Deranged Left Winger Punches TEA Party Member
by Big Dog on Jun 11, 2010 at 05:16 Political
There was a TEA Party rally in North Carolina and a left wing lunatic showed up to spew his hatred. He pushed people around and the peaceful TEA Party members asked for the police. Then this deranged lunatic shoved a man’s wife several times and then punched the man in his face after he stepped up and pushed the man away from his wife:
Where is Nancy Pelosi and her tears for the violence that will happen because she has heard the angry rhetoric before? Where is the MSM? You can bet if a TEA Party member had punched this man the MSM would have the video on 24 hours a day and the cries of racism would be heard around the world.
This is what happens when peaceful left wing nut jobs are allowed out in public. The left has caused all of the violence at any of these events. I think the TEA Party people showed remarkable restraint. After the assault they were calling for the police. There were certainly enough of them to stomp this guy’s guts out and he would have deserved every bit of it.
Instead, they called for law enforcement (and amazingly, charges were filed against both men!).
They showed more restraint than I would have. If this guy had shoved my wife he would have never gotten the chance to throw a punch at me. This coward would be eating his meals through a straw for a very long time.
The progressive revolutionaries in this country want riots and violence so they can topple the government and this guy is one of their pawns. He listened to Obama tell his peeps to get in their faces.
This is what you get with a thug party led by a thug in the White House.
Obama wants to know whose ass needs to be kicked.
This follower of his is high on that list.
As an aside, the coward’s name is Governor Spencer. His mother probably named him Governor because she knew no one would ever use a respectful title to address him otherwise…
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: liberals, north carolina, nut jobs, progressives, tea party, violence
President Obama is sorely mistaken if he thinks thug tactics will bully the American people, Tea Party members included, into to submission. I am proud of the Tea Party members’ restraint. They showed themselves to be the civilized citizens they are and that thug should go to jail.
“The progressive revolutionaries in this country want riots and violence so they can topple the government…”
Are you joking? Did you just make that up? Nice slight of hand there. Hey everybody, look at that “progressive revolutionary” that wants to topple the government! Pay no attention to the resurgent right wing militia movement that has been making headlines again for months as they spread their anti-government rhetoric and commit criminal acts and violence starting with law enforcement and up.
“This is what you get with a thug party led by a thug in the White House.”
When I see you making breathless attacks like this I think of Brick from Anchorman. LOUD NOISES!
There are no militia movements attacking law enforcement. They might have planned to do that but they never did it. There are not many of these organizations and none of them are showing up and beating liberals. Show me an instance of an unprovoked attack by any of the groups that make you wet your pants.
Islamic radicals try to attack us and you dismiss it and say we are not in a war with these people but a few people are arrested for making plans to attack LE and you go nuts.
Funny how when a Muslim commits an act of terror you dismiss the notion that there are a lot of them out there. You and Barry with your isolated incident meme. When a small group of morons does something wrong you paint everyone on the right with that brush. You can’t have it both ways though I know you will try.
You call a small group of people who were registered Democrats a resurgent right wing militia and terrorists isolated incidents.
Remember, it is your side that has the great peacemakers like Bill Ayers and his wife along with Van Jones and his calls for people to take over government. That is sedition which seems to be OK on your side. Yes, the radicals who call for the attacks are on your side.
If they do take to the streets there will be a lot of good progressives.
You know, the only good one is a dead one…
“There are no militia movements attacking law enforcement. They might have planned to do that but they never did it.”
Two police officers were murdered in cold blood in West Memphis Arkansas last month by a father and son connected to the militia movement. The father had taught to son to mistrust the government to such a degree that he opened fire with an AK-47 on the police officers because of a routine stop. This movement is growing, plotting, and spreading it’s ideology.
“Funny how when a Muslim commits an act of terror you dismiss the notion that there are a lot of them out there.”
You’re mistaken as usual. I don’t defend or dismiss terrorists when the evidence backs it up. I do however defend the religion of Islam against your side’s bigoted attacks that you engage in at a moment’s notice every time it appears a Muslim has committed an act of violence.
Right, and this so called militia person in Memphis is not you painting everyone for the acts of two deranged people? A militia website offers prayers for the family and the news said the van was registered to a church believed to be involved in white supremacist activities. Believed to be, and nothing about the guys. Also, white supremacists are not a militia group any more than the gun toting and stick wielding Black Panthers are.
There is no bigoted attacks except in your little mind. When a guy shouts Allah Akbar and shoots 13 soldiers then it is easy to see what is going on.
Funny, that is not enough for you but the association of a father and son with a militia is enough for you to believe that all right wingers are crazed militia men.
The other guys were Democrats…
“Funny, that is not enough for you but the association of a father and son with a militia is enough for you to believe that all right wingers are crazed militia men.”
I know plenty of non-militia right wingers and have not said what you’re accusing me of.
Oh Adam, spare me!!!
Where is the Muslims’ outrage against the things that their own people are doing?
Where’s the large group of Muslims that are speaking to the public about how saddened they are that their religion is used as an excuse to commit these atrocities?
THERE IS NONE!
Their silence is the same as approval.
So keep spinning and spinning Adam it’s what you do best!
Adam, where is the “criminal acts and violence” you speak of? Cite it- we already have members of a thug union beating people- those are NOT the TEA Party. We have left-wing anarchists breaking windows and throwing rocks and other things at police- THEY are not TEA Party people- all we have are your (and other) lying statements about the “vast right wing conspiracy” that YOU (and others like you) must dream about at night.
And forgive me for going off topic but I’ll bring up a quote from a post that has scrolled off the pages.
You recently wrote:
Sorry.
Please see my screenshot of the BLS data or a link to the data itself.
Direct your attention to the green square I placed roughly on 17 Feb 2009. When the data for unemployment was made available is irrelevant. BLS’s data clearly points to the fact that unemployment was over 8% when Obama signed the stimulus.
Nice try but the day he signed the bill the numbers for February were unknown. You can easily go back and say that the number for Feb was so and so but in February you could not have done that because the number did not come out until March. The screenshot you posted did not exist in 17 Feb. The numbers were available later. It does matter because he used the January numbers in his belief that the UE rate would start going down and it did not.
The UE rate was not known to be over 8% when he signed and using data available later to justify a claim is dishonest.
You cannot say that anyone already knew the number was above 8% so his claim was invalid from the start when he did not know the number, no one did. The number reported throughout any month is a month old. We would not say someone was wrong for saying that the UE rate right now is 9.7% because that is the only number we know.
What is the unemployment rate for today, 11 June 2010? You should be able to tell me if what you claim is true.
You’re arguing something that is irrelevant though. You are calling me a liar for a point I never made. My point was not that Obama knew when he signed that it was above 8%. It was just above 8% when he signed which as you point out we’d know a few weeks later.
My point has always been that the Romer Bernstein report’s statement on 8% was made not as hard line but as an estimate subject significant margins of error. They say that clearly in the report.
Your side has latched onto the 8% remark as a benchmark to say it failed since it’s above 8% but the reality is they were clearly off the mark before the thing even passed and it is in no way an indicator of the success of the stimulus.
You go back and read that report again. What they say is the amount of unemployment WITHOUT the stimulus is subject to significant error.
You also cannot make the claim that it is moot because he signed it when we were above 8% when we did not know it at the time. We only knew what had been reported.
What is the unemployment rate for TODAY?
“You go back and read that report again. What they say is the amount of unemployment WITHOUT the stimulus is subject to significant error.”
I’m not sure what point you’re making but actually they say this very thing in the report:
And:
Emphasis mine, of course.
“You also cannot make the claim that it is moot … What is the unemployment rate for TODAY?”
Again, when we found out that unemployment was above 8% is irrelevant to my argument. I don’t know why you keep suggesting otherwise. No where did I suggest Obama knew it was above 8% on the day he signed it but the reality is BLS tells us it was above 8% when it was signed.
See, you’ve taken a report with estimates they admit over and over are full of potential error and uncertainty and you’ve pretended the Obama administration insisted without a doubt that unemployment would not get past 8% with the stimulus. The reality is unemployment was much worse than expected and was higher than 8% at the time the stimulus became law.
Why do you have to argue when these facts clearly prove you wrong over and over?
Oh, perhaps I was mistaken. I thought when you used people (Democrats no less) accused of plotting but not carrying out an attack on law enforcement as some attempt to take over government and then equating two people who shot cops and were suspected of being white supremacists to a resurgent militia movement you were painting them all with a broad brush.
I must be mistaken that you would take two small (in scope) incidents and call it a resurgent militia would mean that it involves great numbers. That would be resurgent to me.
Pay no attention to the resurgent right wing militia movement that has been making headlines again for months as they spread their anti-government rhetoric and commit criminal acts and violence starting with law enforcement and up.
Despite having no evidence that the people were right wing…
Oh, yes. Because running around with guns and spouting libertarian limited government nonsense is typical leftist politics, right? Stop kidding around. The militia movement is right-wing and it is growing again. Quit with the denial.
That report, footnote number 1 states:
Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.
Notice how it specifically addresses the unemployment rate. If all estimates were subject to variability then this footnote would be unnecessary. However, it is there to point out that unemployment will be bad without the stimulus (they do not address with the stimulus) leading us to believe that the employment rates estimated with the stimulus are not subject to the variability.
Were they deliberately misleading in order to push the stimulus?
This is a regime friendly report so that would be my guess. Regardless, the issue is resolved with this footnote.
“Notice how it specifically addresses the unemployment rate. If all estimates were subject to variability then this footnote would be unnecessary.”
That footnote is there simply to detail the fact that 9% on the high end without stimulus was not a sure thing and that some estimated 11%.
“…leading us to believe that the employment rates estimated with the stimulus are not subject to the variability.”
That is absolutely not true. They state specifically in the report:
Are you going to read that block of text and still insist that they were trying to make anyone believe that their estimates of the impact of the stimulus (which they call the package) were not subject to variability?
“Regardless, the issue is resolved with this footnote.”
You stopped making sense a long time ago in this argument I’m afraid. You’re badly abusing the truth here. Read the report and you’ll see. There is absolutely nothing stated as certain in the report and they make that positively clear several times over.
No proof that anything is growing. Just proof that the left is paying more attention. There is nothing wrong with having a gun, in fact it is a Constitutionally guaranteed activity.
Just keep in mind that liberals were all getting violent with SEIU thugs beating people at town hall meetings. That violence stopped when people started carrying guns.
And you see the report one way and I another but even given your little blurb they failed to create the jobs and will not hit 3.3 to 4.1 million.
And the double dip will hit with inflation.
I never said they were trying not to show variability. What I said, and what is true, the negatives portrayed dealt with unemployment WITHOUT the stimulus because they wanted the stimulus to pass. They did not mention what with the stimulus because they wanted us to believe that the stimulus would be a good thing and would stabilize the job market and that WITHOUT it we would have the most trouble.
It is now obvious that the whole thing was wrong and failed or they would not be asking for more money to “create” jobs.
“It is now obvious that the whole thing was wrong and failed or they would not be asking for more money to “create” jobs.”
I counter this lie for you in your post. I do wish you’d stop telling lies.
Funny how you can read this and see things that are not there and yet read the authorization of force in Iraq and not see that WMD was only 3 items and the rest dealt with UN resolutions. The sole argument you have had is lied about WMD when that was a small part of it.
Yet you defend the paper written by hacks to persuade us to pass the stimulus (that was what it was for) and it was WRONG.
Bigd: “WMD was only 3 items and the rest dealt with UN resolutions… WMD… was a small part of it.”>>
D.
————-
“This isn’t an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam’s WMDs
and the threat of their imminent use.”
–Sen. Carl Levin
And many of those statements were made by Democrats or has the left forgotten that.
Regardless of what sold it the authorization that they voted on mentioned WMD a few times and many violations other than WMD a number of times.
It is funny that when Clinton was in office the left said Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) had to go and had WMD. Then they voted to get rid of him and his WMD aand then they said they were tricked by a man they consider an idiot.