Hey, neat! Apparently being a soldier doesn't automatically mean all Republicans love you.
(Soldier gets boo'd by Republicans during debate)
I wonder how many of those doing the boo'ing have "Support Our Troops" stickers on their cars/cubicles/asses.
Sex has no place in the military? Does this guy even know anyone in the military? I think I had more sex while in the military than I have since I got out.
I'm not sure what he was trying to say but the correct answer was, "I don't care what your sexual orientation is as long as it does not interfere with your work."
Aside: The booing, while audible, was not widespread in the audience. Could have just been a couple of plants.
Sex has no place in the military? Does this guy even know anyone in the military? I think I had more sex while in the military than I have since I got out.
I don't think he has any idea what anything even tangentially related to military services is like.
True it wasn't the whole audience, but that would have been a great time for someone like Jon Huntsman or Mitt Romney to be like "We don't boo active serving military personal, they are sacrificing their lives for us" and shamed the booers and made themselves look classier. Instead we get freaking Rick S. being a douche bag.
True it wasn't the whole audience, but that would have been a great time for someone like Jon Huntsman or Mitt Romney to be like "We don't boo active serving military personal, they are sacrificing their lives for us" and shamed the booers and made themselves look classier. Instead we get freaking Rick S. being a douche bag.
It's making me think that their main tactic at this point is to try to appeal to every single far-right viewpoint there is.
Considering the atrocious, hateful and blatantly idiotic things I've heard American crowds erupt into cheers for in the past, this surprises me no more than it does inspire any love for this country.
So you are seriously suggesting that someone, either one of the Republicans at the debate or some Democrat or liberal leaning orginization, or even just some dude who belonged to one such group and acted alone, was put there specifically to boo someone from the armed forces? I just want to be sure that's what you're asserting so I know how much money I need to invest for someone to develop technology that would allow me to strangle the shit out of you over an internet connection. I have to believe you're trolling, because no one, NO ONE, could possibly be that stupid. I suppose the moronic red-necks cheering Perry's state-sanctioned killing record were also plants.
So you are seriously suggesting that someone, either one of the Republicans at the debate or some Democrat or liberal leaning orginization, or even just some dude who belonged to one such group and acted alone, was put there specifically to boo someone from the armed forces?
These are the same people that pay bloggers to write in their favor.
I doubt anyone in the political arena is above using plants.
So you are seriously suggesting that someone, either one of the Republicans at the debate or some Democrat or liberal leaning orginization, or even just some dude who belonged to one such group and acted alone, was put there specifically to boo someone from the armed forces?
These are the same people that pay bloggers to write in their favor.
I doubt anyone in the political arena is above using plants.
I don't think it's more likely then it being an actual member of the Tea Bagger movement.
So you are seriously suggesting that someone, either one of the Republicans at the debate or some Democrat or liberal leaning orginization, or even just some dude who belonged to one such group and acted alone, was put there specifically to boo someone from the armed forces?
nope.
So you are seriously suggesting that someone, either one of the Republicans at the debate or some Democrat or liberal leaning orginization, or even just some dude who belonged to one such group and acted alone, was put there specifically to boo someone from the armed forces?
These are the same people that pay bloggers to write in their favor.
I doubt anyone in the political arena is above using plants.
Yup.
It's become very common in politics to have a plant infiltrate an event to cause a problem. Sometimes it's just for lulz other times the plants try to look like supporters of the rally/event but actually do their best to come off as ignorant/stupid/wacko.
Saul Alinksy himself once told a group of students that rather than protest Bush (Sr) at a speech (1972 - Tulane University) they should instead act like supporters with signs like "The KKK supports Bush". Alinksy was not the first (or last) to do this sort of thing and I have little doubt that the odds of someone being a plant vs. a real supporter in these situations is about 50/50. Talking to the person in question will allow you to quickly ascertain whether they are legit or a plant.
When the entire audience cheered Perry for killing people... that was real. The response was too widespread to be fake.
When someone boo's at a rally (as a plant) how can the audience respond? If they boo the heckler it might get reported as the entire audience joining in the booing started by the original heckler. They can't cheer unless the person speaking calls out the heckler in such a way as to give the audience something to cheer about that is in obvious opposition to what the heckler has said. It is better to simply ignore the heckler.
I have little doubt that the odds of someone being a plant vs. a real supporter in these situations is about 50/50.
Both options are definitely possible, but I do not think they are anywhere near 50/50.
With the limited information provided by most biased news outlets I go with 50/50. If I am physically present to witness the event or if I am getting my information from a reliable (or well known) source a snap judgment is possible.
Shit like this still happens. However, as long as I know what bias to expect from a given media outlet I know when to say, "OH MANZ THAT DUDEZ GOT SOME KILLA EDITING SKILLZZZ!!!" instead of "OMFG!!! DAT DUDEZ GUNNA KEEL SOMEONEZ!!!"
For the record: I was laughing my ass off when I saw this particular network reporting on this event. I found it amazing how every shot was framed so that you could not tell the race of the guy with the gun. Even the talking heads on the network thought the guy was white! Seriously, it takes some big balls to be this blatantly biased.
Good lord, Steve, have you payed attention to anything in this thread? Look at the first post from forever ago.
Do you seriously expect me to go through 63 pages of crap before posting anything? Who are you, my ex-wife? Besides, I always ignore edited posts that don't offer a listing of revisions like Wikipedia does.
No, Steve, but some of the stuff that was gone over in the first post on the first page of this thread has examples of exactly what you were asking about.
@SqadronROE : Those who have cheered and booed for certain things at the Tea Bag conventions recently are seriously putting their toes right up to the 'human' line, IMHO.
@SqadronROE : Those who have cheered and booed for certain things at the Tea Bag conventions recently are seriously putting their toes right up to the 'human' line, IMHO.
Yeah, the article definitely points that out. It just seems like everyone is looking at each other as "types" of people. For example, I mentioned to someone that if I had to pick a particular party to adhere to, it'd be Socialist. Unfortunately he heard "Bolshevik revolutionist" and immediately cursed me out and stormed out, rather than trying to understand anything further. I'm just that "type" of person. In retrospect though, I'm not sure I would align most closely with even modern Socialism (ie. Britain's style or France's style). So once again, I'm pretty much nothing-ist.
No, Steve, but some of the stuff that was gone over in the first post on the first page of this thread has examples of exactly what you were asking about.
I looked briefly but didn't see a specific link to the Brooks Brothers Brigade incident.
So, I guess this is the new excuse the right is going to use every time some teabagger type says or does something outrageous that even they can't believe would be covered by their old standy of "it was a joke" or "it was satire". From now one the really crazy stuff will be the result of "plants" from the left.
See, when Palin says that Paul Revere drove a '57 Chevy through Boston to warn everyone that the British were coming because everyone was worried that the British would take away their guns, that's satire.
When Bachmann says that the earth is only six thousand years old, that's satire.
When a teabagger says, "Keep the Feds out of my Medicare", he's a plant.
On a related note, I am constantly fascinated by the people who vote republican when they know it's against their interests. Nuri really stated it succinctly when she called it "aspiration bias" because they somehow think that, one day, the policies that benefit the top two percent will somehow (I know I'm using a lot of "somehows", but I'm trying to verbalize how little chance I think they have) benefit them as well because they will somehow magically move into that top two percent.
I think "aspiration bias" works another way as well. One reason people buy snobby coffee is because even snobby coffee can be had for relatively little money. A person can spend six dollars on a cup of coffee and, for a very little time, imagine that they're living the good life, maybe even on a par with that top two percent. Voting republican is a little like that. It doesn't cost a person anything to self-identify as a conservative and vote republican, and like that Starbuck's coffee, they can imagine for that brief moment that they're a big shot.
What other reasons could there be? They certainly can't be making rational decisions based on what the republicans tell them they're going to do because they pretty much spell out in plain terms that they intend to send everyone but the aforementioned top two percent into economic oblivion.
Comments
I'm not sure what he was trying to say but the correct answer was, "I don't care what your sexual orientation is as long as it does not interfere with your work."
Aside: The booing, while audible, was not widespread in the audience. Could have just been a couple of plants.
True it wasn't the whole audience, but that would have been a great time for someone like Jon Huntsman or Mitt Romney to be like "We don't boo active serving military personal, they are sacrificing their lives for us" and shamed the booers and made themselves look classier. Instead we get freaking Rick S. being a douche bag.
I just want to be sure that's what you're asserting so I know how much money I need to invest for someone to develop technology that would allow me to strangle the shit out of you over an internet connection.
I have to believe you're trolling, because no one, NO ONE, could possibly be that stupid.
I suppose the moronic red-necks cheering Perry's state-sanctioned killing record were also plants.
I doubt anyone in the political arena is above using plants.
It's become very common in politics to have a plant infiltrate an event to cause a problem. Sometimes it's just for lulz other times the plants try to look like supporters of the rally/event but actually do their best to come off as ignorant/stupid/wacko.
Saul Alinksy himself once told a group of students that rather than protest Bush (Sr) at a speech (1972 - Tulane University) they should instead act like supporters with signs like "The KKK supports Bush". Alinksy was not the first (or last) to do this sort of thing and I have little doubt that the odds of someone being a plant vs. a real supporter in these situations is about 50/50. Talking to the person in question will allow you to quickly ascertain whether they are legit or a plant.
When the entire audience cheered Perry for killing people... that was real. The response was too widespread to be fake.
When someone boo's at a rally (as a plant) how can the audience respond? If they boo the heckler it might get reported as the entire audience joining in the booing started by the original heckler. They can't cheer unless the person speaking calls out the heckler in such a way as to give the audience something to cheer about that is in obvious opposition to what the heckler has said. It is better to simply ignore the heckler.
Shit like this still happens. However, as long as I know what bias to expect from a given media outlet I know when to say, "OH MANZ THAT DUDEZ GOT SOME KILLA EDITING SKILLZZZ!!!" instead of "OMFG!!! DAT DUDEZ GUNNA KEEL SOMEONEZ!!!"
For the record: I was laughing my ass off when I saw this particular network reporting on this event. I found it amazing how every shot was framed so that you could not tell the race of the guy with the gun. Even the talking heads on the network thought the guy was white! Seriously, it takes some big balls to be this blatantly biased.
My favorite plant is this during the 2000 election recount where a angry mob formed in Florida demanding an end to the recount in one of the counties.
Do you have any links to the reporting around the incident? I'd love to read them.
Besides, I always ignore edited posts that don't offer a listing of revisions like Wikipedia does.
Interesting article, I think this puts into words something many of us already were feeling.
@SqadronROE : Those who have cheered and booed for certain things at the Tea Bag conventions recently are seriously putting their toes right up to the 'human' line, IMHO.
See, when Palin says that Paul Revere drove a '57 Chevy through Boston to warn everyone that the British were coming because everyone was worried that the British would take away their guns, that's satire.
When Bachmann says that the earth is only six thousand years old, that's satire.
When a teabagger says, "Keep the Feds out of my Medicare", he's a plant.
On a related note, I am constantly fascinated by the people who vote republican when they know it's against their interests. Nuri really stated it succinctly when she called it "aspiration bias" because they somehow think that, one day, the policies that benefit the top two percent will somehow (I know I'm using a lot of "somehows", but I'm trying to verbalize how little chance I think they have) benefit them as well because they will somehow magically move into that top two percent.
I think "aspiration bias" works another way as well. One reason people buy snobby coffee is because even snobby coffee can be had for relatively little money. A person can spend six dollars on a cup of coffee and, for a very little time, imagine that they're living the good life, maybe even on a par with that top two percent. Voting republican is a little like that. It doesn't cost a person anything to self-identify as a conservative and vote republican, and like that Starbuck's coffee, they can imagine for that brief moment that they're a big shot.
What other reasons could there be? They certainly can't be making rational decisions based on what the republicans tell them they're going to do because they pretty much spell out in plain terms that they intend to send everyone but the aforementioned top two percent into economic oblivion.