I know it doesn’t really mean much as far as the actual candidates’ positions go, but I am so fed up with the (face it) liberal media giving all the Bush-haters a free ride by always portraying them in a positive, glowing light. That they’re always self-less, tolerant, poor, oppressed fighters against tyranny.
Sometimes, even with the word ‘Bush’ in front, hatred can still be intolerant, bullying and f***ing ugly. Take look at these pics:
[rant]
Look at the expression on this punk’s face. He’s not just smiling, he’s showing mock sadness. This worthless piece of sh*t is actually making fun of the fact that he made the little girl cry by ripping up her poster (you can see the other half in his hands).
Although her father just packed up and went home I would’ve wanted to see him wipe that expression off that scumbag’s face. With a baseball bat.
[/rant]
And as I’ve said before, if this were a Bush rally and the little girl was crying over a torn up Kerry/Edwards poster, she’d be on the cover of Time…
Perhaps one needs to put the entire campaign rally issue into perspective.
If you are a Kerry supporter, attend a Bush campaign rally and make your presence known, you are arrested, handcuffed and led away. You are charged with criminal trespass, but when your case comes up before the local judge the case is thrown out of court. No matter. The point was to remove you from the rally by any means possible, even if the method is later judged illegal.
However, if you are a Bush supporter, attend a Kerry campaign rally and make your presence known, you are escorted out of the rally if you become disruptive.
FWIW, whatever your political persuasion, using children as a shield to gain the public sympathy, makes you scum.
You’re kidding, right? You are seriously accusing this guy of using his daughter as a shield?
Right. He brought her there for the express purpose of having her assaulted so that he could get it in the news. Or maybe he just wanted to show her a political rally. It could be any number of reasons.
But you know what? It’s not really any of our business why he brought her, because it’s completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the assault, and like I said in another thread about this they did Kerry a great disservice when they assaulted her and her father.
What kind of moron brings a three year old with him to protest at a political rally?
Big deal. A sign got ripped up. Boo hoo. Maybe the idiot parents will learn a lesson about inserting their child into their own sick, twisted political activism.
It is possible, but I highly doubt it. However, I will accuse the media of taking advantage of the incident and exploiting the incident by using the little girl in the news report. IIRC, there have been several cases of Bush supporters having their signs ripped up, but none of them had a child the media could exploit.
Strange that the mother who stood up at a Bush rally and accused Bush of killing her son didn’t get as much airplay as the little girl. Then again, when given a chance news editors always go for the ratings. I think something about not acting with animals or children applies here as well.
Based on the father’s history (if accurate), I suspect your first reason is correct.
In 1996, Mr. Parlock and his oldest son showed up at a Clinton rally and claimed that they had signs torn away
In 2000, Mr. Parlock and his son claimed that a young woman in the audience saw his Bush signs and asked if she could wave them while riding his shoulders, at which point he claimed that Gore supporters tore away the sign (although a policeman noted that he saw the Bush supporters destroying their own signs).
In 2004, Mr. Parlock claims that his daughter was riding his shoulders and had her sign ripped from her hands.
(Of course, there is speculation that the “unionist Kerry supporter” was actually Mr. Parlock’s older son. In addition, the photographer was not a regular news photographer or even an AP stringer, but a freelance friend of the Parlock family.)
The preceding information may be suspect; it comes from the Democratic Underground which is certainly as partisan as the Freepers and no more truthful. Still, provided the posted stories are not fabrications, it makes for an interesting scenario.
Well, OK, but that doesn’t mean that the Dems didn’t have sign tearing-up related program activities! Or that they weren’t planning on tearing up signs just as soon as our backs were turned!
Whether or not Bush-haters do get a free ride from the media. And whether or not this guy’s kids should have been there (sorry about the ranting, but I did mark it. :D)
Generally speaking I don’t care for mixing kids & politics either. But that’s still no excuse for these people’s behavior.
Earthling, thanks for the links. I didn’t know what to search for to see if it was already being debated here…
Long story short, this is the third election in a row that he’s claimed to have been harassed by (unidentified and uncorroborated) Democratic sign-destroyers and gotten coverage for it. There is even speculation that the sign-destroyer is actually the man’s own son.
Next thing you know the Democratic party will start screening rally attendees by forcing them to sign loyalty oaths.
Nah. Too cliche-Orwellian.
Seriously, though, all the guy has to do is produce his son to show me that he wasn’t in the picture. Otherwise all I have to go on is a fuzzy family photo that does look kinda similar.
As for the Painter’s Union offering an apology, that’s just good PR. It’s not any kind of proof that the guy in the picture was actually a member of the union. Again, though, I’m 100% willing to be proven wrong on that count.
I just find laughably naive the OP’s notion that “Bush haters” are getting a free ride in the media, especially given the kid glove treatments the Administration’s been receiving for the last four years. How much more Bush-friendly could the media be for Hail Ants’ satisfaction, other than having the members of the White House Press Corps give Bush, Cheney, and Rove blowjobs on live television?
Really? You can tell from that picture what’s in the guy’s hands? And by some alchemy you know the meaning of the expression on the man’s face from about 125th of a second of light reflected from a living (and changing) face? You should be an analyst for the CIA.
And I agree. This is no debate. It’s a rant, and it belongs in the Pit where it can get the kind of attention it deserves.