>Howie,
>How do you know? What is your source? And how did you make the leap to
>Watergate? It actually has no relevance to Sam's email. And nowhere is
>criminal activity mentioned. But now that you bring it up...
Assault? ... to quote the article:
"For example, at the Gophers football game last
weekend, a Kerry supporter physically assaulted a
female College Republican who"
and
"In a similar incident, Kerry
supporters assaulted College Republicans at the
Minnesota State Fair. During the incident, the union
members elbowed two College Republicans in the head
and threw them to the ground."
Sounds illegal to me.
>Do you believe that this was proper behavior?
>Is so, why didn't you choose to
>defend versus condemn it?
He condemned the behavior because it's not appropriate -- his claim was that these acts aren't the result of the Democratic party. It's like assuming that an angy mob attacking Fred Phelps must have been told to do so by a gay rights organization. The fact that certain people feel so strongly against the president that they become violent doesn't necessitate the organization of violence by the Democrats, in-spite of the George W. Hitler bumper-sticker which may have been "over the top" but certainly nothing genuinely new. Similar things have been said about political candidates throughout the course of American history -- just look at the Lincoln debates. Especially during a time of war people become "murderously" angry -- whether it's warranted / justified or not -- and you have mobs. To say that these mobs are organized by either party is a bit short-sighted if not a blatant abuse of circumstantial evidence.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
