• 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!

Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

I'd be curious if anybody working in the mental health field on this forum would agree that Etheridge displayed something remarkably similar to a psychotic or schizophrenic episode. Any discussion of this being a "political gaffe" seems extremely beside the point as Etheridge was clearly not playing with a full deck here. Every time he said "who are you" he seemed to me to be seeing something other than a kid reporter, like a shadowy foreign agent or a Body Snatcher or something. And the way that he hugged the kid to him with one arm for no apparent reason was craaaazy.

I doubt it. I think he was just out of a rather intense engagement (whether positive or negative, it was a candid and challenging event I'd wager).

He was stressed, he sensed something was up and he was being trapped, and he just got angry. I don't think there's anything strange here. I think he just lost his temper, as many of us would do. Again I'd point out that this doesn't excuse his actions. It's not meant as an excuse; just an explanation.

I see no reason to read into it beyond an unfortunate circumstance where someone looked for a reaction and got one.
 
Obama would probably say, "Yes, I do support my agenda.":rofl

I think this point is sort of getting ignored throughout this discussion, which is a shame. Does anyone doubt that if these kids had asked the same question to Obama (or Biden/Reid/Pelosi/Clinton/etc.) they would have gotten a raised eyebrow, a smooth comment, and little more?

Politicians are faced with **** like this all the time. The vast majority of them are experienced enough to deal with it in an entirely appropriate manner. For whatever reason, this guy reacted poorly. That simple.

I think a blogger would want to take credit for their video.

A college student would also have no reason not to identify themselves now.

Chances are good, these two guys are not who they appear to be.

You really can't think of a reason why these two kids wouldn't want to identify themselves?

If their names were known, their pictures would be on the front page of dailykos and huffpost as we speak. There would have been hundreds of people combing through every single detail of their lives, looking for things to use to smear or otherwise discredit them. For the rest of their lives, anyone googling their names would come up with a dozen pages full of people attacking them.

What I don't understand are the people who are eager to put their name out there on controversial issues like this. To each their own.
 
You really can't think of a reason why these two kids wouldn't want to identify themselves?

If their names were known, their pictures would be on the front page of dailykos and huffpost as we speak. There would have been hundreds of people combing through every single detail of their lives, looking for things to use to smear or otherwise discredit them. For the rest of their lives, anyone googling their names would come up with a dozen pages full of people attacking them.

What I don't understand are the people who are eager to put their name out there on controversial issues like this. To each their own.

From what I can tell most journalist want credit for there work.
 
You really can't think of a reason why these two kids wouldn't want to identify themselves?

If their names were known, their pictures would be on the front page of dailykos and huffpost as we speak. There would have been hundreds of people combing through every single detail of their lives, looking for things to use to smear or otherwise discredit them. For the rest of their lives, anyone googling their names would come up with a dozen pages full of people attacking them.

In that case, I think hypcrisy is something else we can add to the list.

Also, if they didn't want attention, I'd question why they ambushed a senator during broad daylight on a Washington DC street with three cameras rolling and then sent the video to a popular Internet site.

No, they wanted attention... Just not on themselves. I think one would have to believe I was stupid to try to convince me otherwise.

They most certainly did want attention - just in a way they controlled.
 
Politicians are faced with **** like this all the time. The vast majority of them are experienced enough to deal with it in an entirely appropriate manner. For whatever reason, this guy reacted poorly. That simple.
Yes they are subjected to this all the time, however, you're under cutting the severity of said reaction... it was a "poor" reaction it was an illegal reaction. He literally assaulted the person depicted. Perhaps you saying "assault" is a simple reaction. Would you support misdemeanor assault charges against him were they to be brought forth?



What I don't understand are the people who are eager to put their name out there on controversial issues like this. To each their own.
Fame. I think if these kids caught a stupid remark on tape, they'd be happy to take credit for it. That this guy assaulted one of them - changes the perspective a bit. Now they don't want that kind of press --- imagine MSNBC raking these kids over the coals making them look like right wing kooks or looking into their family's backgrounds and finding a Mom DUI or something else in the closet? Then again, they can't just sit back and make like this didn't happen either... so their stuck. Hopefully they'll use the time to prepare for the partisan hacks and "journalistic investigations" of everything they or their family's ever did.
 
I think this point is sort of getting ignored throughout this discussion, which is a shame. Does anyone doubt that if these kids had asked the same question to Obama (or Biden/Reid/Pelosi/Clinton/etc.) they would have gotten a raised eyebrow, a smooth comment, and little more?

Politicians are faced with **** like this all the time. The vast majority of them are experienced enough to deal with it in an entirely appropriate manner. For whatever reason, this guy reacted poorly. That simple.



You really can't think of a reason why these two kids wouldn't want to identify themselves?

If their names were known, their pictures would be on the front page of dailykos and huffpost as we speak. There would have been hundreds of people combing through every single detail of their lives, looking for things to use to smear or otherwise discredit them. For the rest of their lives, anyone googling their names would come up with a dozen pages full of people attacking them.

What I don't understand are the people who are eager to put their name out there on controversial issues like this. To each their own.


All good points. Sounds about right....


.
 
Paparazzi "mitigates", not two polite college boys. Sorry Hazlnut, you got it all wrong.
 
Paparazzi "mitigates", not two polite college boys. Sorry Hazlnut, you got it all wrong.

I think it's equally dishonest to portray this as "two polite college boys."

Something was clearly a-foot.

I can see how someone might genuinely believe that they are exactly that, but honestly I'd think that person was pretty naive as well.

These weren't just two college kids. There's not a chance in Hell of anyone convincing me of that until they come forward themselves. I imagine the press will find them sooner or later and we'll find out for sure, but right now there's not really any part of me that believes these were just polite college kids. This is an awfully contrived circumstance for "just a couple of college kids."
 
I think it's equally dishonest to portray this as "two polite college boys."

Something was clearly a-foot.

I can see how someone might genuinely believe that they are exactly that, but honestly I'd think that person was pretty naive as well.

These weren't just two college kids. There's not a chance in Hell of anyone convincing me of that until they come forward themselves. I imagine the press will find them sooner or later and we'll find out for sure, but right now there's not really any part of me that believes these were just polite college kids. This is an awfully contrived circumstance for "just a couple of college kids."

Why? What's a-foot here? They have a project, they know congressmen work there, they wait outside of the building preferably after lunch and see who they can catch.... and unfortunately, they bump into Mr Grumpy roid rage. The paparazzi are not interested in congressmen and neither are journalists unless something is going down politically or there is some kind of personal scam going on in the life of an adult in the higher echelons of American political society.... otherwise what journalist will gain anything by pretending to be school kids and expecting to interview a congressmen and find out something "never told before" or anything they don't already know? Am i missing something here? Unless they provoked that reaction and edited the footage, i see nothing fishy here. Even if they where journalists in disguise, they where well mannered and did nothing to get the treatment they received. This is all mere speculation with no bases in real life.
 
From what I can tell most journalist want credit for there work.

Most journalists have paying employers that won't fire them if people complain.

In that case, I think hypcrisy is something else we can add to the list.

How on earth is that hypocrisy?

I have strong opinions on many things, which is why I come here to discuss them. I don't want my personal opinions to be forever linked to my name, which is why I use a pseudonym. Is that hypocritical?

Many political officials refuse to be named in news articles, instead offering information on background. Is that hypocritical?

Also, if they didn't want attention, I'd question why they ambushed a senator during broad daylight on a Washington DC street with three cameras rolling and then sent the video to a popular Internet site.

No, they wanted attention... Just not on themselves. I think one would have to believe I was stupid to try to convince me otherwise.

I'm not seeing anyone who's claiming that they didn't want to bring attention to what happened. As you note, they sent it to breitbart. The point is that it's perfectly normal to want to bring attention to a particular incident while not wanting to subject yourself to attacks from people who don't like the message.

They most certainly did want attention - just in a way they controlled.

Sort of in the same way that anonymous sources seek the exact same things.

Yes they are subjected to this all the time, however, you're under cutting the severity of said reaction... it was a "poor" reaction it was an illegal reaction. He literally assaulted the person depicted. Perhaps you saying "assault" is a simple reaction. Would you support misdemeanor assault charges against him were they to be brought forth?

Towards the beginning of the thread, I noted that this was indeed a crime under the statutory definition. However, things like this happen all the time and rarely, if ever, lead to charges. Unless one of the kids wants to come forward and press charges, I don't see why there should be any further legal repercussions.

I think it's equally dishonest to portray this as "two polite college boys."

Something was clearly a-foot.

I can see how someone might genuinely believe that they are exactly that, but honestly I'd think that person was pretty naive as well.

These weren't just two college kids. There's not a chance in Hell of anyone convincing me of that until they come forward themselves. I imagine the press will find them sooner or later and we'll find out for sure, but right now there's not really any part of me that believes these were just polite college kids. This is an awfully contrived circumstance for "just a couple of college kids."

How is this so hard to believe? I've known plenty of college kids who have done things like this before, both liberal and conservative. College kids are blessed with huge amounts of free time, easy access to technology, unwarranted self-importance, and an unshakable conviction that their political predilections are absolutely correct. Even had they not said they were students, I would be surprised to find out they weren't.
 
So I'm gonna pick up rev's question now because I want to see the answer from hazlnut: what would YOU, hazlnut, have done if rev did the same thing to you that Etheridge did to those kids? Would you be so flippant about dismissing it as a "hyuck hycuk hyuck...he sure showed me" situation?

I think another good question would be, if this was a female student, would you be reacting the same way, too?
 
And your point is?

Most journalists would have no qualms about identifying themselves, because:

1) Their job title would cause most Congressmen to be more friendly
2) They're paid to ask questions
3) If they refused to identify themselves, they could be fired
4) If people got angry and started criticizing the journalists, it's unlikely they would lose their jobs.

In contrast, the students have none of those same considerations:

1) Their names will not make the Congressman any more friendly
2) They're not being paid to do this
3) There's no risk in not disclosing their names
4) If people got angry and started criticizing the students, it's highly likely that it would negatively impact their job search/employment situation.
 
I think it's equally dishonest to portray this as "two polite college boys."

Something was clearly a-foot.

I can see how someone might genuinely believe that they are exactly that, but honestly I'd think that person was pretty naive as well.

These weren't just two college kids. There's not a chance in Hell of anyone convincing me of that until they come forward themselves. I imagine the press will find them sooner or later and we'll find out for sure, but right now there's not really any part of me that believes these were just polite college kids. This is an awfully contrived circumstance for "just a couple of college kids."

WTF are you talking about? They asked a simple question of a public servant on a public sidewalk, what exactly leads you to believe that they are anything but student/citizen journalists?
 
WTF are you talking about? They asked a simple question of a public servant on a public sidewalk, what exactly leads you to believe that they are anything but student/citizen journalists?

Apparently only professional journalists can ask public officials questions.
 
WTF are you talking about? They asked a simple question of a public servant on a public sidewalk, what exactly leads you to believe that they are anything but student/citizen journalists?

No they didn't, they went into there with rhetoric being dicks. "Obama agenda"? Gimme a break.

I don't support what the congressman did at all, and the fact these college students were being dicks doesn't mitigate it. However, these two weren't innocent little angels.
 
No they didn't, they went into there with rhetoric being dicks. "Obama agenda"? Gimme a break.

I don't support what the congressman did at all, and the fact these college students were being dicks doesn't mitigate it. However, these two weren't innocent little angels.

why is it so abborent that two muckracker wannabees would ask a democratic congressman if he supports the agenda of the democratic president?

sorry, but your position makes no sense
 
Most journalists would have no qualms about identifying themselves, because:
1) Their names will not make the Congressman any more friendly
2) They're not being paid to do this
3) There's no risk in not disclosing their names
4) If people got angry and started criticizing the students, it's highly likely that it would negatively impact their job search/employment situation.

Where I come from journalist are held accountable for there actions and what they report. By hiding in anonymity their legitimacy goes way down.

4) If people got angry and started criticizing the students, it's highly likely that it would negatively impact their job search/employment situation.

So maybe they are not NPR material but Fox seems to love stuff like this.
 
No they didn't, they went into there with rhetoric being dicks. "Obama agenda"? Gimme a break.

I don't support what the congressman did at all, and the fact these college students were being dicks doesn't mitigate it. However, these two weren't innocent little angels.

"Do you support the Obama agenda" is a simple non-offensive question. It wasn't a "have you quit beating your wife question," whatsoever.
 
Where I come from journalist are held accountable for there actions and what they report. By hiding in anonymity their legitimacy goes way down.



So maybe they are not NPR material but Fox seems to love stuff like this.

Of course it's not NPR Material, they were questioning a Democrat, and not being uber-nice and ultra polite about it.
 
No they didn't, they went into there with rhetoric being dicks. "Obama agenda"? Gimme a break.

I don't support what the congressman did at all, and the fact these college students were being dicks doesn't mitigate it. However, these two weren't innocent little angels.

How is asking someone about the President's agenda "rhetoric"?

Personally, I don't think there was anything "dick"-like about their behavior or question. It was an innocuous question about the President's political agenda. I've heard Hellen Thomas ask way dumber questions than that, and she was talking directly to the President of the United States...
 
Typical, Rev, still needs reading lessons.

Hey, Johnny Cochran... Read my first post re: assault - I said DC may have a different statuary definition. Did you not read that???

Stop trying to play the big shot who knows how to google and just accept that you didn't know the difference between assualt and battery until TODAY.

WHEN I TAUGHT IT TO YOU.


However, you are still wrong, and attempting to say that your state has a different definition than that of DC. here is your law.

California law defines an "assault" under Penal Code 240 PC as an unlawful attempt… coupled with a present ability…to commit a violent injury upon another person.1

Simply put, it means performing an act that is likely to result in the application of force to another person.

An Explanation of California "Assault" Laws | Penal Code 240 pc


So you either don't know what you're talking about, or purposely being deceptive....Either way.


j-mac
 
Where I come from journalist are held accountable for there actions and what they report. By hiding in anonymity their legitimacy goes way down.

I don't think anyone is basing their response to this video on the legitimacy of the two kids. It's the reaction by the Congressman that's relevant.

So maybe they are not NPR material but Fox seems to love stuff like this.

N.C. Rep. Bob Etheridge (D) Apologizes For Outburst Captured On Camera : NPR
 
I don't think anyone is basing their response to this video on the legitimacy of the two kids. It's the reaction by the Congressman that's relevant.



N.C. Rep. Bob Etheridge (D) Apologizes For Outburst Captured On Camera : NPR


I get a kick out of NPR....They open up describing Etheridge as a 'Moderate' when a simply check of his voting record clearly shows that he is a solid populist, progressive favoring illegal immigration, and against abortion restrictions. he voted straight down the line for the bailouts, as well as Obama's non stimulus package.

Moderate....hurumph!

www.ontheissues.org/NC/Bob_Etheridge.htm


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom