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

Excon said:

And?And as for me, yes I have determined guilt, as that is the only conclusion that the video evidence allows.

Click to expand...

That's what they said before the Rodney King case, too.

When the missing footage from crowlers video is replaced with the so called unedited hannity video, we can see that there is a lot still missing. Notice how the bottom 1/3 of the video is blocked by the breaking news banner during the important part.

Click to expand...

Have to wonder if the investigators will be able to find the unedited version of this footage.

Would it also be a crime to cover up a crime, hmm I wonder.

Jack Fabulous said:

That's what they said before the Rodney King case, too.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about Rodney King here?

What was that? We aren't?

This isn't a racial issue, so spare us the tripe.

Utility Man said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBUTr3RJQiQ

When the missing footage from crowlers video is replaced with the so called unedited hannity video, we can see that there is a lot still missing. Notice how the bottom 1/3 of the video is blocked by the breaking news banner during the important part.

Have to wonder if the investigators will be able to find the unedited version of this footage.

Would it also be a crime to cover up a crime, hmm I wonder.

Click to expand...

And another who doesn't know what they are talking about.

The footage provided by Hannity was provided to him by Crowder.

Excon said:

Are we talking about Rodney King here?

What was that? We aren't?

This isn't a racial issue, so spare us the tripe.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about race?

Just pointing out that video evidence had a bunch of cops dead bang guilty before the trial and it didn't turn out that way so don't be surprised if something similar happens here, that's all.

Overreact much?

Jack Fabulous said:

Who said anything about race?

Just pointing out that video evidence had a bunch of cops dead bang guilty before the trial and it didn't turn out that way so don't be surprised if something similar happens here, that's all.

Overreact much?

Click to expand...

:doh
If you do not understand that there was a racial issue in that case that is not present here, making the two very different, I am sorry for you.

And as it is off topic, please spare us your tripe.

Excon said:

And another who doesn't know what they are talking about.

The footage provided by Hannity was provided to him by Crowder.

Click to expand...

And it looks like fox news(Hannity)covered up a third of the "un-edited" version.

Whats happening behind the banner ?

Excon said:

No one said that, but they are going to come to the same conclusions I have.

Click to expand...

And if they don't?

Catawba said:

And if they don't?

Click to expand...

Highly improbable that he wont plea to something considering the evidence.

Utility Man said:

And it looks like fox news(Hannity)covered up a third of the "un-edited" version.

Whats happening behind the banner ?

Click to expand...

Wow! Simply Wow!
More idiotic nonsense, now brought to the conspiratorial extreme. :doh
All to defend a guy that was in the wrong. Go figure.

No it doesn't look that way.

If you don't like the looks of that one, use the one by O'Reilly.
It is the first one.

Excon said:

Highly improbable that he wont plea to something considering the evidence.

Click to expand...

There are no charges.............

Catawba said:

There are no charges.............

Click to expand...

:doh

Highly improbable that there wont be considering the evidence.

And highly improbable that he wont plea to something considering the evidence.

Excon said:

Wrong!

It is off topic, as it has nothing to do with Tony hitting Crowder.

Click to expand...

WRONG!

It has everything to do with Tony hitting Crowder.

If you could answer the question presented to you, perhaps you would know what you're talking about.

One more time:

What is "Right to Work" really all about?

Now, stop dodging the question. Be a man and answer up.

Sig said:

WRONG!

It has everything to do with Tony hitting Crowder.

If you could answer the question presented to you, perhaps you would know what you're talking about.

One more time:

What is "Right to Work" really all about?

Now, stop dodging the question. Be a man and answer up.

Click to expand...

Yes you are wrong. Period. As it has nothing to do with Tony hitting Crowder.

Man-up and admit it!

So stop trying to take the thread off topic.

Excon said:

And again (even if what you said were true), it has nothing to do with Tony punching Crowder.

Click to expand...

I never said it did...... Your the one all hell bent all over that point and i have repeatidly agreed with you that this was Tony punching Crowder...

TheDemSocialist said:

I never said it did...... Your the one all hell bent all over that point and i have repeatidly agreed with you that this was Tony punching Crowder...

Click to expand...

Holy ****! :doh
You said: "Your[sic] overlooking my points."
I told you I didn't, since I placed them in their proper perspective of having nothing to do with Tony hitting Crowder.

Sorry you don't seem to understand that, as it also has nothing to do with you agreeing with me or not.

Excon said:

Holy ****! :doh
You said: "Your[sic] overlooking my points."
I told you I didn't, since I placed them in their proper perspective of having nothing to do with Tony hitting Crowder.

Sorry you don't seem to understand that, as it also has nothing to do with you agreeing with me or not.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ.. Do we have to do this? I guess so.

My first post i did not even quote you and i did not ever recognize you, all i did was quote an article from PowerRob saying: "Crowder was clearly looking for trouble and the unedited version of the tape raises some various interesting questions and speculations."
I said nothing about punching nothing about Tony, only saying that i thought Crowder was there looking for trouble from the get go. This thread has become way more than just about Crowder getting punched in the face, this thread does not circle around one issue, this thread broadened from that a long time ago.

Then you quoted to me saying: "BS! Trying to stop the Union thugs from tearing down a tent and damaging it is not looking for trouble."
Then i responded quoting parts of an article that a state ag worker gave around the incident and Crowder. I still was not talking about the punching incident or anything etc. I never said anything was justified, i never said that Crowder started it, or Tony started it or anything.

Then you said: "And you believe that?
And of course asking basic questions is provoking, huh?

Which has nothing to do with him trying to prevent the Union thugs from taking down and damaging the tent.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Tony swinging on him.
As the evidence shows."
This is when you think that im somehow justifying Tony's actions. Or i think its ok. Etc. This is when your brought the whole swinging thing into it. I agree with most of your points, and never said anything other than the official story about Tony punching Crowder. I simply stated that Crowder seemed to be looking for trouble and gave an account from someone in the precense of Crowder.

Then you kept on going on that im off topic and i havent said anything about Crowder being punched etc.
And right now i have no idea what the **** your point is.

TheDemSocialist said:

Jesus Christ.. Do we have to do this? I guess so.

My first post i did not even quote you and i did not ever recognize you, all i did was quote an article from PowerRob saying: "Crowder was clearly looking for trouble and the unedited version of the tape raises some various interesting questions and speculations."
I said nothing about punching nothing about Tony, only saying that i thought Crowder was there looking for trouble from the get go. This thread has become way more than just about Crowder getting punched in the face, this thread does not circle around one issue, this thread broadened from that a long time ago.

Then you quoted to me saying: "BS! Trying to stop the Union thugs from tearing down a tent and damaging it is not looking for trouble."
Then i responded quoting parts of an article that a state ag worker gave around the incident and Crowder. I still was not talking about the punching incident or anything etc. I never said anything was justified, i never said that Crowder started it, or Tony started it or anything.

Then you said: "And you believe that?
And of course asking basic questions is provoking, huh?

Which has nothing to do with him trying to prevent the Union thugs from taking down and damaging the tent.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Tony swinging on him.
As the evidence shows."
This is when you think that im somehow justifying Tony's actions. Or i think its ok. Etc. This is when your brought the whole swinging thing into it. I agree with most of your points, and never said anything other than the official story about Tony punching Crowder. I simply stated that Crowder seemed to be looking for trouble and gave an account from someone in the precense of Crowder.

Then you kept on going on that im off topic and i havent said anything about Crowder being punched etc.
And right now i have no idea what the **** your point is.

Click to expand...

:doh
Holy ****! I guess we have to do this again.



You had no points relevant to Tony hitting Crowder which "IS" what this thread is about.

Sig said:

WRONG!

It has everything to do with Tony hitting Crowder.

If you could answer the question presented to you, perhaps you would know what you're talking about.

One more time:

What is "Right to Work" really all about?

Now, stop dodging the question. Be a man and answer up.

Click to expand...

Employing people.

j-mac said:

Employing people.

Click to expand...

Sure.

People who are gleefully ojtsourcing american jobs are spending millions getting laws passed so people can work.

Sure they are.

Its about hamstringing the democrat party and nothing else.

Cutting their union purse strings and union election foot soldiers.

Winning elections for republicans at the expense of american workers.

If unions are a dying anachronism, capjtalism will kill them all by itself.

It wouldnt justify spending millions of dollars to kill them.

So somebodies lying to somebody about their motives.

Everyone is free to not work at a place that does things they don't like. Or doesnt pay enough.

Or requires one to join a union.

Internal consistency isn't a modern conservative quality.

What if...? said:

Sure.

People who are gleefully ojtsourcing american jobs are spending millions getting laws passed so people can work.

Sure they are.

Its about hamstringing the democrat party and nothing else.

Cutting their union purse strings and union election foot soldiers.

Winning elections for republicans at the expense of american workers.

If unions are a dying anachronism, capjtalism will kill them all by itself.

It wouldnt justify spending millions of dollars to kill them.

So somebodies lying to somebody about their motives.

Everyone is free to not work at a place that does things they don't like. Or doesnt pay enough.

Or requires one to join a union.

Internal consistency isn't a modern conservative quality.

Click to expand...

If a person wants to work at a place, and as much as you just admitted that the union is a quasi demo financier, but the person does not want his money going to the demo's, then why should they be forced to join a union?

j-mac said:

If a person wants to work at a place, and as much as you just admitted that the union is a quasi demo financier, but the person does not want his money going to the demo's, then why should they be forced to join a union?

Click to expand...

They are free to work somewhere more in keeping with their ideology.

What if...? said:

They are free to work somewhere more in keeping with their ideology.

Click to expand...

Not good enough. The union doesn't own the job.

j-mac said:

Not good enough. The union doesn't own the job.

Click to expand...

They have some kind of contractual control, or there would be no reason to pass rtw laws.

What if...? said:

They have some kind of contractual control, or there would be no reason to pass rtw laws.

Click to expand...

Well, that may be true however unions are on their way out unless they change their ways...