Congressman assaults student

Well he certainly seems to have some anger management issues.

 

What are the odds you'll hear anything substantial from CNN or the New York Times about this??

 

Hmmm...Breitbart. The very same assclown who sliced & diced the ACORN videos and then denied it. Let's see if there's more video here. If there's not then the Congressman's an a-hole.

 

I'll give you 2:1 for $50 right now. A quick google search would show you that the "liberal MSM" is all over the story as well as his appology.

Heck, it's even on ABC.

Heck again, it's on the Huffington Post. What is wrong with the liberal media? Can't they keep a conspiracy a secret anymore? All those years teaching them to never report on any HUGE story if it hurts a Democrat wasted.

 

funny stuff

 

I seem to remember you saying this like in April, maybe. And then being completely wrong about it. Was it the oil well explosion?

 

WWE, brotheeeerrrrrr

 

What a let down, I remember when assault meant something

 

Teenagers should learn it is not safe to fcuk with old people.

 

You're always wrong about this... aren't you embarrassed already? This was on the front page of... are you ready... the huffington post.

If you're a conservative, why do you make it your mission to make conservatism moronic?

 

No, he said that the NY Times would ignore the attempted attack in, you know, Times Square once it was established that the accused was pakistani, and not a white american.

 

Paranoid Congressman: Who are you?
Who are you?
Who are you?

Students: We’re just students Sir.

Paranoid Congressman: Get off my lawn!

http://www.youtube.com/v/qQzkDzLw_gA

Students: Uh, this a public sidewalk , on a public street, that is no where near your lawn, Sir.

Paranoid Congressman: Who are you?
Who are you?
Who are you?

Get off my lawn!

 

Doh! That's right. That really was a stupid thing to say.

 

If the guy freaked out based only on the things shown in the video, then he's a lunatic and a jackass. However, I wonder if there are things that were edited out.

Still, though, you don't get to go around manhandling people on the street like that - they arrest people for doing things like that.

 

They covered it for a week or so then moved on. If it had been a "teabagger" we'd have been subjected to countless reports, Dateline specials, etc. on the rise of right-wing racist terrorism in America.

 

Goalposts should be moved late at night after the park security has gone home. If you do it in broad daylight, everyone sees you and they adjust for the new location while pointing out to various and sundry that you're the one who moved them to begin with.

You well might have been, but that'd be because we've all been told that we're supposed to trust people who look like a teabagger. When they start playing the role we've all been told belongs solely to darkie muslims, well, certain pairs of eyes get wide and ears perk up. TV ratings might jump. Sounds like good business, not an agenda.

Besides, don't you have some John Wayne DVDs you can play when the news is on? You gonna be the supporter of "no", you need to find a way to ignore everything, all the time.

 

A week is an eternity in journalism. The only reason they haven't moved on from the Gulf is because the thing is still gushing.

And RW terrorism took a break under Bush. Coincidence? Maybe Dateline has to do a piece on this.

 

you said it would not be covered by the New York Times, when there were 5 stories on the front page about it on that particular day. Just admit you were wrong and stupid to think that the NY Times wouldn't report on a serious attempted terrorist attack in, again, Times Square.

 

Etheridge has been a public figure here for a very, very long time, and this is the ONLY time I've ever heard of an incident like this. I wonder if those guys had been stalking him for a while. It would be strange for this guy to be a public figure for nearly 20 years, and then all of a sudden become a nut.

 

OK, I just did a search on the Times web site. In the first 30 days after Timothy Mcveigh was identiified as an Oklahoma City bomber, his name appeared in 26 articles in the NY Times.

In the first 30 days after Faisal Shahzad was identified as the attempted Times Square bomber, his name appeared in 68 articles in the NY Times.

Now I'm not willing to draw the conclusion from this data point that "therefore, the NY Times cares more about islamic terrorism than right wing american terrorism". But I'm wondering what your data point is to support your conclusion. Because clearly, based on the number of articles in the aftermath, there is nothing to support your assertion that if it was a tea bagger, the Times would report on it more.

We await your response, Philly. Seriously. You can decide now whether you want to be a poster whose contributions are taken seriously, or just a nitwit taking baseless pot shots.