• 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

There were a lot of responses to this thread, but some folks asked me direct questions so I'll do my best to respond to them.

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.

No, they specifically targeted this particular senator. I also believe this was a private fundraiser that wasn't at the usual place for Etheridge.

They knew where he was and they were looking for him.

... and unfortunately, they bump into Mr Grumpy roid rage.

The insults and the hyperbole do not help to paint the appearance of objectivity for you.

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....

You're wrong. It's neither here nor there though, so...


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?

Yeah, you sure are. This could very well cost this senator his seat. A journalist has a lot of motivation to say who he is and to post the blog on his site. A student has a lot of interest in telling his professor about it and coming forward to explain themselves. It's entirely possible (and in fact likely) that this was a set-up staged by political groups who wanted to make the senator look bad (and did so effectively).

Unless they provoked that reaction and edited the footage, i see nothing fishy here.

They did provoke the reaction. That's not an attempt to excuse Etheridge for taking the bait, but they most certainly did provoke him.

They used an inflammatory question that was clearly loaded. They ambushed him on a sidewalk after a fund-raiser, not at the Capital. They had cameras rolling. They refused to identify themselves which while not legally required to do so, it's a fair question and is something that a legitimate student or reporter should have done. Declining to identify themselves - whether by design or by coincidence - served to exacerbate the situation.

Yes. There's a lot here that looks fishy. I think anyone saying otherwise is either too partisan to admit they see the tree, or too naive for their opinion to carry much weight.

This absolutely reeks of a set-up, and the longer we go without knowing who the two camera men were, the more it looks that way.

Even if they where journalists in disguise, they where well mannered and did nothing to get the treatment they received.

I strongly disagree, and before you jump at the idea that I'm on Etheridge's side you should probably look at some of my other posts in this thread. I"m very much not on Etheridge's side. I am however, a thinking person that can see this situation for what it is.

Etheridge reacted badly, but it certainly does appear he was set up, and saying "please" does not make a person polite. The questions were loaded, hostile, and aggressive. So were the reactions of the students to his question of their identity.

Just because someone says please does not make them polite. It just makes them insidious.


This is all mere speculation with no bases in real life.

I strongly disagree. Common sense is a big part of real life. I can find no reason why legitimate students would refuse to identify themselves. I find no reason why legitimate journalists would not identify themselves. I find no reason why they would take such great lengths to try to remain anonymous while still going out of their way to make sure the video hit the Internet - unless they were looking for this result all along.




RightinNYC,

How on earth is that hypocrisy?

You asked this question to me when I called the camera men hypocrites for their behavior.

The reason it is hypocritical is because they approached a public figure, with cameras, asking questions and using microphones as though they were journalists. They had three cameras present, so the intent was obviously not to have an intimate, private conversation. This became more evident when they refused to identify themselves.

Just as a public figure such as Etheridge forfeits his right to privacy when walking down a street, so does someone who chooses to engage a public figure in a public setting - yet the two camera men seem to think they're entitled to their own privacy and anonymity while taking those very things from someone else.

That's the very definition of 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?

No. First of all, we're all using pseudonyms here. We're not public figures, or we'd prefer not to be acknowledged. We're all posting with an intent to maintain privacy, while respecting that right for one another as we engage.

There is a reasonable expectation of mutual privacy in this forum.

If I approach the President of the United States with a camera in my hand and start asking him questions on a city sidewalk however, I can safely expect that "Alastor - and please don't show my picture" is not going to cut it with anyone.

This environment has a certain set of rules, expectations and understanding that simply do not transfer to a face-to-face, real life questioning of a major political figure.


Any attempt to use the rules of this environment to explain or justify the rules of publicly engaging a public figure in a public place with cameras rolling (presenting an obvious intent to make the conversation public as well) should not be expected to remain private for any party involved.

That's just plain stupid.
 
Apparently only professional journalists can ask public officials questions.

Apparently only hand picked buttkissers are allowed to ask a Democrat a question.
 
By your thought process if the Congressman wasn't walking downthe street it wouldn't have happened either.

The first one to break the law is at fault, the would be the Congressman.

Why are you defending his actions?

Not defending... just sympathizing. I get it. He overreacted. But I grew up in a time when kids knew their place. These little ****s got more than they bargained for--when you try to pull one over on the old crotchety guy, he just may come after you...
 
Not defending... just sympathizing. I get it. He overreacted. But I grew up in a time when kids knew their place. These little ****s got more than they bargained for--when you try to pull one over on the old crotchety guy, he just may come after you...

"Pull one over"? Seriously?
 
"Pull one over"? Seriously?

They went there with a video camera and a dumb question meant to get a reaction.... They were looking for him to be dumbfounded and say something stupid. Etheridge did something stupid, but also gave them more than they bargained for. Very funny, IMO. -- I picture the neighborhood kids on the Munsters... hair-raising scream and running away super fast... LOL!

What's weird about this video is the anonymity and the editing. There is something more here that the kids don't want us to know about...
 
I'd like to know one thing here. Demo's have repeated over and over throughout this thread how the question was stupid, and provoking of the Congressman. I'd like to know how? They asked if he supported the Presidents agenda, how is that provoking anything?

It is a simple question, and obviously the Congressman forgets whom he works for, so when he asked the young lad who he was, I would have said "Your boss!"


j-mac
 
They went there with a video camera and a dumb question meant to get a reaction.... They were looking for him to be dumbfounded and say something stupid. Etheridge did something stupid, but also gave them more than they bargained for. Very funny, IMO. -- I picture the neighborhood kids on the Munsters... hair-raising scream and running away super fast... LOL!

What's weird about this video is the anonymity and the editing. There is something more here that the kids don't want us to know about...


So you are in favor of assaulting people with questions that embarrass demo's? I think that says volumes about you.


j-mac
 
They went there with a video camera and a dumb question meant to get a reaction.... They were looking for him to be dumbfounded and say something stupid. Etheridge did something stupid, but also gave them more than they bargained for. Very funny, IMO. -- I picture the neighborhood kids on the Munsters... hair-raising scream and running away super fast... LOL!

What's weird about this video is the anonymity and the editing. There is something more here that the kids don't want us to know about...

"Do you fully agree with the Obama Agenda?" sounds like a question Sean Hannity would ask. Maybe they were emulating him? It wasn't a prank question. It could have easily been addressed.

Without evidence, you are just conjuring up a conspiracy theory. Wait for facts before running amok with the Munsters comparison.
 
I'd like to know one thing here. Demo's have repeated over and over throughout this thread how the question was stupid, and provoking of the Congressman. I'd like to know how? They asked if he supported the Presidents agenda, how is that provoking anything?

The "Obama Agenda" is a stupid little teabrain talking point. It's code for anything Glenn Beck says is wrong with the country. It's 'Us vs. Them 'teabagger mentality--people who are too stupid or lazy to actually dissect a policy into pro/con points, people so stupid they need their opinions handed to them in neat little bumper sticker talking points, people so completely and pathetically brain dead they think Fox is fair and balanced...

Etheridge should have said: "What the hell does that even mean? Call my office when you have a serious question."

It is a simple question, and obviously the Congressman forgets whom he works for, so when he asked the young lad who he was, I would have said "Your boss!"

Bull****. Go read up on how this country works. Etheridge works for his district. He's a REPRESENTATIVE. Go look that word up.

These little cowards wouldn't even identify where they were from, so how do we know they even live in his district??

Just like the thread about the kids wearing the American flag t-shirts to school, the far-righties are trying to ignore the simple fact: They were being DICKS. Trying to get a reaction. Not illegal. Not really immoral. Just dickish. And when you ding-dong ditch the Munsters, you may run into Herman...

It seems like the story didn't have legs beyond the internet. I'm glad Etheridge is not catching too much flack over this.
 
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.

I think to agree with you I'd have to assume that they knew he was going to react this way. They couldn't have seen that coming. To say the whole thing was planned is far fetched I think. I think they were right leaning yes of course. But in the end I think this was for the most part for something far less than a devious plot that ended up way bigger than they were expecting. Of course after they got something like that on tape they were going to forwarded to somebody.

I still find it funny that this is in any way being played out as some sort of master plan to make the congressman look bad. If they planned to do this, they must have been psychic to know he would FREAK OUT! Just a lot of excuses being made for the senators behavior.
 
Last edited:
"Do you fully agree with the Obama Agenda?" sounds like a question Sean Hannity would ask. Maybe they were emulating him? It wasn't a prank question. It could have easily been addressed.

Without evidence, you are just conjuring up a conspiracy theory. Wait for facts before running amok with the Munsters comparison.

To me, high schoolers running around trying to act like Hannity are pranksters. They're not doing in any type of serious journalistic endeavor.

They put their 'school project' up on youtube, DELIBERATELY EDITED (with repeated scenes) to embarrass the Congressman.

They were PUNKING the congressman. And it worked. Sort of.
 
The "Obama Agenda" is a stupid little teabrain talking point. It's code for anything Glenn Beck says is wrong with the country. It's 'Us vs. Them 'teabagger mentality--people who are too stupid or lazy to actually dissect a policy into pro/con points, people so stupid they need their opinions handed to them in neat little bumper sticker talking points, people so completely and pathetically brain dead they think Fox is fair and balanced...

Etheridge should have said: "What the hell does that even mean? Call my office when you have a serious question."

So Obama agenda is a teabrain talking point? Your argument against it makes no sense. The Obama agenda is negative to those who do not like his agenda. It is positive to those who like is agenda. It is simply a catch all for his goals and the general ideals he pushes forward. All presidents have them. Why don't you go search "Bush agenda" and see how many results you get. You can argue over these words all you want. It's a very very very weak argument with no traction. You could basically interchange "Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" with "Do you fully support the policies the president is pushing forward?".

Wow, that is some harsh questioning right there. Good thing most real journalist stay away from attacking our politicians like this. What kind of world would we live in if everybody was grilled like this? RIGHT OUT IN THE OPEN!
 
I think to agree with you I'd have to assume that they knew he was going to react this way. They couldn't have seen that coming. To say the whole thing was planned is far fetched I think. I think they were right leaning yes of course. But in the end I think this was for the most part for something far less than a devious plot that ended up way bigger than they were expecting. Of course after they got something like that on tape they were going to forwarded to somebody.

I'm not saying that they expected the total overreaction at all -- but that's what's so great about the video, watching two "mini-me" partisan hacks wet their pants when Etheridge grabs them.

The anonymous posting of the video, and the odd editing tells us everything about who these kids were.
 
Well I understand the delight from your point of view. Much as a conservative delighted somewhat in seeing a liberal congressman melt down publicly. Everybody likes to see their opposition uncomfortable.
 
So Obama agenda is a teabrain talking point? Your argument against it makes no sense. The Obama agenda is negative to those who do not like his agenda. It is positive to those who like is agenda. It is simply a catch all for his goals and the general ideals he pushes forward. All presidents have them. Why don't you go search "Bush agenda" and see how many results you get. You can argue over these words all you want. It's a very very very weak argument with no traction. You could basically interchange "Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" with "Do you fully support the policies the president is pushing forward?".

Obama Agenda - a vague wording deliberately used by partisan hacks to appeal to teabrains and far-righties. What does it mean? Ask a Beck fan and you'll get more vague notions and negative spin loosely based on facts.

His agenda on what exactly?

And why ask a congressman (legislative branch) about the President's(executive branch) agenda.???


Wow, that is some harsh questioning right there.

No, it's called acting like a Douchebag. And getting your wagon fixed.
 
And why ask a congressman (legislative branch) about the President's(executive branch) agenda.???

Because the way our system of government works is that the President needs Congress to support his priorities to get things done.
 
Because the way our system of government works is that the President needs Congress to support his priorities to get things done.

Thin and vague.

If they had a real question about a specific policy maybe they wouldn't look like such dicks.
 
Wow. The over-the-top partisan hackery displayed by those defending and excusing Etheridge's actions is really astounding. Bottom line is the guy broke the law and he should be arrested and prosecuted. Politicians have been asked "stupid" questions since the beginning of time (boxers or briefs?) and that in no way, shape or form excuses or mitigates what this man did.
 
Wow. The over-the-top partisan hackery displayed by those defending and excusing Etheridge's actions is really astounding. .

Whoose been defending or excusing his actions?
 
That's not a serious question, I hope.

Yes it is. I don't see anyone defending and or excusing his actions. Not even the man himself. And he is a politician who as well all know are experts at spinning.
 
Yes it is. I don't see anyone defending and or excusing his actions. Not even the man himself. And he is a politician who as well all know are experts at spinning.

If it is a serious question, and assuming you've actually read the thread, then I don't think I can help you.
 
If it is a serious question, and assuming you've actually read the thread, then I don't think I can help you.

Yes I have read the thread. And I don't even think hazlnut who has gone a bit loony on this one is defending his actions.
 
Back
Top Bottom