• 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]

Its Moreover where the account has come from, in the UK fox news doesnt have the greatest coverage from what we get about it from US tv. Isnt it a Republican leaning corporation? (Republicans and trade unionists...)
Doesn't matter if it is or isn't.
It is about the evidence.
 
Doesn't matter if it is or isn't.
It is about the evidence.

And due to the source the evidence could be biased, give me links to multiple news stories on this to form a valid opinion
 
And due to the source the evidence could be biased, give me links to multiple news stories on this to form a valid opinion

:naughty
This is not about the Reporting source Fox.
It is about the presented evidence.
Fox provided the unedited version of the portion in question in their report.

It is video evidence in which we can see what happened.

Tony assaulted Crowder.
 
And due to the source the evidence could be biased, give me links to multiple news stories on this to form a valid opinion

That would then make your news source, Excon, an extremely biased source bringing you the news.
 
:naughty
This is not about the Reporting source Fox.
It is about the presented evidence.
Fox provided the unedited version of the portion in question in their report.

It is video evidence in which we can see what happened.

Tony assaulted Crowder.

:lamo

Now fox never edited the video. This delusion keeps getting better.
 
That would then make your news source, Excon, an extremely biased source bringing you the news.
:doh
Said the person who has repeatedly shown he has no idea of what he is talking about.
 
:naughty
This is not about the Reporting source Fox.
It is about the presented evidence.
Fox provided the unedited version of the portion in question in their report.

It is video evidence in which we can see what happened.

Tony assaulted Crowder.

ok then
 
:lamo

Now fox never edited the video. This delusion keeps getting better.
:doh
Again showing that you do not know what you are talking about.
Figures.

Crowder had released an edited version online which showed just the assault that took place.
It did not include the seconds that happen before he was assaulted.

Crowder gave Fox the unedited tape, and they did show the seconds of what occurred before Tony assaulted Crowder.

Your reply shows your ignorance or your dishonesty, and showed everybody that you do not care to be informed of what you speak.
You have no credibility.
 
:doh
Again showing that you do not know what you are talking about.
Figures.

Crowder had released an edited version online which showed just the assault that took place.
It did not include the seconds that happen before he was assaulted.

Exactly. And that is the tape the Fox put on a 24 hour loop that day. Not the "unedited" version. Wonder why that was?

Crowder gave Fox the unedited tape, and they did show the seconds of what occurred before Tony assaulted Crowder.

And it disputes Crowder's notions hands down.

Excon said:
Your reply shows your ignorance or your dishonesty, and showed everybody that you do not care to be informed of what you speak.
You have no credibility.

Personal insults. Keep it going Excon.
 
Exactly. And that is the tape the Fox put on a 24 hour loop that day. Not the "unedited" version. Wonder why that was?
Wrong!
The one that is linked to in the OP is the one that was used. It is the unedited version.



And it disputes Crowder's notions hands down.
Wrong. And dishonest.
It clearly shows that Crowder's back was to Tony as Tony fell. Their position made it impossible for Crowder to have pushed Tony to the ground.


Personal insults. Keep it going Excon.
Your dishonesty is factual and all on you. And because of such you have no credibility.
Stop being dishonest and it wouldn't be said.
 
Asking a question is not an excuse for violent response.

No, but asking a snotty and incendiary rhetorical question can be. For example: If I were to walk up to you and ask "Why do you oppose my calling your mother a filthy two-dollar whore?" I should expect you to get angry. I should expect you to tell me "Get the f*ck out of my face!" and I should expect you to react violently. After all, the question is entirely rhetorical and I am insulting you (and your mother).


Its called assault and its punishable.

Understand this: If America continues to regress in such a manner, there will be blood, oceans of it, and not just Chowder's. When two nations clash over access to natural resources, there is blood. When socioeconomic classes clash over access to goods and services, there is blood. History has made this point crystal clear. It is unfortunate that people like you, and Chowder, and the OP, have failed to learn from history.

And whether you accept it or not, some of this blood will be on your hands for being so foolish as to encourage the events which got it flowing.

Your response is emotional, political hackery.

No, my response is an objective and highly rational observation of the history of organized labor and middle class economics.

You are literally buying into the ends justifies the means for your fellow political travelers. IE you have no real argument, you are engaging in covering because the guy is on your side of the political fence. Emotionally dishonest argument is dishonest...and emotional.

The end justifies the means?... Where is your mind? We have been through all of this already, beginning with the Molly Maguires. We already know where this is headed and how it will end. If you don't know, then I suggest you educate yourself, and quickly. A mere punch in the face to some ass-clown talking head from Faux News is nothing compared to what lies ahead. Do yourself a favor, from now on, try reading up on history before blathering on the internet about something you obviously know nothing about.
 
Last edited:
No, but asking a snotty and incendiary rhetorical question can be. For example: If I were to walk up to you and ask "Why do you oppose my calling your mother a filthy two-dollar whore?" I should expect you to get angry. I should expect you to tell me "Get the f*ck out of my face!" and I should expect you to react violently. After all, the question is entirely rhetorical and I am insulting you (and your mother).




Understand this: If America continues to regress in such a manner, there will be blood, oceans of it, and not just Chowder's. When two nations clash over access to natural resources, there is blood. When socioeconomic classes clash over access to goods and services, there is blood. History has made this point crystal clear. It is unfortunate that people like you, and Chowder, and the OP, have failed to learn from history.

And whether you accept it or not, some of this blood will be on your hands for being so foolish as to encourage the events which got it flowing.



No, my response is an objective and highly rational observation of the history of organized labor and middle class economics.



The end justifies the means?... Where is your mind? We have been through all of this already, beginning with the Molly Maguires. We already know where this is headed and how it will end. If you don't know, then I suggest you educate yourself, and quickly. A mere punch in the face to some ass-clown talking head from Faux News is nothing compared to what lies ahead. Do yourself a favor, from now on, try reading up on history before blathering on the internet about something you obviously know nothing about.

Your rhetorical question...nice skirting of forum rules. We are done. Im not responding to any of the rest of your post because you and it are not worth my time.

Take care.
 
Right! That is why you are "off topic". Why are you now just realizing that?
The whole thread is not about just the actual hitting. Is this that hard to understand? Something that would be considered "off topic" would be coming in here talking about the Afghanistan war, now thats off topic. What ive been talking about is Crowder before, during, and after the account. All centered around the topic of the assault. So therfore its on topic..




Right! That is why you are "off topic". Because Tony's hitting of Crowder has nothing to do with those things.
See above.



I keep pointing out that it is why you are off topic. Duh!
Im ****ing on topic! Just because you think its not on topic does not mean in reality its not. See above again.



"Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan"
Apparently it is. :doh

Lets read the article and see what it states, does it only talk about the actual hitting itself? Lets find out:
"Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian and Fox News contributor, had spent the day questioning demonstrators, and video he posted on YouTube showed some of them becoming verbally aggressive, with one telling him, "get the f--- out of my face!"--- Hmm that seems to be before the account, seems to be on topic

"
Another protester can be seen later in the video punching Crowder in the face before being restrained by another man. "--Hmm there is the during.

"Gov. Rick Snyder signed the legislation Tuesday evening after the state House gave final approval of the bills, which bar unions from collecting mandatory fees from workers they represent under collective bargaining agreements."--Hmm talks about the bill itself

Reality it all that i have stated has been "on topic"


That you are "off topic". How many times does it need to be pointed out to you, huh?
In your own reality it may be because the only thing you wanna yell here it seems to me is, "Tony punched Crowder"..




That is where you are wrong.
Read the title, as that is what the topic is about.
It is specifically about Tony hitting Crowder.
:roll:
Well sounds like its gonna be a fun debate about the whole hitting thing, gonna be a very narrow debate, kinda hard to debate something that is clearly caught on tape. But if you read the article itself, its simply not about a guy getting hit, or if you read this thread you would find that this debate has widened a long time ago
 
The whole thread is not about just the actual hitting. Is this that hard to understand? Something that would be considered "off topic" would be coming in here talking about the Afghanistan war, now thats off topic. What ive been talking about is Crowder before, during, and after the account. All centered around the topic of the assault. So therfore its on topic..

See above.


Im ****ing on topic! Just because you think its not on topic does not mean in reality its not. See above again.


Lets read the article and see what it states, does it only talk about the actual hitting itself? Lets find out:
"Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian and Fox News contributor, had spent the day questioning demonstrators, and video he posted on YouTube showed some of them becoming verbally aggressive, with one telling him, "get the f--- out of my face!"--- Hmm that seems to be before the account, seems to be on topic

"
Another protester can be seen later in the video punching Crowder in the face before being restrained by another man. "--Hmm there is the during.

"Gov. Rick Snyder signed the legislation Tuesday evening after the state House gave final approval of the bills, which bar unions from collecting mandatory fees from workers they represent under collective bargaining agreements."--Hmm talks about the bill itself

Reality it all that i have stated has been "on topic"



In your own reality it may be because the only thing you wanna yell here it seems to me is, "Tony punched Crowder"..



:roll:
Well sounds like its gonna be a fun debate about the whole hitting thing, gonna be a very narrow debate, kinda hard to debate something that is clearly caught on tape. But if you read the article itself, its simply not about a guy getting hit, or if you read this thread you would find that this debate has widened a long time ago
Wrong!
Just simply wrong!
Reality is that you have been trying to take it off topic with bs that has nothing to do with Tony hitting Crowder.


It has been about the assault from the beginning.

Not about the legislation.

The points you were trying to make had nothing to do with Crowder being hit and were "off topic".


"Before, during, after" is as it applies to Crowder being hit, not other peripheral bs that has nothing to do with his being hit.
 
Your rhetorical question...nice skirting of forum rules. We are done. Im not responding to any of the rest of your post because you and it are not worth my time.

Take care.

Oh, I'm sorry... Did I hurt your feelings? (Also, a rhetorical question.)

You don't need to respond to my posts. What you need to do is crack open a history book and start educating yourself on the history or organized labor. Otherwise, you are not worth my time.

Now, get cracking.
 
Oh, I'm sorry... Did I hurt your feelings? (Also, a rhetorical question.)

You don't need to respond to my posts. What you need to do is crack open a history book and start educating yourself on the history or organized labor. Otherwise, you are not worth my time.

Now, get cracking.

I live in mine war country. I know more about union violence and thuggery than you will ever want to learn.

Rule 3 isnt a guideline, its a rule. You may want to try it sometime.
 
I live in mine war country. I know more about union violence and thuggery than you will ever want to learn.

Rule 3 isnt a guideline, its a rule. You may want to try it sometime.

You're still here? I thought I told you to hit the books.

Here is a guideline: Trying to escape a losing argument by crying to the mods over some petty infraction is cowardly in the extreme.

Don't you have any self-respect? (Not a rhetorical question.)
 
You're still here? I thought I told you to hit the books.

Here is a guideline: Trying to escape a losing argument by crying to the mods over some petty infraction is cowardly in the extreme.

Don't you have any self-respect? (Not a rhetorical question.)

You are presenting inflammatory rhetoric and attempting to bait me into an emotional response to make a point. The problem with that would be that Im not buying.

Let me know when you get around to making reasoned arguments instead of emotional ones.
 
I think we should have a national, "Punch a Fox News Reporter In The Face Day."

With balloons, bands, kettlecorn and fireworks.
 
The world would be a better place if people spent more time punching Fox News contributors in the face.

Thanks for this uplifting story!!!
 
The world would be a better place if people spent more time punching Fox News contributors in the face.

Thanks for this uplifting story!!!

Yes, assault is always so "uplifting." :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom