by Jack Lee
In the spirit of being fair, I want to go on record to say that I believe a majority of the Occupy Wall Street movement do not endorse the kind of violence we saw in Oakland. ( They also did next to nothing to stop it.) And I will take it a step further, the OWS has some legitimate issues that deserve to be aired. (They also have some stupid issues that don’t.) However, I stand by my original opinion, that some in the OWS leadership were spoiling for a fight and Oakland was the perfect place. You don’t hype this theme that it’s rich against poor, you don’t call for a city wide shut down and you sure don’t try to block intersections… when you’re strictly non-violent. You know what this will lead too and especially in Oakland!
Almost comically, the city fathers have been twisting and turning on what to do about the chaos, to the point they look like pretzels! They took the irresponsible position that teachers could take the day off to protest with the stipulation that they had to find a substitute teacher. Turns out there were not nearly enough subs (duh moment), but they took off anyway…of course. But, when you’re already at the very bottom of scholastic achievement and at the top of drop out rates, what’s to lose, except the cost to the taxpayers? Hello….we’re paying you to teach, not protest.
While we’re on this subject, what’s up with Obama?
Has anyone heard anything out of our community organizer in chief about this latest round of violence? He was Johnnie- on-the-spot when a Cambridge cop and black homeowner got into an argument over a burglary call. Remember that one? He accused the Cambridge police of racism, then he backed off and eventually the two people involved were invited to the White House for a beer and a chit chat.
This is a nation-wide, and to a degree a word-wide movement, so when it starts getting violent here, like it did in Paris and London, you would think the president ought to at least have a brief word of condemnation. Quite a few of us believe Obama’s silence on OWS signifies consent. Or at the very least, he’s pleased to have it as a diversion away from his financial blunders like the $1.5b Solyndra scandal or Operation Fast and Furious.
Re: “In the spirit of being fair, I want to go on record to say that I believe a majority of the Occupy Wall Street movement do not endorse the kind of violence we saw in Oakland.”
And what did that majority do about it?
What did that majority do to try to prevent it?
What did that majority do when they were confronted by police and were told to evacuate their illegal occupation?
What did that majority do when they were told to disperse prior to the situation breaking out in a riot?
What is that majority doing now in the aftermath?
Who is going to clean up and repair this mess? GUESS WHO! The taxpayer, the private citizen, and those evil corporatist overlords, the insurance companies.
My bet is that not a damn single OWS occupier will be held accountable. Heck, it won’t surprise me at all to see a majority of the rioters end up being released and never charged. Those that do face charges will be given a slap on the hand and exit to cheers from left wing protesters gathered outside the courthouses holding their trials.
Cum-bah-yah, kids.
To be fair, if even a tiny minority of the Tea party had ever been violent in a manner that didn’t even approach the level of this lawless debacle, what would be the howl from the left wing media, left wing mayors, left wing city councils, left wing media?
Remember when Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot? What people were scrambling all over themselves to place blame or at least partial responsibility on the Tea party?
When Kenneth Gladney was beaten by two SEIU thugs (who got off), what was the reaction from the left as so elegantly demonstrated by a frequenter of this very forum? Mockery, marginalization and ridicule.
The left is all about violence in many forms. Get over it, face it, confront it.
To be fair, riots and violence is the way of the left. While maybe a few participate, a large portion of the rest act as enablers or tacitly approve while posing as eschewers of violent acts and rioting.
This is why Islam and the left-wing have so much in common. Call it professional courtesy and mutual respect. Who was is it out front and working together to quash free speech recently? The Democratic party and CAIR. Solidarity, baby!
Who called for a shut down of the City Of Oakland? A minority of the Tea Party? Heck no, it was majority of Occupy Anywhere, Dude radicals.
The blame for violence in Oakland and the riots to come across the US can be placed squarely on the OWS movement and the left. It is time to Get Real.
Remember who it was locally who wrote in his execrable blog with regard to members of the Tea Party, “We need to take them out before they take us out–quite simple when you get right down to it. Ask a combat veteran what he was thinking about when he was pulling the trigger.”
Evidently the trigger puller encourager is one of the big poobahs down at Occupy Chico. How do you like them apples?
One of this man’s more cringe inducing suck-ups recently praised him in this forum for a cribbed, disjointed, rambling speech that effectively said nothing and posed as great oratory. When asked what he thought was so great about the speech he launched in to a patent, regurgitated, worn-out, left-wing diatribe so typical of the left you would think that they go to a training camp to memorize this garbage.
If good, decent folks haven’t yet figured out that the left completely sucks, they taint never going to get a freaking clue.
The Oakland riots were completely predictable and there are more to come.
Meet the OWS. Meet the useful idiots. Meet the people who want to destroy and burn. Meet the revolutionaries.
Meet the left.
Pie, you’re right on target as usual. The majority of OWS did next to nothing to restrain the violence, because I think they wanted the attention that came from it. This was not an unplanned, unexpected thing to result from the protesting. Of course they get to come back on the media and say this was only a small minority of people, they didn’t want violence, then they extoll their own virtues….we’re good, we’re warm fuzzy socialists…yadda, yadda.
Jack” “While we’re on this subject, what’s up with Obama?”
President Obama definitely needs to make a statement condemning this violence, I agree.
“He was Johnnie- on-the-spot when a Cambridge cop and black homeowner got into an argument over a burglary call.”
If I recall he only commented on this incident because he was asked about it during a press conference…he didn’t bring it up. Although in my opinion, he should have said that it wasn’t the president’s place to comment on such a minor issue.
“He accused the Cambridge police of racism”
No, he didn’t. You are remembering this wrong. He did say the officer acted “stupidly,” which he shouldn’t have said. But he never accused the officer of racism.
“This is a nation-wide, and to a degree a word-wide movement, so when it starts getting violent here, like it did in Paris and London, you would think the president ought to at least have a brief word of condemnation.”
I 100% agree on this point.
Pie Guevara:
“When Kenneth Gladney was beaten by two SEIU thugs (who got off), what was the reaction from the left as so elegantly demonstrated by a frequenter of this very forum? Mockery, marginalization and ridicule.”
That’s because this never happened. Kenneth Gladney was never beaten by anyone from the SEIU. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Given that Gladney himself was never able to provide any evidence that he had been beaten, I find it unlikely that you can do so; but maybe I’ll be surprised.
Correct Jack, when Obama called the police officers stupid he was effectively calling them racists. Even the black Cambridge police officers knew that and said as much.
The only people who say different are self appointed, half-bake apologists picking at nits and attempting to hide behind weasel worded technicality.
It was clear in the context, it was perfectly clear then, it is perfectly clear now. Racism was the charge leveled by Henry Louis Gates and Obama responded in kind. It was ALL ABOUT racism, period.
Otherwise, what was it that was so stupid about the police officers?
Duh.
Double duh.
ROFLMMFAO!!!
You old people must be out of the loop. The reason why occupiers don’t do anything about the police violence is because it was initiated by undercover police officers. There are soundbites and youtube videos exposing the Oakland police for displaying the need to “infiltrate the protesters in order to be able to control them.” Let me repeat this. The police are going to the protests in plain clothes in order to give the uniformed police an excuse to gas and shoot at innocent people. God Bless America, The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
IMO, Quentin Colgan would support any movement (no matter how detestable) so long as it provides a moral smoke-screen (no matter how false) to disguise and allow him to express his innate misanthropy.
Quentin Colgate will fit nicely in with any angry mob.
“you mess with [his] country and [he] will kill you. It really IS just that simple.”
A few blogs back, I called Quentin the biggest blowhard since Foghorn Leghorn. I followed with a critique of his speech to the troops. His response was to call me a coward, a pussy, and an REMF. I think he was intending to disparage me for not dropping by his City Hall sponsored campout and sleep-over with the rest of the boyz. I couldnt help but feel a little hurt, even though I realized he responds the same way to all those who question his oratory prowess, his sanity, or his heroism in the face of whatever it is that frightens him out there on the front lines of the battle.
His somewhat primitive method of debate made me wonder if it was worthwhile to continue with him, knowing that the best he could come up with is his Pee Wee Herman style rebuttals. (I know you are, but what am I.)
But recently Ive been reminded that he has shown an anti-gay sentiment, with his accusations about men he despises engaging in gay activities. I think he should explain himself about that side of his character, although I would expect his explanation to be more Pee Wee Herman.
And now hes threatening death for anyone he perceives to . . .mess with my country. . . Anyone who has followed his tangled threads will wonder how many of the PS contributors are already on his hit list.
Quentin, you are coming dangerously close to advocating violence and murder for your political cause, if you’re not there already. You’ve done this before. It is unacceptable.
Jack and Tina, you might want to think about this.
Rex Crosley: “There are soundbites and youtube videos exposing the Oakland police for displaying the need to ‘infiltrate the protesters in order to be able to control them.'”
Gosh…you mean they were actually doing police work? What a novel idea!
“…in order to give the uniformed police an excuse to gas and shoot at innocent people.”
Innocent? Now that’s a laugh!
“People” should know that if they have joined this group of anarchists, Marxists and activists they are looking for big trouble. Stay home if you don’t want to find yourself in the middle of mayhem.
“People” do not have the right to disrupt the business of other “people”…that would be called trampling all over their rights!
“People” do not have the right to create mayhem and destroy property! That would be a violation of the laws of our country. “People” in our republic have responsibilities as citizens to uphold the law and respect the rights of fellow citizens.
Selfish adolescents often miss this half of the equation. If they had been awake and conscious during civics class they would realize that we are blessed to live in a country that affords us the ability to address our grievances without trampling all over the rights of others
UPDATE: Evidently Post Scripts pulled Quentin Colgan’s threat of murder before I had a chance to post the following response. I have to wonder, did the E-R have a hand in quashing it? If they did, they have done this community and their readers a disservice.
Here is my original post —
Re Quentin Colgan’s Unveiled Threat:
Quentin Colgan | November 4, 2011 9:42 PM | Reply
as for me?
you mess with my country and I will kill you. It really IS just that simple. Just as millions of Americans before me.
You got a problem with that? With all the treasonous bullshit you haters post here, I would have NO problem convincing a jury I was upholding the oath I took!
Five out of six–that’s ten out of twelve jurors to you, Poe–believe the TEA Party is destroying America.
The other two would acquit because I was putting you out of your stupidity induced suffering!
Interesting. For Post Scripts speaking their minds Quentin Colgan threatens murder. It really is as simple as that.
Colgan even goes so far as to mention me personally. (To those of you who do not know, “Poe” is how Mr. Colgan typically addresses me.)
When Quentin Colgan threatened gun violence with his thinly veiled “pull the trigger”, “quite simple when you get right down to it” blog post no one took him seriously. Perhaps some folks will take this “man” seriously now.
Here is free speech Quentin Colgan style in action for you. You speak up on peril of your life.
How do you like them apples? Does anyone wonder now why I prefer to post here anonymously? Anyone?
Moreover, since Quentin has an active and responsible position as spokesflea for Occupy Chico, does anyone really have any doubt where the Occupy Whatever Dude movement is headed?
By the way, Quentin, I do know how to reduce fractions but I never once presumed I could ever possibly reduce you to one. At least not as well as you have done to yourself. Instead of pounding drums down there at Occupy Chico they should play the M*A*S*H theme “Suicide Is Painless” every time you show up. But not the film version with the words, that would be too obvious.
Pie: “Racism was the charge leveled by Henry Louis Gates and Obama responded in kind. It was ALL ABOUT racism, period.”
I agree. Had this been a white professor, dusgrunbtled and contentious with the officer, it probably never would have made the news and Obama wouldn’t have been asked about it. the man was arrested for disorderly conduct.
As reported on ABC the President said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8148986&page=1
The report continues:
Page 2 of the arrest report contains the officer’s account of what happened:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/henry-louis-gates-jr-police-report?page=1
See the complete arrest doc (several pages-use arrow at top right to view all three) posted at The Smoking Gun:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/henry-louis-gates-jr-police-report
Both Obama and Gates made bigoted assumptions about the officer in my opinion. This is what comes of making an industry of the racism.
The “content of a mans character” is easily detected in this instance. Both Gates and Obama display examples of very poor character. The officer, in my opinion, displayed exemplary character. He acted as a professional and a gentleman. In light of the events at the national level that followed the incident he was also incredibly gracious.
As these so-called protests reveal, it is often the malcontented, disrespectful, lawless citizen that could be labeled “pig”.
You have to wonder just how thick headed some people are who post in this forum. The same people who rely upon “Media Matters” for their balanced information to form an opinion?
*Sigh*
To repeat AGAIN for the mentally specially-abled quibbler —
At the trial two SEIU thugs (get that, TWO), each twice Gladney’s size (get that TWICE in size, each ONE of them), admitted that they had an altercation — i.e. came to blows, e.g. hit and kicked (beat) — Kenneth Gladney, but their story was that they did so only in self defense. The ONLY witness brought in was an SEIU activist who testified that it was Kenneth Gladney who started the fight. (Get that, there was a fight. It was taken as fact at the trial. It was admitted to at the trial by the defense. Do people get beaten in fights? Yes or no?) The jury acquitted.
That is all I have to say on the subject. That is all I have EVER had to say on the subject. I have said it multiple times now but the very same mocking, marginalizing, ridiculing and quibbling poster in here keeps demanding “proof”.
Meet the left. Meet the useful idiots. Meet the quibbling quislings.
Reasonably intelligent people can connect the dots for themselves, come to their own conclusions about how well the trial was conducted, and decide for themselves if they believe justice was served.
Two large SEIU thugs went down to a town hall meeting and outside confronted a slightly built (cancer survivor) black man giving away “Don’t Tread On Me” flags after Barak Obama announced at different times —
“I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”
“Punch back twice as hard.”
These were not the first instances of President Obama making threatening quotes and they won’t be the last.
End of story. You figure it out.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently declared that Barak Obama owns Occupy Wall Street and that the responsibility for it rests squarely on his shoulders.
I agree.
Giuliani said, “This is a very dangerous movement and it’s ironic it’s happening under a president who promised to unify us. Barack Obama owns the Occupy Wall Street movement, it would not have happened but for his class warfare.”
Add Obama’s class warfare to a growing list of threats the president has made from his bully pulpit during his tenure and you get the formula for Occupy Oakland violence and what Occupy Chico could turn into under leadership of people like Quentin Colgan.
But, of course, everyone here is free to draw their own conclusions.
Mock that.
Just to let you know, my laughing fit was in response to PREMF aka Q’s hilarious post that should have been placed here forever not removed. Jack and Tina, I hope you have it saved for the day he does off someone, It should help send him to prison maybe to hell :).
Re Toby’s:
Just to let you know, my laughing fit was in response to PREMF aka Q’s hilarious post that should have been placed here forever not removed. Jack and Tina, I hope you have it saved for the day he does off someone, It should help send him to prison maybe to hell :).
See my post to the comments section above. I have reproduced Mr. Colgan’s post verbatim.
So far it avoids censor.
Jack and Tina, if I were you I would have a zero tolerance policy towards threats of violence. If someone threatens murder they should be immediately banned. Quentin has done this before. I don’t think he contributes much to this site and I think he shouldn’t be allowed to post here anymore. But of course, it’s up to you on how to handle this.
Pie Guevara:”At the trial two SEIU thugs (get that, TWO), each twice Gladney’s size (get that TWICE in size, each ONE of them), admitted that they had an altercation — i.e. came to blows, e.g. hit and kicked (beat) — Kenneth Gladney,”
Pie Guevara, a beating is a one-sided affair. From the medical records we have of Reverend McCowan, one of the “SEIU thugs,” it seems that he was injured in the altercation. In the video which begins after the altercation is pretty much over, both McCowan and Gladney are both on the ground.
We have seen McCowan’s medical records. They are available online. Gladney’s, however, do not seem to be available, and he did not present them in court. You’ve also admitted that Gladney changed his story a few times. You have yet to provide a reasonable explanation for any of these facts.
“but their story was that they did so only in self defense. The ONLY witness brought in was an SEIU activist who testified that it was Kenneth Gladney who started the fight.”
Well, why is that? Why didn’t Gladney have any witnesses to support him in court? Are we supposed to believe that Gladney just wasn’t allowed to present any witnesses, or his medical records? I don’t believe that.
“Get that, there was a fight. It was taken as fact at the trial. It was admitted to at the trial by the defense. Do people get beaten in fights? Yes or no?”
Pie, by this logic, McCowan was beaten by Gladney too. In fact, as I stated above, we have more evidence of McCowan’s injuries than we do of Gladney’s.
“I have said it multiple times now but the very same mocking, marginalizing, ridiculing and quibbling poster in here keeps demanding “proof”.”
I did not demand “proof,” I asked for “evidence.” Thanks for confirming, once again, that you don’t have any.
By the way, Mr. Colgan has not only aimed his death threat at the people write Post Scripts but at me personally.
This is one of the reasons why I post anonymously. I take Colgan’s death threat very seriously, shouldn’t the Post Scrips bloggers, other contributors to the NorCalBlog community, the E-R, and Ryan Olson also take it seriously too?
Was there ever a better reason to apply a zero-tolerance policy? We would with a third grader, why not Mr. Colgan?
Is the reason why Quentin Colgan’s death threat was pulled down because Ryan Olson or another E-R employee got wind of it and demanded it? Is the E-R trying to push this under the rug?
Personally, I think Post Scripts should feature Mr. Colgan’s death threat in a special blog post and ask the many questions I have been asking myself. And provide some answers.
Is Colgan a real threat who should be taken seriously? Given his prominence in Occupy Chico, should we presume that other members of Occupy Chico also advocate or support violence to the point of homicide or threats of homicide? Can we expect Occupy Chico to follow the path of Occupy Oakland, but at an elevated level following Colgan’s lead? Doesn’t Colgan’s threat of violence fall under the legal definition of assault?
Colgan publicly denied advocating gun violence after his thinly veiled threat of gun violence against Tea party members. Now he is issuing death threats. Doesn’t this suggest a pattern? Is no one taking this seriously including Tea party members, the good folks of Post Scripts, the people at the E-R, or the police for that matter? Shouldn’t Quentin Colgan’s death threat be presented to law enforcement?
These are but a few of the questions I have been mulling over all afternoon. Now I am done and have to go on to other things. But I think someone else should pick up the ball and continue with this discussion.
I do not believe that to let this slide into obscurity is the way to deal with Mr. Colgan at this point. He has crossed the line by a parsec. I am convinced he is a dangerous person. Dangerous to free speech which he tries to intimidate and abrogate with death threats, dangerous to the reputation of the E-R and all NorCalBloggers, and dangerous to the public at large since he seems to feel it his his God given right to kill with justification anyone he thinks a treasonous bullshit hater.
To borrow from Gertrude Stein: A weasel is a weasel is a weasel.
Perhaps I should make my last post a tad bit more explicit.
Chris: I did not demand “proof,” I asked for “evidence.”
“Proof”, “evidence” is there a substantive difference in common usage between the two? Please expound.
Ooops, please do not expound, I won’t readit anyway. I have had my fill of your quibbling dodges and reaching . Go tell it to one of your professors. I have long lost interest.
So, again to the quisling quibbler who so loves to play insignificant and tedious word games I reply —
To borrow from Gertrude Stein: A weasel is a weasel is a weasel.
Anybody can sign on here with any name that they want. Knowing that it is impossible for you to logically demonize Mr. Colgan. Unless you are idiots. I was going to respond to Tina’s rantings however she expressed that she believes that peaceful protesters are criminals and that the police have the right to use riot gear and chemical agents to punish normal people for expressing their 1st amendment rights. That is some of the dumbest things I have ever heard and most likely the rantings of a troll.
Sinead O’Connor: I Was Only Joking About Wanting to Murder the Pope
Irish songstress Sinead OConnor came under fire a few weeks ago when she took to Twitter to announce that she would perform a “bloodbath” if Pope Benedict XVI visited Ireland.
“Young people of Ireland I love u’ said Sinead as she pulled the [f**king] trigger,” the artist tweeted, referencing the famous words of John Paul II, which he uttered in his 1979 pilgrimage to Ireland.
But OConnor is changing her tune, insisting that her words were all in innocent humor
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/11/06/sinead-oconnor-was-only-joking-about-wanting-to-murder-pope/?test=faces#ixzz1cwQOUpXT
Hey Q, are you an Irish He/she? This crap sounds just like something you would say.
‘Occupy Wall Street’ Protester Throws Violent Fit in McDonald’s When Denied Free Food.
NEW YORK — An “Occupy Wall Street” protester threw a violent fit in a McDonalds after employees refused to give him free food.
Fisika Bezabeh, 27, ripped a credit-card reader from a counter and threw it at workers at about 2:30am local time Friday at the downtown Manhattan restaurant, which has become a bathroom spot for protesters.
No one was hurt by Bezabeh, who has been seen hanging out with protesters in the occupied park, police sources said.
He was charged with criminal mischief.
Cheryll Forsatz, a McDonalds spokeswoman, said, Its still an ongoing police investigation, and were cooperating with the police.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/05/occupy-wall-street-protester-throws-violent-fit-in-mcdonalds-when-denied-free/?test=latestnews#ixzz1cwYPm3Oz
Interesting. Quentin Colgan issues a death threat and now he treats it with sarcasm and as if it were a big joke on me.
Some joke.
What will his contortion be tomorrow?
Does this person really represent Occupy Chico? Is this what the Occupy Chico movement is all about? Jokers who issue death threats?
Quentin Colgan is a repeat felon who was once convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. His threats of violence should be laughed off? I should laugh it off?
Haw, haw, haw?
Perhaps Chris and Quentin Colgan suck-up and Joe Shaw would care to comment. Any other Occupy Chico folks or Colgan toadies care to chime in?
How about you Libby?
How about Rex Crosley?
By the way, Mr. Colgan, I am not a member of the Tea party movement. I have told you this several times before but you never seem to pay that any attention. Nevertheless I have to wonder, what to the rest of your fellow Occupy Chico participants think of you and your death threats? Do they think it a big joke too?
I have to admit, you OWS folks sure are a funny bunch. I have seen just how funny you are in Oakland and in hundreds of video interviews on YouTube and scattered across the internet.
Some joke.
Evidently Rex Crosley has nothing to offer on Quentin Colgan’s death threat. It was not only directed at me Mr. Crosley. It was directed at the creators of this blog.
Anyone with a modicum of internet skills and patience could easily trace my relatively anonymous post here back to me personally.
But then Colgan’s death threat is just a big joke, right?
As far as I can tell Quentin Colgan has been banned (at least for now) from posting to Post Scripts. When his comments slip through they wil be removed until I hear from Jack that his comments are welcome once more.
Rex Crosley: “I was going to respond to Tina’s rantings however she expressed that she believes that peaceful protesters are criminals and that the police have the right to use riot gear and chemical agents to punish normal people for expressing their 1st amendment rights.”
Apparently you failed english and reading as well as civics!
I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that if you are a peaceful protester and you throw in with anarchists, Marxists and activists who are willing to create mayhem and break the law you cannot blame the police for what happens next.
Sorry dude you don’t get excused as an innocent bystander when you are willing to hold hands with the lawless.
The innocent would be those people who have to make their way through smelly trash and loitering protesters to get to work, small shop owners who have lost a lot of business, property owners that have had windows broken or walls spray painted, and businesses that have had their shipments stalled.
You don’t appear to even understand the root of the problem or you wouldn’t be impeding these ordinary citizens from making a living in a very difficult economic time. March your butt to Washington DC…that is where the bribes take place, the special interests get special treatment and the laws get written to create dangerous stupid conditions. Lawmakers, dude, without them interfering the free market would work.
Re Tina’s: “As far as I can tell Quentin Colgan has been banned (at least for now) from posting to Post Scripts. When his comments slip through they wil be removed until I hear from Jack that his comments are welcome once more.”
Now that I find most unfortunate. Mr. Colgan recently made two posts mocking me and posing that his death threats were some sort of joke. (I am not laughing, are you?)
Now Post Scripts has removed from public view his initial threat and his sarcastic follow up so that readers may no longer judge what sort of person Quentin Colgan is by his own words.
That is very unfortunate.
I am sure we could all do with a break from Quentin Colgan (as well as his cadre of apologists and suck-ups), but I think your timing misplaced. You should feed him a little more rope and then give him the yank. Let this play out, don’t quash it. I find it quite revealing and think your many other readers may too.
I say let Quentin be Quentin.
Tina, thank you for banning Quentin. He was way over the line and that kind of violent rhetoric should not be tolerated.
Pie Guevara: “Perhaps Chris and Quentin Colgan suck-up and Joe Shaw would care to comment.”
Pie, I already told Jack and Tina in this thread that I don’t think they should allow Quentin to post here anymore. You quoted a portion of the very comment in which I made this request. But of course, you love to brag about how you don’t actually read my comments before responding to them, so maybe you missed that part.
“”Proof”, “evidence” is there a substantive difference in common usage between the two? Please expound.”
You can’t be serious. Yes, there is a difference, just as there is a difference between an altercation and a beating, and it is neither “quibbling” nor “word games” to point that out. I don’t believe you’re really so ignorant as to not know this stuff, so why pretend to be? Why waste my time with these meaningless replies, unless you truly don’t have anything substantial to say? Why not just admit that you have no evidence and be done with it? Instead you resort to saying the most ridiculous things possible in order to avoid just admitting you were wrong.
“Ooops, please do not expound, I won’t readit anyway.”
This is just so freaking petty. I’ve asked you before, if you’re going to treat me as if I’m not worth responding to, then don’t respond! You’ve said stuff like this so many times, and you always go back on it later because you have more insults to share.
Maybe you feel like I don’t treat you with the proper deference you deserve, but at least I try to respond to your arguments. When you ask a question, I give you an answer. When you ask for evidence, I give you what I have. You just insult and demean me while completely ignoring the questions I ask you and the points I raise. Then you act like I am out of line, and that I’m not even worthy of talking to. You like to claim that you are just using my own tactics against me, but I do NOT treat you this way. If I really thought you were so beneath me, I just wouldn’t respond to you.
LOL I guess an undercover cop posted as Q, to make him look like a psycho? As if he needed any help looking or sounding crazy.
I read the post by Chris, it was hands down the creepiest “concern” for peoples safety I have ever read.
Re Chris’: This is just so freaking petty.
Yep Chris, that is you exactly. I could not have said it better. Keep on quibbling, dude. Tedium and nit picking to the extreme is the only game you have.
Re Toby’s: LOL I guess an undercover cop posted as Q, to make him look like a psycho? As if he needed any help looking or sounding crazy.
I read the post by Chris, it was hands down the creepiest “concern” for peoples safety I have ever read.
Yeah, I got a chill on that one myself.
Pie: “Now that I find most unfortunate. Mr. Colgan recently made two posts mocking me and posing that his death threats were some sort of joke. (I am not laughing, are you?)”
No Pie I am not laughing.
I would like to ask for some patience on your part as Jack and I work through a problem concerning posts made by Quentin Colgan. Jack appears to be unavailable for the moment but as soon as he and I can communicate the issue will be resolved one way or another. It may or may not include reposting the original threat. The ban, as far as I know will continue.
Re Chris’: “Tina, thank you for banning Quentin. He was way over the line and that kind of violent rhetoric should not be tolerated.”
Now here is a perfect example of how I and Chris (and the left in general from my experience) differ. That difference is profound.
I won’t fault Post Scripts for removing Quentin Colgan’s death threat or his subsequent posts indicating that I (and others) are morons and his threat was a joke. Post Scripts is only doing what the E-R is pressuring them to do or they are attempting to follow the policy and rules guidelines. After all, we all participate here only at the pleasure of the E-R. Ryan Olson can make up and selectively enforce any rules he pleases. NorCalBlogs is not a democracy. It is on a server either owned by or leased by the Enterprise-Record. They can do with that server anything they durn well please.
Needless to say I readily admit we could all use a break from Quentin, but that is not the point.
Here is the biscuit. While the left wing and their major stronghold (outside of the Communist party), the Democratic party, actively seek to quash free speech and are highly successful at it, I have the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view.
I believe that all views should be welcome to be expressed openly in a free marketplace of ideas. I believe those views that are bound to fail will fail and that all stand or fall on their own merits. Also, contrary to what the left believes, I do not believe that the average citizen (such as myself) is either a dope or a dupe. (Such as Joe Shaw who, apparently, believes conservatives and Tea party members are.)
I also do not believe that the right to free speech includes the right to incite violence. But what the heck, that sort of thing is popular these days, especially with the left and including the current occupant of the oval office. I think I can get over it. This too will ultimately fail.
Freedom of speech, a free marketplace for ideas regardless of rhetoric YES!
Suppression and intolerance and political correctness NO!
Mock that.
If I ran this blog, Quentin Colgan would remain a prominent feature and I would give his death threat exactly what it deserves, full accounting in a blog post of its own and titled “Quentin Colgan Death Threat Raises Eyebrows”
But hey, that is just me.
One more comment and then I’ll let this die a natural death.
Maybe.
Re Chris’: “Tina, thank you for banning Quentin. He was way over the line and that kind of violent rhetoric should not be tolerated.”
What makes you so sure this is simply a case of “violent rhetoric”? Can you provide any evidence that suggests Quentin Colgan’s death threat is merely a form of rhetoric?
If Colgan actually followed through on his threat, would it still qualify as rhetoric?
I think Colgan’s death threat was also intended to intimidate. It was meant to shut people up OR ELSE there would be hell to pay. He would kill the treasonous haters who are destroying America.
Wow, some rhetoric. I think it stands on its own merits, don’t you?
*sigh* So this is the level of response I can expect out of you, Pie Guevara. No matter what I say, I’m the bad guy.
If Jack and Tina ban Quentin, hey, you disagree, but they’re just doing what they have to.
If I agree with Jack and Tina’s ban on Quentin, I am a Communist who hates free speech.
This only reflects poorly on you, Pie. It makes you look like you can’t answer the very simple questions I ask of you, and so you have to waste time with needless distractions from the argument.
In this thread, I asked you two valid questions. The first is, if Gladney was actually beaten by Reverend McClowen, why was McClowan the only one able to provide his medical records for the court and for the public?
The second question is, why do you still believe Gladney’s story when you admit he has changed it numerous times?
In another thread, I asked you some other questions which you also ignored, but you can answer them here if you’d like. Why do you believe Steve Doocy issued a correction and an apology for the “Obama wanted to apologize for Hiroshima” story, if, according to you, that story was actually true?
In that same thread, I also posed the question of why you thought it was fair to accuse me of engaging in a “left wing smear” against Herman Cain in a comment in which I quoted and agreed with a conservative writer for the American Spectator.
To be fair, I also did not answer some of your questions in that thread, but that was only because you told me not to. You said your questions were rhetorical; in other words, you wanted me to see them, but you didn’t actually want me to answer them. Which…really makes me wonder why you address me at all on this blog. Your goal is clearly not to have a discussion or a debate with me, it’s apparently just to show how superior you are to me.
But that doesn’t work, because when you completely ignore my questions, and instead reply with nothing but sneering taunts, you make it look like you don’t actually have good arguments, or anything valuable to say at all.
I remember it took you over a month and about a dozen requests from me before you responded to my question asking you where you heard that the two SEIU members admitted to beating Kenneth Gladney. And even then, your answer was bizarre and made no sense. Admitting an altercation occurred is the same as admitting to beating someone? Really?
I’m just getting sick of these games, Pie.
“What makes you so sure this is simply a case of “violent rhetoric”? Can you provide any evidence that suggests Quentin Colgan’s death threat is merely a form of rhetoric?”
Good lord, and you accuse me of “quibbling” and nitpicking? That’s exactly what you’re doing here. No, I don’t know whether it was ONLY violent rhetoric.
Toby, please explain what part of my comment you found to be “creepy.”
Chris, here’s a life tip from someone who has more than a few years on you: Don’t try to fix what you can’t. There’s plenty out here that you can fix and its a far more rewarding use of your limited time. But, knowing the difference between the fixable and unfixable, hmmm…well, I guess that just comes in time (age). Till you get there you’ll just have to take my word for it.
; )
And by the way, this is not to say I agree or disagree with your position, I’m just saying don’t frustrate yourself so much, it’s not healthy.
Chris, it is called a feeling, not easily explained. I read what you posted and instead of feeling safe and sound or reassured, I felt creepy, ill at ease. I imagine it had more to do with Q and his death threats.
Speaking of Cupcake, I see he had to call the police to save his miserable ass. Is that irony or hypocrisy or maybe both?
Re Chris’: “blah, blah, blah … blah, blah, blah …”
Should I give this mindless, tedious Chris crap one more go?
Chris, I answer questions from you as I see fit to bother with. You have a problem with that? Take your complaint to your mommy or one of your professors.
Chris: “In this thread, I asked you two valid questions. The first is, if Gladney was actually beaten by Reverend McClowen, why was McClowan the only one able to provide his medical records for the court and for the public?”
Who says that McGowan was the only one “able” to provide his medical records? Gladney was interviewed by the local paper at the hospital while being treated in the emergency room. I have no idea what happened to the medical record of that. Ask the prosecutor.
As I have said numerous times before, but Chris continues to completely ignore, the defense admitted that both defendants had been in a fight with Gladney. Could McGowan have received injuries as a result or have stumbled to the curb and broken his shoulder? Could be. Or it could be that the slight Gladney got the best of two SEIU goons twice his size. Chris, you can reach your own conclusions. (Ooops, you already have, silly me, scratch that.) That Gladney fellow must be one helluva tough and wiry cancer survivor.
Would you believe I am actually beginning to partially come around to your point of view, Chris? Gladney was approached by two SEUI thugs, each one of them twice his size, who confronted him for passing out “Don’t Tread On Me” flags outside a town hall meeting after Obama announced his “get in their faces” and “punch back” policy. Reportedly both goons approached him calling him racially charged epithets. (But it is OK for one black man to call another black man ni**er no matter how weird that is, no?)
And little ol’ Gladney got the best of those two giant SEUI a******s. I can see it. Cancer survivors tend to be a bit scrappy. They fight for their lives.
Moreover black men, when called ni**er in a confrontational context (even by other black men) tend to get a bit scrappy too. Funny how that works, don’t you think?
As for Gladney “changing his story” before the press, it could be for many reasons. Perhaps his memory was blurred. Perhaps he was confused. Perhaps he is a liar. Perhaps he was nervous and misspoke. I won’t speculate on that, I leave that up to you and believe you can draw your own conclusions. (Ooops, silly me! I forgot. You already have.)
Chris: “You said your questions were rhetorical; in other words, you wanted me to see them, but you didn’t actually want me to answer them.”
Duh. That is what a rhetorical question is. Haven’t you at least learned that yet? You need to fill out your course schedule, dude. A rhetorical question is one where an answer is not expected. It is used to make a point and no answer is required nor expected. A rhetorical question contains its own answer by its very nature. That is what a rhetorical question is. Evidently your education is doing you a great disservice and has left you quite ignorant. I think you should get your money (or your parents money) back.
As to the rest of your drivel, Chris, I am not going to waste my time answering it. Get over it.
Toby:
“Chris, it is called a feeling, not easily explained. I read what you posted and instead of feeling safe and sound or reassured, I felt creepy, ill at ease. I imagine it had more to do with Q and his death threats.”
That’s probably a safe bet.
Pie, thanks for providing a more substantial than usual reply. I agree that the behavior of McCowan and the other union member was out of line. I don’t think they disputed the name-calling, and if they did start verbally harassing Gladney then they were definitely in the wrong.
And no, I don’t think it’s OK for black guys to throw the “n” word around, especially as an insult.
That said, I have only meant to defend the SEIU members from allegations that they engaged in what you once described as a “merciless beating.” While it seems that McCowan and the other union member behaved badly, it also seems that Gladney greatly exaggerated the extent of his injuries. I think we’ve both said everything we can about this case, and I’m willing to drop it if you are.
And yes, Pie, I know what a rhetorical question is, I just don’t think it’s very respectful to ask one in a debate. All questions in a debate should be intended for your opponent to answer.
Re Chris’: “And yes, Pie, I know what a rhetorical question is, I just don’t think it’s very respectful to ask one in a debate. All questions in a debate should be intended for your opponent to answer.”
Baloney. You just went and looked rhetorical question up after I pointed out what it meant. Clearly you had no idea given how you framed the complaint in your previous post. Good for you. At least you had the intellectual curiosity to check my explanation out for yourself.
Double baloney. Rhetorical questions are often used in a debate, formal or otherwise. You do not know what the heck you are talking about. You have posed many a rhetorical question in these pages without even knowing it!
Do you really still think this is a formal “debate” you are engaged in here? Dang, that is just too funny. I would pin your ears back in a formal debate. Heck, any high school senior with one semester of being on a debate team could make you look like a complete fool without even trying. You would be so deep into the minus points category it would be legendary.
Try and wrap your head around this Chris: I am not in a debate with you, I have never been in a debate with you, I would not waste my time debating you. This “debate” is a fantasy of yours. I frequent these pages for a very few distinct reasons. 1) To get information, 2) To commune with people I respect and with whom I share similar views, 3) To read and share the opinions of people I respect be they from the blog authors or from other sources, 4) To express my opinion and take on things, and lastly 5) to pin the ears back of any half-baked left-wing liberal chump who comes into this forum to take asinine, condescending pot shots at, and expound stereotypes, prejudices, and often demented world views to people they do not even know. (I must admit, I sometimes have a lot of fun with #5 in this list. Joe Shaw was like shooting fish in a barrel. He totally freaked. Watching you wig out when I treated you to your own methods and tactics was another, but I am tired of you now.)
As for “respect”, you crossed the line with me long ago and keep crossing it. I only afford you the same “respect” you have shown me and others in here. You should thank your lucky stars that Jack and Tina are so tolerant of your arrogant condescending sneers, personal attacks, and endless tedious quibbling. They treat you with far more courtesy and respect than you have ever afforded them or anyone else. I won’t. Stick with them. You might learn something about what real civil behavior is.
Lastly, do not try and posture the high road with me, Chris, you witless, oblivious phony. I have seen you in operation for too long. I have your number.
Which is exactly why I have been encouraging you to not respond to anything I post here and why I have not been bothering, for the most part, to read your posts. Am I getting through to you yet?
One last thing before I be accused of flogging a dead horse.
The questions you posed, Chris, you could have easily answered yourself if you had spent a little time thinking about them.
I was not put on this earth to answer your questions but you seem to think that every time you pose a question you deserve an answer. Be it from me or anyone else who frequents this forum.
Quite often you could answer your own questions if you would only to take a little time and reflect on what possible answers there could be but, evidently, you were put on this earth to be a boorish pest.
This is another one of your little rhetorical games I have tired of. You endlessly repeat questions that you could easily answer yourself. In fact, you deploy this behavior as one of the weapons that are part of your meager debate fantasy arsenal.
If Tina and Jack want to put up with your obnoxious, nipping, little yap dog ways, more power to them. I prefer to show you the boot.
“Baloney. You just went and looked rhetorical question up after I pointed out what it meant.”
Pie, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but I have to point out that you have no basis for this ridiculous conclusion.
I am sorry you refuse to engage in an actual debate with me.
And despite your constant claims to the contrary, I have to reiterate that I do not treat you with the same level of disrespect which you treat me with. I do not treat you as if you are not worth responding to, and then spend paragraphs talking about how unworthy you are. I do not reply to your posts before reading them fully. I do not brag about responding to your posts before I have even read them. You have no grounds for claiming that you use my own tactics against me; your tactics are your own. I do not behave this way.
Your fifth stated purpose on this blog is petty and juvenile, and it shows you have no respect for people who disagree with you. Mocking people and putting them down would not appear anywhere on my list of reasons for posting on this blog or any other.
Re: “Your fifth stated purpose on this blog is petty and juvenile, and it shows you have no respect for people who disagree with you. Mocking people and putting them down would not appear anywhere on my list of reasons for posting on this blog or any other.”
Too funny, there Chris. You have engaged in EXACTLY just that and when you have I have turned it around on you and jumped in your face — you (snip) — you pose as some sort of angel and start whining.
Get this Chris, I turn it around with good reason. I don’t have much tolerance for left-wing liberal chumps like you who come into this forum to take asinine, condescending pot shots at, and expound stereotypes, prejudices, and often demented world views to people they do not even know.
That is what #5 is all about. The problem is you don’t like it when you encounter someone who is willing to play at your level and throw it right back in your face.
Chris, (snip) Congratulations!
You will sling your s**t again and I may bother to throw it back in your face again or not. Of course, you will posture and pose as if YOU never were offensive to begin with, which is another one of your tedious little games, you (snip).
That is you all over Chris. A (snip). If you question my assessment, go back and read some of your own posts.
By the way …
Re Chris’: I am sorry you refuse to engage in an actual debate with me.
Chris, there is a huge difference between “refuse to engage” and not waste my time. Evidently that simple but profound difference is one that completely escapes you.
I don’t believe you are actually capable of a real debate but even if you were why would I waste my time on you? Why SHOULD I waste my time on you? I can’t think of a single good reason. I find you neither particularly intelligent nor interesting, nor have you ever demonstrated to me that you have anything worthwhile or of true interest to say.
I have seen you attempt to debate and fail numerous times. You never seem to fail to quickly degenerate into a boorish morass of fallacious rhetoric, non-sequitur, cliche’ and tedium.
Sorry kid, not my idea of a good time. There are people and things I find infinitely more interesting and entertaining than you.
OK, I get it. Using the words “creepy”, “phony”, “liar”, and “hypocrite” are no longer acceptable even when they are appropriate.
“Chris, there is a huge difference between “refuse to engage” and not waste my time.”
Ah, to resurrect the parlance of my youth … “cop out”!
Pie, you do not argue, you blather … and we’ve all taken note.
C’mon guys, cease fire! I hate this (snip) business trying to de-escalate things. Gimme a break!
Re Libby’s: “Pie, you do not argue, you blather … and we’ve all taken note.”
You are the very last person who should be making that accusation, Libby. (By the way, who is this “we”. You and Chris? Oh puhleeese.)
Cop-out? Not hardly, there is nothing from Chris I have seen to cop-out too. Have you?
Substantive reBUTTal? 😀
I chose to spend my time as I see fit, dear. Just as do you. I see you preferred not to answer the several questions I put to you in the other Oakland thread. I suppose you considered it a waste of time, no? Yes? Maybe?
Should pull a Chris and ask you them again?
No, I think not. It would be a waste of my time.
Pie, I don’t agree that I am the cause of the conflict that exists between us, but I am interested in solving it. Can you let me know if there’s anything I can do, at this point, that would make you want to get along a little better? Despite my disagreement with most of the people on this website, I like this place. But lately I feel like not posting as much because I don’t want to deal with all the hostility. Maybe I am partially at fault for this. If so, then tell me, what would I have to do to get you to treat me as an equal worthy of respect?
Sometimes I feel like I would have to stop criticizing conservative politicians/positions altogether in order to change the way you treat me. Your responses to me in the thread about the accusations against Herman Cain come to mind. All I did there was offer some criticism of how he was handling the allegations, and backed up my criticism with a piece from the conservative American Spectator; you responded by accusing me of engaging in a “left wing smear” against Cain, even though I took no position on whether the accusations were even true. You have to admit that was unfair on your part.
I have to let you know that I am not going to convert to conservatism or stop making honest and legitimate critiques toward conservatives when I feel it’s justified. But if you have any other actual recommendations for how we can solve this conflict between us, let me know. And it would help if you could point out some actual instances where you think I have lied, shown hypocrisy, or been overly hostile to you.
Re Chris’: “Pie, I don’t agree that I am the cause of the conflict that exists between us, but I am interested in solving it.”
What conflict? I am not conflicted. If you have a problem then, by all means, do not let me get in your way of a solution.
Chris, if you question my assessment of your hypocrisy and your current posturing which belies the repeated mockery, ridicule, and personal attack behavior on your part, go back and read some of your own posts.
I am not going to hold your hand on this.
If you are incapable of honest personal reflection, I don’t have a problem with it. Be that way. It is no skin off my nose.
I think I have covered all I need here, but let me try once more since you refuse to let it go —
1) I am not in, nor have I ever been in a debate with you. Nor am I interested in such. (Moreover, I do not think you are capable of real debate, but hey, maybe that is just me.)
2) As noted above, I frequent this blog to share information and opinion, not to engage in false “debate” with some left-wing progressive phony who postures a weird rhetorical altruism after repeatedly engaging in just the opposite.
3) I have repeatedly invited you to confine yourself to addressing the Post Scripts authors.
4) I am not being “hostile”. I have been giving you my considered assessment of your behavior and remarking on how I tire of dealing with it, especially this latest “lil’ ol’ innocent me” pose you are engaging in now. (To what end I do not know, you are not convincing me of anything.)
I am sure that Jack and Tina would encourage you to comment on anything your heart desires. Please feel free to go ahead and do just that. If and when you fall back into mockery, ridicule, personal attack, and the many other fallacies you are in a habit to commit, I may or may not bother to point them out to you. If you consider that hostile, then so be it.
Lastly, I have never seen you take issue with Quentin Colgan’s consistent stream of hostile invective. Even when he issued a death threat in this thread against the very people who provide YOU a voice here, the best and only thing you could come up with was, “Quentin, you are coming dangerously close to advocating violence and murder for your political cause, if you’re not there already. You’ve done this before. It is unacceptable.”
I was actually quite impressed with your statement given Colgan’s prominence in Occupy Chico and your apparent support of that and the OWS movement in general. Not to mention your complaints of a “hostile environment” directed towards me. Your outrage over Quentin Colgan’s death threat was, in a word, overwhelming.
Pie Guevara, both of us are commenters on this site and it would be stupid for us to have to avoid ever responding to one another’s posts…even if I did refrain from responding to you, I don’t believe you would do the same to me. Maybe you would just talk about my comments in third person, a passive aggressive tactic you’ve used before…
I posted my request because I am trying to find a way for us to be civil toward one another. Your reply speaks volumes about your character and maturity.
“4) I am not being “hostile”.”
Of course you are. You just called me a “phony” and you are once again treating me as if I am beneath debating with.
I do NOT treat you this way. Even after all this provocation, I still won’t treat you that way.
“Lastly, I have never seen you take issue with Quentin Colgan’s consistent stream of hostile invective…”
…And then you go on to completely contradict yourself.
Pie, I posted my request because I wanted to see if there was a way for us to have a civil debate on this forum. Thank you for your answer. It speaks volumes.