Thanks for the support!

Just sent him one!

You bet. Between the not-quite-basic tier of cable and the broadband Internet access that my hubby-head wouldn't be able to live without (and now that I'm used to it myself I would have a hard time going without it), we pay about $100 a month. Thankfully we can afford it right now since both my husband and I have good jobs, but they keep pressuring us to upgrade to digital cable, and when we have a baby I want to stop working.... *sigh*

Ridiculous ain't it! The problem I feel is no competition in the area. Each area should have at least two cable companies, and let the price wars begin. How low can they go!

Sorry to tell you this, but in the UK broadband can be had for less than £20 per month! I guess thats one way we are more advanced than you!

Ask the cable company if they offer student rates, ask what discount's are available. Remember with broadband you do get an ISP. MY cable broadband is $55.95 a month and my satellite is more. I know I could get a combo deal of Tv and net access but cable TV stinks. Ask, all they can do is say no. I live in a rural area so I pay through the nose.

I have an insane cable bill every month. The cable company has a deal with the company I work for that offers a $20 discount to its employees. The catch, though, is that you have to have so many upgrades before the discount is offered. The upgrades (two movie channels I almost never watch) aren't really worth it. But since I'd be paying the same amount without them, I figured, "Why not?"

Thanks for the laugh!! :D

Many Iraqis (especially the Shi'a and the Kurds) are indeed better off due to the war to remove the alleged threat to our nation... This was cited as a positive result of this preemptive war.

The Iraqi people are not homogenous, however, and there are various groups within Iraq, each with different types of issues facing them.

Many Iraqis are indeed better off due to the war... But for certain Iraqis, that actually may not be the case.

[more info and background]

I think this is all a load of crap.

The Bush administration sold the war on fear that Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States. As everyone is well aware, that proved to be false. Bush even gave a speech as a warm-up to the invasion the day after 9/11's first anniversary. No wonder 50% of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 (not that ignorance/stupidity is excusable).

"Uh-oh! Big mistake! Better switch to Plan B! It's a good thing we named it 'Operation: Iraqi Freedom' instead of 'Operation: Locate the WMDs'."

Now all these Bush/war-supporters are rallying around the "Iraqi people are free!" idea. Yeah, roll with that now. As if any of these people gave a crap when Saddam was gassing his people in the 80's. I didn't hear anyone begging Clinton to free them during the 90's. They had the first two years of Dubya's presidency to urge him to free Iraqi people. If these Bush/war-supporters cared so much about the Iraqi people being free, why didn't they cry for them before the invasion?

Keep your eyes on the watch as it swings back and forth... back and forth... and listen to my soft and soothing voice... you are getting sleepy... very sleepy... now repeat after me... we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people... I am a Republican... I live in fear... only George W. Bush can save us...

There's long been a sentiment among many in America that Saddam should have been overthrown and his regime replaced with a democratic government. That's nothing new.

You can't blame Dubya for not doing things he was not in a position of power to do. Every time a new president is ellected, our government domestic and foreign policies are changed. They also tend to change when monumental events in history occur.

But we often forget that.

Sure, Saddam should have been overthrown. But a lot of other dictators and oppressive governments around the world should have been overthrown too.

My rant above specifically centers on the Bush/Republican loyalists, not what Dubya was not able to do when he wasn't in office. Which is why I gave Saddam gassing his people in the 80's as an example. Why weren't all these people who rally around the Iraqi people being free cry for them in the 80's? And it doesn't matter that Clinton was in office. They could have still asked him to send American troops to their deaths to free the Iraqi people then too. Why do they suddenly care so much now?

I'll tell you why. Because their loyalty lies in the Republican party. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right.

I've said it before. George W. Bush could molest and murder some puppies, and Republicans would rationalize it somehow.

Same with Democrats.

Molest and murder puppies. You folks just can't pass up an opportunity to say something monumentally stupid and insulting to the Prez, can you?

Right. You folk really need a reality check.

My point is, the government changed when Bush was elected. Nothing any Republican or Democrat president did before he took office meant squat.

For example, you'll never hear me argue about the fact our economy was getting flushed before Bush took office. I don't care. It only matters what has happened since.

The economy was faultering when he took office. Then a major hub of the economy was detsroyed, and thousands were killed. That hurt the economy badly.

But now, whether you or anyone else would like to believe it or not, the economy is on the upswing. In my opinion, Bush has done good in that regard.

As for Saddam and Iraq, what has been done should have been done long before he invaded Kuwait. He should never have been put into power in the first place.

But that doesn't matter anymore. That's the past, and nothing's going to change what has already happened. These sins of comission and omission occured on the watched of former administrations.

I don't give two, well, I can't say, but I think you get the idea. I just don't care.

As for where the people were in the 80s, are you saying they didn't exist? Are you saying nobody cared? When I still went to Church when I was younger, I distinctly remember the pastor of my family's church informing us of the hell that is the Middle East. Most of it, of course, centered on Israel, because he was, after all, a Christian and as most do, he was a staunch supporter of Israel.

Don't tell me the sentiment that change was needed in the Middle East and elsewhere. I know damn well these feeling were there. Just because Dan Rather didn't do a special on it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Right though. Yeah, I listen to Rush. I've listened to his show for roughly six years. I'm listening to him right now, as a matter of fact. I'll be listening to Sean Hannity coming up next. You obviously don't, however, because if you did, you'd know he (they) often criticizes his (their) own. Perhaps if the Left didn't give him (them) so much ammunition, he'd (they'd) have much more to say in criticism of the Right.

But hey, they're both conservative Pundits, what do you expect? Air America? How often do you hear that sniveling, hack Franken criticise the left? What's the ratio of Bush bashing vs. Kerry criticism?

Right.

I've said it before. John Francois Kerry could murder, rape, electricute genitals, raze villages in a fashion reminiscent of Jen-Jis Kawn, shoot cattle and dogs for fun, gun down fleeing combatants (which I think was actually a pretty good idea, that's a first) and still get the vote of half the population of America.

Go figure.

Now, as for toppling other dictators, sure. When possible. What do you expect? That we're going to march into Pyonyang, into the capital city of a nuclear power, and demand surrender?

Do you think we can do that with China? Just waltz in and demand they reform their government and disarm their military of a nuclear arsenal?

What about Iran? I agree, we probably should drive our forces straight across the border and end it. Same with Syria.

But, Syria first. Iran is on the brink of suffering a revolt, or so I'm hearing. If that's true, it'd be far better to wait until it happens, lend our support to the insurrection with diplomacy, arms, small groups of special forces, and general humanitarian aid, and if needed, later, step in with our regular military and settle it once and for all.

Iraq was the easiest target. It's also borders both Syria and Iran. A free, democratic Iraq would make for a good base of operations for future military actions.

It also distracts terrorist forces you now have streaming into the country. When was the last time a car bomb was detonated in America?

It causes a lot of death and destruction. Both the Iraq people and American soldiers are dying over there.

They know what awaits them if American should fail, and pull out of the fight.

They know what awaits them should they conceed defeat themselves.

It would be even worse for them than it was living under Hussein, and so they're lining up in droves to be trained and hired as police and national guard to fight for a chance at change.

Taking down Saddam and building a new Iraq is a very logical step in this war. It's a very pragmatic tactic; a very hard one to make. A good leader knows that such choices are distasteful, and will cause a great deal of pain, suffering and death, but a good leader makes that decision regardless.

You can argue end doesn't justify the means, but you're just naive if you would believe it. There's no such thing as a "sensitive war." Life is lost, cities are laid to waste. That's war. And if you're an American, or live in any other free country, it is because of those lives lost, and those destroyed cities, that you're living free.

It would really make my day if you said you lived in Western Europe.

Bush is either right, or he's completely and utterly insane. Make your own judgement. We'll settle this in November.

Even after the major combat had been declared over in the Iraq war, and even after the support for the war had begun to significantly drop, President Bush continued to focus on the national-security rationale for defending this war, and not on the liberal internationalist and statist arguments in favor of it. Liberal internationalism was the hallmark of the previous administration, and that was one thing that George W. Bush campaigned against when running for President in 2000. It is for the neoliberal and liberal internationalist reasons that many liberals and Democrats supported this Iraq war, and have supported warfare and military intervention in the past.

A growing number of conservatives and Republicans are criticizing the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and are having doubts about whether the war was the right thing to do. (Many of us who are conservatives opposed this war from the start, as did many our our current and former military leaders.)

The great conservative Congressman John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) recently wrote that leading Republicans have agreed that President Bush would be much ahead in the polls right now had he not gone to war in Iraq. The neoconservative/neoliberal policies of this administration - with respect to both domestic and foreign policy - may have hurt him among libertarian and Republican voters, both of whom were important to his victory in 2000.

Still, if President Bush, and his Cabinet, believed that this war was the right thing to do, and if it was in our direct national security interests, then they should have gone ahead with it, regardless of the political consequences.

But that may not be the case. Last fall, when things in Iraq were getting pretty bad, and since then, the Bush administration has shown signs that it is questioning the war. Based upon his previous statements (see here and here), it is possible that if President Bush had known what he does now, he would not have made the decision that he did. The President was reportedly questioning the war hawks' hard-line policies... And around that time last fall, it was believed by some that Karl Rove, recognizing the costs and negative aspects of war-related situations, may have declared a moratorium on new wars for the rest of Bush's term ("No Wars in '04"), much to the lament of neoconservatives like Frank Gaffney. President Bush surprised some observers by how long he took to decide that we were going to war with Iraq (many thought that we would be in there months earlier), and it is unclear whether he will follow the advice of the neoconservatives, neoliberals, and other war hawks with regard to their desire for more of these types of wars. I think that certain people would want that he does do that, but it is not known whether he will or not.

Hopefully, he will not do so, and will return to the conservative foreign policy that he advocated during his last campaign.

My right to say something monumentally stupid and insulting to (to?) the Prez is guaranteed in the First Amendment. In case you haven't noticed, the United States does not have a royal family whose butt is supposed to be kissed... like in England. Besides, if you understood what I wrote, you'd actually see that it wasn't directed to the Prez at all - it was directed at his supporters... and it was a blatantly far-fetched hypothetical.

"Nothing any Republican or Democrat president did before he took office meant squat."

I never said it did... in reference to the president. But it seems you missed my point once again. My original post deals with the opinions of the followers of a political party, not the actions of the current president versus previous ones.

If some Democrats had said that we needed to invade Iraq two years ago, and Bush said no, that we needed to focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, Republicans across the country would be saying, "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11! American soldiers don't need to die for the freedom of Iraqi people! If they want to be free, let them rise up and overthrow him themselves!" But since Bush said that we need to free the Iraqi people, popular opinion among Republicans is that they suddenly care that Iraqis aren't free. Loyalty to a political party takes precidence over independent thought, morality, and self-truth among many (most?) people.

No, I'm not implying that sentiment that change needed to take place didn't exist at all. But I am stating that it wasn't the popular opinion that it is today. (By the way, there's a distinct difference between the current popular opinion towards specifically freeing the Iraqi people and the generalized concern of the non-specific Middle East being a hell that you speak of.) 99.9% of the people who pretend to care today that the Iraqi people are free didn't care that Saddam was gassing them in the 80's. They didn't care during the 90's either. Nor did they care leading up to the Iraqi invasion. But now they do. Why? Justification for their leader... a Republican. And loyalty to their political party... the Republican party.

"I've said it before. John Francois Kerry could murder, rape, electricute genitals, raze villages in a fashion reminiscent of Jen-Jis Kawn, shoot cattle and dogs for fun, gun down fleeing combatants (which I think was actually a pretty good idea, that's a first) and still get the vote of half the population of America."

Actually, he'd only get the vote of half of registered voters, not half the population of America. The other half of registered voters would vote for that puppy molesting George W. Bush. (Nader's 2% doesn't count.) The rest of the Americans would just sit at home on their lazy, apathetic butts and wait to see what leader was chosen for them... then spend the next four years bitching about it... when Survivor, American Idol, and the Academy Awards aren't on TV.

Big surprise...the Iraqi puppet president has positive things to say about the Americans.

Josh Claybourn recently linked to a survey found in this article that says "96 percent of Iraqis believe their country is not safer than when Saddam was in power, though most are glad he's gone."

I think the reason people make mistakes on their own proof-reading is because they have a tendency to read what they're already thinking. It's easier to skip over mistakes becase your mind has already predetermined the words.

I noticed you didn't make any football picks either. I assume for the same reasons as the lite blogging. So if you want, I'll voluntarily sit out Week 11 (the next 136-point week) to make it fair. Maybe "gotilla" will too.

No, that's ok, it drops your lowest week.

I think you are right on the mistakes thing.

Don't worry... My blogging has been even 'lighter' than yours... and probably by a lot.

That's unfortunate, but that's sometimes how things will go - will school, CRs, and everything else...

Keep up the good work at this site.

But we all missed Week 1. You have two 0-point weeks, and if it only drops the lowest, you'll still have a zero. I'm still going to sit out Week 11 if you decide to get back in.

I'm sorry you've had such a tough go of it lately.
Get well, and stay dry. Blog on!

Quite frankly, I think the documents originated with CBS. How else did no one seem to know anything about them?

Hello,

I'm a lefty. I'm not sure what you're asking for, but I agree that CBS has messed up badly, that their arrogance has been appalling, that I'm still waiting for them to come clean, and that I fear they've undermined their ability to do investigative reporting and have people trust them for some time to come. Oh, and I cringe every time Terry brings up Bush's National Guard service; I'd rather everyone stuck to talking about the last decade or so. Is that what you were looking for?

I appreciate that you're withholding judgment on the event involving Mr. Parlock. I don't know if things happened the way he said or not, but I do think many parts of the conservative blogosphere have been very quick to pounce on this as an example of liberal perfidy. There are people who say they were at the event and insist that no one tore a sign from a little girl's hands. I don't know what happened, but I think Mr. Parlock's history indicates one should withhold judgement until the facts are in.

--Rick Taylor

Does being a socialist, but one that support's Bush, count?

Rick, I replied to you in the Huntington forum. no one "pounced" on Phil Parlock. Google his name and you will see additional encounter like this one.

I still question the timing of the phone call to (or from)the reporter. I didn't see Parlock stop to talk with anyone. He was obviously angry and left quickly when Edwards boarded the plane. How was the reporter able to call him unless they had exchanged numbers prior to the event? For those who might not know what I'm talking about, The reporter remained inside the gate yet Phil went outside towards the parking lot and immediately either called or received a call from the reporter. I overheard the reporter ask for his daughter's name. It's just too much, too many question for me to take this at face value.

Is she in shock? Or is she taunting the Dad?

My money's on the latter.

Hehe, you were set up by Mr. Parlock and YOU FAILED AS BLOGGER becaus you did not ANY research. JUST GOOGLE and your eyes pop out dude. It's another kind of child-abuse, and Mr. Parlock a seriel-abuser cause he did it in 2000 and even in 1996. So Blogger, go back to Kindergarten and learn how to do some research, puke.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, August 27, 1996, Page 3C

Phil Parlock's experience was less calm.

The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read "Remember Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents.

"It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest."

Parlock said some of the crowd tried to make other anti-Clinton demonstrators feel unwelcome. He estimated that about 150 Dole supporters attended the rally, but their signs couldn't be seen for most of the rally.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, October 28, 2000, pg. 1A:

Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore.

But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical.

"I expected some people to take our signs," said Louis, 12. "But I did not expect people to practically attack us."

The two said they didn't go to the Friday morning rally to start trouble.

"I came to support Bush and try to change some people's minds," Louis said.

Man, exploiting your faith to justify lying, go figure.

Republicans exploit their children for a taste of power...very Christian.

Are all your morals reletive to Party politics?

What the heck are you talking about? Why is it child-abuse to take your kids to a political rally? Who is the abuser? Parlock or the thug? No need for research, and Parlock has the right to do this at a Kerry rally, or a Gore rally. It's called freedom of speech. Want to know why I didn't research? Because even if he had done this from the days of Kennedy onward it would not change the fact that his three-year old daughter had a Bush-Cheney sign ripped out of her hands. Let me guess? You don't think kids should be allowed to attend rallies with their fathers? Or should their father not go? Go read the Constitution, moron.

Exploiting your faith to justify lying? Republicans exploit their children for a taste of power?

Explain yourself a little better. Why is it wrong to take a child to a political rally? Is it wrong fr parents to try to pass on their ideals and morals and values to their children?

From your quote above NeoChristian, it seems that you are saying that it is alright for a grown man to steal from a three year old and bring her to tears because her father brought her to a Rally.

Do you know right from wrong?

What syracus is trying to say is that this was entirely a staged event to make the Kerry supporters look bad. Parlock did the same thing the past two elections. The "Union" guy is actually Parlock's kid.

Thanks, jsg. If he had actually said that instead of attacking me that would have helped. In any case I have been reading a few of the posts on this and I'm about to listen to Glenn Beck interviewing the father again, with this angle. Don't worry, if I suspect a staged event after the interview I'll say so. Promise.

It also might help if a certain someone provided a little evidence to support their claim..

Leftists, specifically Union boys, are notorious for this kind of activity, so the burden of proof is on them.

Oh, did some investigating. Seems someone made a wee mistake: Sophia's Brother?

The little boy, the eleven year old, on the right, not the father's right, is his kid. (This wasn't the evidence, was it?) Nothing on the Union Boy being his kid, but he appears to have quite a few of them.

Apparently Parlock is in real-estate and he's had a few runs for the local Board of Education. Nothing from the same local news paper, people who'd know best, about the Union boy being his kid. Apparently, the wool's been pulled over their eyes, too.

I'd like to know how syracuse found what he did, because apparently the "Search Engine" on their site is being "revamped." Using either option turns up nothing. Google searches reveal little.

Links are really easy to post. How 'bout we give it a try, eh?

And what's a Neochristian, anyway? Is that something like a Mormon?

Syracuse's info was found on either esachton or another's blog. They got it through Google news.

According to William Seger on the ProtestWarrior Forums, his source is the Democratic Underground. That figures.

He doesn't provide a link. Forgive me if I don't locate the source, but I already got a nasty head cold, and I don't need a bout of nausea on top of that.

Nick. After viewing the Protest Warrior forum, and after a slight brain fart, I think I've sorted this out.

This shouldn't be too hard for syracuse to figure out.

It's ignore the noob day on the Protest Warrior forums. I suppose it's just too much fun bit picking and screaming at each other.

First, the photo comparing "Phil Parlock Jr" to the Union boy.

You can grab that here.

And this link has already been posted: Parlock in the Herald Dispatch. It mentions his age, and the fact he's in real Estate.

No, check this: Phil Parlock, Real Estate Agent for McGuire Realty Company. Twenty years of experience, wow.

Notice the picture comparing Parlock to the Union guy. It's the same as the one of Parlock on the McGuire Realy site. Twenty years of experience in Real Estate. Union guy looks to be rouhgly 28.

Need I say more? Think that cracks this case.

Time for "Major Update 3"

HerdLady910
posted September 16, 2004 09:22 PM

I guess the younger the opposition is, the more points you earn with the party.

Sheesh.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Great Society
posted September 16, 2004 11:11 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was very unfortunate, but EVERY effort was taken to prevent this. When Phil Parlock came to the gate, he was checked for signs (Both campaigns prohibit bringing in outside signs to events) and asked by several volunteers not to cause any trouble.
After he got in the event and pulled out the sign he was not supposed to have, people in the crowd simply tried to stand in front of him. The sign wasn't torn out of his hands until he verbally provoked people in the crowd. Throughout all of this, he was repeatedly asked to leave.

The story here is not that someone ripped the sign out of his hands and made the girl cry. The story is: what kind of father puts their child in a situation like this? I've seen him do this or something like this at several events. He puts his own children in situations where people will be hostile to them so that he can make some half-assed political statement. It's irresponsible and unfair to his children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HerdLady910
posted September 16, 2004 11:23 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh puhleze.
He "provoked" them?

What kind of a father puts their kid in a situation like this? The question is what kind of people take away a 3 year old's sign and rip it up in front of her, "provoked" or not?

Why am I even bothering?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brenda
posted September 17, 2004 02:46 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes ma'am, he provoked them. Phil gave his son a sign and pushed the boy in front of him. Some young democrats tried to cover Phil's sign with their own. The boy dropped the sign and a worker grabbed at it. Phil then shoved the kid. When Phil's sign was covered up he placed his young daughter on his shoulders and gave her the sign. The girl was terrified by the people chanting and her father's actions. He used his children as pawns. He did not come to do anything other than disrupt the event and he used his children as a means to an end. He exchanged some angry words with the Kerry supporters when they attempted to hold their signs in front of his but none of them were physical with him. Now while I may think he possibly should have been left alone, I have none, nada, NO respect for a man going into a situation he knows is going to be heated and using his children as frickin targets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mrmajestyk
posted September 17, 2004 03:29 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 quick comments, this was at the Tri State Airport, I did not think this is classified asa campaign event. Why would the people who do nothing but protest any time a Bush even comes around get pisssed when the Kerry/Edwards campaign comes around and someone protests.
It takes a group of real fine people to take a sign from a child, whether the parent put it in the child's hands or not. If it was the other way around there would be outrage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brenda
posted September 17, 2004 03:33 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill. READ. Comprehend. It's hard with tunnel vision but you can do it.
They did not take the sign from the child's hands...he dropped it. PHIL took the sign from his daughter himself.
Why do I think he came to cause trouble? There was no time for him to speak to reporters after the event to exchange information yet Phil went to the top of the hill and immediately called a reporter to give him his daughter's name, etc. He had to exchange numbers with him before hand and clue him in that something would happen. This is not the first time he's pulled this stunt and he was asked to please play nice.

But you go on thinking as you want, Bill. I have no expectations of you to see anyone's viewpoint but your own.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mrmajestyk
posted September 17, 2004 04:27 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda, why would a father take the sign from his own child and rip it up? Talk about tunnel vision.
Besides when do you ever see anything from others viewpoint?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mugreen
posted September 17, 2004 05:02 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. This is his normal for him. We were not allow signs or umbrellas so why did he hide a sign, if not to cause trouble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rex Bowers
posted September 17, 2004 05:52 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not totally sure I understand the situation. Did a Bush supporter show up at a Kerry event with a sign he wasn't supposed to have? Did he take his children to this event and try to use them as sign bearers?
Then Brenda is right. What kind of parent puts his children in that position? You won't, I assume, try to convince me that these children, at their ages, hold strong political views of their own?

Remember what happened to two Kerry supporters at the Bush rally in Charleston? How do you arrest someone for trespassing on private property, when the property in question belongs to the State of WV and was paid for with tax dollars? They were ARRESTED, for heaven't sake, for doing what was done at Tri-State. Would you be more comfortable if they had arrested these kids?

The behavior of Kerry supporters who would confront children is reprehensible. The behavior of a parent who would put his children INTO that situation is such that I would call it child endangerment... and his kids should be taken away from him for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citizen X
posted September 17, 2004 06:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil has an incredible ability to provoke anyone in any situation very quickly. I've seen him do it in situations that needed no provocation on several occasions. It's just his nature. I think Phil set it up to cause as big a stink as possible. That's also his nature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerome
posted September 17, 2004 07:16 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly what Phil did.
Mr M
1 - The signs were hidden, I believe, in the leg of his pants so they had been mangled already by body sweat and crumpling. They easily fell apart. He reached down to retrieve them as Edwards came off the bus.
2 - Rex, the stop in Charleston was not billed as a campaign stop, if I remember correctly. It was a presidential visit that was paid for by the government, not by Bush's campaign funds. In that case I feel people have a right to express what they want if it's by peaceable means.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mrmajestyk
posted September 17, 2004 07:38 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can agree with you about some of this Rex, I do question having a young child at an event like this. I also condemn anyone from an opposing side doing anything disrespectful in front of a small child.

I took my 2 stepsons, one is 10, the other is 17 to the Bush 4th of July Event at the capital, and both boys were given the choice to stay home or go to the event, they both wanted to go.

I will say that both of my stepsons do have Political Views, they both go to church and are very conservative. The oldest has very strong Political Leanings and the youngest watches the news and I let them form their own opinions. The easiest way to make them change to a position I may not agree with is to force only one view on them. I try to let them know that they need to have respect for The President no matter if the President happens to be a Democrat or a Republican.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3528 | From: Not Huntington | Registered: Feb 2003 | IP: Logged

Jerome
posted September 17, 2004 08:28 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How bout respect for everyone or is that out of question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 433 | From: WV | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Tinphat Tygar
Posted September 17, 2004 08:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if the airport were reserved for kerry, they would have the right to prevent people from holding signs up- if people were just meeting the airplane, then parlock had every right to voice his opinion. if he went looking for trouble that was wrong, but you cannot justify ripping signs out of a three year olds hands. there is no defense of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2188 | From: metropolis | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Cyndi McReynolds
Otter
Member # 26
Rate Member
posted September 17, 2004 10:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Record, There were not supposed to be any signs brought in without proior approval from the secret service. Steelworkers Local 37 brought a banner to support the Kerry/Edwards ticket, but were not allowed to bring it in because the secret service did not have a chance to inspect it first.
It seems to me that if signs in support were not allowed, then signs in opposition should not be allowed either.

This man violated secret service orders and placed his children in a potentially dangerous situation by doing so. I feel badly for the children, but I have no sympathy for their father.

What kind of example is he setting by encouraging his children to violate rules set out by the secret service?

http://huntingtonnews.net/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f;=1&t;=001898

Nothing is like it seems and nothing seems like it is. Face it.

Anything you're pasting from that board, and anything said is just heresay. Facts so far are, that ain't "Phil Parlock Jr,"and the Union worker had no right to do what he did.

There's a lot of talk there about people not being allowed signs, and how he wasn't allowed a sign, yet I see many, many signs.

The Bush/Cheney sign doesn't look very crumpled and mangled, not by sweat anyway.

There was one massive Pro-kerry banner apparently rejected by the secret service because they "didn't have time to inspect it."For that, McReynolds thinks that if that one sign, out of dozens, could not be allowed, then a single sign in opposition shouldn't be allowed.

McReylonds suggests he violated Secret Service orders, which were what? No uninspected signs? No signs at all? If the former, who says his sign wasn't inspected? Any proof? Nope, just heresay. If the latter, then dozens of Kerry supporters also violated that order, and one even got agressive with a child. Oh dear.

Aside from that, there's a lot of name calling and accusations being thrown around. Some of them substantiated by the Democratic Underground forums. Examples of DU thinking can be found here, here, here, here, and here. Wow. Must be legit. Heh.

Right though. It was still just wrong of Mr. Parlock to take two of his children to a rally to show support for Bush, and every time he's been accosted by these people, it must be his fault, of course. Leftists aren't violent people, after all..

Or are they? Hmm, actually, it seems history is replete Union violence, but it's not just the Union boys.

Nope this is much more wide-spread. Do I need to include links to Brain-Terminal and Protest Warrior?

Hmm, it seems violence from the left is spreading rapidly, at it's core are the Union workers, A.N.S.W.E.R., A.C.T., all backed up by a rear echelon of braindead, Kid Commie Commandos. You'll meet plenty of them in the videos.

We can only come to one conclusion, folks: EVERYTHING I POSTED IS RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA! EVERY INCIDENT LINKED TO IS A CONSPIRACY PERPETRATED BY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT TO ANTAGONIZE PEACEFUL PEOPLE, PROVOKE THEM TO VIOLENCE, AND DISCREDIT JOHN "FRANCOIS" KERRY AND THE PEACE MOVEMENT SO BUSH WILL BE REELECTED AND EMPOWERED TO CONTINUE INSTIGATING VIOLENCE UPON THE PEACEFUL ISLAMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ESTABLISH, THROUGH THE PATRIOT ACT, A NAZI-LIKE FASCIST REGIME IN AMERICA TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT (THAT DOESN'T EXIST) TO SMOKE CANNABIS.

I'd say let's wait and see if there's an investigation, and discuss what the investigation reveals, but I don't believe we'll hear anything more from AP on the subject. Unless, of course, syracuse and the other leftist drones can be proven correct. If not, consider it burried.

Nick, don't forget to keep your loyal viewers posted on the latest news from ABC on Rathergate. :)

At the time of this comment the situation has been resolved to be authentic. That said, I think the worst part of this is the look on the IUPAT fascist's face. He's really enjoying himself. My experiances to date with hard left union fascists tells me everything I need to know. This is TYPICAL of the kind of action you can expect from them.

This just in, syracuse. More evidence of leftist hatred, violence, and more than a monumental level of stupidity.

Coming out of California. Imagine that.

Nick, the situation was staged. Parlock has a history of instigating problems and then claiming to be a victim in order to get media attention. He violated security rules and is lucky his ass wasn't busted by secret service. He used his child as a pawn in a political game. I attended the rally. The child was shaken and crying from the actions of her father who placed her in the MIDDLE of a group of people chanting against Bush. She was scared. She was confused.
She was too young to be used this way. Parlock has 10 children. You'd think he'd learn how to parent by now.

I am saddened by the trauma the child must have experienced but am disturbed by the father's poor parenting in subjecting his child and children to such an experience. Obviously, he knew there would be trouble and I cannot understand why he didn't just go to places where he was welcomed rather than places where he was not. If he is a staunch Baptist, does he go to Jewish Temples singing "Jesus Loves Me?" Very stupid person and very sad he subjected his children to such a situation. The father showed what a true coward he is and not a good example for his children to follow. He knew what to expect and perhaps DFCS might want to investigate him a bit.

If you were to look at a picture of the Parlock "family," and I use that term loosely, taken earlier, you would see that the face of one of his son's is an exact match for the 'union thug' in the IUPAT t-shirt. This was completely staged. The father should be ashamed, and charged with child abuse, and anyone who continues to promote this farce as anything except a staged event should be ashamed of themselves.
Mike

Wow, how'dya like that. Three posts in a row, all saying basically the same thing, all within thirty minutes of the other.

Conspiracy? Hmm.

This reminds me of the time the Bush administration announced the existence of evidence that Iraq had been developing nuclear weapons. It was a headline story in the newspapers. When the media finally investigated and found the evidence was bogus, the retraction was a small paragraph off the front page. By then the fallacious idea had already stuck in many people's minds.

Using bogus evidence is a standard part of the USA propaganda arsenal.

But it's true that Bush used cocaine, right? I haven't heard Bush or anyone else deny that.

Yes, he did admit it. That however had nothing to do with the content of the Rather story.

"When the media finally investigated and found the evidence was bogus, the retraction was a small paragraph off the front page."

of course it was! if this incident dealt with possible false documents surrounding kerry, the democratic party would be up in arms... as they should be. party lines aside, CBS needs to be held accountable. i caught majority whip roy blunt on the news the other day talking about a petition he organized and sent to cbs, demanding retraction of the story. 40 other members of congress signed the petition. blunt's initiative is impressive - he made an excellent point by pointing out "CBS reporters would not accept such behavior from public officials like ourselves, and we cannot accept it from them."