• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan [W:867]

The tents and the people inside them had no business or reason to be there other than to provoke the violence they seeking.

[ Is that it? Whoop de doo or in your case doh dee doh.

So, in your opinion, only the "correct" side in any political debate may participate (show up, speak and etc.), the other side is simply provoking them? Get real!
 
Apparently expressing a different opinion in a public forum on public property is now provoking violence. In other words if you disagree with unions you better just STFU or you deserve whatever you get. Maybe union members should start wearing brown shirts.
Oh gawd, do you ever listen to yourself? What next, are you gonna pull the race card out your little bag of tricks, too?
 
This is the video in question.....
As I have repeatedly stated, go back to the article linked to in the OP. Watch the video. That is the one which opened this topic.
It is not edited at the point in question.
Here is the link, AGAIN!
Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan | Fox News


This is the video in question.....

UNIONS ASSAULT ON CAMERA!! - YouTube

At :37 Crowder takes the first swing and the union guy ducks. The rest is just squirmishing.
You are purposely being dishonest.
There is no swing by Crowder at the :37 mark. None.



And yes, Steve Crowder is a Breitbart activist and you're the only whose mentioned PJTV. Now why would you say that?
Prove the he is "a Breitbart activist". It is that simple.
As for my PJTV comment. He was affiliated, but I have just learned that he is a former PJTV personality. Which is news to me. So I stand corrected on that.


This is from the NYT.....


"Unfortunately for Mr. Crowder, a look at the video broadcast on the Sean Hannity show appears to show quite clearly that he left out an important section of the footage when he put together his edit. A section of the Fox News broadcast preserved by the Web site Mediaite shows that Mr. Hannity’s producers at Fox News started the clip five seconds earlier than Mr. Crowder did. What the extra footage reveals is the man who punched Mr. Crowder being knocked to the ground seconds before and then getting up and taking a swing at the comedian.

There is one more anomaly in Mr. Crowder’s edit of the footage shot by his associates. The still frame he used for the clip’s title image on YouTube, which offers a much clearer image of the man punching him, was obviously shot by a second camera, from an entirely different angle than the rest of the footage he presented of the man hitting him. If Mr. Crowder wants to clear up the mystery of exactly what happened just before he was punched, it might make sense for him to release any footage of the incident shot from that second angle....

Selective Editing by Fox News Contributor Revealed by Fox News - NYTimes.com


It gets better, you should read it.

Mr. Crowder is a fraud.
Holy ****. Are you not paying attention? This has already been addressed.
The only one being fraudulent is you.

It does not show the guy getting knocked to the ground.
It shows the guy falling to the ground. It can not be seen why. Which is why I directed others to view the video in the OP's article.


And frankly to call it selective editing is false.
If Crowder is not responsible for the guy falling to the ground, then showing just the guy assaulting Crowder is the factual evidence, and not selective editing.
 
The tents and the people inside them had no business or reason to be there other than to provoke the violence they seeking.
Holy ****! :doh
False.
They had every right to be there to support the passing of legislation they agreed with and of those who passed it.

Is that it?
It was all I needed to prove your statement wrong.
Figures you wouldn't like it.
iLOL
:lamo:lamo
 
Last edited:
So, in your opinion, only the "correct" side in any political debate may participate (show up, speak and etc.), the other side is simply provoking them? Get real!
Really and when was the unions opinion heard before the legislature passed that right to work law? Hmm?
 
Really and when was the unions opinion heard before the legislature passed that right to work law? Hmm?


When the Proposition 2 failed by 2-1 margin in November...
 
Really and when was the unions opinion heard before the legislature passed that right to work law? Hmm?
By their donations to their state congressmen accounts?
Where else but there?
 
When the government starts dictating the rules for organized labor, amongst a plethora of other non-governmental and private entities, at what point does it become tyranny?

I think that line in the sand varies depending on who you ask and the issue at hand. The same people that support these tyrants to dictate to unions are the same people who want to keep these same tyrants from dictating to Wall Street.

Regulation of organized labor whose purpose is to oppose tyranny in the workplace = good?

Regulation to level playing fields to retard the rich from getting richer off the backs of organized labor = bad?

WTF?

And they wonder why middle mainstream America wants nothing to do with them anymore. <rolls eyes.>
 
Really and when was the unions opinion heard before the legislature passed that right to work law? Hmm?

For approximately 100 years. Most recently, and loudly, when their Proposal 2 was defeated in the November elections.
 
I think that line in the sand varies depending on who you ask and the issue at hand. The same people that support these tyrants to dictate to unions
Elected officials stopping the tyrannical Unions from dictating to the worker is somehow tyrants dictating to the Union. Strange.
 
Holy ****! :doh
False.
They had every right to be there to support the passing of legislation they agreed with and of those who passed it.

Figures you wouldn't like it.
iLOL
:lamo:lamo
Ohhh I see, so the protest was about AFP and Breitbarts rights now, huh? Nevermind that Republicans didn't consider the unions rights when they passed the right to work legislation without notice, debate, vote or a referendum. Tyrants and dictators around the world must be thrilled with the unraveling of our democracy. I mean really who needs enemies when we have Republicans to destroy our country from within? Oh goody we get to be like Egypt now.
 
Ohhh I see, so the protest was about AFP and Breitbarts rights now, huh? Nevermind that Republicans didn't consider the unions rights when they passed the right to work legislation without notice, debate, vote or a referendum. Tyrants and dictators around the world must be thrilled with the unraveling of our democracy. I mean really who needs enemies when we have Republicans to destroy our country from within? Oh goody we get to be like Egypt now.

WOW, is that kind of like Obama, and the demorats, passing PPACA? Elections have consequences, the unions tried to get Proposal 2 passed to prevent the mere possibility of this law, but it (they?) failed. Democracy, or rather our demoratic republic, did work - the law was introduced, debated (posted for 5 days), passed with the required state legistative majority and was signed into law by the governor - just as all MI state laws were.
 
As I have repeatedly stated, go back to the article linked to in the OP. Watch the video. That is the one which opened this topic.
It is not edited at the point in question.
Here is the link, AGAIN!
Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan | Fox News



You are purposely being dishonest.
There is no swing by Crowder at the :37 mark. None.




Prove the he is "a Breitbart activist". It is that simple.
As for my PJTV comment. He was affiliated, but I have just learned that he is a former PJTV personality. Which is news to me. So I stand corrected on that.


Holy ****. Are you not paying attention? This has already been addressed.
The only one being fraudulent is you.

I think I might have better luck arguing with a log but hey....

Why would I post a video and then lie about whats in it? You must have me confused with a Republican. LOL
 
Ohhh I see, so the protest was about AFP and Breitbarts rights now, huh? Nevermind that Republicans didn't consider the unions rights when they passed the right to work legislation without notice, debate, vote or a referendum. Tyrants and dictators around the world must be thrilled with the unraveling of our democracy. I mean really who needs enemies when we have Republicans to destroy our country from within? Oh goody we get to be like Egypt now.
WTF?
I said they were there to support the passing of legislation they agreed with and of those who were passing it.
Did you miss that or something? I realize that it is more than possible, as exemplified by everything else that you have missed, or are you purposely playing dumb?
And frankly, the legislators don't have to consider the Unions at all. Or is this just another thing you didn't know about?
And yes we do have enemies within, they are called Democrats/leftists/progressives/socialists etc...

iLOL
Why do you insist in Breitbart's involvement here?
Really, why?


I think I might have better luck arguing with a log but hey....

Why would I post a video and then lie about whats in it?
I don't know. Why don't you tell us? Because he certainly isn't swinging at the :37 mark as you said he was.
So it is either that (dishonesty), or you are seeing things in an effort to support an untenable position.


But I do love the way you are ignoring the fact that the video in the OP's linked article isn't edited at the point in question.
 
Last edited:
WOW, is that kind of like Obama, and the demorats, passing PPACA? Elections have consequences, the unions tried to get Proposal 2 passed to prevent the mere possibility of this law, but it (they?) failed. Democracy, or rather our demoratic republic, did work - the law was introduced, debated (posted for 5 days), passed with the required state legistative majority and was signed into law by the governor - just as all MI state laws were.
Oh thats right the healthcare bill was meant to help the working middleclass, not the wealthy. Silly me for suggesting that unions might actually have a say in legislation that effects them.
 
Oh thats right the healthcare bill was meant to help the working middleclass, not the wealthy. Silly me for suggesting that unions might actually have a say in legislation that effects them.
Class warfare now? Sad!
Legislation should be of benefit to all without overstepping it's boundaries. The healthcare bill failed on both accounts.
 
Oh thats right the healthcare bill was meant to help the working middleclass, not the wealthy. Silly me for suggesting that unions might actually have a say in legislation that effects them.

Unions have plenty of say and are still very politically active, but are simply a vocal minority. The majority still rules. All that the unions lost was the ability to force membership by declaring "closed shop" work environments, forcing the paying of their dues as a precondidtion to employment.
 
WTF?
I said they were there to support the passing of legislation they agreed with and of those who were passing it.
Oh right, kinda like Al Qaeda was just there in Iraq to support the passing of Sharia law.

Did you miss that or something?
No no, I understand completely.


I realize that it is more than possible, as exemplified by everything else that you have missed, or are you purposely playing dumb?
You mean like you not being able to see Crowder taking the first swing on the video? I dunno, are you playing dumb?


And frankly, the legislators don't have to consider the Unions at all. Or is this just another thing you didn't know about?
Well, maybe they'll consider the unions in 2014 when all those republican union members and their family and friends vote them out of office. lol By the time Republicans are through ailienating everyone in the country but old white pasty men there won't be anyone left to vote for them.

And yes we do have enemies within, they are called Democrats/leftists/progressives/socialists etc... LOL
For rude.

Why do you insist in Breitbart's involvement here?
Are you playing dumb now? Cuz it's hard to tell with you. Crowder works for Breitbart and thats where he first posted the video.

I don't know. Why don't you tell us? Because he certainly isn't swinging at the :37 mark as you said he was.
I give up. I can only post the video, but I can't make you think or see. If you want to see it you will, if not...meh.
 
Class warfare now? Sad!
Legislation should be of benefit to all without overstepping it's boundaries. The healthcare bill failed on both accounts.
So saying the middleclass is a dirty word now, too? What a shame. Well, you're entitled to your opinion but the healthcare bill is going to help keep people from going bankrupt when they get sick, the right to work law is just going to make working people poorer across the board.
 
Unions have plenty of say and are still very politically active, but are simply a vocal minority. The majority still rules. All that the unions lost was the ability to force membership by declaring "closed shop" work environments, forcing the paying of their dues as a precondidtion to employment.
I didn't know that. But if workers don't pay dues then how can the union exist let alone protect their safety in the work place or their wages or their retirement? The workers aren't going to pay their dues if they have to support the freeloaders. But if thats what the majority voted for.....it's a sad day for the unions. Soo let the games begin....again.
 
No no, I understand completely.
Obviously not.


You mean like you not being able to see Crowder taking the first swing on the video? I dunno, are you playing dumb?
You mean like you making things up, as there is no first swing by Crowder
Look at the video again. You are making things up. That is called being dishonest.
It is either that, or you are delusional. Which one is it?



Are you playing dumb now? Cuz it's hard to tell with you. Crowder works for Breitbart and thats where he first posted the video.
Oy vey! How many times do I have to ask?

When are you going to prove this?
I do not know what you say to be true at all.
And as far as I know, it wasn't posted at Breitbart first either, but on Crowder's youtube channel, so prove that while you are at it.



So saying the middleclass is a dirty word now, too? What a shame. Well, you're entitled to your opinion but the healthcare bill is going to help keep people from going bankrupt when they get sick, the right to work law is just going to make working people poorer across the board.
No. The healthcare bill is going to **** this Country up, and make more suffer.
 
So saying the middleclass is a dirty word now, too? What a shame. Well, you're entitled to your opinion but the healthcare bill is going to help keep people from going bankrupt when they get sick, the right to work law is just going to make working people poorer across the board.

Real nominal wages increase slightly in RTW states, pre/post legislation, but there is no significant impact in either direction.
 
Uh...you're right we're not...so your point is?...:coffeepap

The discussion is related to the action of a union person ASSUMED to be a democrat. And OWS also came up in that discussion.
 
Real nominal wages increase slightly in RTW states, pre/post legislation, but there is no significant impact in either direction.
I live in a right to work state and the wages here haven't gone up since the 1970s when they passed the law. My sister has worked at her bank job for thirty years and still only makes a lousy $13 an hour even though she's been promoted to VP of her division. I don't know how she does it. I had to move to California to make a six figure income. I could never have made that much here in a right to work state unless I owned the company. Be careful what you wish for, Samhain.
 
Back
Top Bottom