As a fellow writer, I also applaud Franken for risking his extremely valuable typing hands.
Well I'd say the first article vidicates Al's response. Anyone else care to disagree?
My point was never to say that what Al did was right. It was to say that none of us had enough evidence to say he was wrong. These two articles could be completely fabricated and my point wouldn't change.
Well I'd say the first article vidicates Al's response. Anyone else care to disagree?
My point was never to say that what Al did was right. It was to say that none of us had enough evidence to say he was wrong. These two articles could be completely fabricated and my point wouldn't change.
I gladly disagree. This is the same exact guy that was quoted before. Ramsey is the same guy mentioned before who described the situation entirely different than pretty much everyone else.
But again the best reason to question all of this is that Franken himself could have simply come out with a statement about what happened, what he did and why he is right. You've never addressed why Franken doesn't simply issue a statement himself as to why he was justified. You claim the question is if there is enough evidence to claim Franken took excessive action.
This MIGHT be the question if Franken had been security. Even then I'm sure, just like all previous instances you would say that when force has been used, it must be justified. Franken has given no justification. He justification has to be even better than normally would be accepted because he acted outside of his role.
It would be one thing if the police shot or assaulted you in the line of duty. If I shoot or assault you, it had better be VERY clearly justified or I may be charged.
He has not attempted to justify this because he did in fact tackle this heckler for no good reason. He is staying quiet (an oddity for Franken) and basically hoping it goes away.
BTW, exactly how does one "flick" their arms? It sounds like some very rehearsed parsing to me. They take the one guy willing to say this and even have him use some carefully chosen words. Flick denotes very light, quick touching or hitting. Like you would use on a switch or a fly. Am I supposed to believe Franken was threatened by a man making a motion that would be used to hit a fly?
The second "interview" is perhaps the clearest example of pure propaganda I have read recently. The guy didn't actually even see the incident. He doesn't confirm in any way they were a threat (his answer is who knows) and "applauds" his standing up to the goons. Thye also stick their tongue firmly in cheek and focus on Franken "removing" the man instead of tackling him. He risked his "typing fingers" to support free speech.
BTW, exactly how does one "flick" their arms? It sounds like some very rehearsed parsing to me. They take the one guy willing to say this and even have him use some carefully chosen words. Flick denotes very light, quick touching or hitting. Like you would use on a switch or a fly. Am I supposed to believe Franken was threatened by a man making a motion that would be used to hit a fly?
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ramsey
I saw that happen. He hit two or three others, he was pushing people and he pushed probably six people and with his elbows he probably hit two or three, and Franken pushed him out the door with probably four or five other men.
I gladly disagree. This is the same exact guy that was quoted before. Ramsey is the same guy mentioned before who described the situation entirely different than pretty much everyone else.
But again the best reason to question all of this is that Franken himself could have simply come out with a statement about what happened, what he did and why he is right. You've never addressed why Franken doesn't simply issue a statement himself as to why he was justified. You claim the question is if there is enough evidence to claim Franken took excessive action.
This MIGHT be the question if Franken had been security. Even then I'm sure, just like all previous instances you would say that when force has been used, it must be justified. Franken has given no justification. He justification has to be even better than normally would be accepted because he acted outside of his role.
It would be one thing if the police shot or assaulted you in the line of duty. If I shoot or assault you, it had better be VERY clearly justified or I may be charged.
He has not attempted to justify this because he did in fact tackle this heckler for no good reason. He is staying quiet (an oddity for Franken) and basically hoping it goes away.
BTW, exactly how does one "flick" their arms? It sounds like some very rehearsed parsing to me. They take the one guy willing to say this and even have him use some carefully chosen words. Flick denotes very light, quick touching or hitting. Like you would use on a switch or a fly. Am I supposed to believe Franken was threatened by a man making a motion that would be used to hit a fly?
The second "interview" is perhaps the clearest example of pure propaganda I have read recently. The guy didn't actually even see the incident. He doesn't confirm in any way they were a threat (his answer is who knows) and "applauds" his standing up to the goons. Thye also stick their tongue firmly in cheek and focus on Franken "removing" the man instead of tackling him. He risked his "typing fingers" to support free speech.
Nick
Dear lord. And you're the one that likes to accuse people of spinning up "conspiracy theories".
If you find it damning that Franken has issued no statement in re this incident (and isn't that up to him?), what are we to make that the "assaulted" party hasn't filed any charges? Everyone seems to agree that these guys were there to make a public stir, you would think that nailing Franken for assault would be something they would be eager to do. Unless they had a pretty clear sense that they would lose.
The fact that you think that the use of the word "flicking" speaks to some kind of witness tampering/set-up thing is..... sort of...... funny.
I gladly disagree. This is the same exact guy that was quoted before. Ramsey is the same guy mentioned before who described the situation entirely different than pretty much everyone else.
How do you "flick" someone in a threatening manner?
Dear lord. And you're the one that likes to accuse people of spinning up "conspiracy theories".
If you find it damning that Franken has issued no statement in re this incident (and isn't that up to him?), what are we to make that the "assaulted" party hasn't filed any charges? Everyone seems to agree that these guys were there to make a public stir, you would think that nailing Franken for assault would be something they would be eager to do. Unless they had a pretty clear sense that they would lose.
The fact that you think that the use of the word "flicking" speaks to some kind of witness tampering/set-up thing is..... sort of...... funny.
You're right. But when someone claims several actual news sources are wrong and one guy on Alfrankenweb.com is right, well then I have to dismiss them.
As for why the didn't file charges? I have no idea why they didn't. Maybe it isn't worth their time to attempt to fight a rich celebrity over what would likely be no more than a misdemeanor.
You're right. But when someone claims several actual news sources are wrong and one guy on Alfrankenweb.com is right, well then I have to dismiss them.
You say Peter didn't see anything, he says he did. You say the heckler didn't hit anyone, Peter says the heckler did. You say Al wasn't hit, Peter says he was.
You can argue all you want with the eye witness but it doesn't help your case here.
ok, does anyone posting in this thread think they're going to change the other person's mind?
By God I do! I can tell that Trumpt is just this close to not only giving in on Franken, but admitting the bankruptcy of his entire world view! His entire posting history up to this point has been just one long cry for help, and I want to be there when he finally lets go and goes left!
One source IS new... the Telegraph reporter... so keep ignoring that too.
Yes an AL advocate called to get firsthand accounts... which you want to just ignore.
Al helped escort out a bunch of LaDouche goons... the Manager was going to have THEM arrested because they were being disruptive and violent... good job Al.
Oh and I think someone did press charges on Novakula...
The sarcasm might be construed as something other than friendly banter given the context. Everyone might want to be careful how and where they dole it out.
The sarcasm might be construed as something other than friendly banter given the context. Everyone might want to be careful how and where they dole it out.
Actually I did mean it as friendly banter... and I think that most people would see I'm joking about the chances of changing minds on AO, not Trumpt's particular opinions. Jeez.
You say Peter didn't see anything, he says he did. You say the heckler didn't hit anyone, Peter says the heckler did. You say Al wasn't hit, Peter says he was.
You can argue all you want with the eye witness but it doesn't help your case here.
Actual, no I said Darren Garnick didn't see anyone. I was referring to the second link which says...
Quote:
You didn't see the actual incident between Al and the heckler, but you witnessed the behavior of the LaRouchians and told the WSJ online that they were "not going to leave peacefully." What do you mean by this?
You are correct that Peter claims all was hit by the hecklers "flicking" arms. He also claims that the heckler "pushed" people with his "elbows."
I asked how you do either one of those motions and the reply was crickets chirping.
I'll ask again. How do you push someone with your elbows?
How do you "flick" someone and call it threatening?
Last time I check "flick" was something fifth grade boys did to each others ears.
Now again, does Al say Al was hit? He should know best. Peter seems very much to be attempting to take nonthreatening motions and giving them malicious intent. Tis the Weapons of Mass Ear Flicking Destruction that the valiant Al Franken had to defend against.
Or maybe... just maybe... the truth of the matter was that in a small room with 900 people, elbows touched and Peter claimed it had evil intent. Maybe the "flicking" was the heckler jerking his shoulders a bit when hands were laid upon them.
These two concepts would correspond very will with a little thing I like to call reality. The whole pushing people with your elbows and flicking people with violent intent thing just doesn't match up with reality or with what any other non-AlFrankenweb.com source says.
One source IS new... the Telegraph reporter... so keep ignoring that too.
Yes an AL advocate called to get firsthand accounts... which you want to just ignore.
Al helped escort out a bunch of LaDouche goons... the Manager was going to have THEM arrested because they were being disruptive and violent... good job Al.
Oh and I think someone did press charges on Novakula...
The Telegraph reporter said he didn't see the incident. How is getting his reaction to Al over an incident he didn't see somehow validation?
BTW the earlier article which quotes Ramsey has quite a few interesting details when you examine it a little closer.
We have a football block....
Quote:
?He (Franken) gave him a hefty Patriots block. He should be a Patriot,? Ramsey said.
Nice spin Ramsey...
Quote:
Ramsey said a news photographer later told him Franken reacted to being elbowed by the protester, who knocked his glasses off.
Nice hearsay Ramsey...
Quote:
One New Hampshire voter sitting in the balcony said the heckler ?kind of barreled through like a Patriots fullback.?
?The way he moved, I thought he was going to jump or something,? Wendy Branch of Northwood said. ?Even if he didn?t intend to jump, he was setting himself up for a fall. It was a little alarming.?
Ramsey said the heckler left quietly after Ramsey threatened to call the police. But Ramsey figured the more likely reason the protester left was that few television cameras were set up in the balcony.
Hey we found the one person who was a little worried about his actions. However Ramsey says that when told the police were being called he reacted....violently.... no he left quietly.
Meanwhile we have what Franken said.
Quote:
Franken told the New York Post he body-slammed the demonstrator to the ground.
?I got down low and took his legs out,? Franken told the newspaper.
God forbid we actually consider the PRIMARY source of the incident when consider what his actions were. Instead it is so much nicer to listen to that Mr. Ramsey who equates the slam with patriotism.
Oh and of course this is the POSITIVE article about Franken.
BTW a nice little bit from Talking Points Memo again mentioning how each party was acting.
We have Ramsey saying this man was "flicking" people and "pushing with his elbows."
Here is what Josh says...
Quote:
But as he was working up into full-froth a crew-cut three-hundred-poundish all-together not nice looking guy stomped out, extended his arm, grabbed the dude by the scruff of his neck, said a couple unpleasant things, and then proceeded to shake the guy around like a friggin' rag doll, all the while making clear that he really shouldn't have made such a scene.
Shake the guy like a friggin' rag doll... three hundred pounds... scruff of neck... yep sounds like a threatening scenario from the heckler to me.
So there's no evidence that the LaDouche people were being disruptive?
Al just tackled and destroyed a guy just speaking his mind in a respectful and sane manner. No one minded but Al. Who didn't exaggerate at all or try to be funny when he talked to the NY POST.
Actual, no I said Darren Garnick didn't see anyone. I was referring to the second link...
Although I quoted the second link for an obvious laugh, , I clearly stated I was asking about the first link.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You are correct that Peter claims all was hit by the hecklers "flicking" arms. He also claims that the heckler "pushed" people with his "elbows."
I asked how you do either one of those motions and the reply was crickets chirping.
Quote:
The guy was fighting the whole way.... Honestly, as I saw it, Al Franken reacted to being struck pretty violently.
There are no chirping crickets, you're just ignoring what the man said. Franken reacted to being struck pretty violently. Violently. No matter how you try to spin it, that's not grade school playground fun.
Of course, all of this still avoids my original point, that you didn't have an accurate witness to support your claims in the first place.
So there's no evidence that the LaDouche people were being disruptive?
Al just tackled and destroyed a guy just speaking his mind in a respectful and sane manner. No one minded but Al. Who didn't exaggerate at all or try to be funny when he talked to the NY POST.
hehe... funny.
You have this nasty habit of changing the question.
The question is, were the hecklers acting in a manner that would be considering threatening and thus justify the violent manner in which Franken treated them?
Al Franken is also apparently the only guy who can be threatened by someone's back since he took the guy down from behind him.
Comments
more than justified... if you believe the Manager of the Theater.
http://alfrankenweb.com/pramsey.html
or a reporter from the Nashua Telegraph
http://alfrankenweb.com/dgarnick.html
As a fellow writer, I also applaud Franken for risking his extremely valuable typing hands.
Well I'd say the first article vidicates Al's response. Anyone else care to disagree?
My point was never to say that what Al did was right. It was to say that none of us had enough evidence to say he was wrong. These two articles could be completely fabricated and my point wouldn't change.
Originally posted by bunge
Well I'd say the first article vidicates Al's response. Anyone else care to disagree?
My point was never to say that what Al did was right. It was to say that none of us had enough evidence to say he was wrong. These two articles could be completely fabricated and my point wouldn't change.
I gladly disagree. This is the same exact guy that was quoted before. Ramsey is the same guy mentioned before who described the situation entirely different than pretty much everyone else.
But again the best reason to question all of this is that Franken himself could have simply come out with a statement about what happened, what he did and why he is right. You've never addressed why Franken doesn't simply issue a statement himself as to why he was justified. You claim the question is if there is enough evidence to claim Franken took excessive action.
This MIGHT be the question if Franken had been security. Even then I'm sure, just like all previous instances you would say that when force has been used, it must be justified. Franken has given no justification. He justification has to be even better than normally would be accepted because he acted outside of his role.
It would be one thing if the police shot or assaulted you in the line of duty. If I shoot or assault you, it had better be VERY clearly justified or I may be charged.
He has not attempted to justify this because he did in fact tackle this heckler for no good reason. He is staying quiet (an oddity for Franken) and basically hoping it goes away.
BTW, exactly how does one "flick" their arms? It sounds like some very rehearsed parsing to me. They take the one guy willing to say this and even have him use some carefully chosen words. Flick denotes very light, quick touching or hitting. Like you would use on a switch or a fly. Am I supposed to believe Franken was threatened by a man making a motion that would be used to hit a fly?
The second "interview" is perhaps the clearest example of pure propaganda I have read recently. The guy didn't actually even see the incident. He doesn't confirm in any way they were a threat (his answer is who knows) and "applauds" his standing up to the goons. Thye also stick their tongue firmly in cheek and focus on Franken "removing" the man instead of tackling him. He risked his "typing fingers" to support free speech.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
BTW, exactly how does one "flick" their arms? It sounds like some very rehearsed parsing to me. They take the one guy willing to say this and even have him use some carefully chosen words. Flick denotes very light, quick touching or hitting. Like you would use on a switch or a fly. Am I supposed to believe Franken was threatened by a man making a motion that would be used to hit a fly?
Originally posted by Peter Ramsey
I saw that happen. He hit two or three others, he was pushing people and he pushed probably six people and with his elbows he probably hit two or three, and Franken pushed him out the door with probably four or five other men.
This clearly refutes your post.
Originally posted by trumptman
I gladly disagree. This is the same exact guy that was quoted before. Ramsey is the same guy mentioned before who described the situation entirely different than pretty much everyone else.
But again the best reason to question all of this is that Franken himself could have simply come out with a statement about what happened, what he did and why he is right. You've never addressed why Franken doesn't simply issue a statement himself as to why he was justified. You claim the question is if there is enough evidence to claim Franken took excessive action.
This MIGHT be the question if Franken had been security. Even then I'm sure, just like all previous instances you would say that when force has been used, it must be justified. Franken has given no justification. He justification has to be even better than normally would be accepted because he acted outside of his role.
It would be one thing if the police shot or assaulted you in the line of duty. If I shoot or assault you, it had better be VERY clearly justified or I may be charged.
He has not attempted to justify this because he did in fact tackle this heckler for no good reason. He is staying quiet (an oddity for Franken) and basically hoping it goes away.
BTW, exactly how does one "flick" their arms? It sounds like some very rehearsed parsing to me. They take the one guy willing to say this and even have him use some carefully chosen words. Flick denotes very light, quick touching or hitting. Like you would use on a switch or a fly. Am I supposed to believe Franken was threatened by a man making a motion that would be used to hit a fly?
The second "interview" is perhaps the clearest example of pure propaganda I have read recently. The guy didn't actually even see the incident. He doesn't confirm in any way they were a threat (his answer is who knows) and "applauds" his standing up to the goons. Thye also stick their tongue firmly in cheek and focus on Franken "removing" the man instead of tackling him. He risked his "typing fingers" to support free speech.
Nick
Dear lord. And you're the one that likes to accuse people of spinning up "conspiracy theories".
If you find it damning that Franken has issued no statement in re this incident (and isn't that up to him?), what are we to make that the "assaulted" party hasn't filed any charges? Everyone seems to agree that these guys were there to make a public stir, you would think that nailing Franken for assault would be something they would be eager to do. Unless they had a pretty clear sense that they would lose.
The fact that you think that the use of the word "flicking" speaks to some kind of witness tampering/set-up thing is..... sort of...... funny.
Originally posted by bunge
This clearly refutes your post.
I think you need to take out your glasses.
I gladly disagree. This is the same exact guy that was quoted before. Ramsey is the same guy mentioned before who described the situation entirely different than pretty much everyone else.
How do you "flick" someone in a threatening manner?
How do you push someone with your elbows?
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
Dear lord. And you're the one that likes to accuse people of spinning up "conspiracy theories".
If you find it damning that Franken has issued no statement in re this incident (and isn't that up to him?), what are we to make that the "assaulted" party hasn't filed any charges? Everyone seems to agree that these guys were there to make a public stir, you would think that nailing Franken for assault would be something they would be eager to do. Unless they had a pretty clear sense that they would lose.
The fact that you think that the use of the word "flicking" speaks to some kind of witness tampering/set-up thing is..... sort of...... funny.
You're right. But when someone claims several actual news sources are wrong and one guy on Alfrankenweb.com is right, well then I have to dismiss them.
As for why the didn't file charges? I have no idea why they didn't. Maybe it isn't worth their time to attempt to fight a rich celebrity over what would likely be no more than a misdemeanor.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You're right. But when someone claims several actual news sources are wrong and one guy on Alfrankenweb.com is right, well then I have to dismiss them.
You say Peter didn't see anything, he says he did. You say the heckler didn't hit anyone, Peter says the heckler did. You say Al wasn't hit, Peter says he was.
You can argue all you want with the eye witness but it doesn't help your case here.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ok, does anyone posting in this thread think they're going to change the other person's mind?
By God I do! I can tell that Trumpt is just this close to not only giving in on Franken, but admitting the bankruptcy of his entire world view! His entire posting history up to this point has been just one long cry for help, and I want to be there when he finally lets go and goes left!
Yes an AL advocate called to get firsthand accounts... which you want to just ignore.
Al helped escort out a bunch of LaDouche goons... the Manager was going to have THEM arrested because they were being disruptive and violent... good job Al.
Oh and I think someone did press charges on Novakula...
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The sarcasm might be construed as something other than friendly banter given the context. Everyone might want to be careful how and where they dole it out.
Actually I did mean it as friendly banter... and I think that most people would see I'm joking about the chances of changing minds on AO, not Trumpt's particular opinions. Jeez.
Originally posted by bunge
You say Peter didn't see anything, he says he did. You say the heckler didn't hit anyone, Peter says the heckler did. You say Al wasn't hit, Peter says he was.
You can argue all you want with the eye witness but it doesn't help your case here.
Actual, no I said Darren Garnick didn't see anyone. I was referring to the second link which says...
You didn't see the actual incident between Al and the heckler, but you witnessed the behavior of the LaRouchians and told the WSJ online that they were "not going to leave peacefully." What do you mean by this?
You are correct that Peter claims all was hit by the hecklers "flicking" arms. He also claims that the heckler "pushed" people with his "elbows."
I asked how you do either one of those motions and the reply was crickets chirping.
I'll ask again. How do you push someone with your elbows?
How do you "flick" someone and call it threatening?
Last time I check "flick" was something fifth grade boys did to each others ears.
Now again, does Al say Al was hit? He should know best. Peter seems very much to be attempting to take nonthreatening motions and giving them malicious intent. Tis the Weapons of Mass Ear Flicking Destruction that the valiant Al Franken had to defend against.
Or maybe... just maybe... the truth of the matter was that in a small room with 900 people, elbows touched and Peter claimed it had evil intent. Maybe the "flicking" was the heckler jerking his shoulders a bit when hands were laid upon them.
These two concepts would correspond very will with a little thing I like to call reality. The whole pushing people with your elbows and flicking people with violent intent thing just doesn't match up with reality or with what any other non-AlFrankenweb.com source says.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
One source IS new... the Telegraph reporter... so keep ignoring that too.
Yes an AL advocate called to get firsthand accounts... which you want to just ignore.
Al helped escort out a bunch of LaDouche goons... the Manager was going to have THEM arrested because they were being disruptive and violent... good job Al.
Oh and I think someone did press charges on Novakula...
The Telegraph reporter said he didn't see the incident. How is getting his reaction to Al over an incident he didn't see somehow validation?
Nick
BTW the earlier article which quotes Ramsey has quite a few interesting details when you examine it a little closer.
We have a football block....
?He (Franken) gave him a hefty Patriots block. He should be a Patriot,? Ramsey said.
Nice spin Ramsey...
Ramsey said a news photographer later told him Franken reacted to being elbowed by the protester, who knocked his glasses off.
Nice hearsay Ramsey...
One New Hampshire voter sitting in the balcony said the heckler ?kind of barreled through like a Patriots fullback.?
?The way he moved, I thought he was going to jump or something,? Wendy Branch of Northwood said. ?Even if he didn?t intend to jump, he was setting himself up for a fall. It was a little alarming.?
Ramsey said the heckler left quietly after Ramsey threatened to call the police. But Ramsey figured the more likely reason the protester left was that few television cameras were set up in the balcony.
Hey we found the one person who was a little worried about his actions. However Ramsey says that when told the police were being called he reacted....violently.... no he left quietly.
Meanwhile we have what Franken said.
Franken told the New York Post he body-slammed the demonstrator to the ground.
?I got down low and took his legs out,? Franken told the newspaper.
God forbid we actually consider the PRIMARY source of the incident when consider what his actions were. Instead it is so much nicer to listen to that Mr. Ramsey who equates the slam with patriotism.
Oh and of course this is the POSITIVE article about Franken.
Nick
We have Ramsey saying this man was "flicking" people and "pushing with his elbows."
Here is what Josh says...
But as he was working up into full-froth a crew-cut three-hundred-poundish all-together not nice looking guy stomped out, extended his arm, grabbed the dude by the scruff of his neck, said a couple unpleasant things, and then proceeded to shake the guy around like a friggin' rag doll, all the while making clear that he really shouldn't have made such a scene.
Shake the guy like a friggin' rag doll... three hundred pounds... scruff of neck... yep sounds like a threatening scenario from the heckler to me.
Nick
So there's no evidence that the LaDouche people were being disruptive?
Al just tackled and destroyed a guy just speaking his mind in a respectful and sane manner. No one minded but Al. Who didn't exaggerate at all or try to be funny when he talked to the NY POST.
hehe... funny.
Originally posted by trumptman
Actual, no I said Darren Garnick didn't see anyone. I was referring to the second link...
Although I quoted the second link for an obvious laugh,
Originally posted by trumptman
You are correct that Peter claims all was hit by the hecklers "flicking" arms. He also claims that the heckler "pushed" people with his "elbows."
I asked how you do either one of those motions and the reply was crickets chirping.
The guy was fighting the whole way.... Honestly, as I saw it, Al Franken reacted to being struck pretty violently.
There are no chirping crickets, you're just ignoring what the man said. Franken reacted to being struck pretty violently. Violently. No matter how you try to spin it, that's not grade school playground fun.
Of course, all of this still avoids my original point, that you didn't have an accurate witness to support your claims in the first place.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You're funny.
So there's no evidence that the LaDouche people were being disruptive?
Al just tackled and destroyed a guy just speaking his mind in a respectful and sane manner. No one minded but Al. Who didn't exaggerate at all or try to be funny when he talked to the NY POST.
hehe... funny.
You have this nasty habit of changing the question.
The question is, were the hecklers acting in a manner that would be considering threatening and thus justify the violent manner in which Franken treated them?
Al Franken is also apparently the only guy who can be threatened by someone's back since he took the guy down from behind him.
Nick