of-touch Dems' latest strategy is to bus HR3200 supporters from outside their districts to create a false atmosphere of support for their hairbrain scheme, but as you can see the real people in the district are against the bill. The union members with their mass-produced signs and shirts tried to keep the public from participating, but the public demands to be heard.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The out-of-touch Dems' latest strategy is to bus HR3200 supporters from outside their districts to create a false atmosphere of support for their hairbrain scheme, but as you can see the real people in the district are against the bill. The union members with their mass-produced signs and shirts tried to keep the public from participating, but the public demands to be heard.


Nice try using the image I posted in your latest rant about people protesting.

But again back on topic, here are some more videos of the Dems' unions attacking the public and thier patetic attempts to create a false atmosphere of support:

Barack Obama's USA: SEIU Union and/or ACORN Goons Get Violent at Kathy Castor Tampa Town Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnT3Uevy5rU


Barack Obama Supporters Sneak Union, ACORN Cronies in at Russ Carnahan St. Louis Town Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBw1U-O59To


Obama's SEIU Thugs Attack Black Conservative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWnxlFbYjVY


Kenneth Gladney's Attorney Speaks Out Against SEIU Thuggery & Violence at Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB0wQDhKVcE
deanhills
Worse. They were trying to get mileage out of Teddy Kennedy's passing to make points for the Healthcare bill as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/us/politics/27health.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=kennedy%20and%20health%20care&st=cse
Quote:
The death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy has quickly become a rallying point for Democratic advocates of a broad health care overhaul, a signature Kennedy issue that became mired in partisanship while he fought his illness away from the Capitol.

ďThe passion of his life was health care reform,Ē said Representative David R. Obey, the liberal Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee. ďAbove all else, he would want us to redouble our efforts to achieve it.Ē

Yet Democrats have serious internal differences on how to approach health care, and Republicans and Democrats remain deeply divided on the policy proposals ó a gulf some say Mr. Kennedy was uniquely equipped to bridge.

It seemed unlikely that Republicans would suddenly soften their firm opposition in the aftermath of Mr. Kennedyís death or that Democrats would relent on their push for substantial change, especially for a government-run insurance plan, which Mr. Kennedy endorsed.

But Democrats and others said the senatorís death should provide at least a temporary respite from the angry denunciations that flowed this summer, putting Democrats on the defensive as they met with voters back home. One advocacy group opposed to the Democratic proposals, Conservatives for Patientsí Rights, announced that it was suspending its advertising out of respect for the senator and his family.

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:


But again back on topic, here are some more videos of the Dems' unions attacking the public and thier patetic attempts to create a false atmosphere of support:


To quote Barney Frank,
And he said it to your partners in lunacy at a town hall meeting when they were comparing Obama to Hitler. This kook even had a altered image of Obama similar to the one you used on this thread.

Watch the whole exchange here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
jmi256
More violence by the fringe left. One of them attacked a group of people protesting Obama's HC scheme and bit his finger off!

Quote:

Finger bitten off during California health protest

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. Ė California authorities say a clash between opponents and supporters of health care reform ended with one man biting off another man's finger.

Ventura County Sheriff's Capt. Frank O'Hanlon says about 100 people demonstrating in favor of health care reforms rallied Wednesday night on a street corner. One protester walked across the street to confront about 25 counter-demonstrators.

O'Hanlon says the man got into an argument and fist fight, during which he bit off the left pinky of a 65-year-old man who opposed health care reform.

A hospital spokeswoman says the man lost half the finger, but doctors reattached it and he was sent home the same night.

She says he had Medicare.

O'Hanlon says the attacker fled but authorities have a good description.


Source = http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_finger_severed
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
More violence by the fringe left.
What I find most entertaining about your posts is that you almost exclusively project the opposite reality onto the political situation. I realized this when you accused the pro-healthcare side of scare tactics, when it's you wingnuts who are spouting about Death Panels and Killing Grandma. Keep it up, it's good for laughs.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
More violence by the fringe left.
What I find most entertaining about your posts is that you almost exclusively project the opposite reality onto the political situation. I realized this when you accused the pro-healthcare side of scare tactics, when it's you wingnuts who are spouting about Death Panels and Killing Grandma. Keep it up, it's good for laughs.





Interesting that you find attacks on people exercising their right of free speech as entertaining. Or are you saying these things never happened, despite the videos, news articles, etc?

BTW, I think Barney Frank has lost that argument with the dinner table quite a few times.



handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
...

I see I'm not the first person to notice the deep end you have fallen off. Here's someone commenting on one of your past 100% false and ridiculous threads way back in Nov. of last year:
Futile wrote:
For the last year I have read all of your "wingnut" views ... You started (a year ago) off having good, solid, valid points and then slowly digressed into something between a true internet wingnut blogger and a conspiracy theorist.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
...

I see I'm not the first person to notice the deep end you have fallen off. Here's someone commenting on one of your past 100% false and ridiculous threads way back in Nov. of last year:
Futile wrote:
For the last year I have read all of your "wingnut" views ... You started (a year ago) off having good, solid, valid points and then slowly digressed into something between a true internet wingnut blogger and a conspiracy theorist.


Go back.and read the thread where you cherry picked Futile's comment from Handfliesch. You'll see that he had my handle confused with someone else's and apologized. Or maybe that's why you didn't post the link to that thread?
--------------
Edit: Futile's apology was in a PM to me. Below is the text. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

I know you an apology. I got my users crossed. Please forgive me for my igornance and I hope that there are no hard feelings.

So do you have anything else to offer Handfleisch besides we attempts at personal attacks? Or are you sticking with the "none of it ever happened" stance?
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
More violence by the fringe left. One of them attacked a group of people protesting Obama's HC scheme and bit his finger off
Finger bitten off during California health protest


Beyond parody: The anti-reform protester who was injured has MEDICARE and he started the fight. Repeat: The anti-gov't-health-insurance protester had gov't health insurance! So having his finger reattached won't cost him tens of thousands of dollars, won't make him lose his savings or his house, like it would to someone without health insurance. But apparently he doesn't want anyone else to have the decent gov't program that he takes advantage of.

I guess the lesson is, if you're going to START A FIGHT and then LOSE, make sure you have Uncle Sam on your side in terms medical insurance! I bet that guy is glad for government sponsored health insurance now!

he had medicare: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_finger_severed_2
he started fight: http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/09/03/health-care-vigil-in-thousand-oaks-provocation-to-violent-response/
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
More violence by the fringe left. One of them attacked a group of people protesting Obama's HC scheme and bit his finger off
Finger bitten off during California health protest


Beyond parody: The anti-reform protester who was injured has MEDICARE and he started the fight. Repeat: The anti-gov't-health-insurance protester had gov't health insurance! So having his finger reattached won't cost him tens of thousands of dollars, won't make him lose his savings or his house, like it would to someone without health insurance. But apparently he doesn't want anyone else to have the decent gov't program that he takes advantage of.

I guess the lesson is, if you're going to START A FIGHT and then LOSE, make sure you have Uncle Sam on your side in terms medical insurance! I bet that guy is glad for government sponsored health insurance now!

he had medicare: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_finger_severed_2
he started fight: http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/09/03/health-care-vigil-in-thousand-oaks-provocation-to-violent-response/



Exactly how did the man who was attacked and got his finger bit off start the fight? From the very article you cite youíll see:

Quote:

Ventura County Sheriff's Capt. Frank O'Hanlon says about 100 people demonstrating in favor of health care reforms rallied Wednesday night on a street corner. One protester walked across the street to confront about 25 counter-demonstrators.


It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.


It's also quite telling that someone who has Medicare and knows firsthand the pros and cons of a government-run system would still show up and protest increasing the scope and intrusiveness of a similar plan put out by the Left. I think that's more relevant lesson here.
jmi256
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
More violence by the fringe left. One of them attacked a group of people protesting Obama's HC scheme and bit his finger off
Finger bitten off during California health protest


Beyond parody: The anti-reform protester who was injured has MEDICARE and he started the fight. Repeat: The anti-gov't-health-insurance protester had gov't health insurance! So having his finger reattached won't cost him tens of thousands of dollars, won't make him lose his savings or his house, like it would to someone without health insurance. But apparently he doesn't want anyone else to have the decent gov't program that he takes advantage of.

I guess the lesson is, if you're going to START A FIGHT and then LOSE, make sure you have Uncle Sam on your side in terms medical insurance! I bet that guy is glad for government sponsored health insurance now!

he had medicare: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_finger_severed_2
he started fight: http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/09/03/health-care-vigil-in-thousand-oaks-provocation-to-violent-response/



Exactly how did the man who was attacked and got his finger bit off start the fight? From the very article you cite youíll see:

Quote:

Ventura County Sheriff's Capt. Frank O'Hanlon says about 100 people demonstrating in favor of health care reforms rallied Wednesday night on a street corner. One protester walked across the street to confront about 25 counter-demonstrators.


It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.


It's also quite telling that someone who has Medicare and knows firsthand the pros and cons of a government-run system would still show up and protest increasing the scope and intrusiveness of a similar plan put out by the Left. I think that's more relevant lesson here.



If anyone's interested, here's an interview with the guy who was attacked by the pro government-run care sicko:

http://www.breitbart.tv/man-who-lost-finger-to-bite-by-obamacare-supporter-tells-story-to-cavuto/
Stubru Freak
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.

Euhm... What?
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.


Could you please read what you just wrote? Crossing the street is an act of violence? If someone with a different opinion than yours crosses the street, you have the right to hit him? Could you confirm that that's what you're saying?
jmi256
Stubru Freak wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.

Euhm... What?
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.


Could you please read what you just wrote? Crossing the street is an act of violence? If someone with a different opinion than yours crosses the street, you have the right to hit him? Could you confirm that that's what you're saying?


I'm not sure how you can't understand, honestly, but Iíll try to explain. Biting the finger off of an elderly 65-year-old man IS violent. The attacker crossed the street to confront and instigate the elderly protestor, and was successful in starting a fight. Itís not like he was crossing the street because he was going elsewhere. He crossed with the express reason of confronting and instigating.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

Beyond parody: The anti-reform protester who was injured has MEDICARE and he started the fight. Repeat: The anti-gov't-health-insurance protester had gov't health insurance!


Apparently the victim wasn't a protester on either side, but just an innocent passerby who made the mistake of asking what the protest was about.

Quote:

Rice told deputies he was not actually protesting. He said he stopped to inquire about the demonstration and then was approached by the suspect.

Source = http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-me-forum-bite4-2009sep04,0,7050355.story


At least MoveOn.org has recognized the violent nature of their protester's attack and has apologized. Hopefully the unhinged nut job gets caught.

Quote:

Ilyse Hogue, director of political advocacy and communications for MoveOn.org, called the incident "a regrettable act of violence" in a statement released Thursday morning.

Source = http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-me-forum-bite4-2009sep04,0,7050355.story
handfleisch
Stubru Freak wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.

Euhm... What?
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.


Could you please read what you just wrote? Crossing the street is an act of violence? If someone with a different opinion than yours crosses the street, you have the right to hit him? Could you confirm that that's what you're saying?


Good luck Stubru, but you're arguing with the dinner table on this one. Facts and rationality don't make much impact. See above, his answer to Barney Frank is just to call him fat.

Fact: Injured anti-reform protester went and used his government health insurance for his treatment! If government health insurance is so bad, why didn't he use private insurance? Why didn't he pay the doctor out of his own pocket? Hypocrisy at best, lunacy at worst. I suspect the latter because:
Objective witness account, objective meaning she thinks both sides behaved badly: Injured anti-reform protester was belligerent, threatening and threw first punch.
Fact: There aint no rules in a street fight.
Stubru Freak
jmi256 wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.

Euhm... What?
jmi256 wrote:
It sure sounds like the violent, lefty pro-health care demonstrator was the instigator by crossing the street to confront the other group.


Could you please read what you just wrote? Crossing the street is an act of violence? If someone with a different opinion than yours crosses the street, you have the right to hit him? Could you confirm that that's what you're saying?


I'm not sure how you can't understand, honestly, but Iíll try to explain. Biting the finger off of an elderly 65-year-old man IS violent. The attacker crossed the street to confront and instigate the elderly protestor, and was successful in starting a fight. Itís not like he was crossing the street because he was going elsewhere. He crossed with the express reason of confronting and instigating.


Of course I haven't seen it myself, but most sources say that the anti-protester started hitting. You shouldn't hit someone, even if he crosses the street to confront you.
jmi256
Stubru Freak wrote:

Of course I haven't seen it myself, but most sources say that the anti-protester started hitting. You shouldn't hit someone, even if he crosses the street to confront you.


I don't disagree with you that violence is wrong, but I doubt the biter calmly walked up to the guy and the guy just went off and whacked him. Just the fact that the protester bit off the poor guy's finger shows that he is deranged. I mean, really, what balanced person does that? This is just speculation, but I'm sure they biter aggressively attacked him. How would your elderly father or grandfather react if a nutcase biter attacked him out on the street?
Stubru Freak
jmi256 wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:

Of course I haven't seen it myself, but most sources say that the anti-protester started hitting. You shouldn't hit someone, even if he crosses the street to confront you.


I don't disagree with you that violence is wrong, but I doubt the biter calmly walked up to the guy and the guy just went off and whacked him. Just the fact that the protester bit off the poor guy's finger shows that he is deranged. I mean, really, what balanced person does that? This is just speculation, but I'm sure they biter aggressively attacked him. How would your elderly father or grandfather react if a nutcase biter attacked him out on the street?


He didn't attack him aggressively. In most cases, when there's a demonstration and a small group of contra-protestors, the latter tend to be far more aggressive. According to the articles I read, that was the case. I might also bite of someone's finger when he suddenly hits me. He doesn't have the right to do that.
Bikerman
It seems fairly simple, ethically, to me. If someone tries to punch me in the face and I happen to get my teeth around one of his fingers, then I'm afraid the finger is in real trouble.
The law in the UK talks about 'proportionate force' in relation to self defence. I think that in this case there would be no case to answer...
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
It seems fairly simple, ethically, to me. If someone tries to punch me in the face and I happen to get my teeth around one of his fingers, then I'm afraid the finger is in real trouble.
The law in the UK talks about 'proportionate force' in relation to self defence. I think that in this case there would be no case to answer...


You really think biting off an appendage in response to an elderly man's attempt at self-defence is appropriate force? Iím sorry, but that just confirms that you lefties are bonkers. I guess you would then say that the black man who was ganged up on by Obama's union thugs has every right to shoot or maim them?
Stubru Freak
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
It seems fairly simple, ethically, to me. If someone tries to punch me in the face and I happen to get my teeth around one of his fingers, then I'm afraid the finger is in real trouble.
The law in the UK talks about 'proportionate force' in relation to self defence. I think that in this case there would be no case to answer...


You really think biting off an appendage in response to an elderly man's attempt at self-defence is appropriate force? Iím sorry, but that just confirms that you lefties are bonkers. I guess you would then say that the black man who was ganged up on by Obama's union thugs has every right to shoot or maim them?


He didn't say appropriate force, but proportionate force. Using physical violence as self-defence against verbal violence is not proportional. Using a gun against bare-handed violence is not proportional. Using your teeth when someone uses their hands is proportional: teeth are sharper than hands, but they can produce less force, so they're in the same category.
This is the basis of the self-defence law in many countries, so it really isn't "bonkers".
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
It seems fairly simple, ethically, to me. If someone tries to punch me in the face and I happen to get my teeth around one of his fingers, then I'm afraid the finger is in real trouble.
The law in the UK talks about 'proportionate force' in relation to self defence. I think that in this case there would be no case to answer...


You really think biting off an appendage in response to an elderly man's attempt at self-defence is appropriate force? Iím sorry, but that just confirms that you lefties are bonkers. I guess you would then say that the black man who was ganged up on by Obama's union thugs has every right to shoot or maim them?
a) You assume that the 'elderly man' was defending himself? Against what? Clearly if the 'opponent' threw a punch then that might be valid. Is that born out by the evidence?
b) Using the fallacious 'gun' simile reveals that you either have no grasp of the actual argument, or that you are impervious to rationality.
jmi256
Stubru Freak wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
It seems fairly simple, ethically, to me. If someone tries to punch me in the face and I happen to get my teeth around one of his fingers, then I'm afraid the finger is in real trouble.
The law in the UK talks about 'proportionate force' in relation to self defence. I think that in this case there would be no case to answer...


You really think biting off an appendage in response to an elderly man's attempt at self-defence is appropriate force? Iím sorry, but that just confirms that you lefties are bonkers. I guess you would then say that the black man who was ganged up on by Obama's union thugs has every right to shoot or maim them?


He didn't say appropriate force, but proportionate force. Using physical violence as self-defence against verbal violence is not proportional. Using a gun against bare-handed violence is not proportional. Using your teeth when someone uses their hands is proportional: teeth are sharper than hands, but they can produce less force, so they're in the same category.
This is the basis of the self-defence law in many countries, so it really isn't "bonkers".


Sorry, but biting someone's finger off is not proportional to an elderly man's attempts at self-defense. But I think we'll just have to disagree on that point. If you really think that the nut job biter's actions were completely legal and warranted, I'm sure that he has no reason to avoid the police and won't be charged with a crime.
Stubru Freak
jmi256 wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
It seems fairly simple, ethically, to me. If someone tries to punch me in the face and I happen to get my teeth around one of his fingers, then I'm afraid the finger is in real trouble.
The law in the UK talks about 'proportionate force' in relation to self defence. I think that in this case there would be no case to answer...


You really think biting off an appendage in response to an elderly man's attempt at self-defence is appropriate force? Iím sorry, but that just confirms that you lefties are bonkers. I guess you would then say that the black man who was ganged up on by Obama's union thugs has every right to shoot or maim them?


He didn't say appropriate force, but proportionate force. Using physical violence as self-defence against verbal violence is not proportional. Using a gun against bare-handed violence is not proportional. Using your teeth when someone uses their hands is proportional: teeth are sharper than hands, but they can produce less force, so they're in the same category.
This is the basis of the self-defence law in many countries, so it really isn't "bonkers".


Sorry, but biting someone's finger off is not proportional to an elderly man's attempts at self-defense. But I think we'll just have to disagree on that point. If you really think that the nut job biter's actions were completely legal and warranted, I'm sure that he has no reason to avoid the police and won't be charged with a crime.


It wasn't self defense! Self defense has to be proportionate. When the old man attacks physically in response to verbal violence, that's not self defense. Biting when someone hits you is self defense. It's that simple.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
It seems fairly simple, ethically, to me. If someone tries to punch me in the face and I happen to get my teeth around one of his fingers, then I'm afraid the finger is in real trouble.
The law in the UK talks about 'proportionate force' in relation to self defence. I think that in this case there would be no case to answer...


You really think biting off an appendage in response to an elderly man's attempt at self-defence is appropriate force? Iím sorry, but that just confirms that you lefties are bonkers. I guess you would then say that the black man who was ganged up on by Obama's union thugs has every right to shoot or maim them?
a) You assume that the 'elderly man' was defending himself? Against what? Clearly if the 'opponent' threw a punch then that might be valid. Is that born out by the evidence?
b) Using the fallacious 'gun' simile reveals that you either have no grasp of the actual argument, or that you are impervious to rationality.


Iím saying he was defending himself against a deranged madman. Youíre assuming that the victim threw the punch for no reason. Is that borne out by evidence?

And I grasp your argument completely. I'm just surprised at the magnitude of its stupidity. (Well, not really I guess.)
jmi256
Stubru Freak wrote:

It wasn't self defense! Self defense has to be proportionate. When the old man attacks physically in response to verbal violence, that's not self defense. Biting when someone hits you is self defense. It's that simple.


Ok, we'll see how this plays out then. If you are right, the biter won't be arrested for any crime.
Bikerman
'deranged madman'? What is the evidence for that?
A person remonstrating is not necessarily a 'deranged madman' and the use of physical violence is not acceptable. I repeat - defended himself again what? Some cutting comments?
You think it is acceptable to respond with a punch?

PS - I try to leave out the 'mod' status when I involve myself in discussions like this, but you are on very thin ice when you start using words like 'stupidity'.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
'deranged madman'? What is the evidence for that?

Seriously!? Oh, I don't know... maybe that he bit an elderly man's finger off.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
PS - I try to leave out the 'mod' status when I involve myself in discussions like this, but you are on very thin ice when you start using words like 'stupidity'.


Sorry if my response to your comment below was too "proportional" for you.

Quote:

b) Using the fallacious 'gun' simile reveals that you either have no grasp of the actual argument, or that you are impervious to rationality.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
'deranged madman'? What is the evidence for that?

Seriously!? Oh, I don't know... maybe that he bit an elderly man's finger off.

a) Someone punches you
b) You bite their finger
Does that make you deranged? I think not. In my book that makes you pretty rational. I do not consider myself deranged and I can well imagine doing the same thing. If someone chooses to punch me then they had better take responsibility for that. If I bite the hand that punched then I would consider that a let-off. I would normally respond in kind and, old man or not, he should rightly expect to get hurt.
The fact that this chap bit the finger clean off simply means his teeth are probably better than mine.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
PS - I try to leave out the 'mod' status when I involve myself in discussions like this, but you are on very thin ice when you start using words like 'stupidity'.


Sorry if my response to your comment below was too "proportional" for you.

Quote:

b) Using the fallacious 'gun' simile reveals that you either have no grasp of the actual argument, or that you are impervious to rationality.

Yes, that comment was provocative and I retract it. My point, however, remains. Keep this civil or I will intervene.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
'deranged madman'? What is the evidence for that?

Seriously!? Oh, I don't know... maybe that he bit an elderly man's finger off.

a) Someone punches you
b) You bite their finger
Does that make you deranged? I think not. In my book that makes you pretty rational. I do not consider myself deranged and I can well imagine doing the same thing. If someone chooses to punch me then they had better take responsibility for that. If I bite the hand that punched then I would consider that a let-off. I would normally respond in kind and, old man or not, he should rightly expect to get hurt.
The fact that this chap bit the finger clean off simply means his teeth are probably better than mine.


Again, if your opinion is correct, I'm sure the attacker has no worries about being arrested, and Iíll admit that Iím wrong. Iíd be surprised and disappointed, though. I would think in a civilized society people would have moral standards and laws/justice that place us a little higher than savages.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
PS - I try to leave out the 'mod' status when I involve myself in discussions like this, but you are on very thin ice when you start using words like 'stupidity'.


Sorry if my response to your comment below was too "proportional" for you.

Quote:

b) Using the fallacious 'gun' simile reveals that you either have no grasp of the actual argument, or that you are impervious to rationality.

Yes, that comment was provocative and I retract it. My point, however, remains. Keep this civil or I will intervene.


Fair enough.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Again, if your opinion is correct, I'm sure the attacker has no worries about being arrested, and Iíll admit that Iím wrong. Iíd be surprised and disappointed, though. I would think in a civilized society people would have moral standards and laws/justice that place us a little higher than savages.
We do. One of the central planks of that is that you don't resort to physical violence unless you are in physical danger. We call that self defence.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Again, if your opinion is correct, I'm sure the attacker has no worries about being arrested, and Iíll admit that Iím wrong. Iíd be surprised and disappointed, though. I would think in a civilized society people would have moral standards and laws/justice that place us a little higher than savages.
We do. One of the central planks of that is that you don't resort to physical violence unless you are in physical danger. We call that self defence.


I understand what you're saying, but I just can't agree that an appropriate and proportional defense from an elderly man is to bite his finger clean off. I would imagine biting a finger off would require quite a lot of effort and time. Not something that happens in a split second. He definitely knew what he was doing. I know you think the law will decide that the attackers' actions are covered under self-defense, but I have a feeling the attacker will be charged if they find him.
Bikerman
Well, I haven't had a lot of fights in my life, but I have had a few. My memories are of them are that it all happened very quickly. I don't think that you could seriously plan to bite someone's finger off. I suspect that it is far more likely that the finger found the mouth and the mouth bit. I doubt that either one of them took stock of the other persons age. Testosterone tends to be blind to such things.

If there is evidence that this chap grabbed hold of the hand, stuck it in his mouth, and bit the finger off, then I would agree that this would be disproportionate, and I suspect that any reasonable court would convict of 'actual physical harm' or similar. There is no such evidence (or at least none that I have seen). To classify the chap as a 'deranged madman' is therefore completely unwarranted.

I repeat - if someone punched me and I happened to get my teeth around his finger, then that finger would be in serious trouble. In my case it would probably be a nasty bite rather than an amputation, but that's only because my teeth would probably not do the job.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Well, I haven't had a lot of fights in my life, but I have had a few. My memories are of them are that it all happened very quickly. I don't think that you could seriously plan to bite someone's finger off. I suspect that it is far more likely that the finger found the mouth and the mouth bit. I doubt that either one of them took stock of the other persons age. Testosterone tends to be blind to such things.

If there is evidence that this chap grabbed hold of the hand, stuck it in his mouth, and bit the finger off, then I would agree that this would be disproportionate, and I suspect that any reasonable court would convict of 'actual physical harm' or similar. There is no such evidence (or at least none that I have seen). To classify the chap as a 'deranged madman' is therefore completely unwarranted.

I repeat - if someone punched me and I happened to get my teeth around his finger, then that finger would be in serious trouble. In my case it would probably be a nasty bite rather than an amputation, but that's only because my teeth would probably not do the job.


Wait, I just reread some of your posts. Are you saying that your view is that as the victim swung, the biter "found" the finger in his mouth (basically "catching" the finger in his mouth) and chomped down? If that was the case I could maybe come around to your argument seeing how adrenaline, etc. played a factor. But if the old guy swung, they broke apart, then scuffled and the biter then took a bite at the old man, that's what I have a problem with.
Bikerman
Pretty much. I'm saying that this version of events is credible - based on personal experience of being in a fist fight or two. Contrary to popular movies, most such confrontations generally start out as 'handbags at dawn' with a lot of ungainly wild-punching, pushing, and generally inefficient energy expenditure. I can well imagine a half-punch/half-slap putting a finger in a mouth and that mouth biting down. It fits with my own experiences. Had I found such a finger within range after someone tried to punch me then you better believe that there would have been some serious biting. I know the Marquis of Queensbury rules, and I studiously ignore them when someone is trying to hurt me.

Of course I have no evidence that this happened, and I agree that if there is a case to answer then it should be answered. The only evidence presented from either 'camp' seems to be reportage based on 'accounts' which are themselves fairly questionable. I would like to see something I could trust before assuming anything more.
ocalhoun
Can we stop speculating about who started the finger-biting episode now, and get back to the point of the thread?
handfleisch
The facts: A belligerent, violent guy, 65 and not elderly by any means, standing with the anti-health reform crowd and behaving aggressively, repeatedly punches someone who calls him an idiot. One of his punches ends up in the other guy's mouth and the other guy bites down. Mr. Anti-Reform guy loses part of his pinkie. He goes to the hospital and his excellent government insurance, Medicare, pays for all his expert treatment. FOX NEWS blatantly lionizes this man who started the fight, not mentioning that he is on medicare since that would ruin the propaganda. FOX NEWS encourages him to repeat an insane talking point, the conspiracy theory that health care reform a plan to "grab what's left of our freedom away from us" (despite the fact that the guy has government health care!) And the lunacy goes on.

This whole thread started on an insane conspiracy theory using blurry youtube videos as "proof" in order to claim black is white, up is down, and now, a violent anti-gov't health insurance protester who lost a fight and who actually is on government health insurance is anything but a raving, hypocritical dittohead.
ocalhoun
^I guess that means "no, we can't get back to the topic"... Confused
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
^I guess that means "no, we can't get back to the topic"... :?


The topic is how ludicrous, irrational, consistently wrong and propagandistic this whole thread is, like how so many Republican/rightist rhetoric is (like your belief that Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer). If proving that this latest instance is overwhelmingly wrong and hilarious bothers you, you might want to boycott FOX and World Nut Daily for a while to regain some perspective and mental balance.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
^I guess that means "no, we can't get back to the topic"... Confused


The topic is how ludicrous, irrational, consistently wrong and propagandistic this whole thread is, like how so many Republican/rightist rhetoric is (like your belief that Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer). If proving that this latest instance is overwhelmingly wrong and hilarious bothers you, you might want to boycott FOX and World Nut Daily for a while to regain some perspective and mental balance.


No, you might want to read the title of the thread handfleisch. The topic is how Obama and the Dems are using the unions to inflict violence against citizens in an attempt to attack and intimidate people who dare let the people they elected know how they feel about this important topic. In an attempt to get this back on topic, here are the videos again so people can judge for themselves whether they are fake as handfleisch seems to suggest.


Barack Obama Supporters Sneak Union, ACORN Cronies in at Russ Carnahan St. Louis Town Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBw1U-O59To

Obama Supporter, SEIU Union Goon, Arrested after Attack at Russ Carnahan Health Care Town Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbOjfq_M8_8

Union Thugs Attack Peaceful Protesters At A Townhall Meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyh3HYtSes

Victim of Attack at Healthcare Townhall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLpHbD5cy0s

Union Thugs at Tim Bishop Town Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LafXjFtkFAI

Barack Obama's USA: SEIU Union and/or ACORN Goons Get Violent at Kathy Castor Tampa Town Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnT3Uevy5rU

Obama's SEIU Thugs Attack Black Conservative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWnxlFbYjVY

Kenneth Gladney's Attorney Speaks Out Against SEIU Thuggery & Violence at Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB0wQDhKVcE
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

The topic is how ludicrous, irrational, consistently wrong and propagandistic this whole thread is, like how so many Republican/rightist rhetoric is (like your belief that Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer). If proving that this latest instance is overwhelmingly wrong and hilarious bothers you, you might want to boycott FOX and World Nut Daily for a while to regain some perspective and mental balance.


No, you might want to read the title of the thread handfleisch. The topic is how Obama and the Dems are using the unions to inflict violence against citizens in an attempt to attack and intimidate people who dare let the people they elected know how they feel about this important topic. In an attempt to get this back on topic, here are the videos again so people can judge for themselves whether they are fake as handfleisch seems to suggest....


Great conspiracy theory, thank you! Is Amelia Earheart the secret ring leader? This is the best spam lie yet, and listing mobile phone films on youtube as proof is a good joke. How about listing one reputable source? Don't you think the Wall Street Journal, never shy to criticize unions, would be all over this if it were true? Has even always-happy-to-lie-for-Republicans Fox news carried this, or is the lie just too big even for them?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
and listing mobile phone films on youtube as proof is a good joke.

Quite true. I wish people wouldn't.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/unions_to_counter_town_hall_te.html
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/08/labor_weighs_in.html
Related topics
Philosophy: Chemistry, Mathematics?
Tremulous - opensource game
Congratulations President Obama
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Creating a blog
When does crisis will be end ?
Things only a Republican could believe
Obama's speech to students Kindergarten through 12
Dem's Global Warming Debacle
America Rising - Awesome YouTube Production
Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship
Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment
US National Debt!
Is this the reason why Romney lost?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.