Republicans Assault Vet He Was Wielding A Question
#1
Posted 31 October 2006 - 07:06 PM
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 31, 2006 at 11:57 AM.
Former Marine and first year law student, Mike Stark was asking Republican senator George Allen some questions about the arrest records he refuses to make public and whether he had ever spit on his first wife. (Rumors that the Republican had done so have been circulating). Men wearing "Allen" buttons then assaulted Stark, wrestling him to the ground and forcibly removing him from the premises.
According to an NBC affiliate in Virginia:
[H]e was tackled by three men wearing Allen stickers, presumed to be staffers. He was pushed and manhandled and ended up on the floor, near windows at the Omni.
Watch the outrageous video (above) of Allen's staffers wrestling Stark to the floor, nearly hitting a glass wall which could've caused serious injury.
According to the CNN correspondent, Allen's response was that "things like that happen." Yeah, maybe when Allen's around and sweating...
http://www.alternet....ogs/peek/43723/
Never take advice from a man with no teeth.
[/center]
#4
Posted 01 November 2006 - 11:25 AM
The republican apologists in the print and broadcast media (CNN, Faux) have made Michael Stark out to be a heckler but the video puts the lie to that.
Vernon Wormer.
#5
Posted 01 November 2006 - 12:04 PM
#7 Guest_mam0412_*
Posted 01 November 2006 - 12:38 PM
Aggressively? How was he aggresive? The fact of the matter is, the Allen camp once again bullied (and this time, physically) someone who was in no way threatening.
#8
Posted 01 November 2006 - 12:42 PM
Aggressively? How was he aggresive? The fact of the matter is, the Allen camp once again bullied (and this time, physically) someone who was in no way threatening.
He was pushing past people who were standing there and yelling his "questions" in an obnoxious fashion. His behavior was inappropriate. He had done something similar before--how were Allen's aides supposed to know what he was going to when he aproached the Senator? For the record, I would say the same thing if this happened to Hillary Clinton. Would you?
#9
Posted 01 November 2006 - 12:51 PM
Freedom of speech was never meant to offer protection for someone to be insulting, degrading etc. I believe one question heard loud and clear on the video was along the lines of Senator, is it true (or Did you) that you spit on your first wife?
Disagreeing, debating, arguing etc are always acceptable, even required, in the political discourse. Name-calling and baiting are ignorant. The gentleman was asked to leave, refused to leave, and so was forced to leave. He fell (was not assualted) as a result of his resistence to the demand and corequisite action that he leave the immediate area. Note, he was not prevented from protesting, just not as a participant in the Allen event..
#10 Guest_mam0412_*
Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:00 PM
Freedom of speech was never meant to offer protection for someone to be insulting, degrading etc. I believe one question heard loud and clear on the video was along the lines of Senator, is it true (or Did you) that you spit on your first wife?
Disagreeing, debating, arguing etc are always acceptable, even required, in the political discourse. Name-calling and baiting are ignorant. The gentleman was asked to leave, refused to leave, and so was forced to leave. He fell (was not assualted) as a result of his resistence to the demand and corequisite action that he leave the immediate area. Note, he was not prevented from protesting, just not as a participant in the Allen event..
Those Allen people were not the police. They have no right to enforce by force. They did not own the property either. And Allen just stood there and watched his people beat someone to the ground who was not weilding a weapon nor his fists or threatening bodily harm in any way. Nice way to handle the situation, Senator. Once again, you've shown just why you will not be our Senator anymore.
#11
Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:01 PM
huh?? The question was insulting or degrading? He asked a quaestion concerning rumors/information that is curculating. ALL that had to be done was answer the question that he did not want to do. Guess he did spit on his wife and did not want to answer. Yep great moral character. Get real.
#12
Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:08 PM
Reminds me of Bush jr.'s non-responses on his cocaine use and other drug use...
This post has been edited by harv1: 01 November 2006 - 01:09 PM
His holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
#13
Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:20 PM
Those with totally clean hands and the ability to conduct themselves wisely and well in a leadership position don't want the hassle. So that generally leaves the less competent, those who want the office mainly for personal glory and gain, and the sociopaths. Great choice there...
#15 Guest_mam0412_*
Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:31 PM
Those with totally clean hands and the ability to conduct themselves wisely and well in a leadership position don't want the hassle. So that generally leaves the less competent, those who want the office mainly for personal glory and gain, and the sociopaths. Great choice there...
Now you're close. Allen's opponent would have handled it much, much better (he is one of those with the ability to conduct himself wisely and well in leadership roles)! But, Allen does only want the job for personal glory and gain. He wanted to be President in '08 (what a complete joke), but he has only himself and his extremely bad character and morals to blame for being unseated in the Senate. Good riddance!







Sign In
Register
Help
This topic is locked

MultiQuote



