Funny, how Mr. Parlock has had this happen to him in three straight elections now, all within earshot of a reporter EACH time.... it's also funny how the alleged perpetrator looks *exactly* like one of his sons.

Yeah, right, this wasn't staged... :rolleyes:

Papa Lou BSU Wrote:Funny, how Mr. Parlock has had this happen to him in three straight elections now, all within earshot of a reporter EACH time.... it's also funny how the alleged perpetrator looks *exactly* like one of his sons.

Yeah, right, this wasn't staged...  :rolleyes:

That alleged perpetrator DOES NOT look anything like any of his sons!!!!!!! I've known this family for 9 years now....and I know how they are staunch republicans. They would never stages something like that. And guess what this is an AP Photo. Not a photo taken by their own camera...

Here is a quote from one of my posts in another thread:

Quote:The guy in the green cap is NOT one of his sons. That is a ridiculous assumption that I've never heard of.

Want the truth?

The truth is that that guy and members of his group are always the ones that tear down the signs that the Phil Parlock and his kids bring to the Kerry/Edwards rallies. In no way shape or form is that a setup. That guy is some worthless redneck punk that can't leave a 3-year-old alone.

Quote:THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE PARLOCK SONS. THAT IS A GUY THAT IS ALWAYS AT THESE RALLIES AND PLAYS THE ROLE OF SPOILER.

It is true though that him and the members of his organization are always the ones that crash the pro-Bush protesting. They always find their way to where Phil and his kids are, and manage to get violent.

AmeriKenny Wrote:

Papa Lou BSU Wrote:Funny, how Mr. Parlock has had this happen to him in three straight elections now, all within earshot of a reporter EACH time.... it's also funny how the alleged perpetrator looks *exactly* like one of his sons.

Yeah, right, this wasn't staged...  :rolleyes:

That alleged perpetrator DOES NOT look anything like any of his sons!!!!!!! I've known this family for 9 years now....and I know how they are staunch republicans. They would never stages something like that. And guess what this is an AP Photo. Not a photo taken by their own camera...

Here is a quote from one of my posts in another thread:

Quote:The guy in the green cap is NOT one of his sons. That is a ridiculous assumption that I've never heard of.

Want the truth?

The truth is that that guy and members of his group are always the ones that tear down the signs that the Phil Parlock and his kids bring to the Kerry/Edwards rallies. In no way shape or form is that a setup. That guy is some worthless redneck punk that can't leave a 3-year-old alone.

Quote:THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE PARLOCK SONS. THAT IS A GUY THAT IS ALWAYS AT THESE RALLIES AND PLAYS THE ROLE OF SPOILER.

It is true though that him and the members of his organization are always the ones that crash the pro-Bush protesting. They always find their way to where Phil and his kids are, and manage to get violent.

AmeriKenny,

You may as well give up...you can present quote after quote, and libs will come up with another conspiracy theory to explain away that it was in fact Mr. Parlock who shredded the sign, made his daughter cry, and positioned himself next to an idiot who just happened to have a piece of the very same type of sign in his hand, by coincidence. Then he yelled to a reporter, "HEY, TAKE OUR PICTURE!"

And you know what...even if he did put the bait out, the moron union thug took it. Shows you the mentality we're dealing with here. Typical union thug...all for free speech as long as you agree with them and if you don't you'll be 'dealt with'. Intimidating a 3 year old...that's tough

The dad still is legally retarded for using his daughter in that manner. May no one on this board be that big of an idiot.

RebelKev Wrote:

fsquid Wrote:Why did the girl have  a Bush Cheney sign at an Edwards campaign stop?  That doesn't make sense to me.

Why are there Bush protestors at Bush stops? ANSWER: Exercising their 1st amendment rights. You know that little thing, don't you?

Actually, in this case, I believe DAD was exercizing his 1st amendment rights and using his daughter as a shield to do so. I would be willing to bet the 3 yr. old has no idea WHO she's going to vote for when she's able to vote. More over, I seriously doubt she has any opinion on this election. Shame on the knucklehead who tore up the sign, but Daddy was baiting the crowd and assumed he'd be safe using his daughter as the vehicle. He's as big a knucklehead as the sign shredder.

And NO, the sign shredder does NOT say anything about the "types of people he attracks". His actions say an awful lot about HIM, however.

RebelKev Wrote:I can add something:

The Democratic National Convention kept their protestors about a mile away behind concertina wire in areas called "Free Speech Zones".

The Republican National Convention did NOT hinder anyone's rights as protestors roamed the streets of NYC, often heckling delegates.


Which party abided by the Constitution? I've never effin HEARD of a "Free Speech Zone".


....as far a the little girl and her father, yeah. I am sure they posed as much threat as the lunatic that ran towards the VP to within 10 feet of him. :rolleyes: James Brady might disagree with you about the seriousness of that situation.

Kev, I wholeheartedly disagree. New York City was VERY careful to set up areas where protesters could and could not assemble. That there were so many of them for every single day of the convention is rather newsworthy, I think, and a bit telling.

Karl Wrote:That there were so many of them for every single day of the convention is rather newsworthy, I think, and a bit telling.

Yes, it tells us that the anarchists are organized and willing to forego honest work to travel around and have a big protest party.........like their ancestors in the 1960's anti-war movement. That is why they show up at high profile gatherings like the World Trade meetings, etc. The Democrats were just able to and willing to control them at their convention.

RandyMc Wrote:

Karl Wrote:That there were so many of them for every single day of the convention is rather newsworthy, I think, and a bit telling.

Yes, it tells us that the anarchists are organized and willing to forego honest work to travel around and have a big protest party.........like their ancestors in the 1960's anti-war movement. That is why they show up at high profile gatherings like the World Trade meetings, etc. The Democrats were just able to and willing to control them at their convention.

What?! Now they're ANARCHISTS because they voice their 1st amendment rights, as the fellow and his daughter in the picture were doing? How in the world did we reach THAT conclusion? This is the sort of nonsense I've had trouble with from the far right for the last 15 years.

And for AmeriKenny:

Quote:He is a liberal union thug that is picking on a 3-year old girl.

Ok, he's got a union shirt on. He tore up a sign a little girl was holding. The little girl is crying. Yep. Proof positive that he's both a liberal AND a union thug. Or is it proof that all union members are thugs? Or that all liberals are union members? Or that all liberals are thugs? Or are all those who disagree with us anarchists? This whole thing is making me dizzy.

The joker who tore up the sign is a meathead. The people around him who think it's a great thing he did are meatheads too. And the father is a meathead for taking his daughter into that situation. Shows incredibly bad judgement. For the individual who posted that he could have told his daughter about how great it is to be able to dissent, I'd like you to say that with a straight face. You REALLY believe Dad took his 3 year old on a civics lesson at a Kerry-Edwards event?

Remember the concept of being responsible for your own actions? Getting away from a needlessly litigious society? How about people show a little bit of common sense and discretion now and then, and take responsibility for their actions? When meathead A (the dad) puts himself and his 3 yr old in a volatile situation and something bad happens, FIRST responsibility for his daughter's condition falls to meathead A, and everyone down the line from there. Dad doesn't get a free pass on this one.

Karl Wrote:

RandyMc Wrote:

Karl Wrote:That there were so many of them for every single day of the convention is rather newsworthy, I think, and a bit telling.

Yes, it tells us that the anarchists are organized and willing to forego honest work to travel around and have a big protest party.........like their ancestors in the 1960's anti-war movement. That is why they show up at high profile gatherings like the World Trade meetings, etc. The Democrats were just able to and willing to control them at their convention.

What?! Now they're ANARCHISTS

Yep, that is what I said. The people that go around protesting as I described are ANARCHISTS. They are certainly exercising their First Amendment rights, all the way up to destroying property (like throwing a brick through the front of a McDonald's or setting fire to a Starbucks) and physically assaulting innocent pedestrians. Then, with any luck, they will be exercising their FIFTH Amendment rights (you know, you have the right to be silent, the right to a lawyer.........).

And that is not the "Far Right's" view of what they are doing. That is Middle America's predominate position on the whack job professional protestors.

ANARCHIST: n . 1. a person who advocates anarchism as a political doctrine; a believer in voluntary association as the most satisfactory means of organizing society. 2. a preson who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. 3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against an established rule, law, or custom.

ANARCHY: n . 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to absence of governmental control. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder.

While you may be able to use the parts of these definitions to describe any protester, the types encountered at the two conventions do not fit the primary definitions at all. They were working within the rules of society to change political leadership. That is most certainly NOT anarchy as most of us know it.

I don't have much use for anyone who spends their entire life travelling the country to protest, whether it's for political purposes, environmental policy, animal rights, any more than I felt that Dead Heads who did nothing but follow the Dead were very useful. Shoot, there were people standing outside the Ringling Brother Circus here in town tonight protesting for animal rights, for cryin' out loud! GET A LIFE, PEOPLE. But they aren't anarchists.

RandyMc Wrote:

Karl Wrote:That there were so many of them for every single day of the convention is rather newsworthy, I think, and a bit telling.

Yes, it tells us that the anarchists are organized and willing to forego honest work to travel around and have a big protest party.........like their ancestors in the 1960's anti-war movement. That is why they show up at high profile gatherings like the World Trade meetings, etc. The Democrats were just able to and willing to control them at their convention.

Or they might be using vacation days at their work to go and protest, but I'm sure you polled them all.

After the actions of both parties this election and the last, is it really that big of a surprise to see why the younger generations don't vote?

fsquid Wrote:I'm sure you polled them all.

Yes, they were very glad to answer my questions.

Off to Jonesboro...............

Hey FS, He was exercising his 1st amendment right....a right "I" effin served and fought for. Right's, they're NOT just for effin liberals. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

RebelKev Wrote:Hey FS, He was exercising his 1st amendment right....a right "I" effin served and fought for. Right's, they're NOT just for effin liberals. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

That's not my arguement and thanks for serving our country. My arguement was that this man showed very poor judgement and bad parenting skills by taking his 3 year old on this silent protest. The guy had a right to be there (it was a public rally I read so that cancels out my previous arguement), but it seems like he was there just to draw attention to himself with this 3 year old girl. (WV paper says he's done similar things in 96 and 00 campaigns.)

fsquid Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Hey FS, He was exercising his 1st amendment right....a right "I" effin served and fought for. Right's, they're NOT just for effin liberals.  :mad:  :mad:  :mad:  :mad:  :mad:

That's not my arguement and thanks for serving our country. My arguement was that this man showed very poor judgement and bad parenting skills by taking his 3 year old on this silent protest. The guy had a right to be there (it was a public rally I read so that cancels out my previous arguement), but it seems like he was there just to draw attention to himself with this 3 year old girl. (WV paper says he's done similar things in 96 and 00 campaigns.)

Why is it poor judgement? You'd think that if you are going to a rally, with your daughter, to silently hold up signs, that you should be left alone. Are we not in America? WHY did those union thugs have to do what they did? Why are they against freedom of speech, but FOR picking on a man's baby daughter?

When Phil went to the rally, he didn't think he was going to a war zone.

Then Phil is a moron for thinking that no one was going to say anything to him. According to your state's paper, the same thing happened to him in '96 and '00, did he really think this was going to be any different?? Then he takes a 3 year old child? He's just a moron man, plain and simple. He's a meathead just like the union guy was a meathead.

Have to disagree with you here, squid.

I'm not making a comparison between civil rights and the right to assemble/protest peacefully...but I don't think it's fair to say that just because Parlock was accosted at previous events, that he should suddenly quit attending rallies and not bring his daughter.

That's like saying blacks in the '50s and '60s should've stopped marching and striving for civil rights. After all, they knew they would be arrested, beaten and sometimes killed, right?

And if a protester gets hurt or killed in a peaceful protest, it's his/her own fault because people were killed at Kent State.

If Parlock had been screaming bloody murder, or disrupting the rally in some way, then he should've been removed, and would have no defense against people shouting at him. But even in that hypothetical situation, their sign should not have been taken from them, and that 3-year-old should not have been subjected to the threat of violence and profanities.

I think we should all respect each other enough and have faith in our system enough to EXPECT civil treatment as long as we treat people in like fashion.

Now we have this incident, the Seattle guy that sucker punched a young fellow silently holding up a Bush/Cheney sign...where, exactly, does it end, and when will we put the blame on the PEOPLE THAT PERPETRATE disrespectful, violent acts instead of misdirecting blame on those that were simply exercising their right to free speech?

He had a right to be there, but don't act so surprised when people yell at you. Also, don't bring a little girl who's only political ideas would be more cookies after dinnertime. He used her as bait for cameras because he knew that the Democratic supporters would start screaming at him. I just feel bad for the little girl. Her father evidently has no common sense.

This would be like me going to a Mississippi pep rally and holding up a Memphis sign on the front row and just standing there. How long do you think it would take me to get smacked or yelled at?

fsquid Wrote:He had a right to be there, but don't act so surprised when people yell at you. Also, don't bring a little girl who's only political ideas would be more cookies after dinnertime. He used her as bait for cameras because he knew that the Democratic supporters would start screaming at him. I just feel bad for the little girl. Her father evidently has no common sense.

This would be like me going to a Mississippi pep rally and holding up a Memphis sign on the front row and just standing there. How long do you think it would take me to get smacked or yelled at?

Yelled at is one thing - but you shouldn't expect to be smacked. It's a sporting event, for crying out loud.

And if you brought your daughter, people should be respectful of the child. Scream your fool head off for the home team, but being a fan of a team/politician does NOT give anyone carte blanche to act like a blithering idiot.

All I'm asking for is a little civility. It shouldn't be too much to ask.

and all I'm asking is not for some right or left winger to bring their child to a political event to draw the cameras!