The W
Views: 100021623
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 0206
The W - Current Events & Politics - 6 people arrested at a town hall meeting in St Louis (Page 4)
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.48
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
(215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (66 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
#61 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.48
lotjx, well care and routine visits are the things that poor, working class people can't handle. Also well care and routine visits are what we should be making sure everyone has as it decreases alot of costs down the road by preventing/catching problems.



Perception is reality
CxMorgado
Boudin rouge








Since: 21.1.02
From: Boston MA is the rippen'ist town...

Since last post: 305 days
Last activity: 1 day
#62 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.63
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by CRZ
      What do you have against freedom of speech?


    Uh, what in that story says they were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech? At least one person was charged with assault. The story uses phrases like this one:

    Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.


    The story really could use more in the way of details - there's a video there, but I can't watch it on my Internet connection - so maybe it wasn't as unruly and violent as it sounds, but the story doesn't paint the picture of peaceful petitioners. But I think I might be misunderstanding you....

    Which group are you talking about here? Because the guy speaking from the emergency room where he was being treated for wounds suffered in an "attack" was described in the story as a "conservative activist." Of course, story doesn't offer much of a description regarding what he was doing. It wouldn't shock me to learn that "he handed out yellow flags with 'Don't tread on me" printed on them'" doesn't really tell the whole story.

    (edited by TheBucsFan on 9.8.09 0936)


About this. I saw the "victim" of that assault and his lawyer on the news today, and they were showing the video.

And something is very, VERY fishy here.

This is his lawyer's statement:


    I am Kenneth Gladney’s attorney. Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.

    Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested.


http://www.youtube.com/​​watch?​​v=dqpfU_​​AC7Ls

That's the video. Even if you try to argue that the beating happened before the video started, the story doesn't hold water in the slightest. If you can't watch the video, I'll break it down for you:

The inciting incident is missing, but the video shows a black man on the ground, with a few men and women standing around him. The man on the ground is not Kenneth Gladney however, it is a union member, as you can see from his blue/purple shirt (Gladney is in tan, and in the group standing over the man, perhaps just getting to his own feet but certainly not on the ground and definitely still over the man on the ground). None of the people around him appear to be other union members (Mr Gladney and his lawyer have been very specific that the 4 attackers were all easily identifiable by their union shirts). No one is kicking anyone, tho one man appears to trip over his own feet. None of them are acting like they just witnessed a massive beating- they all appear to be more involved in trying to break something up before it gets started or gawking at the situation. Another union member runs up and pulls Gladney to the ground, yelling "get off of him", apparently in the belief that the other man is (still?)being assaulted.

It is then and only then that the crowd reacts in a violent manner (not physically violent, violent as in extreme). Most fervent is a man in the white shirt, who starts following and yelling at the union man, but backs off whenever the union man turns to address him and then resumes following and yelling (eventually he segues into screaming about socialism and deadbeats. I suppose he's our comic relief). The union man can clearly be heard saying to this man that they did not assault Mr Gladney first, that Mr Gladney hit the man on the ground, who is a minister (and he is in fact a minister, as he was later id'd as Rev. Elston K. McCowan). Some reports claim he is saying "He assaulted America". This is not true, he is saying "a minister". A third union member walks up during this, and it is a obese woman on a cane. It is the only other obvious union member we ever see during any of the skirmish.

Mr Gladney appears fine after this incident, perhaps a slight limp at the worst. The alleged minister leaves the scene holding his shoulder, and Mr Gladney can be heard addressing him before he goes. It is only semi-audible, but he seems to be asking why the man hit his hands. There is no mention of prior assault, nor any mention of other union members who have fled the scene, and there are no signs of any facial injuries to Mr Gladney. He can also be clearly heard saying that only "the black man" attacked him. When the police arrive, Mr Gladney and the crowd accuse the union member who pulled him down of assault, and the union member is arrested, and appears shocked, once again repeating that he did not attack Mr Gladney, and was removing Mr Gladney from the minister.

Again, even if you try to say the beating happened before the camera started rolling, this does not match up to what Gladney and his lawyer are saying happened. SOMETHING certainly happened between Gladney and the minister, but it seems at worst it was a minor scuffle. And yet now you have Gladney showing up in a wheelchair, with his lawyer claiming he's too medicated to speak so he'll do all the talking. I feel like I'm watching a politically charged remake of The Fortune Cookie. Whatever went on here, it certainly wasn't an Obama sanctioned union beat down of Mr Gladney.

For some reason, this story is the one bothering me most. Maybe it's because the media has taken Mr Gladney's side at face value, while simultaneously showing this video. Maybe it's the conservative side holding this up as proof of Obama backed union intimidation and violence, while simultaneously linking to this video. Maybe it's the mind boggling way that the video is constantly being shown as evidence of Gladney's story being true. Or maybe it's just because something about the union man who pulls Gladney to the ground's reaction to the man yelling at him and his befuddlement at getting arrested for doing what he felt was the right thing that reminds me of my father. But whatever it is, it's really sticking in my craw way more than any of the rest of the b.s. going on at this meetings.

Sorry for the rant.

(edited by CxMorgado on 12.8.09 0232)

(edited by CxMorgado on 12.8.09 0232)

Biddip-bo!
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 41 min.
#63 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.21
What's great is that it turns out he DOES have health insurance through his wife, and that he's keeping the money people gave to him when he said he didn't have any insurance.
i before e
Chorizo








Since: 17.10.03

Since last post: 1402 days
Last activity: 162 days
#64 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.64
I just found this thread and there is so much to say, so many points and counter points. I need to do more research before I can draw my line in the sand. After reading all of the great posts in this thread, I will say that I feel there is still some hope left in this great nation. Being able to read intelligent debate by well informed citizens gives me hope that there is still some life in this Democracy of ours. Coming into this, I have been leaning well in favor of a nationalized health care system. Most of the counter arguments I have heard and read basically equate to shouting "SOCIALISM!!!!" over and over again. StaggerLee has posted one of the best counter arguments for socialized care that I have read anywhere, which is both a compliment to Lee and a criticism of the "opposition". Unfortunately, this thing is degrading into political factions banking on the stupidity and laziness of the general population, using rhetoric and fear tactics to coral as many sheep into their pen as possible (I'm not a farmer, I don't know if that analogy makes any sense). I have so many questions that are unanswered. I fear this will devolve into some sloppy compromise between the parties that will result in a bureaucratic mess that will help no-one while simultaneously costing the taxpayers billions.

No one seems to be addressing the underlying issue here, which is why is it that a median income family NEEDS insurance even for basic health care? Why is health care so damn expensive that someone making a decent middle class wage is unable to pay for routine health care out of pocket, and would spend himself into bankruptcy for anything resembling an emergency?

Then there's the issue of these mandatory swine flu vaccines coming down the pipe. and I have the sinking feeling that the medical industry is too powerful and soulless for there ever to be a reasonable system of health care in this country which is apparently run by these types of corporations.

Maybe I'll post again when I can make a better argument one way or another.
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#65 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
There was actually a video I saw yesterday where Anthony Weiner made some excellent points regarding insurance companies. It was such a change from the ridiculous discussions we've seen on TV to this point that I thought I would share it.

Plus he leaves Joe Scarborough speechless, which was fun. And his names WEINER!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/32459067#32459067

My current line of thought is to agree with him in principle, but the funding is still a question for me.

StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 days
#66 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.01
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    There was actually a video I saw yesterday where Anthony Weiner made some excellent points regarding insurance companies. It was such a change from the ridiculous discussions we've seen on TV to this point that I thought I would share it.

    Plus he leaves Joe Scarborough speechless, which was fun. And his names WEINER!!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/​id/​3036789/​vp/​32459067#32459067

    My current line of thought is to agree with him in principle, but the funding is still a question for me.




Wiener was on some radio show, (sorry I can't remember which one) where he said his plan should be funded by "taking the billions the insurance companies make".
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
Thread rated: 4.48
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
Thread ahead: Dominick Dunne (1925-2009)
Next thread: Glenn Beck losing Advertisers
Previous thread: Bob Novak (1931-2009)
(215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Change the pixellation on your screen to 800 x 600 then. Well, seeing as how they OWNED the distribution rights to the film, they could have done anything with them they damned well please, especially since they PAID for the film.
- Reverend J Shaft, Moore's film has distributor. Yea. (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - 6 people arrested at a town hall meeting in St Louis (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.117 seconds.