| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: "Hit Them Twice As Hard" - Obama Posted by: Boldwin - [376192015] Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 13:40 Thug organizer for several decades, Barack Obama sends his thugs out to physically assault real americans genuinely outraged at Obama's socialism.. [unlike the phony actors he used to train] | |||||||
| 24 | Boldwin ID: 376192015 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 15:21 | Well double-checking, they are very very light white-washed almost blue jeans. | ||||||
| 25 | mith ID: 497271014 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 15:27 | That shirt only loopks light blue in that light. Its an seiu shirt. You're just too brainwashed to see what is right before your eyes. You called him a faker based on nothing more than what it says on his shirt. You're an ass and as usual you're the only one who doesn't realize it. Stop typing and just watch the video, moron. | ||||||
| 26 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 15:33 | You should also correct the title of this thread. The White House said: "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." | ||||||
| 27 | Tree ID: 41371322 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 15:50 |
However now I hear differing stories that Gladney was the guy in the tan shirt well, if you'd read the thread you're actually posting in (ya know, this one), you'd already know that. | ||||||
| 28 | Boldwin ID: 376192015 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 17:03 |
I've watched the video a hundred times in slow-mo. I think I am not the only one who initially thot Gadney was the one on the ground at the left. Instead he was the guy on the ground on the right. Further upon first viewing it looked like there was stomping going on in the center. Now upon loooots of viewings it looks like the 'stomping' was off balance people trying to avoid stomping on those on the ground. I know liberals are trying to say that the guy on the left was the same as the guy in the SEIU shirt holding his shoulder later in the video. I haven't managed to trace that guy back to the guy on the ground yet. | ||||||
| 29 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 17:16 | The video starts with the union guy already on the ground (of which I've yet to see anyone on the Right express even a minimum of interest or care). Gladney gets knocked down six seconds in, then bounces right back up. | ||||||
| 30 | Tree ID: 41371322 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 17:27 |
I've watched the video a hundred times in slow-mo. I think I am not the only one who initially thot Gadney was the one on the ground at the left. it's called seeing what you want to see, or, in your case, not being above lying to prove a (false) point. i watched it once, and really, there wasn't any question, especially after reading a couple of accounts of it before and while watching. i realize you don't like to read something that might disprove your point - but by doing so, you only make yourself look more and more foolish... | ||||||
| 31 | mith ID: 297291016 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 17:29 | How many viewings would it have taken him to realize the khaki pants guy wasn't being stomped if he didn't bother to continue watching and have to concede that gadney was actually someone else? | ||||||
| 32 | biliruben ID: 461142511 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 18:38 |
I've watched the video a hundred times in slow-mo. I really hope, for the sake of you and your family, that is an exaggeration! ;) | ||||||
| 33 | Mith ID: 1871267 Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 19:29 | Some might recall that Baldwin is the guy who had to admit last week that when he claimed he'd come across a particular bit of information "a zillion times", he really meant he'd seen a fleeting reference to it buried in an article - once - and accused me of sending him on a wild goose chase for asking him to cite his source. | ||||||
| 34 | Mith ID: 2894309 Tue, Aug 11, 2009, 09:27 |
Still waiting for a response to this request from post 4: Would anyone mind pointing out the time code range of the video in which I can see Gladney on the ground surrounded by 4 SEIU members who were kicking him in his back and head (as he explicitly claimed in his FNC interview)? Rush says Gladney should be the new "Rodney King". Shouldn't he have to be severely beaten (or at least beaten just a little bit?) to be the new Rodney King? | ||||||
| 35 | Khahan ID: 391582715 Tue, Aug 11, 2009, 16:26 |
Ok, I've skimmed thru thread briefly to get names only. Outside of a townhall meeting, I have no idea what this is about. I've got no political agenda to prove or disprove cause I have no idea what is going on other than a minor scuffle. Here is what I see when I watch the video: Starts out with Person A (black man in white/light khahki pants a blue shirt). Another guy in a white shirt with a white towel in his hand is over apparently tending to him (appears to grab his arm and help him roll onto his back way from the rucus) and jumps back. Another guy in a green polo shirt (with glasses in the color) jumps over the guy on the ground. This appears to be defensive as if he's protecting him. At the same time there is another guy (person B) on the ground in white pants with a light khaki shirt on. At about 3 seconds he stands up (and here is where its tough to see) but it appears as if he is still in a phyiscal confrontation with somebody (more pushing/shoving than punching fist fight type). A guy in a blue shirt (differnt from the one on the ground) comes up behind person B to physically constrain/control him by his arms. He pulls back and Person B goes down on his back and the guy who grabbed him trips over the curb. At 6 seconds Person B stands up. At about 9 seconds Person A stands up. I saw no 'stomping and kicking' of anybody on the ground, though we don't know what happned before the camera was rolling when both people were on the ground. Its a brief and confusing melee where people who appear to be helping each other one second are arguing a few moments later (see the guy w/ the white towel and others with the SEIU shirts approx 15-17secs in). Person A is the SEIU guy rubbing his shoulder a bit later (lost a constant eye contact, but no doubt in my mind) and Person B is this Gladney guy. I don't see any evidence of kicking, pummeling or beatings from either side. I see a heated discussion that got a tad bit physical for a few seconds before good sense took over again and people broke it up. | ||||||
| 36 | sarge33rd ID: 17681812 Tue, Aug 11, 2009, 17:14 | dmmt khahan...facts and truth have no bearing when rightwingnuts are trying to disparage a Dem. | ||||||
| 37 | Mith ID: 1871267 Tue, Aug 11, 2009, 17:24 |
Thanks, Khahan. This second blue shirt guy you refer to, (white guy with a moustache) appears to grab person B (Gladney) the moment Gladney gets up. Hard to tell for sure that this isn't an act of aggression but I agree he appears to more likely be trying to constrain/control Gladney by his arms. He's a big guy with a lot of arenaline going. Between that and the erratic movement within the crowd and Gladney's own momentum, it's easy to see how Gladney could have gone down that way even if moustache guy didn't intend it. In fact, moustache guy clearly appears to (reactively and futilly) try to stop or brace Gladney's fall with his right arm the moment he realizes Gladney is going down. In any case, it's obvious that the guy on the ground on the left is the same SEIU person who comes away holding his shoulder, that no one "stomped" anyone in that video, that the video was shot from only one angle, that Gladney was fine after the incident and certianly not in need of a wheelchair. Funny how some people's committment to their agenda will not only prevent them from seeing what is right before their own eyes, but will lead them to declare that their distorted version of events are in fact indisputable. Today FNC had Gladney live on the air for at least the second time to discuss the assault perpetrated upon him. Megyn Kelly told her audience that it's undenyable after viewing that video that Gladney was attacked. | ||||||
| 38 | Boldwin ID: 48744122 Wed, Aug 12, 2009, 03:44 |
Mobs are well known for waiting patiently in line with no hope of being allowed in... | ||||||
| 39 | Boldwin ID: 48744122 Wed, Aug 12, 2009, 03:47 |
bili#32 To be more exact, all morning. | ||||||
| 40 | Mith ID: 2894309 Wed, Aug 12, 2009, 08:52 |
The crowd at the Specter town hall yesterday was relatively subdued and respectful, with the exception of a few onery apples. The guy in the photo that bili posted in the other thread was kicked out early in the event, just before I turned it on. The crowd settled down soon after that and while some others were there only to yell and scream and you had your obligatory anti-Islam rant and maybe a couple of other examples of that sort of thing, for the most part it was pretty productive in the sense that people were able to air out their issues (some more relevent than others, obviously) and be heard and get a response from their Senator. It might be premature, but it does seem that the rank and file on the right might finally be moving past the disruption and taking advantage of the opportunities to more civilly hash out their issues with their representatives. | ||||||
| 41 | Mith ID: 2894309 Wed, Aug 12, 2009, 08:52 |
The crowd at the Specter town hall yesterday was relatively subdued and respectful, with the exception of a few onery apples. The guy in the photo that bili posted in the other thread was kicked out early in the event, just before I turned it on. The crowd settled down soon after that and while some others were there only to yell and scream and you had your obligatory anti-Islam rant and maybe a couple of other examples of that sort of thing, for the most part it was pretty productive in the sense that people were able to air out their issues (some more relevent than others, obviously) and be heard and get a response from their Senator. It might be premature, but it does seem that the rank and file on the right might finally be moving past the disruption campaign and taking advantage of the opportunities to more civilly hash out their issues with their representatives. | ||||||
| 42 | Mith Dude ID: 01629107 Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 13:22 |
| ||||||
| 43 | Tree ID: 41371322 Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 16:04 |
i can kind of understand their fear, MITH. After all, Kaya Byatta was a pretty scary looking front woman back in the day...
| ||||||
| 44 | Mith ID: 5631099 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 02:18 |
Update on possibly my favorite thread from 2009: St. Louis jury needs just 40 minutes to find SEIU members accused by Kenneth Gladney not guilty of assault. Shockingly, the video evidence which Boldwin said indesputably showed Kenneth Gladney on the ground being stomped (seen from "multiple angles" - in a video taken by single camera) until he realized the guy on the ground he demanded was indesputably being stomped turned out to be the SEIU member who Boldwin said was faking a shoulder injury - wasn't very persuasive, at least in Gladney's favor, anyway. And for the record, defendant Elston McCowan, again, who B argued (after he "watched the video a hundred times in slow-mo") was indisputably being viciously stomped on the ground (before he realized it wasn't his preferred victim, Gladney, but the same SEIU "faker" who "comes out holding his shoulder, like the true dishonest abuser of the system that he is") did indeed suffer a fractured shoulder in the dustup. | ||||||
| 45 | DWetzel ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 10:23 | All part of the vast non-right-wing conspiracy, no doubt. | ||||||
| 46 | Boldwin ID: 166451321 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 11:58 | Yeah, Gladney just checked into the hospital to bolster his legal case. Uhuh. | ||||||
| 47 | sarge33rd ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 16:56 |
sooooooooo a jury upon hearu8ng evidence, fionds differently than you after watching a youtube posting. and you are convinced the jury is wrong. And after that, you HONESTLY expect us to take you seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? | ||||||
| 48 | DWetzel ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 17:07 | Re: 46 -- he could have at least had the decency to break his shoulder or something. | ||||||
| 49 | Mith ID: 23217270 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 21:01 | I have no idea what 46 means in the context of the previous posts. | ||||||
| 50 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 02:51 |
I'm curious what you think the jury's counterintuitive interpretation of events would be. Did they think the Tea Party went hunting down SEIU? Why did they think Gladney was in the hospital? How did he end up there if he wasn't targeted by the SEIU for being a black man supporting the Tea Party and screwing up their narative? I have to assume the jury just didn't have enuff evidence to meet the required level of proof. The same reason Anthony is partying it up again. | ||||||
| 51 | Mith ID: 5631099 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 05:58 |
Why did they think Gladney was in the hospital? How did he end up there if he wasn't targeted by the SEIU for being a black man supporting the Tea Party and screwing up their narative? This is exactly the same politically-induced blindness which made you believe you indisputably watched Gladney being stomped on the left side of the screen, in an entire morning's worth of viewings, in slo-mo. Only when you were walked through the video by non-mouth-foamers did you realize that man was not Gladney. And lo and behold, your blindness lifted and what you'd deemed an indisputable and outrageous act of violence was then very clearly not. I'm curious what you think the jury's counterintuitive interpretation of events would be. You mean in a hypothetical legal system in which a jury is required to come up with an alternate to the prosecution's interpretation of the incident? But if you're interested in my interpretation of the video, there was a scrum in which the aggressor(s) are undetermined since the thing started before the video. Like you, I didn't hear any of the testimony and know almost nothing about the defense's account of what happened. So all we can do is speculate. I know that one of the SEIU guys claims Gladney became agitated and slapped his hands away from his merchandise as they approached him. I don't think it any less reasonable than anything else I've heard that something like that happened, and if he was aggressive enough to provoke a fight, it wouldn't be the first time I saw a meeker looking man so physically escalate an encounter with a more imposing party, especially a merchant who overreacts if he thinks he has to protect his merchandise. But then again, I don't know whether Gladney acknowledges that part of the incident or what his version of it might sound like. I have to assume the jury just didn't have enuff evidence to meet the required level of proof. You mean the jury very didn't have enough evidence to satisfy the standard of reasonable doubt. I agree. And not being subject to the type of politically-induced blindness that might have some convicting those defendants without even hearing their side of the story, I'm good with that. | ||||||
| 52 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:30 | Forgive me if I take Gladney's hospital visit as legit and that the SEIU put him there. I'll be very entertained to hear you try and prove otherwise but I think Occam's Razor is on my side on this one. | ||||||
| 53 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:35 | But it's heartening to see how much faith you put in the legal system. Planning on using Casey Anthony as your baby sitter? | ||||||
| 54 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:39 |
Over 90% of cases brought to trial result in convictions in the US. The Anthony trial is either an anomaly or the jury heard actual evidence that isn't being played as part of the media's latest "oh no, a white child was murdered!" meme. You pick. | ||||||
| 55 | Khahan ID: 373143013 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:42 |
Forgive me if I take Gladney's hospital visit as legit and that the SEIU put him there. I'll be very entertained to hear you try and prove otherwise but I think Occam's Razor is on my side on this one. I'm taking gladney's hospital visit as legit, too. I'm sure he was hurt and wanted to be checked out. But that does not mean the other party was negligent or criminal in its acts. From what was shown on the video, there was no criminal or negligent act. That also doesn't mean he was negligent or criminal. On these boards, we only have this video as reliable information. Who knows what the jury had. But based on that video there is no way at all I could see somebody being convicted of a civil or criminal charge. Signed - Resident RINO. | ||||||
| 56 | Mith ID: 46121210 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:04 |
Forgive me if I take Gladney's hospital visit as legit and that the SEIU put him there. Sorry, I cannot accept your apology since I know that opinion is driven by bias and your personal emotional investment in the details of this case with what can only be knowing disregard for objectivity. You know fully well that at least one other person involved in the scrum came away with a more severe injury than Gladney suffered. It doesn't prove Gladney any more guilty than Gladney's booboo proves the guilt of any of the other people involved. In fact the contention that a trip to the hospital amounts to convincing proof of anything (in legal or common-sense terms) is so plainly and oviously dishonest on its face that following it a sarcastic request for forgiveness for it as the basis of your certainty of the others' guilt is possibly the most unforgivably shameless thing I'll see today. At least until John Boehner figures out what the hell he's going to say to the press this morning. | ||||||
| 57 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:22 | No one said being an SEIU goon was a safe occupation. | ||||||
| 58 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:25 | But stop yer bawling for him. The SEIU probably has time and a half goon hazzard pay and the kind of quality health insurance Obama is making extinct. | ||||||
| 59 | Mith ID: 46121210 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:27 |
You mistake objectivity for bawling now. You've made a far stronger case for your own shameless bias than for Gladney as a victimm of unprovoked assault. Anyone disagree? | ||||||
| 60 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:35 |
Wow, how anyone that adds up a situation between a team of uniformed SEIU goons who came looking for trouble and a seated black street vendor and comes away thinking 'poor abused SEIU member'... ...and then thinks he's the objective one, is a real testament to the partisan mindset. | ||||||
| 61 | bibA ID: 48627713 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:42 | According to the linked article, one of those charged and acquitted, the Baptist minister Elston McCowan, suffered a fractured shoulder during the incident. I wonder what injuries Gladney received which sent him to the hospital. Worse than the broken shoulder? | ||||||
| 62 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:44 | May all SEIU goons who assault black men for being conservative end up breaking their shoulders in the scrum they create. | ||||||
| 63 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:45 | Especially clergy SEIU goons. | ||||||
| 64 | bibA ID: 48627713 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:01 | Do you know what injuries Gladney incurred? | ||||||
| 65 | Mith ID: 23217270 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:13 | Ego contusion complicated by a pre-existing integrity deficiency. | ||||||
| 66 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:21 | Condolences | ||||||
| 67 | sarge33rd ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:56 |
Re Casey Anthony....the prosecution did not prove Casey killed Kaylee. Plain and simple. Read the articles out there from juror statements. To hold that trial up as anything but proof that the burden lies upon the prosecution, is to hold up your own bias to the full light of the day for all to see. | ||||||
| 68 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:18 | What it proves is that a jury acquittal and total innocence are two entirely separate things. | ||||||
| 69 | sarge33rd ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:53 | Nobody has ever said otherwise. An "acquittal" does not mean innocent of the charges It means, the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof. However in this country, it remains consistent to refer to the accused as innocent, since our Constitution MANDATES the presumption of innocent. | ||||||
| 70 | Boldwin ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:08 |
You are acting like I said, 'go pick her up and stick her in the pokey.'. I suggested MITH might reconsider hiring her to babysit. I'm eager to hear your theory as to how she could conceivably be totally innocent. Extra points for creativity. I'll give you mine. The girl slipped and drowned in the pool and the mother panicked and didn't report it, buying chloroform to calm her own nerves. Nah...she's guilty as sin. But hey, beat the system, go free. I'm ok with it. Barely. | ||||||
| 71 | Khahan ID: 373143013 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 15:34 |
Here's a surprise Boldwin - I'm willing to bet every poster on this board agrees with the sentiment at the end of 70. The difference, however, lies in how you process that sentiment and act upon it. | ||||||
| 72 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 03, 2011, 16:33 |
Unlike the quote in the subject field of this thread, there's no need to shamelessly misrepresent this to make a point about the way some on one side of the political aisle would have things done: American Thinker: Registering poor people to vote is Un-American. Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote? | ||||||
| 73 | sarge33rd ID: 23851316 Sat, Sep 03, 2011, 17:52 |
In the interest of the old 'fairness doctrine": Why are Because they know the Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive greediest segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why The above message was brought t o you by "tails". The flip-side of "heads". | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: | ||||||||