“Would it surprise you to learn that the Congressman is a decorated athlete and combat-trained US Army veteran?”
What else (old) is there against him?
In other words, while there some who may believe this one recorded incidence is indication of a history of cruelty, arrogance and mental instability, I’d like to know what his on-the-record reputation has been up to now.
Who is 68 years old…
And? It’s entirely possible for a 68 year old to be more fit and capable than a 20 year old twerp. Age is not the sole indicator of strength and ability.
Another agreement that the incident itself isn’t a big deal. In terms of wrongdoing it’s maybe a 1/10. In terms of stupidity it’s something like 7/10, which is one of the reasons the thread went this long even before all the tangents and other ridiculousness - the other reasons being that a few people suggested this was okay rather than being an obviously dumbass thing to do even if the guys with the cameras were out to embarrass him.
God luck trying to convince a jury that those two college kids were actually in danger of being thrashed by the Congressman.
Yes, of course. He’s probably so frail that any attempted punch would more likely shatter his old-man bones than actually have any force.
My sentiments exactly. If what the kids did constitutes ‘inviting’ assault in a way that puts the assault and battery into de minimis territory with respect to the law, then all I can say is that the law gives us tremendous freedom to legally whack people for the sins of being irritating and annoying.
I really don’t believe that’s how it’s supposed to work.
I guess the difference is primarily in how each of us characterizes the question. I don’t view it as a “Why did did vote to kill babies?”, but more of a set up question:
- Do you fully support the Obama agenda?
Now, I don’t know where he was going to go after that, but it’s hardly a question that by itself is so touchy. He could have answered:
- I guess it depends how you define the Obama agenda. How do you define it?
- I doubt I fully agree with anyone in Washington. Why don’t you pick a specific issue and I’ll let you know my thoughts on it?
- C’mon, son. You’ve got to ask better questions than that?
- If you want an interview call my office and make an appointment. I’m always happy to help young people who express an interest in politics.
- Etcetera
No, I’m sure that this kid was hoping for some video he could use to either portray the congressman as either too much with Obama or against him. (The former being more likely, IMO.) But the point is that the question by itself, was innocuous. It necessitated a follow-up or two to get an opinion on an issue. Other wise, the kid is stuck with “Etheridge fully supports the Obama agenda” or “Etheridge does not fully support the Obama agenda”. And that’s not much red meat, that we’re assuming the kid was after.
I still don’t get what specific action by the kid was offensive or rude. He seemed pretty damn polite to me. Unlike the aldrin incident. That’s what makes Etheridge’s action so bizarre and unjustifiable.
If that kid were my son and a non-congressman handled him that way, I’d open a can of whoop-ass on the guy myself. How dare he do that! I’ll add that if he had done that and my son was being an asshole (again like the Aldrin incident) and my son came crying to me and slap him in the back of the head and say “You just learned a valuable lesson, son, don’t be an asshole.”
For a minute I thought you wrote “shatter his old man-bone”.
You now owe me for keyboard vomit removal.
Do we know they are college kids? The one we see looks a bit younger to me.
College-aged then.
The point is that it will come down to what the jury believes, and I don’t think you’d get 12 people to unanimously agree these kids were in any danger.
Dammit, magellan, I’m not used to agreeing with you much at all. But I have to agree with this post, all the way up and down the line.
It has nothing to do with whether anyone was in danger. I don’t exactly have fists of doom, and if I were to try to punch someone out who wasn’t in fragile health, they’d be in no real danger.
But it would still be illegal for me to go around trying to punch people out. And if the legal system neglects to enforce that fact, then it effectively becomes legal.
I certainly don’t think he should be prosecuted. I’m just saying that he did commit a crime.
I guess we’re equally concerned, then. 
Correct, IMO.
This guy is a politician. If he is going to attack anyone who asks him a loaded question, he isn’t going to stay in politics for long.
He acts as if he has never encountered anything but softballs before. That’s why he comes across as so crazy - that and the stuff about how people are obligated to produce ID before he will deign to speak to them.
I’m not even a politician, and I could come up with some response that doesn’t involve assault and battery, when someone is fucking putting you on film.
“Do you fully support the Obama agenda?”
“The President is working to resolve the serious problems of unemployment in the US. You bet I support that - don’t you? We recently experienced the worst environmental disaster in our history, and President Obama is working to get the problem resolved and to hold those responsible for it to task. I support that too! Affordable health care, fixing the economy - all these things are on the Obama agenda, and I know all reasonable Americans join in supporting them. Thanks for the question - it was a good one. Have a nice day.”
Any politician worth his PAC contributions should have be able to knock that one out of the park. Instead, he goes postal on him.
Regards,
Shodan
If they updated the “GOPAC Memo”, agenda would be on the Contrasting Words list.
Conservatives have a “vision”, liberals have an “agenda”.
This is (IMHO) a perfect example of dog-whistle politics, the GOPAC memo being a textbook example of it.
CMC fnord!
He took office in 1997. That’s pretty long.
You keep repeating this, expecting people to overlook it, and moving the question-goalpost when called on it, but I’ve just watched and listened to the edited version of the video two more times and nowhere on it does Etheridge ask for ID. He does repeatedly ask “Who are you?” and mentions that he has a right to know, but again with the implication that someone expecting him to answer questions should tell him to whom he’s speaking. Has there been an unedited version of the video made available that includes a request for ID? (And sparky still hasn’t posted any other recorded instances of similar bad behavior.)
Would you simply answer any question put to you by anyone just randomly walking up to you on the street, especially someone with a microphone and a camera, not knowing who they were, what entity they were possibly representing or what motives they have for accosting you unexpectedly?