• 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!

Wisconsin Unions Disrupt Special Olympics Ceremony

What a friggin joke. Those original patriots who participated in the Boston Tea Party each crap bigger than these scumbag union maggots who felt it was OK to disrupt the special day for a bunch of handicapted kids.

For that matter, I crap bigger than those mooching scumbags.

What a friggin joke... Protesting and taking extremes is part of the American spirit, and hell yes people get offended, but the unions didn't destroy private property. If they were leading a revolution and demanding rights, protesting corporate greed and destroying company property, and this was colonial America, you'd consider them your heroes. Kind of ironic isn't?
 
No. We're damning the means because they interrupted a day set aside for those with special needs. I have no problem with the protestors expressing their message, but ther'es a time and a place for everything, and that wasn't it.

Sorry, but the Constitution says you're ****ing wrong.
 
On the plus side, the union defenders have now successfully joined the ranks of Fred Phelps followers...so...big ups! :applaud

And if it they were guys from SEIU at the event, giving a speech, and anti union protesters showed up... I am sure you guys would be singing a different tune.

Sorry, but the places the Westboro Church shows up to protest doesn't make them reprehensible. It's their message of hate, ignorance, and intolerance for good people in the community... and hating people in the name of God. People have protested burials before... in Russia of the czars, for example.. and the Mormon/Christian burial of Jews who died in the Holocaust. Showing up to protest when there is a burial or ceremony has actually been done with less controversy and more respect in the past.

If you're offended, that's you're right, but you are far off base comparing this to Fred Phelps... I didn't see anybody waving signs saying the handicapped should burn in hell, God hates Gimps, God hates retards, etc.
 
could not see the governor...who was there for a photo op, a little good press.....hmmmmmmm....you are mad at the protestors because you don't like the message, but are you ok with the governor using the special olympics as a platform for a quick photo op, a way to generate a little good press for himself?

The governor's presence there is only a big deal because of his title... Who really cares otherwise that he wasn't respected by the people he represents while giving a speech to the handicapped? I think it's pretty funny. I don't really like Dick Chaney. If he came to my place of work to give a speech thanking accountants, I wouldn't give a **** and I wouldn't care if he was protested either... lol. :)

I really wouldn't take the protests as an offense to me or who I am... Seriously people, you're just making the handicapped victims in the entire thing, and they are better than Walker and all the politics. Stop putting those kids in the middle of it, and telling them that they should be offended, and saddened, and are victims.

If I were a parent, I might be pissed. I really don't know. I guess it would depend on what my own child saw, and if it affected it negatively.... but I definitely wouldn't jump to being insulted and telling my kid that people were there to ruin their day.
 
What a friggin joke... Protesting and taking extremes is part of the American spirit, and hell yes people get offended, but the unions didn't destroy private property. If they were leading a revolution and demanding rights, protesting corporate greed and destroying company property, and this was colonial America, you'd consider them your heroes. Kind of ironic isn't?

So you are not only an expert on how this would translate to a "colonial America" environment, but thet also what my take would be on it !!!

Hahahahahahahahahahaha ............ epic, massive, typical, liberal failure !!

That's not a red herring ... that's a RED TUNA !!
 
Sorry, but the Constitution says you're ****ing wrong.

Sorry, but since you mention the Constitution, let me explain something most fundamental to you:

Having a right to do something does not make it right !!!!
 
Stop putting those kids in the middle of it, and telling them that they should be offended, and saddened, and are victims.

If I were a parent, I might be pissed. I really don't know. I guess it would depend on what my own child saw, and if it affected it negatively.... but I definitely wouldn't jump to being insulted and telling my kid that people were there to ruin their day.

Contradictory nonsense. Not surprising coming from you.

The protestors put the kids in the middle of it, not those of us offended by their insensitive actions.
 
The protestors put the kids in the middle of it.

Looks like Walker could have held the thing inside where protesters aren't allowed, maybe Walker put them in the middle...depends on your POV.
 
Looks like Walker could have held the thing inside where protesters aren't allowed, maybe Walker put them in the middle...depends on your POV.

Really? Walked decided to hold it outdoors? You have evidence that this is the case?

Of course you don't. It's supposition on your part. The protestors however were there, that is a fact. They started it by their actions, which put the kids in the middle.

I prefer my facts over your supposition.
 
Last edited:
Really? Walked decided to hold it outdoors? You have evidence that this is the case?

He didn't appear to be handcuffed or bound when he was speaking.
 
So you are not only an expert on how this would translate to a "colonial America" environment, but thet also what my take would be on it !!!

Hahahahahahahahahahaha ............ epic, massive, typical, liberal failure !!

That's not a red herring ... that's a RED TUNA !!

I didn't claim to be an expert or a superior, we are in a debate group... Debating history is a common area of debate in this context. I see the parallels and think they are obvious. You want to debate or you want to flame and get infraction? :)
 
Contradictory nonsense. Not surprising coming from you.

The protestors put the kids in the middle of it, not those of us offended by their insensitive actions.

ad hominem :roll:

I am entitled to my opinions, and I am in the better position to decide how I would feel if I were a parent of one of those children. :roll:

I wouldn't make this about my kid, nor would I see to it my child felt negative about the situation if they otherwise didn't have any negative feelings.

If you're in a debate group, you should try to debate... :lol:
 
Really? Walked decided to hold it outdoors? You have evidence that this is the case?

Of course you don't. It's supposition on your part. The protestors however were there, that is a fact. They started it by their actions, which put the kids in the middle.

I prefer my facts over your supposition.

He could have not given a damn speech at all... lol. He could have sent somebody else, or helped organize a local Olympic athlete or a role model to talk to those kids instead.

We can spin this anyway imaginable.
 
Again, do you have evidence that Walker himself decided to hold the event outdoors? Please present it.

Do you have evidence any of these children were emotionally damaged by the protest?
 
...You want to debate or you want to flame and get infraction? :)

Do you?????

SheWolf said:
Sorry, but the Constitution says you're ****ing wrong.

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling - To bait someone in a general sense is to make a comment with a purposeful intent to coerce some form of response from the individual. In some cases this device can be a useful tool of debate, eliciting responses to highlight a point or reveal an underlying truth concerning someone’s argument. However, in other cases the intent of the bait is less focused on debating. “Flamebaiting” is making statements intended to cause an angry or emotional response/flame from the person. Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”. This is deliberate act of making statements with an aim of diverting the topic of a thread significantly from its main focus. These negative forms of baiting constitute a rules violation that can potentially lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

"Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to "any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

Trolling is a diversionary tactic of those who “deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people” or those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions. [Wikipedia]. Ignorance, bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling, though at times they may appear similar due to the disingenuous nature of some trolls. Trolling is not allowed and can potentially lead to the suspension of posting privileges.
 
hardly. I have been referring to the morality, not the legality, the entire thread. It isn't my fault you're simply unable to comprehend that simple distinction.

ad hominem +3

If you want to get an infraction, make it worthwhile.
 
Do you?????

I am not going to go back and forth on who is baiting or flaming. My comment was censored, and it wasn't a personal attack.
 
non sequitur. I never made such a claim, and your posts has nothing to do with the post you replied to.

If the children aren't bothered or harmed, then why are you complaining that this is offensive. It's just offensive to you, but you don't think it's offensive to the children?
 
He could have not given a damn speech at all... lol. He could have sent somebody else, or helped organize a local Olympic athlete or a role model to talk to those kids instead.

We can spin this anyway imaginable.

and why do YOU get to decide what he could or could not... should or should not have done? Oh, that's right. You don't.

Thankfully.
 
Back
Top Bottom