Comments: Indefensible?

There is no room for dissent, discourse, debate.

Patisan Cliche #362: our side is a diverse group of free-thinkers, the other side is the Borg.

Posted by Thlayli at March 27, 2004 02:16 PM

Partisan, also :/

Posted by Thlayli at March 27, 2004 02:17 PM

Of course, there is a big difference, which is that the anti-Bush thugs are a teensy, unorganized minority. Whereas the pro-Bush thugs are organized, given riot gear and badges, and put on city payrolls.

Posted by Amanda at March 27, 2004 02:17 PM

Boo-fucking-hoo.

Uncivil? Tough shit.

Posted by dave at March 27, 2004 02:39 PM

...the union worker had been engaging us, and Aaron had also exchanged some words with him, then the guy just jumped down and charged at Aaron.

Gosh, I sure wish I had an idea what those "exchanged" words were. I'm sure they weren't of a personal nature.

Of course, this is kind of like complaining about being harrassed in the bleachers at Fenway Park when you're dressed in full Yankee regalia...

Posted by dave at March 27, 2004 02:42 PM

first: I am not a fan of political violence. I'm not going to defend the union guys if the facts are as reported.

second: I think the word for which the pro-Bush kids are looking is "projection". it's a lot less safe to wear a Kerry shirt at a Bush rally than vice-versa. cf Neiwert's compilations of eliminationist rhetoric.

Posted by wcw at March 27, 2004 02:52 PM

so i wonder exactly what their little "counter protest" was all about? how exactly were they "countering" what the anti-Bush people were saying?

cause if you look at the PHOTOS! he links to (story right below the one linked here), the captions include such lovlies as "commies", "sheeple", "mindless", "thugs", "fools", "dykes", "pillow biter", "bench rat", etc., while the "freepers against the world" are described as "patriots".

why do i get the feeling this was, umm, provoked, like the incident orcinus describes:

fuck the freepers. if they want to beat people unconscious, they're gonna have to expect to get their glasses busted in return.

Posted by cleek at March 27, 2004 03:09 PM

I have little respect for people that don't allow comments in their blogs. Sure, comments can turn into a swamp of garbage, but that's when you have enough of a user base that you can grow into a more full-featured site system like Scoop (or, if you ran your blog on LiveJournal or something in the first place, you could take advantage of their strong comment system.)

The atmosphere of blogs with comments is one of openness and inclusion- it doesn't just assume you'll do your own research, it leaves you with no other option.

Posted by a lesser mongbat at March 27, 2004 03:38 PM

I think what Instapundit says is great!

The more the rethugs lie to themselves and rationalize their fascist leanings, the more inbred and dysfunctional they become. These guys will eventually implode. It may be ugly, there may be a lot of collateral damage. But it will happen.

Crazy like a fox?! No, just crazy.

Posted by libertas at March 27, 2004 04:03 PM

Glenn never puts subject verb and object together anymore except to engage in the intellectually lazy act of stereotyping. He puts the ass in bombastic.

Posted by Randy Paul at March 27, 2004 04:44 PM

I am Really, Really looking forward to the GOP convention in the Apple this summer.

Posted by Sovereign Eye at March 27, 2004 04:59 PM

One poster, with the best intentions has said that
the Right will eventually implode. I've seen simular comments before. The Right that is represented by Lott, Delay, Bush, Limbaugh, Miller and others is just the re-invention of social darwinism. It won't go away, because it contains a nuggett of truth. That is that they can bring order. That may do so at the expense of liberty and democracy, but the truth is that some people prize rigidity/order nore then freedom and the dash of ambiguity that goes with it.
The Right says they stand for freedom, yet freedom is part of what scares them. Lots of diferent people, male and female, lots of ethnicities having different views and priorities is more then the collective mentality of the right can handle. They live in fear , that fear breds hate ( re: O'Reilly, Hannity, Grover Norquist, the Klan, Jerry Falwell). I can't remember the exact quote..Benjamin Franklin.." those that prize security over freedom deserve neither." Keep figting and push them back, but never think the dark side will disappear because it won't.

Posted by magnum liberal at March 27, 2004 05:46 PM

I did it. I got tired of burning the flag, symbol of our freedom, and decided to beat on people for being patriotic. "Damn you and your honesty!" is what I cried as I fell upon them. "You destroyed my faith in Communism when you exposed Richard Clarke, oh you manly bloggers! And yet I can't but help being envious of your success with women!" They would have smote me with but a single blow, but I pushed an innocent child in their way. As they hesitated, I went for my tazer.

Posted by Social Scientist at March 27, 2004 06:35 PM

The freepers do protest too much, methinks!

Posted by Michael at March 27, 2004 08:11 PM

He took a swing at him (missing his face by a hair – knocking off his glasses) and then everything just exploded. I went right for that guy and jumped at him, getting a few punches in before I got tackled (presumably by another union worker), and got thrown to the ground.

One guy takes a swing. one guy in a big crowd. no rush of angry mob-humanity. one guy.

Bushie "went right for the guy and jumped at him, getting in a few punches before I got tackled."

Some commenters have said that they wouldn't defend the union guys. Fine. I will.

This fella was looking for a fight, and he didn't get nearly as much of one as he had hoped.

one guy took a swing. bushie instantly pounced on him and hit him "a few times." fight gets broken up.

Bushie, who got less of a fight than he had hoped for, then whines about the ill treatment he recieved.

pussy.

Posted by emcee fleshy at March 27, 2004 09:29 PM

Hmmmm..... so the Guild moved in to make sure that folks got to say what they wanted. Damn commies. Always there to try to make sure the people exercise their first amendment rights.

Posted by lawguy at March 28, 2004 12:23 AM

Color me skeptical. Righty sounds like he was looking for an opportunity to unleash his inner soccer hooligan: "I went right for that guy and jumped at him, getting a few punches in before I got tackled." Yep, he was only defending himself.

Otherwise, I remain baffled that these folks can accuse the Democrats of hatred, deride other folks for employing anti-gay slurs, then give money and votes to a man who believes that the government should jail gays for the terrible crime of sodomy. Because that's about equality and love.

Posted by Drew at March 28, 2004 12:41 AM

"if the facts are as reported"
What are the chances that Glenn Reynolds, or any of his ilk, are going to report any conflict, in which they are involved, with anything resembling objective accuracy?

The FReepers are quite accustomed to abusive, insulting rhetorical characterizations of Democrats, liberals and Union members. On the web, their crap passes for debate; in person, they constitute fighting words.

I probably would have wanted to step on the little pissants myself.

And, in many places other than Boston, the police would have been actively involved as right-wing rioters, with nary a peep of protest from the FReepers.

Posted by Brian Wilder at March 28, 2004 11:40 AM

I suspect that those with violent tendencies on the right are going to use this as justification for pre-emptive attacks in the future:

"We know those dirty liberals would do anything possible to shut our speech down. Maybe even kill us. So we had to attack them first."

Posted by moonbiter at March 29, 2004 01:20 AM

There wouldn't have been any lefty bloggers in the crowd to substantiate or refute the claims of this Margolis fellow? Or provide their own blow-by-blow of the scene?

Maybe some can take turns checking these sorts of things out when the circus gets to their town...

Posted by (: Tom :) at March 29, 2004 06:50 AM

i too, doubt Margolis' account, 1.) because of those lovely captions on his photo gallery (as referenced above) 2.) because the Boston Herald article reads exactly like his own blog account of the event and 3.) where is the assault charge against this supposed totalitarian union man? if someone takes a swing at you, it's assault, plain and simple, and yet, this guy didn't file any charges.

he sounds full of shit to me.

Posted by brandt at March 29, 2004 10:16 AM
Post a comment












Remember personal info?