See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #301
   On February 24th, 2011 at 11:45 pm, Major O said:

   Haven’t seen you in a while Major. Nice to see you back. What’s shakin these days?

   I read Michelle most days but only post intermittently. I often want to post but get tired beforehand thinking of how it always ends up fighting the neverending resident Lefties.

2. #302
   On February 24th, 2011 at 11:55 pm, swede said:

   frontierguy said:
   I think we are Greece now and I am kinda shocked it happened so quickly.

   Well, we’ve known this SS and Medicare train wreck was coming with the Boomers hitting retirement for 30 years. What fries my circuits is that now that we are approaching the cliff, they’re pushing the throttle instead of the brakes!

   Steyn did a great piece on this a while back.

   Our Own greek Tragedy
   

   Think of Greece as California: Every year an irresponsible and corrupt bureaucracy awards itself higher pay and better benefits paid for by an ever-shrinking wealth-generating class. And think of Germany as one of the less profligate, still just about functioning corners of America such as my own state of New Hampshire: Responsibility doesn’t pay. You’ll wind up bailing out anyway. The problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end, it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans. What could go wrong?

3. #303
   On February 25th, 2011 at 1:16 am, John Hitchcock said:

   I’m fashionably late to the party and I see the thread’s been sufficiently jacked, but I just need to say the union protesters “done good” this time.

   No, I don’t agree with their message or the reason for their protest. No, I don’t believe the public sector should be unionized. But no, I cannot fault the union for that thug’s actions.

   That thug is responsible for his own actions and the crowd is commendable for theirs. They tried to calm him down, shut him down separate him out, and then shout him out. And the emcee gave a good calming speechification.

   In this instance, they done good. And I cannot make hay with a hasty generalization to attack them.

4. #304
   On February 25th, 2011 at 1:44 am, corkie said:

   On February 24th, 2011 at 1:48 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

   You know what? I any of you Malkin supporters had any brains, the first thing you would do is join a union:

   DETROIT — General Motors, which nearly collapsed from the weight of its debts two years ago before reorganizing in a government-sponsored bankruptcy, said Thursday that it earned $4.7 billion in 2010, the most in more than a decade.
   It was the first profitable year since 2004 for G.M., which became publicly traded in November, ending a streak of losses totaling about $90 billion.

   In addition, G.M. said 45,000 union workers would receive profit-sharing checks averaging $4,300, the most in the company’s history.
   Looks like the government bailout along with a strong labor force of skilled unionized workers paid off……

   This is very funny.

   Ilovemycountry doesn’t understand that the “special” bankruptcy the federal government gave GM freed them of the weight of its debts by screwing the debt holders.

   llovemycountry doesn’t understand that it’s much easier to be profitable when you have the luxury of reduced interest payments.

   Ilovemycountry doesn’t understand that good companies don’t just make a profit during an economic turnaround – good companies also survive economic downturn.

5. #305
   On February 25th, 2011 at 1:46 am, corkie said:

   On February 24th, 2011 at 2:38 pm, chapoutier said:

   Um, GM certainly has paid back all the money it owes. The US received stock in return for the rest of the bailout money. Surely you know the difference between an equity and a debt interest?

   Wait a minute. You’re omitting the part of the story about GM playing a shell game with TARP money.

   Please clarify this honestly.

6. #306
   On February 25th, 2011 at 2:01 am, John Hitchcock said:

   Wait a minute. You’re omitting the part of the story about GM playing a shell game with TARP money.

   Please clarify this honestly.

   You don’t expect that to happen, do you, Corkie?

   It’s a rare leftist that debates honestly. Always something wrong with what they say, such as this one, which throws away reams of pertinent information to make its dishonest pitch.

7. #307
   On February 25th, 2011 at 3:10 am, JeffB. said:

   I really hate that idea that all union people are lazy.

   I really hate the idea that everyone in the union gets the same pay, benefits and protection as your dad regardless of whether they work as hard as your dad.

8. #308
   On February 25th, 2011 at 7:01 am, bolivar said:

   My Dad was a member of International Maritime Union and all they ever did for him was tell him what to do, when to do it and when to strike and he hated them bitterly. He had no choice however and paid their damn dues to keep his job.

   I am proud of Providence School Board – they are actually showing some spine and unlike Central Falls, they may actually win this one – no this is Rhode Island – and this state will never get better. We are doomed to slide further into the abyss of debt and despair.

9. #309
   On February 25th, 2011 at 7:02 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

   JeffB–yeah, I see what you’re saying, though I’m not sure if it worked quite that way with IBEW.

   I don’t know enough about how some of these unions work. If they mean you can’t get fired even if you do a poor job, then yeah, that’s a problem. Academic tenure at universities drives me crazy in that respect. I’ve had a couple of professors who really should have been fired.

10. #310
    On February 25th, 2011 at 7:41 am, ramblingman said:

    On February 24th, 2011 at 12:54 pm, J-Bone said:
    In Georgia (my locale), however, the giver is actually straight.

    On February 24th, 2011 at 3:29 pm, J-Bone said:
    I didn’t mean that everybody in Georgia follows the giver/getter rule….only the natives and the Mexican illegal aliens.

    You could not be more wrong. My parents were both GA natives. I spent a lot of time there in my youth. I went to high school there. I can assure you that “natives” most certainly do not consider pitchers to be straight. Hanging out in Little Five Points does not exactly give you a view of the general public.

11. #311
    On February 25th, 2011 at 8:07 am, JPinSB said:

    I think his choice of words along with tone and body language speaks to how the right have long been viewed. We are the bottom. We have been the bottom for how many decades. Will we be able to bring their viewpoint of us to an end (snort) while adhering to our conservative, nonviolent values. When. How.

12. #312
    On February 25th, 2011 at 9:07 am, Virginia Patriot said:

    Well, he could have used Occam’s razor.

    I noticed the misspelling, just didn’t want to be, well, like chappy…

13. #313
    On February 25th, 2011 at 9:31 am, granite said:

    On February 25th, 2011 at 9:07 am, Virginia Patriot said:

    Understood, VP.

    Which is why, for months and more, I had not commented on that particular dandy’s errors, even as he would point out those of other posters.

14. #314
    On February 25th, 2011 at 9:55 am, cbmi said:

    On February 24th, 2011 at 1:48 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    You know what? I any of you Malkin supporters had any brains, the first thing you would do is join a union: …………………………………..

    looks like the government bailout along with a strong labor force of skilled unionized workers paid off……

    It’s not that we don’t have “brains”, it’s that each of us has one that functions well.
    We know that it would be impossible for everyone to be in a union. They are already artificially “huge” – that’s the point. They are no longer working FOR the little guy, they are the “fat cats” living on artificially inflated wages and benefits, reality and consequences be damned.

    Why was the bailout needed in the first place?!?!

    In an only slightly different scenario, you may as well say, “if you had any brains, the first thing you would do is get in good with the local crime bosses. Otherwise, you’re out there on your own, man.”

    Most of us would rather be out on our own, man.

    Hmmmm, maybe your post was actually sarcastic and I misinterpreted it. I hope so.

15. #315
    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:35 am, chapoutier said:

    Our parser- and correcter-in-chief today also spelled sarsaparilla as “sasparilla”, and used the plural “criteria” as the singular form of the noun.

    Seriously, you are a moron. I never point out spelling errors, which is petty and dumb. Show me one single time.

16. #316
    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:39 am, chapoutier said:

    Naw, just another name calling leftist parasite!

    I’ll just let this statement speak for itself, OK. We’ll see if you even have a modicum of self awareness.

17. #317
    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:46 am, chapoutier said:

    I am proud of Providence School Board – they are actually showing some spine and unlike Central Falls, they may actually win this one – no this is Rhode Island – and this state will never get better. We are doomed to slide further into the abyss of debt and despair.

    You should read the original ProJo article. What the Providence School Board has nothing to do with spine and everything to do with the fact that they didn’t have their act together soon enough to meet the notice deadline for layoffs. Some teachers may be fired, but performance issues are not driving this. Fiscal concerns are. Moreover, there is nothing in the article to indicate that the teachers they do lay off will be chosen based on merit. Here’s guessing that, except in pretty extreme cases, seniority will be a much bigger factor.

    Hot Air’s headline, which MM parrots is misleading and totally unsubstantiated by the piece.

18. #318
    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:48 am, chapoutier said:

    You will see me use this term frequently as the stripped down version, projection.

    No doubt. This is the third time, at least. A lazy, lazy retort used as a last resort by people who have nothing of worth to say.

19. #319
    On February 25th, 2011 at 11:39 am, Peter Hughes said:

    So in conclusion, you may think I am a liar, but I know you are ill informed.

    Chappy, dear, you don’t know squat about me, so STFU. (Apologies to MM and anyone else who doesn’t like it.)

    I am not ill-informed (there’s a hyphen in there, in case you aren’t informed). I just don’t participate in any groupthink like your side of the aisle does.

    And your link proves nothing. Go to http://www.gaypatriot.net and see what I mean. We know how to deal with your type.

    I am going to be a thorn in your side as long as this blog is around. Count on it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

20. #320
    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:07 pm, cbmi said:

    Hi Peter H.!

    Right on! The groupthink of the left has begun to turn on them, though, don’t you think? Their nonsense just keeps becoming more and more obvious, and their attempts to explain it more and more ridiculous.

    Have you read this? It’s two years old, but I recently read it. I must have seen a link somewhere.

    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2009/01/16/the-awakening-of-a-dumb-gay-american/

21. #321
    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:07 pm, chapoutier said:

    And your link proves nothing.

    Of course it does. To anyone with a whip of intellectual honesty, that is. I understand that is in short supply here. But in any case, even if you want to deny THAT reality, there are plenty of examples right on this very board of conservative commenters using that language. You can google and find many examples of conservative bloggers using that language toward Rep. Frank. That you somehow believe that such an incident could occur live and in person by some idiot in the Tea Party is baffling.

    I am going to be a thorn in your side as long as this blog is around. Count on it.

    Oh if I had a shiny nickle for every young turk who came here and thought they were going to somehow claim the mantle of my nemesis…

    First show me you can actually think. Then we’ll maybe discuss you being a thorn in my side.

22. #322
    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:13 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 24th, 2011 at 7:28 pm, chapoutier said:

    The woman was holding a sign and approached Paul’s car. That in no way shape or form justifies literally throwing her to the ground and stomping on her head.

    She did more than just “approach the car”. She shoved her sign through the window and into his face.

    You’re right that it didn’t justify shoving a foot down on her shoulder (not her head), and other Paul supporters on the scene seemed to agree, judging by their reaction. But it’s an absolute lie to claim that she was attacked merely for having a different viewpoint. That’s certainly her spiel, and there’s little if any skepticism of that in media reports, but it’s completely belied by the video evidence.

23. #323
    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:29 pm, chapoutier said:

    She did more than just “approach the car”. She shoved her sign through the window and into his face.

    And Paul was already out of the car, walking away and surrounded by media and his entourage when the woman was accosted.

    But it’s an absolute lie to claim that she was attacked merely for having a different viewpoint.

    Like hell. Supporters rush cars and hold signs up to politicians all the time as well. You really think it would have gone down the same way if she was holding a pro-Paul sign rather than a RepubicCorp one?

24. #324
    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:35 pm, ramblingman said:

    You have to give Chap credit though. For every 20 examples of lefties threatening, attacking, abusing, and generally being complete jerks, he can find one instance of an isolated incident where a leftie gets shoved or stepped on, and soon Captain Threadjack Sparrow (TM pending and all credit given to the phrase originator) has people discussing the one instance. Does not dilute the evilness that permeates the left, but it gets people talking about something else.

    BTW, union thugs are evil and are revealing their true selves more every day.

25. #325
    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:50 pm, chapoutier said:

    You have to give Chap credit though. For every 20 examples of lefties threatening, attacking, abusing, and generally being complete jerks

    Oh there are plenty more. I just picked some of the more well known and egregious. But if you want to sake your thirst, feel free to google Mark Williams.

26. #326
    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:58 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sorry. Should be slake.

    Poor granite. Now he won’t be able to make his typical passive aggressive, refer-to-chapoutier-only-in-the-third-person-because-I-am-infantile post.

27. #327
    On February 25th, 2011 at 1:08 pm, ramblingman said:

    No thanks, I prefer to stay on point.

    Union thugs have been caught on video viciously attacking and/or threatening innocent people many times over the last 48 hours, and it’s reprehensible.

28. #328
    On February 25th, 2011 at 1:15 pm, chapoutier said:

    No thanks, I prefer to stay on point.

    Because in doing so, you avoid having to confront the same issues on the right.

    Convenient, that.

29. #329
    On February 25th, 2011 at 1:20 pm, ramblingman said:

    Call it what you will (because you’ve shown a propensity to try anything to distract), but the cold hard fact remains.

    Union thugs have been caught on video several times over the last few days accosting/attacking/threatening innocent people.

    The fact that I do or do not accept your baited trap in no way alters or lessens those facts. Anything you say in no way lessens those facts. Most of anything you say will only prove you willfully avoid the main point.

30. #330
    On February 25th, 2011 at 1:26 pm, chapoutier said:

    The fact that I do or do not accept your baited trap in no way alters or lessens those facts.

    True. It only proves cognitive dissonance.

31. #331
    On February 25th, 2011 at 1:59 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Why do union thugs hate faggots?

32. #332
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:07 pm, ramblingman said:

    True. It only proves cognitive dissonance.

    Less so than your unsuccessful attempts to divert attention away from the main topic, i.e. the fact that union thugs are viciously attacking/threatening innocent people and revealing their true selves.

33. #333
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:11 pm, cbmi said:

    I just want to know if anyone who leans left will PLEASE watch the major 3 networks, MSNBC, CNN, and listen to NPR over the next week or so.
    Then, honestly evaluate the coverage they see. Would it have been the same if the players were reversed?
    Please, please do this.

34. #334
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:22 pm, John Hitchcock said:

    It seems no matter where one goes, leftist trolls are all quite similar. They cannot debate the topic at hand, so they attempt to thread-jack. And then they accuse the people who are trying to debate the topic at hand of cowardice for not debating the thread-jack, not even realizing in their foolishness the irony of the situation: the leftist cowardly avoided the actual topic at hand.

    Here’s a bit of help, chap old buddy old pal:

    If you’re going to use tu quoque, a logic fallacy, in an attempted thread-jack, it would help your cause if your counter-example was comparable.
    If you’re going to use tu quoque, a logic fallacy, in an attempted thread-jack, it would help your cause if your counter-example was fact-based instead of a pack of lies created by falsifying the actual actions and deliberately omitting all context.
    If you’re going to use tu quoque, a logic fallacy, expect to be called out for your inability to debate in good faith.
    If you’re going to thread-jack and then accuse people of cowardice for refusing your thread-jack, expect people to point out your own cowardice in refusing to discuss the actual topic at hand.

35. #335
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:34 pm, Peter Hughes said:

    Chapoutier, girl, I refuse to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed libtroll like yourself.

    SNAP – you are dismissed.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

36. #336
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:36 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chapoutier, girl, I refuse to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed libtroll like yourself.

    SNAP – you are dismissed.

    It is just so cute when newbies think they are clever.

37. #337
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:42 pm, chapoutier said:

    Before we even begin, you should learn what tu quoque means. That or else actually go back and read the comments. I didn’t excuse the guy. Nor did I excuse the guy who slapped the phone out of that girl’s hand. I was, however, asked to provide an example of similar behavior on the right by someone who was in denial of its existence. I did so. Convincingly. And now people are upset because the right is not as pure as the driven snow like they had convinced themselves of. I can admit there are thugs and idiots on the left. I am simply asking all y’all to take the huge freaking plank out of your own eye and admit the same.

    If you’re going to use tu quoque, a logic fallacy, in an attempted thread-jack, it would help your cause if your counter-example was comparable.

    You are right. Head stomping really isn’t comparable to using blue language and slapping a phone out of a hand. Thank you. I am duly chastened.

    If you’re going to thread-jack and then accuse people of cowardice for refusing your thread-jack, expect people to point out your own cowardice in refusing to discuss the actual topic at hand.

    I did discuss it. I said this was way blown out of proportion but that the guy is an idiot. What I did not do is hyperventilate and spew histrionics about it comment after comment.

38. #338
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:50 pm, John Hitchcock said:

    Head stomping really isn’t comparable to using blue language and slapping a phone out of a hand.

    You intentionally misrepresented all sets of facts in your statement, as you full well know. But that’s the point, isn’t it? You cannot argue based on the merits of the facts; therefore, you must lie about the facts and argue based on your lies. But thanks for playing.

39. #339
    On February 25th, 2011 at 2:58 pm, chapoutier said:

    You intentionally misrepresented all sets of facts in your statement, as you full well know.

    What is misrepresented?

    Which incident of the three do you think is most vicious? There really is no question as to the matter. I just want to see if you will admit it.

40. #340
    On February 25th, 2011 at 3:05 pm, ramblingman said:

    Meanwhile, union thugs have been videotaped several times over the last few days attacking/threatening innocent people.

    Don’t let Cap’n Threadjack get to you.

41. #341
    On February 25th, 2011 at 3:09 pm, chapoutier said:

    Don’t let Cap’n Threadjack get to you.

    They can’t help themselves, ramblingman. They are trying to establish their cred. It’s like new prisoners asking who the biggest baddest mofo in the cell block is, and then picking a fight with that person. Unfortunately for them, no one told them they should come armed with a shiv instead of a wet noodle and the prison guards are no where to be found. It does not end well.

42. #342
    On February 25th, 2011 at 3:30 pm, John Hitchcock said:

    What is misrepresented?

    For starters, I’ve seen idiot leftists lie and call it “curb stomping”. Didn’t happen. I’ve seen idiot leftists lie and call it “head stomping”. Didn’t happen. I’ve seen idiot leftists lie and call it “stomping”. Didn’t happen. And the video itself is definitive proof the leftist memes are lies.

    They can’t help themselves, ramblingman. They are trying to establish their cred. It’s like new prisoners asking who the biggest baddest mofo in the cell block is, and then picking a fight with that person. Unfortunately for them, no one told them they should come armed with a shiv instead of a wet noodle and the prison guards are no where to be found. It does not end well.

    I hope you used a towel and not your friend’s baseball glove. You’re just another leftist troll, despite your self-fluffery. Have a nice day, and do clean off that glove before you give it back to your friend.

43. #343
    On February 25th, 2011 at 3:33 pm, Peddler said:

    Apparently, the guy threatening to f*@^ the cameraman in the ass has some experience at sodomizing men and enjoys it immensely. Otherwise, why shout something like that in a public gathering?

    Now, will the authorities prosecute the man because he made a public threat of a sexual nature against another human being?

    If you check his computer, you will probably find a lot of gay oriented material downloaded and viewed quite often.

    Or, he is that rare creature, a liberal homophobe.

    Take your choice.

44. #344
    On February 25th, 2011 at 3:49 pm, John Hitchcock said:

    I’ll check back in later. My grandson’s awake and my daughter is not due back from Fort Hood for a few more hours.

45. #345
    On February 25th, 2011 at 4:58 pm, chapoutier said:

    Didn’t happen. I’ve seen idiot leftists lie and call it “stomping”. Didn’t happen. And the video itself is definitive proof the leftist memes are lies.

    You are either really out of touch with reality or out of touch with the definition of “stomping.” He stomped. And it was vicious. It is sad you are so warped by partisanship you can’t see that.

46. #346
    On February 25th, 2011 at 4:59 pm, chapoutier said:

    I’ll check back in later.

    I’ll wait with bated breath.

47. #347
    On February 25th, 2011 at 6:00 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 25th, 2011 at 12:29 pm, chapoutier said:

    And Paul was already out of the car, walking away and surrounded by media and his entourage when the woman was accosted.

    Watch this video and tell me that.

    Supporters rush cars and hold signs up to politicians all the time as well. You really think it would have gone down the same way if she was holding a pro-Paul sign rather than a RepubicCorp one?

    Seriously? This is your argument? You really can’t see the difference from a security perspective between a supporter rushing at a person and an opponent rushing at him (and shoving a sign in his face through a vehicle window)?

    Some lawyer you are.

48. #348
    On February 25th, 2011 at 6:14 pm, chapoutier said:

    Watch this video and tell me that.

    You can’t even see the attack there. This video clearly shows exactly what I describe. Paul is out of the car, walking away and surrounded and then you see Lauren Valle tackled to the ground.

    You really can’t see the difference from a security perspective between a supporter rushing at a person and an opponent rushing at him

    The people ACTUALLY in charge of Paul’s security didn’t seem too concerned with her one way or the other. Maybe those idiot rednecks should have left it to the professionals.

49. #349
    On February 25th, 2011 at 6:19 pm, chapoutier said:

    But this is a very interesting thread. We’ve discovered that the commenters here support stomping on women and calling people “faggot” so long as the victim is liberal.

    I truly wonder what a tea party protester would have to do to raise an eyebrow here.

50. #350
    On February 25th, 2011 at 6:29 pm, ramblingman said:

    On February 25th, 2011 at 3:09 pm, chapoutier said:
    They can’t help themselves, ramblingman. They are trying to establish their cred.

    It’s obvious why no one flatters you. You do such a good job yourself.

    Of course, it’s not always about you. In fact, it’s actually about…

    Union thugs who have been caught several times over the last several days assaulting/threatening innocent people.

51. #351
    On February 25th, 2011 at 6:38 pm, ramblingman said:

    On February 25th, 2011 at 6:19 pm, chapoutier said:
    But this is a very interesting thread. We’ve discovered that the commenters here support stomping on women and calling people “faggot” so long as the victim is liberal.

    As much as you have shown you support calling people “faggot” and threatening them with anal rape, and assaulting innocent women, and various other incidents, as long as the victims are not supporting a liberal cause.

    I know you will say that you did proclaim not to support it. And you did, in passing, in one post. However, your posts defend the actions over the last few days by dredging up events that are months old in order to avoid responsibility being laid at the union’s feet. Keeping on point, however, hardly constitutes approval of something that happened months ago.

    It merely means that we are staying focused on the fact that union thugs have been caught on video several times over the last few days attacking/threatening innocent people.

52. #352
    On February 25th, 2011 at 7:17 pm, cbmi said:

    For what it’s worth, I think behavior like this is despicable no matter the political affiliation of the aggressor. I’ll bet everyone here, left or right, believes that.

    DEFENSE is defensible, outright assault is not.

    What I still wish and hope for is some nice lefty (like I used to be) to:
    1)Just view the clips.
    2)Watch and listen to as much “mainstream” media as possible.
    3)Honestly assess the coverage – is it the same as it would have been if any of the bad behavior were done by anyone conservative?

    It’s not about any group having a right to be obnoxious. It’s about the entrenched bias with which bad behavior is covered, thereby creating a warped perception by MANY people.

    Just my little request, and I’ll keep putting it out there.

53. #353
    On February 25th, 2011 at 7:21 pm, chapoutier said:

    I know you will say that you did proclaim not to support it. And you did,

    Exactly.

    However, your posts defend the actions over the last few days by dredging up events that are months old in order to avoid responsibility being laid at the union’s feet.

    Are you stupid? I have pointed out REPEATEDLY I was specifically asked to come up with comparable situations on the right. Go back and look. You want to criticize me for specifically answering, and then defending a post made in direct response to a question?

    Keeping on point, however, hardly constitutes approval of something that happened months ago.

    No. But the mental gymnastics and rationalizations people here are making does.

54. #354
    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:23 pm, frontierguy said:

    It’s not about any group having a right to be obnoxious. It’s about the entrenched bias with which bad behavior is covered, thereby creating a warped perception by MANY people.

    cbmi, succinctly stated and spot on correct.

55. #355
    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:26 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 25th, 2011 at 6:14 pm, chapoutier said:

    This video clearly shows exactly what I describe. Paul is out of the car, walking away and surrounded and then you see Lauren Valle tackled to the ground.

    No, he’s out of the car, walking away, and then you see the camera showing her already in the process of being tackled to the ground (amidst calls for police backup, for some reason that should probably warrant some curiosity about what she was doing).

    Your video doesn’t show when she was first laid hold of. Mine does. It shows it happening right when she shoved the sign through the van window.

    The people ACTUALLY in charge of Paul’s security didn’t seem too concerned with her one way or the other.

    And you’ve determined this how? Just because their primary concern revolved around staying close to the Congressman?

    We’ve discovered that the commenters here support stomping on women

    It’s mighty hypocritical of you to whine about being accused of supporting the behavior of this union thug, and then turning around and posting a similar accusation in reaction to a discussion with me, after I clearly told you I agreed that stepping on her shoulder was over the top.

    I know you don’t like the term “projection”, but it fits pretty well here.

56. #356
    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:29 pm, Blackstone said:

    Correction: candidate, not Congressman. (pre-election)

57. #357
    On February 25th, 2011 at 11:10 pm, cbmi said:

    On February 25th, 2011 at 10:23 pm, frontierguy said:

    cbmi, succinctly stated and spot on correct.

    Thank-you! I’ve made my plea on a couple of other threads. I think back to how sure I was that others were wrong, when I actually knew nothing. It’s easy for either “side” to have some biases, but I’ve actually “looked at life from both sides now..” and I know that I personally was not only uninformed, but willfully MISinformed — and when I woke up, I was not happy about it.

58. #358
    On February 25th, 2011 at 11:29 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    and I know that I personally was not only uninformed, but willfully MISinformed — and when I woke up, I was not happy about it.

    It’s happening to more and more people. Once they imbibe something other than the Kool-Aid of StateRunMedia it clears their head.

59. #359
    On February 25th, 2011 at 11:33 pm, chapoutier said:

    No, he’s out of the car, walking away, and then you see the camera showing her already in the process of being tackled to the ground

    Oh yes. The all important .005 second lapse between them grabbing Lauren and the time it took for the guy with the camera to zoom around. Be honest. Paul was well clear of this supposed “threat” and surrounded by his entourage when the local yokels decided to tackle and stomp her.

    And you’ve determined this how? Just because their primary concern revolved around staying close to the Congressman?

    Don’t be obtuse. They didn’t react in any way to that woman UNTIL she was assaulted. And good on the other folks there that tried to intervene and summon actual authorities. I never accused a mob of attacking her. Just a couple isolated tea party idiots.

    after I clearly told you I agreed that stepping on her shoulder was over the top.

    But not the tackling her to the ground? You have done nothing more than justify the assault on this woman and then say that the final criminal act was a little too much.

60. #360
    On February 25th, 2011 at 11:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    It’s not about any group having a right to be obnoxious. It’s about the entrenched bias with which bad behavior is covered, thereby creating a warped perception by MANY people.

    Like on this site?

61. #361
    On February 26th, 2011 at 12:48 am, cbmi said:

    On February 25th, 2011 at 11:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    Like on this site?

    No. My post above was a slightly shorter version of an earlier one. I thought that I had made it clear that I was referring to the “mainstream” media.

    Again, no, not at all “like on this site”.

    This is clearly Michelle Malkin’s website.

    My point is that there are A LOT of people who BELIEVE that the major networks, MSNBC, CNN,and NPR present an unbiased reporting of events.

    My point is that WERE IT NOT FOR Michelle’s site and others, I would have an incomplete picture of events.

    I don’t believe that Michelle claims to be a news reporter. She does an excellent job, however, of filling in what the people who DO claim to be news reporters leave out.

    I have never seen an instance where Michelle lied or intentionally deceived.
    I HAVE seen this from sources who PRETEND to be UNbiased.

    Writing with one’s own personal convictions clearly on display (uh hmmmm, ESPECIALLY when you are an OPINION journalist)is NOT akin to a major news organization INTENTIONALLY leaving a whole side of an argument out.

    Which, again, leads us to my point – people leave a “mainstream” media encounter with a warped picture of events. The holes are FILLED IN by Michelle and others.

    I doubt that any of us here gets our news/opinions ONLY from here. There ARE MANY people who get their news ONLY from the “mainstream”.

    I thought that my point was clear.

62. #362
    On February 26th, 2011 at 2:43 pm, Blackstone said:

    Oh yes. The all important .005 second lapse between them grabbing Lauren and the time it took for the guy with the camera to zoom around.

    What are you talking about? The video you linked to does not indicate when she was grabbed. Why are you having so much trouble fitting that fact into your skull?

    The video I linked to showed her being grabbed, before Paul got out of the car, and immediately after she shoved her sign at him through the window. It’s all right there. No amount of lawyering will get around that.

63. #363
    On February 26th, 2011 at 2:47 pm, chapoutier said:

    I have never seen an instance where Michelle lied or intentionally deceived.

    I know she has definitely written at least one syndicated column based on an entirely false premise. Whether it was intentional deception or merely unforgivably sloppy research on her part, I can’t speak to.

    I don’t believe that Michelle claims to be a news reporter.

    She claims to be whatever suits her at the time. When she gets called on her sensational and misleading headlines she claims she is merely a “blogger.” But when she is tackling a story that she feels the “mainstream media” has missed, she wants to be known as the right wing Edward R. Murrow.

64. #364
    On February 26th, 2011 at 4:25 pm, Blackstone said:

    Actually, now that I’ve looked further into the Rand Paul incident, I’d like to amend my comment. You’re right that she began to be tackled right after he left the vehicle, but that was only because she was running toward him yet again.

    Her story is that she was “chased” around the front of the van, but the video evidence doesn’t back her up on that. Go to the video I linked to again, and start the clock right around 0:54. Paul’s getting out of the van, and you see the wigged Valle coming ’round the front. No one is following her. She runs around the front and heads straight for Paul, and is only stopped when a Paul supporter in front of her catches her, and that’s when she’s held down to the ground, and action that prior to the foot-press, seems entirely justifiable under the circumstances.

    To call this some kind of attempt to suppress her First Amendment rights is as laughable as it is pathetic.

65. #365
    On February 26th, 2011 at 4:51 pm, cbmi said:

    chapoutier,

    I wonder what you think of the rest of my post #388, not only the two sentences you commented on.

    Those two sentences that I wrote:
    “It’s not about any group having a right to be obnoxious. It’s about the entrenched bias with which bad behavior is covered, thereby creating a warped perception by MANY people.”

    I think that you took those two sentences, and my post #397, and still did not address my point:

    The mainstream media is biased. They pretend they are not. Many people believe that they are not. To fill in what they WILLFULLY “MISS”, Michelle does an excellent job. Since what they “miss” is always the conservative perspective, it is obvious that a site filling in what they miss will be covering THE CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE. She could cover the “left” perspective, but that would be redundant since the “mainstream” media already does that.

    I didn’t find the “false premise” you referred to. And, saying that Michelle sometimes wants to be known as the “right wing Edward R. Murrow” is silly AND irrelevant because EVEN IF SHE DOES, people KNOW that she is a conservative. It is not hidden. First you mention her “syndicated column”, then her “headlines”. If there is a newspaper or television station where Michelle is a news reporter and has a headline story, please direct me to them and I will subscribe.

    I really don’t like arguing in person, and I dislike in online also.

    I believe that if you maintain that the standards are the same for the “mainstream” major news sources and Michelle – she still comes out on top. Since she does not pretend to be something that she is not, she has the advantage of standing on integrity.

66. #366
    On February 26th, 2011 at 5:42 pm, chapoutier said:

    So Blackstone is definitely in favor of violence against women, or at least liberal women.

    The reaction of Paul’s actual professional security should tell you all you need to about the incident. They didn’t react to this supposed dangerous woman one bit. And even if the hillbilly jackboots that attacked her DID initially mistake her as a threat, that still does not justify stomping on her head.

    Your failure to condemn this is pathetic.

67. #367
    On February 26th, 2011 at 5:51 pm, chapoutier said:

    cbmi,

    I think you WAY overstate your case wrt mainstream media bias. All conservatives do. Because it is a convenient boogeyman for you to rail against to slake the persecution complex the right is suffering under.

    Is there some liberal bias? With some, certainly not all, outlets. Is it one tenth as bad as the right pretends? Not a chance. If it was maybe you could tell me why Vinson’s HCR decision had wall to wall, front page coverage from the MSM yet the three decisions upholding HCR are barely mentioned.

    And, btw, the false premise of MM’s article was that the House bill had a provision mandating service for high schoolers. It did not. It took me 5 minutes to discover this. But saying it did sure riled up her readers.

68. #368
    On February 26th, 2011 at 6:28 pm, ChapBix said:

    On February 24th, 2011 at 6:25 pm, catlady said:

    The left are completely unhinged.

    Unfortunately, almost all the media will completely ignore this. I wonder how much the average American really knows of this?

    The average American is too focused on their everyday life to notice. Not a rap on them but simply stating a reality.

69. #369
    On February 26th, 2011 at 6:46 pm, swede said:

    I think you WAY overstate your case wrt mainstream media bias. All conservatives do.

    Logical Falicy #1 – Universal premise – existential falacy

    Because it is a convenient boogeyman for you to rail against to slake the persecution complex the right is suffering under.

    LF # 2 – Reductio absurdum, petitio principii
    - And a preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with. Just sayin’

    Is it one tenth as bad as the right pretends? Not a chance.

    I told you 7 billion times not to exagerate. Ignoratio elenchi and non-sequetur.

    This is fun. You’re so cute when you’re all snooty n’stuff. Wish I was all smart like you is. Your spin dance is pretty slick but looks like the newbies have your number, counselor.

    What’s the wine for the evening after a steak & seafood feast? (buuuurppp) scus me.

70. #370
    On February 26th, 2011 at 7:33 pm, chapoutier said:

    I see swede confuses Latin words with actual substance.

    And the “newbies” here have displayed all of the intelligence of the old guard with none of the wit.

    Now why don’t you go hide under the blankets. And make sure your feet are all the way covered lest Katie Couric reach out from under the bed and grab them.

71. #371
    On February 26th, 2011 at 8:33 pm, swede said:

    I see swede confuses Latin words with actual substance.

    Argumentum ad hypocriticum

    If Katie were under the waterbed she’d be crushed to death with the other bugs.

    Pinot Noir. Didn’t seem right. Thanks for nothing Der WinoMeister.

72. #372
    On February 26th, 2011 at 9:32 pm, cbmi said:

    chapoutier,

    I see that you honestly think that the “mainstream” bias isn’t as bad as I believe it to be.

    What is your take on the Tuscon shooting coverage?

    Regarding the Vinson coverage, the fact that is was “wall to wall” coverage does not mean it was not biased.

    Were the other 3 decisions by federal judges as well?

    Thank-you for clarifying the false premise issue. I haven’t had a chance yet to check it out again, but I will.

73. #373
    On February 26th, 2011 at 11:13 pm, Blackstone said:

    The reaction of Paul’s actual professional security should tell you all you need to about the incident. They didn’t react to this supposed dangerous woman one bit.

    So you’re completely certain that it wasn’t a member of his security detail that went after her at the window of the van when she first thrust her sign through the window.

    And likewise, when she was running straight at him after he got out of the vehicle, you’re certain that his security staff would have had no problem with her running right up to him had she not been intercepted? Pretty big assumption there.

    And even if the hillbilly jackboots that attacked her DID initially mistake her as a threat, that still does not justify stomping on her head.

    Your failure to condemn this is pathetic.

    Now you’re just being an absolute bald-faced liar. I repeatedly condemned his stepping on her.

    Now we know how you react when you lose an argument. It sure ain’t pretty.

74. #374
    On February 27th, 2011 at 4:18 pm, Wade said:

    Anyone get this thugs name?

75. #375
    On February 27th, 2011 at 7:09 pm, chapoutier said:

    Were the other 3 decisions by federal judges as well?

    Yup.

76. #376
    On February 27th, 2011 at 7:10 pm, chapoutier said:

    Now you’re just being an absolute bald-faced liar. I repeatedly condemned his stepping on her.

    No. You once lukewarmly indicated that was a bit much while justifying and rationalizing the initial battery.

77. #377
    On February 27th, 2011 at 10:07 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    Chap

    “Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.”

    This is also of interest

78. #378
    On February 28th, 2011 at 1:38 pm, Blackstone said:

    while justifying and rationalizing the initial battery.

    Holding someone down to the ground isn’t battery. And you’ve provided no counterargument to the fact that it was justified, save for your own apparent psychic abilities in reading the minds of Paul’s security staff, based on a few split-second shots of them.

    But since you put so much stock in the judgment of professional security services, perhaps you can explain why the professionals in the police department didn’t see fit to bring any kind of charges against the “batterers” you speak of, only the foot-stomper.

79. #379
    On February 28th, 2011 at 2:56 pm, chapoutier said:

    Throwing and holding someone down to the ground isn’t battery.

    First, FIFY. Second, the hell it isn’t. I don’t know what legal dictionary you are using to base that conclusion, but I would suggest burning it.

    save for your own apparent psychic abilities in reading the minds of Paul’s security staff, based on a few split-second shots of them.

    So you think they thought she was a threat that needed neutralizing, but decided to walk away from her instead?

    But since you put so much stock in the judgment of professional security services, perhaps you can explain why the professionals in the police department didn’t see fit to bring any kind of charges against the “batterers” you speak of, only the foot-stomper.

    I don’t know. Maybe the Tea Partier that battered her by throwing her against the ground wasn’t identified. Maybe she didn’t press charges against that one because she was more focused on the Tea Partier that viciously stomped on her head. Maybe they did charge the throwing Tea Partier and is didn’t make the news because the head stomping Tea Partier was the more sensational. None of this changes the fact that it was, prima facie, assault and battery.

80. #380
    On February 28th, 2011 at 3:56 pm, Blackstone said:

    So you think they thought she was a threat that needed neutralizing, but decided to walk away from her instead?

    Once they saw that she was intercepted, they kept following the candidate. What is it you think you’ve proven here?

    Maybe they did charge the throwing Tea Partier and is didn’t make the news because the head stomping Tea Partier was the more sensational.

    It would have been mentioned somewhere had there been any other arrests. It would have only added another few words to the article.

81. #381
    On February 28th, 2011 at 4:30 pm, chapoutier said:

    Once they saw that she was intercepted, they kept following the candidate. What is it you think you’ve proven here?

    Of coooourse they did. They saw the imminent threat to their candidate was being ably and professionally handled by a couple of bumpkins and decided to forget about it. That’s the ticket.

82. #382
    On February 28th, 2011 at 10:00 pm, cbmi said:

    Just reading the quibbles about the minutia of everyone’s actions in every situation wears me out.

    I haven’t seen the video in ages, but I will say this:

    If my bodyguards knew that people were going to approach and potentially harm me, but decided to leave my side to go to a situation already under control, that would be their last job with me.

    Their job is to protect, not police.

    Why would bodyguards leave their “charge”(or whatever they’re called in the bodyguard biz) vulnerable to an attack from another source, just to go aid people who didn’t need assistance? Stupid move for a bodyguard. That attacker could be dealt with later, your first job is to stay with your client. Which was obviously Blackstone’s point.

83. #383
    On February 28th, 2011 at 10:20 pm, Blackstone said:

    They saw the imminent threat to their candidate was being ably and professionally handled by a couple of bumpkins and decided to forget about it.

    “Professionally” or not, they had effectively prevented her from taking any further steps toward Paul. Do you deny this? Is it seriously even a question?

    There was nothing left for his security staff to do, except, as cbmi pointed out, stay with their man. That does not mean they wouldn’t have considered her a thread had she not been stopped. I’d lay good money down that it was a member of his security staff who first ran at her at the van window to get her away.

84. #384
    On February 28th, 2011 at 10:22 pm, Blackstone said:

    thread=threat (obviously)

85. #385
    On February 28th, 2011 at 10:43 pm, chapoutier said:

    Fascinating, and contrived, narrative you have imagined Blackstone.

    All because you refuse to admit that tea partiers can sometimes be a**holes.

    The girl was not a threat, real or imagined. The security staff absolutely ignored her, even before those morons decided to assault her.

86. #386
    On March 1st, 2011 at 12:27 am, Blackstone said:

    And here’s where you start treating us to your psychic abilities again. How the hell do you know what they were thinking in the split second when they saw her coming around the front of the car heading towards Paul, assuming they even saw her at all before the other attendees grabbed her?

    And what do you call the incident at the vehicle window? Was that their way of ignoring her? Why would they have been so quick to get her away from him while he was shielded from her inside the vehicle, but have had no problem with her charging at him after he had exited it?

    You could clearly see in the video that the security staff were motioning people to keep a distance. But an obvious instigator running right up to him would have been perfectly hunky-dory?

    I’m not the one who’s cooking up a contrived scenario here, Kojak.

87. #387
    On March 1st, 2011 at 9:22 am, chapoutier said:

    And here’s where you start treating us to your psychic abilities again. How the hell do you know what they were thinking in the split second when they saw her coming around the front of the car heading towards Paul, assuming they even saw her at all before the other attendees grabbed her?

    I didn’t say what they were THINKING. I said what they DID, which you can clearly see on the video. They ignored her and walked away from the situation. The idiot tea party sh**kickers then took it upon themselves to assault the woman.

    And what do you call the incident at the vehicle window?

    I call it irrelevant. So they shooed her away from the car. How does that change the fact that Paul’s security IGNORED her after he exited?

    Just stop this silliness, blackstone, and admit what anyone with a bit of grace and intellectual integrity should have no problem saying. A woman from the left was viciously attacked, thrown to the ground and stomped on by a couple of morons who happen to be tea partiers. Doesn’t mean you are agreeing that all tea partiers are like this or that the left isn’t worse.

88. #388
    On March 1st, 2011 at 12:13 pm, Blackstone said:

    They ignored her and walked away from the situation.

    BECAUSE SHE WAS NO LONGER A THREAT ONCE THE OTHERS GRABBED HER.

    What is it about that you’re not getting?

    What would you have expected them to do differently? Leave Paul’s side to help them subdue a woman who was already being subdued? Seriously?