Well, personally I think we should draw and quarter the guy.
Is that better?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NC Democrat assaults student reporter
NC Democrat assaults student reporterFollow
Personally I think both are non-stories which is why I didn't post the Whitman thing earlier. I am, truly, truly dismayed though at the lack of conservative outrage over Whitman's history as a violent criminal.
Truly.
Truly.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
You don't see the difference between a sitting Congressman and a company executive?
Not really, no. Especially not when one is running for chief executive of the 7th largest economy in the world and the other is running for 0.22% of the House of Representatives.
Quote:
Character should matter and displays of a lack of it should draw something more than the "meh." reaction we get here.
Unless it's a "private citizen" who happens to be running for a GOP governorship. Then it's waved away with "Let the voters decide."
Your story is 3 years old. At this point that's all that's available given no serious injury occurred.
Jophiel wrote:
Personally I think both are non-stories which is why I didn't post the Whitman thing earlier. I am, truly, truly dismayed though at the lack of conservative outrage over Whitman's history as a violent criminal.
Truly.
Truly.
Now you're just truly being an ***. Off my kool-aid, *****.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Your story is 3 years old. At this point that's all that's available given no serious injury occurred.
Yes! Let's pretend that her character has changed dramatically since the days of her wanton physical assault on people before putting her in charge of a state! Perfect!
Both are non-stories. Pretending that one is a real story and the other isn't though, especially when crying crocodile tears about "character", is pretty ridiculous.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
If the dude was really at risk of losing his seat, this incident isn't going to affect people's opinions that much. They either liked him or they hated him already. If they hated him, they'll see this as justification for their hate. If they liked him, they'll excuse it.
If they're not in his district, like every single person on this forum, they probably don't really give a **** either way.
If they're not in his district, like every single person on this forum, they probably don't really give a **** either way.
Jophiel wrote:
It's okay when GOP'ers assault people because they just pay them off...
Political Wire wrote:
The New York Times reports that in 2007 an eBay employee accused California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R) of becoming angry and forcefully pushing her in the company's executive conference room.
"The employee, Young Mi Kim, was preparing Ms. Whitman for a news media interview that day. Ms. Kim, who was not injured in the incident, hired a lawyer and threatened a lawsuit, but the dispute was resolved under the supervision of a private mediator. Two of the former employees said the company paid a six-figure financial settlement to Ms. Kim, which one of them characterized as 'around $200,000.'"
"The employee, Young Mi Kim, was preparing Ms. Whitman for a news media interview that day. Ms. Kim, who was not injured in the incident, hired a lawyer and threatened a lawsuit, but the dispute was resolved under the supervision of a private mediator. Two of the former employees said the company paid a six-figure financial settlement to Ms. Kim, which one of them characterized as 'around $200,000.'"
To be fair, no one's demanding that the students sue the Congressman. But the point is absolutely valid that if the students don't choose to press charges, then it's not really a legal matter. It's still a pretty bad PR move though. Kinda in the "WTF was he thinking?" arena...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It's still a pretty bad PR move though. Kinda in the "WTF was he thinking?" arena...
Oh, sure. I doubt anyone would say it was a stellar act of public relations. I'm referring more to the "Why won't you castigate him for his criminal deeds?" angle to the thread. The answer is that, provided no real harm comes from it, I'm not overly worried about single incidents of people grabbing people's arms or shoving them. I think it's stupid and I don't condone it but it doesn't fill me with righteous ire either.
I do think that if you're worked up about the one event, you have little defense for not being worked up over the other.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
No, if the students don't press charges then it's not a civil matter. It could still be a criminal matter if it rises to the level of simple assault.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
No, if the students don't press charges then it's not a civil matter. It could still be a criminal matter if it rises to the level of simple assault.
I'll answer you and Sammy at the same time Joph (hahah!). If they don't press charges, it's not a criminal matter. Unless you're suggesting that these are really his two gay lover roomates or something (cause some statues allow for the state to intercede in cases of domestic violence). As a general rule, the victim of a crime has to choose to press charges.
And it really doesn't matter what we think (other than from a PR angle). Regardless of whether you don't think grabbing someone's arm like that is important enough to be a crime, it's fully up to the guy who got his arm grabbed to choose to file a charge or not. As a couple people have pointed out, people have been convicted of assault for doing far less than that.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Criminal charges are not up to the victims of the crime. They are decided by the representatives of the people of the state in which the crime was committed. Obviously it's better if the victim cooperates, but the DA can decide to go forward without them.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
Regardless of whether you don't think grabbing someone's arm like that is important enough to be a crime, it's fully up to the guy who got his arm grabbed to choose to file a charge or not.
That's a microissue though and has little to do with whether one should vote Democratic or Republican. Which is what the thread itself is about ("Boo! Democrats bad!!").
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
Criminal charges are not up to the victims of the crime. They are decided by the representatives of the people of the state in which the crime was committed. Obviously it's better if the victim cooperates, but the DA can decide to go forward without them.
Depends on the crime. The state does not normally intervene in the case of a simple assault like this except in cases of domestic disputes. One person's assault could be another person's horsing around.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Regardless of whether you don't think grabbing someone's arm like that is important enough to be a crime, it's fully up to the guy who got his arm grabbed to choose to file a charge or not.
That's a microissue though and has little to do with whether one should vote Democratic or Republican. Which is what the thread itself is about ("Boo! Democrats bad!!").
Yes. I think we can agree that being an arrogant asshole politician isn't limited to any one party...
Edited, Jun 15th 2010 12:54pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophed,
Are you serious? What is real harm? And just because you keep parrotting the Dem lie that he just grabbed the kids arm doesn't make it so. The Democrat congressman wrapped his hands around that kids neck then pulled him close in what liberal pundits are calling a "hug".
Sorry but grabbing people by the neck does cause harm. Obviously these kids weren't beaten senseless but pretending that the guy just grabbed the guys wrist and didn't leave any marks so it's ok is just the type of response I expect from the same liberals who kept electing that murderer Ted Kennedy.
Also glad to hear that if I ever meet your wife I have your permission to walk right up to her and give her a nice bear hug. Apparently it's ok by Democrats if people "hug" complete strangers permission or not.
Edited, Jun 15th 2010 4:20pm by knoxxsouthy
Quote:
no real harm comes from it
Are you serious? What is real harm? And just because you keep parrotting the Dem lie that he just grabbed the kids arm doesn't make it so. The Democrat congressman wrapped his hands around that kids neck then pulled him close in what liberal pundits are calling a "hug".
Sorry but grabbing people by the neck does cause harm. Obviously these kids weren't beaten senseless but pretending that the guy just grabbed the guys wrist and didn't leave any marks so it's ok is just the type of response I expect from the same liberals who kept electing that murderer Ted Kennedy.
Also glad to hear that if I ever meet your wife I have your permission to walk right up to her and give her a nice bear hug. Apparently it's ok by Democrats if people "hug" complete strangers permission or not.
Edited, Jun 15th 2010 4:20pm by knoxxsouthy
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Sorry but grabbing people by the neck does cause harm.
Every time?
OMG shoving people causes harm too!!!! OMGOMGOMG!!!!
Hehehe... it's cute when you try so hard.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophed,
I'm just happy you're finally admiting the guy grabbed that kid by the neck.
I'm just happy you're finally admiting the guy grabbed that kid by the neck.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Jophed,
I'm just happy you're finally admiting the guy grabbed that kid by the neck.
I'm just happy you're finally admiting the guy grabbed that kid by the neck.
You're really reaching, here. No one is denying anything. The media isn't covering anything up. They've baldly showed him manhandling this kid. What are we meant to be taking from this? Where is this indignation coming from? Yes, the man layed his hands on some young guy. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do. What about it?
When will you admit that Whitman is a crazed criminal who assaults people and then pays them off in order to retain her freedom to go out and attack again?!?!?!?!
WHY WON'T THE GOP STOP THIS MONSTER????
Heh.
WHY WON'T THE GOP STOP THIS MONSTER????
Heh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Jophed,
I'm just happy you're finally admiting the guy grabbed that kid by the neck.
I'm just happy you're finally admiting the guy grabbed that kid by the neck.
You're really reaching, here. No one is denying anything. The media isn't covering anything up. They've baldly showed him manhandling this kid. What are we meant to be taking from this? Where is this indignation coming from? Yes, the man layed his hands on some young guy. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do. What about it?
I think the point is that there's covering it, and there's covering it. The perception of public outrage at something is pretty obviously based on whether or not the media follows up the story with stories about the outrage itself. If they go out looking, they can always find it, so it's interesting to see which stories contain that sort of follow up and which don't. Want to guess which category this one is in?
I don't personally think it's such a big deal, but there is a valid point to be made on that front. It's just that it's so ubiquitous that it's almost not worth pointing out anymore. You either see the liberal bias in media coverage or you don't, so I'm not sure what's to be gained by yet another example. If the examples of this every single day don't convince you, this isn't going to either.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I think the point is that there's covering it, and there's covering it. The perception of public outrage at something is pretty obviously based on whether or not the media follows up the story with stories about the outrage itself.
I'm not about to go poking around various media outlets but the video of the event was on the CQ Politics site front page all day yesterday. I'll happily admit that most people don't read CQ Politics. But they probably should.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nothing like validating outrage by manufacturing it.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Xarus,
You mean like the manufactured outrage Obama is pretending to have towards one of his largest contributors?
You mean like the manufactured outrage Obama is pretending to have towards one of his largest contributors?
Quote:
H*ll yeah! Now that's what i'm talking about. Does this mean Cheney can now legally wring the neck of reporters he doesn't like as long as he pretends to hug them afterwards? I'm all for this if that's the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGZJHR9Q0M
That is all I have to add to this thread.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
You mean like the manufactured outrage Obama is pretending to have towards one of his largest contributors?
Hasn't Obama has been receiving criticism for specifically not being outraged?
Recent Visitors: 248
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NC Democrat assaults student reporter
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC