You know...more and more this year I just have to ask myself how I EVER thought of myself as a Democrat.

Oh, wait, I remember now...the party wasn't filled with assholes who made little girls cry!

So this guy is teaching his child how to be a classless heckler and we should feel sorry for him and her.

Who cares, the father is a jerk.

Just look at the compassion the party of "caring" is showin..... isn't it touching?

John Brender -- I considered writing a witty and erudite reply, but it would be a lie. Right now, what I'm really feeling is what I say to you at this moment:

Fuck you.

Chuck,
Your statement is another shining example of conservative class. My 60 year old mother has had two bumper stickers stolen off her car but you won't find me crying about it on the internet. I'll leave the crying to chickenhawk repubs.

Anybody who talks about 'class' in the same breath that he approves of bullying small children because they're Republicans is a hypocrite of appalling scope and breadth.

Oh, and up yours.

So, its "heckling" to carry a sign supporting your candidate??

Showing up at an opposing party's rally in an effort to provoke a response is irresponsible and foolish.

The man is a coward for bringing an innocent child.

As a father of a 2 yr old and 4 yr old I have to say that I'm probably glad I wasn't there or else I'd probably be facing an assault charge against the jackass who ripped the sign. The three year old doesn't know and doesn't care about what the signs and t-shirts are all about. Her daddy had given her a toy to hold and play with and some jerk came along, stole it from her and destroyed it. I guarantee that if anyone had done that to my kid they'd be pissin' blood.

[b][i]Originally posted by John Brender[/i]
So this guy is teaching his child how to be a classless heckler and we should feel sorry for him and her.

Who cares, the father is a jerk.[/b]I see. So you don't believe in either the right of dissenters to protest, nor the protection of private property from theft and vandalism.

Ok, now we know where you stand on the issues you can't complain when demonstrators advocating causes you support are treated in a simliar manner. Unless you want to be a hypocrite.

Recently in my city, New York, we had a bunch of cowards -- over a quarter-million lefties -- heckling and protesting and being assholes during the convention and did anyone see Republicans tearing up their signs? Democrats are vicious loudmouths until you get one alone and then watch the tears and begging. LOL

Ben A,
I believe that by showing up at a Kerry rally the "man" in the photo should not be surprised by the reaction he recieved.

What about the demonstrator who was assaulted by having her hair pulled? Were you outraged then? Don't be a hypocrite.

Jim,
Cowardly repubs like yourself were hiding everywhere.

- Ahh you gotta love it....just spent a few minutes on Arianna's terminally paranoid left wingnut site. They were jabbering along in their usual hair on fire, Bush hating style. All the wild off the wall remarks and accusations we've come to know and love fron the slithering brain dead party of lovebugs. I typed....

Those fascist baby killers in Karl (Adolph) Roves camp will never be able to prove who dummied up those documents. I don't really care if they made the stuff up. Bush is such a lying bastard anything we say about him won't be enough. They distroyed the originals after they retyped them. The Goppers are just making idiots out of themselves. Its to bad that great patriot Dan Rather will have to take one for the team, but theres plenty of other Liberals out there that we can recruit to play dirty tricks on those rotten fascist conservatives.

- Loved sitting there in the total "no post" silence.... My bad.....Heh

Showing up at an opposing party's rally in an effort to provoke a response is irresponsible and foolish.

This was not a Kerry/Edwards rally. Edwards was there to hop on a plane, period. Some people showed up, from both sides.

Ah, I see.

Merely by taking a Republican sentiment to where Democrats were standing, he was somehow 'asking for it'.

Your deep and serious commitment to free speech and the right to dissent has been duly noted, asshole.

AD -- to clarify, I was speaking to "John Brender", not you. No offense meant... to you, at least.

Sure thing Chuck. I'm sure you react with similar outrage when the roles are reversed.

Some people are asking for it. This asshole who brought his daughter into the frey is a typical repub.

Chickenhawks till the end.

Originally posted by John Brender

>Ben A,
>I believe that by showing up at a Kerry rally >the "man" in the photo should not be surprised >by the reaction he recieved.

I see. Then it's open season on protesters no matter what their side then if they show up to their opposition's events.

>What about the demonstrator who was assaulted by >having her hair pulled? Were you outraged then? >Don't be a hypocrite.

I hadn't heard about it, but now that I have I agree that is upsetting as well.

But seeing as you have outrage for that but not for this incident you like the hypocrite.

Originally posted by John Brender

>Ben A,
>I believe that by showing up at a Kerry rally >the "man" in the photo should not be surprised >by the reaction he recieved.

I see. Then it's open season on protesters no matter what their side then if they show up to their opposition's events.

>What about the demonstrator who was assaulted by >having her hair pulled? Were you outraged then? >Don't be a hypocrite.

I hadn't heard about it, but now that I have I agree that is upsetting as well.

But seeing as you have outrage for that but not for this incident you like the hypocrite.

Ben,
Where did I say I was outraged?

John Brender:

1) You don't know me, and you're incredibly wrong-headed to think you can even try to figure me.

2) Any one so lost to common humanity as to attack a 3-year-old girl would, if a Republican, be rejected by every right-thinking Republican on the planet within the day.

3) You are a shithead.

AD -- to clarify, I was speaking to "John Brender", not you. No offense meant... to you, at least.

No offense taken.

Wow.

John Brenders right,

She should think herself lucky she wasn't sprayed with urine like the right wing bitch deserved for being in a public place with a Republican sign.

Everyone knowd republicans don't have a right to free speech and peasceful assembly, what were they thinking?

/sarcasm

Oh, and your 60 year old mum got off lucky, if it had been a Bush sticker, her car would have been keyed by the tolerant left.

/no sarcasm

Jim,

I was in NYC for the convention and the protesters I encountered weren't that bad. The ones I had occasion to speak to (I walked from MSG back to my hotel following the convention a couple of evenings so I could meet some of them) were taken aback when I thanked them for helping to ensure our democracy by exercising their right to free speech. I found them to range from dull to mildly obnoxious though they were almost uniformly uninformed about the policies of any of the 3 major candidates. Many seemed to be there because it was an "in" thing to do rather than from any tightly-held political beliefs. Others were like John Bender: merely trying to get a rise out of anyone who wasn't part of their group. Those quickly lost interest when they found out that said reaction was not forthcoming (at least from me).

Hey, John Brender: you can go naked.

I want to add something about the "Democrat who had her hair pulled" rant by the Left.

It's something that's been irritating to me ever since I saw that photo (Democrat protestor being removed from Republican gathering by having her hair grabbed by the elderly security guy, that was routinely enshrined on most Left sites all over the Internet)...

IN LIFEGUARD TRAINING...you are taught to grab a struggling person's hair and "tow" them to whatever position you can inorder to remove them from the situation.

In an emergency, if you can't determine (and who can) the actions by someone who is noticably "in distress" (causing a disturbance, posing a security problem, otherwise potentially creating some greater problem to others, about which you cannot determine developments), it's smart and safest to AVOID BEING DISABLED BY THE PERSON while attempting to remove or restrain them.

As with lifeguard work, or otherwise rescuing someone from a situation that can be possibly life threatening, you do what you need to do to (1.) protect YOURSELF in order to (2.) save the person by (3.) restraining the person in the most effective way possible...and grabbing a person by the back of the head, by their hair, is the most effective means to stay away from a potential retaliation by that person that would harm you and disqualify any rescue attempts.

In other words, if a person is flailing around, walking/swimming up to them and greeting them face to face and "reasoning" with that person is a foolish: waste of time, possible waste of your own security, and, certain encouragement for thier struggle to continue or even amplify (people in distress often harm not only themselves but whoever attempts to intervene and/or assist).

Had that elderly security guy grabbed the woman by the arm, she'd have possibly thrown the guy or pushed him or even scratched or punched him, or even worse, if she had a weapon (a signpost can be a weapon in someone's hands)...

So, the guy did the smart and efficient thing and grabbed her in such a fashion as to cause the least damage to her and to best protect his own person.

From what we've seen about how Democrats respond to "protestors," they just punch them in the stomach or tear signs out of little children's hands or the like.

LAST THING about that woman being grabbed by her hair, however, is that she was already noted to be behaving badly...physically active, yelling, otherwise unpredictable...so grabbing her from behind by her hair was a very smart and safest means possible to begin to restrain her and get her to some secularized space.

With that father and child, however, what were they doing? Standing peacefully with a sign. Hardly posing some security problem to anyone, least of all themselves and/or the speaker, except that they weren't supportive of the speaker.

There's just no comparison between the two situations, and, about the hair-grabbing security guy, he did the right thing at the right time for the right reasons.

"Sir;

I just saw the photograph of the little girl who had her sign destroyed by the individual wearing the IUPAT shirt on the AP feed.

Does IUPAT condone and support this type of action on the part of it's members?

I find it more than a little hypocritical that IUPAT is in the CONSTRUCTION trades, yet appears to actively support the DESTRUCTION of a basic freedom of our Republic - Free Speech.

At the beginning of this campaign, I was willing to give John Kerry the benefit of the doubt. After seeing too many incidents like this one perpetrated by his supporters, I no longer have any doubts. George W. Bush will be getting my vote this November.

Additionally, in future, I will be vetting any contractors who do work on my property. IUPAC members will get no business from me."

I just sent this to the Head Honcho of IUPAC. Was I plain enough?

- Yeah ... What S said.....

- If I could find that peckerhead I'd be happy to see if he would rip a sign out of a 285 lb linebacker's hands like he did when he terrified that three year old girl...Somehow I think he'd see things a little differently....

To John Brender. Ya know, there was a time in this country when you could disagree and show support for whatever you wanted whenever you wanted without having to deal with one of your fellow citizens committing violent acts upon you. But the left has shown that time is over. Don't worry though, we'll kill you all in the coming civil war... (which the left is forcing upon this country). BTW, We actually have guns.

Whatever happened to civil discourse? We should all be concerned that violence is even being mentioned as a way of addressing domestic political differences.

There is no justification for it, no matter what your politics are.

John Brender,

You comment "Showing up at an opposing party's rally in an effort to provoke a response is irresponsible and foolish." brings about many thoughts - I guess it proves my point that the 250,000 "protestors" in NYC during the RNC convention weere also irresponsible and foolish. I'm just glad that I served 24 years in the Armed Forces to protect this man's (and his daughter's) rights to protest. You are a shining example of typical democrat thought processes - It's okay for us to do this, but not anyone else. You're pathetic. By the way, I was raised as a democrat in a liberal household. It wasn't until I matured enough to realize how self-centered and selfish democrats are that I changed to an independent (voting for Bush). Your diatribe proves my point.

Oh, it gets worse, guys. Far, far worse.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040917-010155-8041r.htm

--------------
"She was crying; they were pushing and shoving her," said Mr. Parlock, a Huntington real estate agent. "She was scared."
--------------

We all need to chill out a bit. These things go both ways.

First, by the standards of American political violence, and I'm not talking about the Civil War, this stuff is all small beer.

Second, those of us who are politically engaged enough to blog should be happy that people are passionate about this election. Well, when you get thousands of passionate people together several times a day, there's bound to be the occasional shove.

Third, I think we are seeing a lot of this because of the ubiquity of digital cameras. Every little public nosepick is now distributed around the blogosphere in a trice. I'm guessing that there was plenty of shoving during the 1972 campaign, for example. Then we had a long lull of boring or relatively unemotional elections, and then we got Florida. Florida 2000 was nothing but a precursor of the fun to come. We are going to see a lot of signs ripped up in the weeks to come.

-S-
I don't know where you got your life guard training, but I was never taught to grab a person by the hair as a primary approach. Besides, do you really thing she looks like she is in danger of drowning?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040909/480/pajl10109091829

As far as the little girl and her sign, it was stupid and mean for whoever it was to take her sign and tear it up especially to scare the crap out her while doing it.

However, the father is not blameless here. He took her into a highly charged situation with an invitation to a hostile response. Is that any way to parent? I would level the same charge of stupidity against a Dem who took a three year old with a Kerry sign into a Bush rally.

Interestingly, this is not the first time this has happened to this particular man, and he always gets at least a local newspaper story out of it. However, he has now determined that a crying 3 year old is the necessary accessory for nationwide exposure and outrage.

http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2004/09/bogus-assault-father-freeper-of-year.html

That guy seriously needs to move, as he obviously lives in a town that's 200% Democratic thug asshole.

Oh, and he faked it, huh? So, he faked the AP photograph? With the torn part of the sign in the thug's hand? I suppose those are all just professional actors he hired for the occasion, then?

:rolleyes:

Chuckg: Actually, questions have been raised regarding whether the angry sign-ripping union supporter in the photo is in fact the man's son.

Sure, and that little girl is faking her tears. What a load of crap.

Jess -- Then I raise questions about their eyesight.

The sign-ripper is visibly several inches taller than the father. Assuming that dad is the guy in the red shirt on the left side of the 2nd photo, then neither of their two suspects in that picture are taller than him.

Sheesh, the DU loonies aren't even trying...

Not that I would ever agree with anything coming out from the DU site. It would appear that this guy has had this happen to him before on 2 separate occasions. Jonah Goldberg links to this site, which has 2 newspaper accounts involving the same sort of incidents.

Not that this means I agree with what happened to him in any way. Although I must say that I am truly disgusted when I see a child of this age at a leftist moonbat rally and get pissed at his or her parents for essentially using their kid as a political prop (photographers are always going to take pics of kids). so why should this be any different. The dad has a right to free speech, but why would you put your 3 year old daughter in harm's way.

OK, lets break this into two stories.

#1. Man brings kids to political rally (again)

#2. Leftist thug rips sign from little girl and makes her cry.

Which of these two stories causes the most disgust? Which represents the most dispicable behaviour?

Mike -- the point is, in a civilized society, no one should *expect* that handing your child a sign to carry is putting them "in harm's way".

So we need to ask ourselves, *why* is it "in harm's way" to carry a Bush sign near Kerry-supporting union members?

Answer -- because they are thugs.

And thus, we find the root cause of the problem -- Democratic thuggery.

(I say 'democratic' because anybody who pushed and shoved a 3-year-old child at a Republican rally would, 99.99999+% probability, get the shit pounded out of him -- by other Republicans.)

#1. Nothing wrong with bring your kids to a political rally.

#2. Ripping signs from little girls is rude.

#3. It seems odd that this gentleman has so much trouble at rallies. 3 times? Possible but it does make one wonder.

MikeAdamson -- he lives in West Virginia. 'Nuff said.

I'm pretty sure it's a faked photo. The sign fragments don't seem to fit very well. Oh, and the guy who apparently ripped up the sign has a CBS logo on his shirt, if you look closely. A joke?

Doesn't matter if the picture is fake, as long as the story is true.

Fake, huh?

The IUPAT union head just admitted that yup, it happened, and yup, it was was one of theirs.

----------
"The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades believes in the fundamental right for civil discourse, freedom of speech and activism to support our candidates and issues.

What happened in Huntington, West Virginia yesterday is an affront to everything we, as a union, pride ourselves to represent. We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them.

I have personally taken steps to address this issue internally, and will take immediate disciplinary action to the full extent allowed under U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the constitution of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

It is my hope that this incident reminds all of our members that every last citizen in this country has the right to express his or herself freely. Not one single one of us has the right to tell them otherwise.

General President James A. Williams
The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades"
----------

Hey, DU'ers. Here's the salt. And here's the crow.

Bon appetit, as Kerry would say.

Must be a fake email, and a fake website, and a fake.....

The photo is credited to AP Photo/Randy Snyder. Mr. Snider has a number of other photo credits to him.

Would he really endanger his career by faking the documents?

Or has he figured "Well, if it's ok by Dan Rather...."

What I want to know is what's up with the 10 year-old (or so) kid on the right hand side of the picture who's got his right hand balled up in a fist. Is he looking to take somebody out?

"Who cares, the father is a jerk."

Sometimes, in moments of weakness, I think, "Gosh, does all this election stuff really matter? I, mean, after all, Kerry's supporters are just regular folks like me."

And then I see stupid and callous remarks like this, and I remember why I care. God, I am SO going to enjoy humilating these arrogant, self-righteous asshats. Again, and for 6 out of the last 9 times.

Have you noticed how each time the GOP wins, the Dens are shocked and devastated, since their guys are always so clearly suoerior in every way imaginable?...to them at least. It must be terrible to bray about how you're "for the little people", only to have to try to explain how they could let you down once again. heh

The guy and daughter look pretty harmless to me. It looks like the Democrats there are the classless hecklers.

Don't confuse my point. I think the people that did this, a few democratic thugs, are complete idiots, and I agree with James Snell above that if someone did this to my daughter I wouldn't be standing there doing nothing about it.

The kid is there as a prop, she doesn't know what is going on. Of course one shouldn't think this is being placed in harm's way, but still this stuff does happen, what is the point of bringing your 3 year old daughter to a political rally.

Of course, again, I feel the party or parties responsible should be beaten until they cry as well.

It seems Mr. Phil Parlock doesn't learn from experience.
In 2000, he and his 12 son took a dozen Bush-Cheney signs into an Al Gore rally with the same result. Didn't get a picture then, I guess that the all-american little blond girl did the trick this time.

If you think this is BS. Check the Charleston Daily Mail (West Virginia) from October 28, 2000, Saturday.

So knowing what he know from last time, he took his 3 year old into harms way. Really nice, Dad!

I stand corrected, Poor Phil had the same problem in 1996 when he showed up at a Clinton function with a "Remember Vince Foster" sign. Some people just don't know when to quit. At least, according to the paper, in 1996 he didn't endanger any of his children while trying to make his point.

So, you admit that Democratic crowds are so out of control, so fascist, so dangerous that merely taking a Republican sign near them is reckless endangerment?

I just can't stop myself.
While you're at it, compare the photo of the "Union Goon"to the little girl's brothers. You may (or may not) see a family resemblence.
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2004/09/bogus-assault-father-freeper-of-year.html

Rance,

Read up a few posts will you? The union has admitted that the guy was one of theirs.

Here's more of the discgraceful tactics by leftists. They are so hateful. It was also disgraceful what the First Lady had to endure in NJ yesterday.

Family Of Killed Soldier: Vigil Crowd Threatening
POSTED: 5:48 pm CDT September 9, 2004
UPDATED: 11:02 am CDT September 10, 2004

DALLAS -- A candlelight vigil took place Wednesday night to remember U.S. war dead in Iraq during the week of the 1,000th casualty. One North Texas family whose relative -- Chad Drake -- was killed outside Baghdad on Monday, was among the mourners at Dallas City Hall Plaza.

The family friend's message alleges Drake's mother was "harassed and yelled at, booed and hissed, told her son died for nothing."

Drake's mother reportedly left the event in tears.

The family attended the vigil because they thought it was meant to honor U.S. casualties. The event was organized by the Dallas Peace Center, which opposes the war.

The director of the Dallas Peace Center said the event was not intended to be an antiwar rally, but said e-mail notifications of the vigil were sent to a broad audience. Because the venue is a public place, he said, a variety of people with various views on the war in Iraq attended.

He also said the event was planned to include political overtones, but the Drake family should have been informed.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3719681/detail.html

I do not indulge in the rumor on the post I linked to above about the union guy being a member of the victim's family. That is just whacky liberals grasping at straws.

But come on, this guy's got issues. And no one should have to be concerned about voicing their opinion without fear of being attacked or just having their signs ripped up. But that is in theory, and only liberals deal in theory. A conservative is bound by reality, and the reality is that there are idiots out there who will scream for free speech for everyone while shouting down and intimidating those that disagree with them.

Uh...Joey?

I've been to the pro-life rallys in washington when there were at least 200,000 people there & maybe a handful of abortion protesters. THEY WERE NEVER TREATED THAT WAY BY US. However, they were so in your face, they even started fights among pro-lifers. I saw them stike Cardinal O'Connor who was walking on the frontline.

SO GO SOAK YOUR HEAD! You have no right to tell people who they should protest against.

Another reason Bush will win!

BUSH/CHENEY 2004!

Ripping a sign away from a little girl and making her cry is nothing. What really takes stones is having the local Child Protective Services office give Mr. Parlock a talking-to.

At this time, you could probably get away with even bodily harm of a bloody sort. If Child Protective Services should ever get involved in this sort of thing, All. Bets. Are. Off.

LG: Lifeguard training from a former Marine working as an actual lifeguard and fireman for NASA.

I was applying that strategy to the woman who was protesting at a Republican gathering, who was grabbed from behind by her hair by an elderly security guard, and I didn't suggest or attempt any scenario whereby she was "swimming" or otherwise in the water. Just that the elderly guy -- not the spryest of fitness level, probably, when confronting a noticably younger and far more animated person than he was -- took effectively fast and swift actions to avoid being struck at by the woman and to remove her while keeping her BEYOND her arm's reach from himself...

Lifeguard training...approach someone in desperation in the water and swim around them inorder to make contact with them from their back and if necessary, grab their hair and start swimming with them in tow and then take closer hold when you're both in motion toward a safe area.

If they follow you around circularly as you attempt to swim behind them, dive underwater, avoiding their legs and arms and approach their back from underwater, and then take them in tow.

I was never advised to tow someone fully by their hair but to not hesitate to resort to grabbing their hair if it wasn't possible to get any closer than my arm's length to them should they be posing a threat to my safety (and therefore to theirs).

Think about it: someone's hair is far easier to replace than their life, or your own. You go for what works the most effectively and safely inorder to prioritize what you need to protect. In degrees of importance to the situation.

Such that, that elderly guy made a very, very effective grab of that woman and quickly brought her into a submissive enough response inorder to get her out of the sitution, avoided being harmed by her (remained out of her arm's length grasping area) and by approaching her from the rear like that and finding the first available "tow hold" (in that case, her hair), he did the most effective thing he could do and as quickly as possible.

I'm not saying that grabbing anyone by their hair is a good thing. Or even acceptable under most circumstances. But, under THOSE circumstances -- that young adult woman at that rally, making that protest, given her behavior and the situation (she did pose a threat to others and was not a peaceful person, just holding a sign or such, but was yelling and appeared potentially more violent than she already was), that guy (elderly, obviously of lesser fitness and possible strength than the protestor) did the right thing in the right way to achieve the right purpose.

And, as I wrote earlier, if the guy had tapped the lady on the shoulder, she could have, very likely (potential existed, is what I am saying) have harmed, even fatally, the security guy and/or anyone around her, even herself. No one had yet determined if she was carrying a weapon, wore a bomb, any of that and the most important thing in that moment was to grab the woman, remain out of contact from her and get her out of the area as quickly as possible.

Same theory of behavior choices applies to someone in the water, possibly drowning, or anywhere else that you need to "snatch and run" with someone else. It's effective to grab them from behind and not hesitate to grab their hair to do so as a starting point if need be. Hair regrows, lives don't. You have to make choices of method in miliseconds where safety is concerned.

ON THE OTHER HAND, attacking protestors just for the sake of aggression is what took place with the father and daughter. They posed no safety concerns to anyone, not themselves, to no one around them...so the actions that were taken were not based upon a save concern but a wanton infliction of aggressive violence on someone for the sake of violence alone.

-S-
It's interesting that you know how violent the woman was and how peaceful the man was. I saw no reports either way.

I do know from reading old newspaper reports, the man is a political gadfly who has gone out of his way to provoke a response at election rallies and at least once in the past has involved his children.