Typical,violent, psychotic liberal...

[Vuk]

Only a Democrat....



On his way to a fundraiser (hosted by Nancy Pelosi), DEMOCRATIC Congressman Bob Etheridge attacked a college student and stole his phone. Never mind the obvious point here that he just attack a US citizen who he is supposed to be serving, and stole his phone, but he did it in a direct attack against the First Amendment.
How could we be stupid enough to elect liberal thugs like him to Congress? Funny, but I notice that the media has been almost completely quiet about this one. Maybe they are afraid that he will come down to their studio and beat them up if they air it...

[Megas Methuselah]

You're blind, man.

[Hax]

Sounds a bit too good to be true. Just take another look, Vuk.

[Beskar]

How could we be stupid enough to elect liberal thugs like him to Congress? Funny, but I notice that the media has been almost completely quiet about this one. Maybe they are afraid that he will come down to their studio and beat them up if they air it...

Because Foxnews don't want to get redfaced about the fact Republicans do it all the time and it was an actual Republican "black-ops" team which pulled off the stunt.



Note: He is a senator from Carolina being stopped in the streets of Washington D.C with "students" prepped with Video phones recording him, knowing exactly who he is, and where he was going to be.

He perhaps should not have grabbed the students, but he is right. "Who are you?", he smelt the rat from a mile away.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think this is a liberal conspiracy, there was hardly any fuss here when a BNP candidate was shown kicking an Asian guy in the face during a fight at one point when he was campaigning.

I don't know why the guy in your video manhandled the student, but it wasn't really that bad. We heard about it, he apologised, so we can move on...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Vuk, this might start a flame war or get you a bunch of "yeah!!!" posts on another forum, but in the backroom it'll get you a few bored responses and then it'll be closed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pity American democracy has descended into harassment and heckling representatives of the people on the streets, by groups too sneakily to wage open debate.

Shame the Congressman couldn't keep his cool.


Pity this is mistaken for interesting politics.

[InsaneApache]

You Yanks have wussies as politicians. We have proper ones.

Behold...



...and he was the deputy Prime Minister.

Take that, you rotter.

[Beskar]

Here is a better one with sound -


Prescott should have beat the guy harder.

[PanzerJaeger]

Because Foxnews don't want to get redfaced about the fact Republicans do it all the time and it was an actual Republican "black-ops" team which pulled off the stunt.

Pity American democracy has descended into harassment and heckling representatives of the people on the streets, by groups too sneakily to wage open debate.

Harassment? "Black ops"? Really?

The guy got asked one question by a couple of College Republican nerds and flew off the handle. A simple "no comment" would have sufficed. Anyone in his line of work should be able to field questions from the public, regardless of whether said public has an agenda or not. That was not acceptable behavior from an elected representative.

Now, is this indicative of liberals in general? Probably not. In fact, I've always seen the Left portrayed as the wimpier side of the political spectrum in America (certainly not in Europe). However, a super secret special Republican sting operation to induce a Democratic congressman into violence this was not.

[Crazed Rabbit]

He's the congressman, he has to answer the questions. The public does not have to identify themselves.

And Hax, the article you link to is wrong. It may have been an ambush interview, but that doesn't matter. He's a public figure; he cannot assault (ie break the law) people nor expect not to have questions asked of him. The motivation of the filmmakers does not matter.

What we have is a elected official attacking a citizen for asking him a question. It's not legal and it's not right.

Now, is he a "Typical,violent, psychotic liberal"? No. I doubt he's typical, he doesn't seem really psychotic and I don't know that he's liberal as opposed to just being a democrat.

it was an actual Republican "black-ops" team which pulled off the stunt.

Oh man, you are a font of humor Beskar.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Harassment? "Black ops"? Really?

The guy got asked one question by a couple of College Republican nerds and flew off the handle. A simple "no comment" would have sufficed. Anyone in his line of work should be able to field questions from the public, regardless of whether said public has an agenda or not. That was not acceptable behavior from an elected representative.

Now, is this indicative of liberals in general? Probably not. In fact, I've always seen the Left portrayed as the wimpier side of the political spectrum in America (certainly not in Europe). However, a super secret special Republican sting operation to induce a Democratic congressman into violence this was not.

They're not college kids. They are from http://biggovernment.com/, a partisan media/action group. They knew who this congressman was, and where he was, and where he had been ('hello congressman...')
It is all rather annoying, but I guess it all depends on whose side you're on. If the Tea Party gets on your nerves, then so do these two. If you think the Tea Party saves America from the Obama Agenda to plunge America into destitution and tyranny, then these two guys are just anonymous college kids.



Regardless, the congressmen himself is well out of line. I myself thought he looked a bit drunk.



Edit: I wonder how I would've felt about something like this if in 2007 some environmental activists asked a Rep congressman if he supported the Bush Big Oil* Agenda. Hmmm....in all fairness, I'd be slightly less worries about the tactics and more outraged at the behaviour of the MC.
But hopefully not dramatically so.
*Explicitly or as a subtext.

[Crazed Rabbit]

They're not college kids. They are from http://biggovernment.com/, a partisan media/action group.

No, I believe not. The owner of that site has said they don't work for him and he hasn't paid them anything. Probably something like college republicans.

They knew who this congressman was, and where he was, and where he had been ('hello congressman...')
It is all rather annoying, but I guess it all depends on whose side you're on. If the Tea Party gets on your nerves, then so do these two. If you think the Tea Party saves America from the Obama Agenda to plunge America into destitution and tyranny, then these two guys are just anonymous college kids.

Regardless, the congressmen himself is well out of line. I myself thought he looked a bit drunk.

The essential thing is that an elected official attacked a citizen for asking questions. I'm going to link to a post by my favorite liberal writer, Glenn Greenwald:

That's a clear case of assault and battery (the unedited video from the first camera is here). There is some speculation that the individuals questioning him have some connection to the right-wing organization of Andrew Breitbart. I hope it goes without saying how irrelevant that is. The only reason I think this is worth noting is this: imagine what would have happened to those students if this situation had been reversed, and it was they who had physically assaulted Rep. Etheridge, rather than the other way around. How quickly would they have been arrested and prosecuted? The application of our laws isn't supposed to depend upon who is perpetrating the crime and who the victim is. Obviously, there are few principles, if there are any, more discarded than that one in Washington, but it would be nice to see its being applied in this instance by having this Congressman, obviously inebriated with an extreme sense of entitlement, arrested and charged.
...
Some people obviously cannot accept that a Good Democrat could possibly do something bad to a conservative, and they'll continue to deny reality -- or just invent realities that don't exist -- to justify that. This is not a hard case. As Pam Spaulding said: "Sad that personal responsibility for being a violent hothead now comes with mitigation talking points. Dems need to quit it." Tribalism is a natural part of the human perspective, but it's amazing when even incidents as relatively trivial and clear-cut as this one are processed through its distorting lens.

He did look somewhat drunk.

CR

[Beskar]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rig...nts_hassl.html

The operative, who has been responsible for numerous undercover ("black ops") political projects, compared the two students to a military "hunter-killer team" -- the tandem of a sniper and a spotter. The operative did not want to disclose the tactics and strategy of such projects, but said that we can expect to see more video confrontations during what Mike Flynn of BigGovernment.com predicts will be a "long hot summer." ... It is unlikely that the students involved in the Etheridge incident will claim responsibility, my conservative operative source suggests, because doing so would expose them to reprisals by staffers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Oh man, you are a font of humor Beskar.

Unfortunately, I am not responsible for this humour, the Republicans, biggovernment.com and other sources are. I am simply a humble messenger.

[Azathoth]

So is this the "Sampson Handshake"?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rig...nts_hassl.html

The operative, who has been responsible for numerous undercover ("black ops") political projects, compared the two students to a military "hunter-killer team" -- the tandem of a sniper and a spotter. The operative did not want to disclose the tactics and strategy of such projects, but said that we can expect to see more video confrontations during what Mike Flynn of BigGovernment.com predicts will be a "long hot summer." ... It is unlikely that the students involved in the Etheridge incident will claim responsibility, my conservative operative source suggests, because doing so would expose them to reprisals by staffers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Oh man this just gets better and better. Tell me Beskar, what other groups work in pairs and use video cameras and ask questions?

And would you ever, in a thousand years, use such a bull **** source as some blogger citing an anonymous 'operative' if they went against the democrats or left in general?

You are aware that the "operative" only claimed to have been part of "black-ops" plans, not that these guys were?

Just how 'black-ops' do you have to be in order to get a camera and ask a congressman a question?

Unfortunately, I am not responsible for this humour, the Republicans, biggovernment.com and other sources are. I am simply a humble messenger.

Oh, you. Don't be humble now.

CR

[Vuk]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rig...nts_hassl.html



Unfortunately, I am not responsible for this humour, the Republicans, biggovernment.com and other sources are. I am simply a humble messenger.

I really, honestly cannot believe you guys! I mean, how can you even think like that?
They knew who he was? OF COURSE! If I want to ask my professor a question, I am not going to blindfold myself and ask random people who I bump into. Of course I am going to find my professor and know who I am talking too.
They knew where he was? How else are you gonna ask someone a question, pray tell?
They brought along a video camera? Guess what? I have brought a video camera when asking local politicians about things. They were not hiding the camera. They asked him to answer a question FOR the camera! 'black ops' implies undercover. There was nothing undercover about this. Two US citizens asked a public servant if he would answer a question for their camera. It makes me sick how all the liberals try desperately to make excuses for this wackjob. What he did was violent, criminal, and 100% uncalled for. This is not the Soviet Union, citizens have the right to ask their representatives a question. If he does not want to answer, all he had to say was 'no comment' or to simply ignore them.
The guy is a paranoid nut job, and liberals only make themselves look dishonest when they try to defend his actions.
If this was a Republican who did this, I can only imagine how the liberals would be screaming. How about just being honest and admitting that the guy is a nut?

[Beskar]

Oh man this just gets better and better. Tell me Beskar, what other groups work in pairs and use video cameras and ask questions?

And would you ever, in a thousand years, use such a bull **** source as some blogger citing an anonymous 'operative' if they went against the democrats or left in general?

You are aware that the "operative" only claimed to have been part of "black-ops" plans, not that these guys were?

Just how 'black-ops' do you have to be in order to get a camera and ask a congressman a question?

You make it sound as funny as the definition of 'Free Market'.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The tone of this whole thread, from the outset, was not about a discussable point. All-in-all, I believe this particular bit of "sound and fury" does indeed "signify nothing," and shall be "heard no more."