No you don’t. You gave up long ago, when he busted your balls and reduced you to ad hominem sputtering.
That’s exactly what you said. “A person with Dio’s political beliefs” means anyone who shares his beliefs.
You can’t unring that bell.
Well most people could. Backing down is a skill typically mastered in junior high or elementary school. But some have difficulty conceiving of the possibility that they are in error. Others are simply delusional, applying charged words like “Violence” to, say, the routine enforcement of our nation’s laws.
And in real life, the transgressor would typically back down, receiving a hard look but no blows from the offended party. Usually.
Personally, I would feel some shame if I ever struck a person during adulthood. It would indicate that my verbal skills or self control were lacking – usually there are ways of deescalating such situations. This also implies that I try to keep my contact with certain relatively rare personalities to a minimum.
You know posts like this don’t work, right? They’ll keep feeding me. Just you watch. This thread may die, but there will be another one. I’ll get fed.
When was that exactly?
But it doesn’t mean “anyone that disagrees with my political beliefs,” which is what Oakminster said.
To attempt to get back to the OP:
-
Yes, I feel Bob Etheridge reacted inappropriately and probably actionably to being confronted by two young people, apparently of college age.
-
Not in excuse but in mitigation, he says it was at sundown (in mid-June, when days are longest) of a long and stressful day. Anyone here who has never reacted inappropriately owing to fatigue and stress is free to condemn his actions. I think he did wrong, but I can grasp why he might not have been reacting quire right under the circumstances.
-
A couple of points to take into consideration. 1. This was likely a misdemeanor if that; police and proescutorial discretion might come into play. Not every technically illegal act calls for prosecution to the full extent of the law. 2. He admits his wrongdoing and issued a full apology for his behavior. 3. Technically, a Congressman is immune from (most) arrest during sessions of Congress or while traveling to and from them. That’s a constitutional provision; I’m not clear on the limits. It’s certainly not a “get away with murder” clause, but I suspect that whatever the delineations are, Etheridge’s behavior falls below the floor for actionability.
My raising the issue of the ‘coincidental’ push poll was not intended to excuse Etheridge’s behavior, either, but to suggest that there might have been an intent to put him in a difficult situation (which he certainly played into) with the intent of raising oublic awareness of his (hitherto little known) opponent.
All this is offered as personal opinion, to be dealt with by honest debaters in the time-honored Pit manner.
Yeah, nice try, Poly, but it won’t work. It’s troll-feeding time, and I’m hoooongry!!!
Rand Rover, it’s normally a fine line in the Pit between being contentious, and being a troll, but you’ve stepped well over the line here. Reign it back in.
This is an official warning.
The idea here is that there really is nothing anyone can say to you that gives you the right to punch them. Words are words. Couple that with unmentionable retribution and you get a better world.
Ummmm, no you didn’t say that. Here’s a link to the actual post in question. I invite all and sundry to review it, and I offer the following observations:
First, it wasn’t a metaphor, it was an analogy.
Second, you did not say that you were a motorized trike salesman in terms of the [analogy]; you simply endorsed the validity of the analogy, identified yourself as a motorized trike salesman, and invited us to infer from your self-identification that your endorsement was valuable.
It’s right there in black-and-white (or whatever colors/hues your browser displays).
BTW, is it true that oversized Bridgestone All-Terrain tires are really not worth the extra money? In your professional opinion, of course.
Was it a Billy goat?
Was it gruff?
I think we can all infer the answers to those questions…
I’m going to assume that you are just trying to get my goat–the alternative is that you are a complete idiot.
They’re mutually exclusive?
Careful Bwana. I can imagine all sorts of words that can justify manhandling or at least grabbing, which is what you originally wrote of at 06-18-2010 09:49 AM. For example, “Let me take your picture” without permission arguably justifies putting your hand on a camera.
As for punches, I think elucidator’s point holds: there are plenty of people in the world like Oakminster who accept the reality of fighting words. Throw in alcohol, and you are handing a tool to sociopaths who enjoy picking fights.
Here’s my strategy: “Lay a hand on me and I’ll press charges. Your call. I can take a punch.” I frequent civilized parts of the world though, so frankly I’ve never had occasion to apply this technique. And I would hope that I would be trying to de-escalate the situation before it came to that point.
Damn, Measure for Measure, you just spoiled the Platonic perfection of a page with nothing but one Rand Rover post and one Starving Artist post.
I will attempt to restore balance to the force. SA, can you help a brother out here?
Too late, you’ll have to wait for the next page.
HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!!!
Uh, what’re we talking about?
I was looking for another thread and I came across this one, in which you make the above comment. 
What on earth do you mean? I did not even know this thread existed until a couple of minutes ago, and I have no interest in this Congressman. Do you think that I started this thread under another name? Is your handle is “Really Not All That Bright” more fitting than I imgained? Or maybe I am the one who is really not all that bright. Either way, please explain.