[MiNe 109]

Eric Boehlert says:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
talking about?

--

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 wrote:
Eric Boehlert says:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
talking about?

--


so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:





Eric Boehlert says:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
talking about?

--

so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!

You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
wing blogosphere is.

Duh.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:





Eric Boehlert says:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
talking about?

--

so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!

You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
wing blogosphere is.

Duh.

Someone's opinion:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiw...just-how-hurt-
was

Right-wingers love to bring up cases of fake hate crimes and overblown
racial-profiling claims as proof that these phenomena don't really exist
to the extent that their victims claim. (See Ann Coulter for the most
recent example, but Michelle Malkin has made a minor cottage industry
out of this specious narrative.) But they sure do love it when a
minority conservative can make a reverse-the-charges accusation (usually
involving race) against liberals -- no matter how dubious the claims.

--

Hey! Like when Sackie accuses Democrats of being the real racists or
sexists.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 13:08, MiNe 109 wrote:


--

Hey! Like when Sackie accuses Democrats of being the real racists or
sexists.

Stephen-


As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
car, against
those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.

Its those nasty unintended consequences again!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 6:46*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 aug., 13:08, MiNe 109 * wrote:



--

Hey! Like when Sackie accuses Democrats of being the real racists or
sexists.

Stephen-

As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
car, against
those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.

Its those nasty unintended *consequences again!

Do you have any data to back up your claim? I found this:

The volume of used cars sold through dealers rose 3.1% in February
compared with last year, the first year-over-year increase in 12
months, reports CNW Marketing Research. By contrast, new car sales
slid 41.4% in February from a year ago.

Wholesale used car prices have risen steadily since October, including
a 1.1% rise in February compared with January, says Tom Kontos, chief
economist for Adesa Analytical Services, though they remain lower than
in February 2008.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...ar-sales_N.htm

And this:

Used car prices have risen about 5% on average in the last year, says
Tom Webb, economist for Manheim Consulting, a branch of a major used
car wholesale operation. Fewer new car sales have meant a drop in
recent-model trade-ins. Car rental companies also have reduced supply
by cutting their fleets. That's resulted in fewer castoffs for used
car lots.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...clunkers_N.htm

That nasty "corellation equals causation" thing...again!

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 11:50, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:

Eric Boehlert says:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
talking about?

--

so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!

You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
wing blogosphere is.

Duh.-

then Mine should be focusing on those issues, by focusing
on the level of severity of the beating, he makes the assumtin'that
there was a beeating, duh!

"At least" I will give you credit for being a whole lot samrter than
he is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 6:42*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 aug., 11:50, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
talking about?

--

so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!

You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
wing blogosphere is.

Duh.-

then Mine should be focusing on those issues, by focusing
on the level of severity of the beating, he makes the assumtin'that
there was a beeating, duh!

"At least" I will give you credit for being a whole lot samrter than
he is.

You missed the punctuation. He focused on the level of the "beating".
"Beating" questions whether one ever occured at all.

So we're both smarter than you are. Oh well, pack to the pivo for
you. :-(