First of all, even if this were true, that sign could just as easily have said, “Sponge Bob Square Pants Is Gay” and that 3 year old wouldn’t have known the difference.
I dread now getting this damned photo in office emails in the newest Urban Legend, “Kerry People Ruin Child’s Happy Day With Daddy”.
Then again, that was the whole point of this bogus scam.
wonders if Hail Ants will post again in this thread
The guy in the union clothes looks a lot like his son… :rolleyes:
I specially like the fathers “victim” face.
Jeez, its freakin 8am where I am. Working an overnight…
I would think that the local paper could report pretty quickly if that definately was his son or not. Neighbors etc. could verify this.
In the picture in story one, um, yeah, its pretty obvious that it is.
Don’t know what to say other than what planet do you live on…
Look, obviously Bush-haters want it to be complete BS and Bush supporters want to believe it. But some of you are saying that even if its completely true, Who cares? Well, I guess you might not. But this wasn’t a ‘political rally’ prearranged at the local Union hall (or someone getting within ten feet of the sitting VP at the RNC). It was just a whistle-stop on public property, the airport, and this guy was just expressing his opinion. I don’t think you can get more first amendment-ty than that.
And sometimes Democrats can be intolerant jerks just like us evil, puppy-kicking Republicans…
Not really where I was coming from, but still, good on you for not allowing the fact that your thread has ended up in a complete train wreck deter you from continuing. Just ignore us gawkers 
I hate Bush. I genuinely hate him more than I’ve ever hated any political figure. But even I can see that a guy who rips up a little girl’s sign is an asshole. (Unless, of course, the whole thing was staged – in which case he’s an asshole for being a part of it.) But there are assholes who support Kerry and others support Bush. Let’s not use the behavior of a few idiots to characterize all people of a certain political persuation.
But if it is true, let’s not make excuses for the guy, either. I’m quite confident there are Kerry supporters and Bush supporters who would think nothing of ripping up a little girl’s sign. It’s a big country, and there are plenty of jerks to go around.
Ah, the man from Parlock. All that is really required for us to believe his story is an abiding faith in astonishing coincidence. Remember when Daffy Duck sold Porky the insurance policy that only paid off if he were injured by an elephant stampede during a snowstorm on the 4th of July? This astonishing coincidence…three seperate occassions of vicious persecution by the Mauve Shirts…no, not buying any. Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
Someone needs to call child protective services on this guy. It’s not nice to use children as weapons.
Exactly.
Which is why some of us think this topic was not a good choice for “Great Debates.” An adult snatching away something from a 3-year old and ripping it up, for sheer spite–we’re going to debate the merits of that?
It was only dumb luck that there ended up being controversy about the victim/alleged victim, which was worth discussion
It isn’t going to change my mind about anything. If it really happened, the person who did it was a jerk. If it is a case of a “professional victim” doing his thing again, then he is the jerk. Either way, it makes no difference to me. I’m confused about the rant though. It’s OK for anti-Bush people to be arrested. It’s OK for anti-Bush people to be accused of being traitors or Commies or nonChristian (whatever that is). It’s OK for anyone who doesn’t believe the Swifties or the Kerry/Fonda “photos” to be called a liar and goaded into screaming matches, stopping just short of all out slugfests. It’s OK for anti-Bush people to be fired for “incorrect” bumper stickers. I guess the rant is saying only pro-Bush people are allowed to be assholes? Assholery is universal. Get used to it.
Moderator’s Note: I was going to move this to the Pit, but since some sort of actual debate has broken out over the actual sequence of events, I’ll leave it here for now.
Totally annoying when an intelligent debate breaks out in the middle of a rant, isn’t it! 
My comment would be that the use of small children in support of a partisan issue has very, very little to commend it and a great deal to make it highly suspect. If I didn’t find it so depressing and obnoxious, I’d write a variant on Richard Rodgers’ famous song “Carefully Taught” to illustrate my point.
And yet there is nothing in the article that denies that it was his son, other than Parlock’s statement.
I’m confused about this part of the OP. How did your cites portray the Bush-haters “in a positive, glowing light”? I didn’t really pick up on any bias in the story. Nowhere did I see anything like “but the child pretty much deserved it”, or “the people responsible for ripping the sign should be lynched”. So why did you bring up the whole “liberal media” theory again?
While I certainly don’t condone ripping up a 3 year old child’s political sign( :rolleyes: ), I have to ask: what exactly would you expect the “Bush-haters” to do in a situation like this? When Parlock broke out the sign, he surely knew that it would disrupt the rally in some way. That is, the “Bush-haters” would have started yelling things at the Parlocks, etc. etc. This isn’t exactly a situation in which I would want to put my 3 year old girl.
If this incident wasn’t staged, then all of the people shown in the OP’s linked picture displayed poor behavior (whether ripping up a child’s sign, or questionable parenting).
If this incident was staged… it makes some big changes to the story. So, for the time being, I’m going to assume it wasn’t.
LilShieste
Look, it goes without saying that the guy who ripped the sign away from her is an asshole of the highest order. That’s obvious to anyone with half a brain.
BUT…even if the father did not stage it, I question his judgment on bringing his daughter into a rally for the opposition, and giving her a Bush/Cheney sign to hold, especially given his past experiences. Honestly, HE should have been the one holding the sign-not making her do it. She’s only a little girl, she’s not going to understand what’s going on.
Did he stage it, IMHO? I can’t answer for sure. I do, however, believe at the very least the guy was trolling for a reaction, the same way one would troll a message board. He wanted someone to react-otherwise, why would he make a habit of going to Democrat rallies and sneak in Republican signs? What purpose does he have? If he wants to protest, that’s one thing-but using his THREE YEAR OLD to do so is in extremely poor taste, and it’s not fair to the child in question. It sounds like he wants a reaction. And even if he didn’t, he’s still guilty of being an idiot. With the today’s politically charged atmosphere, what did he EXPECT to happen? And to let his DAUGHTER be a potential victim, and not taking all steps to make sure that wasn’t the case, is inexcusable.
It isn’t about politics. It’s about common sense. A parent has a duty to keep his or her children from harm-at least anything they aren’t capable of dealing with on their own. It reminds me of an incident that happened a few years ago here in Pittsburgh, at a Motley Crue concert. Without warning anyone in the audience, someone started projecting a porn film on a giant screen against the ceiling. Now, they hadn’t let the venue know beforehand what was going to happen, and as a result, were arrested because there were people under 18 in the crowd, and the venue didn’t want to get in trouble. Okay, fine.
HOWEVER, several parents complained, including one couple who brought their two sons, ages 6 and 8, to said concert. At this point, I would question the judgment of a parent bringing a child of that age to a freaking Motley Crue concert. It’s MOTLEY CRUE, not exactly known as wholesome, family entertainment! Even had they not shown porn, I still don’t think an 8 year old belongs at a concert like Motley Crue.
The victim here is a three year old girl. And both her father and the asshat who tore her sign are to blame. The asshat for being such a jerk as to assault a CHILD, like that, and her father, for not taking into consideration what might happen in such a place.
My feelings for Bush have nothing to do with it. In fact, I heard that the President, upon hearing of the incident, sent little Sophia an autographed campaign sign and a picture of him and his dog Barney, “signed” by the dog. Which I think is sweet of him. (Yeah, it’s PR, but I still think it’s a nice gesture).
My problem with this matter is that we have no idea why the girl was crying. I don’t know about 3-year-olds but 2-year-olds will cry for just about any reason. Maybe the wind was blowing in her face, maybe she was tired, maybe she was upset about being in a big crowd, maybe she didn’t like that guy’s hat, it could be anything. But going to a rally to voice dissent with a 3-year-old, and having your sign torn up, how does this even merit media coverage? Seems like if this had been a Bush rally, the man and daughter would have been forcefully, possibly violently removed. I just don’t buy this event as being anything to get all up in arms about, and I certainly don’t see this event as being anything to make huge assumptions about.
Face what? Your chanting?
Once is happenstance, etc.
Even if this isn’t Cafe Society, we should still quote our Bond villians correctly! 
Bond villians?
Feh, the only good delivery of said line was from Death’s Head, freelance peace-keeping agent, yes?
</obscure-comics-reference>
You guys are missing something important:
The DU link indicates that this fellow attended 3 different rallies and was harrassed 3 times (each one years apart). There is no disputing that - even Parlock says so. What the DU ignores is that he has attended considerably more than 3 rallies and even says that he has usually been treated with civility and respect, and therefore, considering the majority of how he’s been treated in the past, expected no less from this rally.
There’s a talk-show link out there somewhere (can’t find it now) - admittedly from a conservative/Repub-leaning show, but I have no reason to doubt the fellow’s statements, barring new evidence to the contrary.