Well, I guess now we know what Senator Obama meant when he told his followers to "get in people's faces":
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.
And they accuse McCain and Palin of inciting violence.
Well, it could have been worse (and it may become so if he's elected, and in control of the Justice Department). She should consider herself lucky.
[Update on Friday afternoon]
It turns out to have been a hoax. What a stupid woman. Normally it's leftists who stage things like this.
Lest we become smug: http://www.wisn.com/politics/17754232/detail.html
Insanity is not limited to the Left, alas.
Insanity is not limited to the Left, alas.
Indeed, but neither John McCain or Sarah Palin have told their supporters to "get in the face" of the supporters of their political opponent. So it's not their fault if one of them takes the advice literally.
Change you can believe in! The Obots and their messiah are nothing but bolshevik thugs.
The Who's "Don't get fooled again." seems appropriate here.
I think that's a bit unfair. Obama's thuggishness is of the lawyerly, not the brownshirt, variety. Still thuggish, but Obama has hardly been advocating violence.
I think that's a bit unfair. Obama's thuggishness is of the lawyerly, not the brownshirt, variety. Still thuggish, but Obama has hardly been advocating violence.
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
Just what is "advocacy of violence"?
"Get in their faces" can have multiple interpretations...
Oy, Rand, I don't think there's any way you can lay this within a hundred miles of Obama's feet. You know very well what he meant by "get in their faces" and everyone who has any sense does, too.
Besides, the odds that an asshole mugger who's stupid enough to risk a good 20 years in the state pen being some bigger guy's bitch for 60 whole dollars is not going to be watching political television. It would be impressive if he could even read.
That said, if I were an Obama fellow, I'd be disheartened by the kind of scum we were attracting to our banner. What does it say about your principles if shitheads are passionate about supporting them? Blech.
Sorry, Carl, but it's all of a pattern.
And part of the point is (as usual) the hyperdouble standard in reporting...
Yes, the pattern is undeniable. There are endless examples of violence being fomented and acted out by Obama supporters. These people are truly sociopaths and Obama is the ring leader. Ye shall know them by their fruit, and some of their fruit is exampled in the below links.
See 46 secs. into this video...
http://www.glumbert.com/media/palinsurprise
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/10/ayers-weathermen-planned-genocide.html
From the brutallyhonest link...
"I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.
And they were dead serious."
The Obama campaign issued this statement:
"Our thoughts and prayers are with the young woman for her to make a speedy recovery, and we hope that the person who perpetrated this crime is swiftly apprehended and brought to justice."
Question for everybody: Why is the B in the pictures backwards?
Rand, we appear to be zeroing in on the crazy spot in your brain that you asked about. Part of being crazy is to see patterns and then massively over-extend them to situations that aren't relevant.
I'll never convince you by talking about Obama, so I'm going to talk about sports.
I don't follow professional team sports, and every time the Chicago Bulls won in the 90s, I kept getting surprised by the craziness on the streets that accompanied the wins. The Bulls encourage blind loyalty (all professional sports teams do) but the loyalty of the fans never makes any sense to me - obviously the athletes who play on Chicago teams don't really represent what is good about living in Chicago. Since even team loyalty doesn't make sense to me, you can be sure the nuttiness and crime that accompanied the big wins by the Bulls didn't make any sense to me either. But I don't blame the sports teams. Blind loyalty isn't the problem. Nuttiness and criminality is the problem.
The political candidates are even more blameless than the sports teams, because they don't really encourage blind loyalty - they'd prefer ideological sincerity. On the other hand, if blind loyalty is offered, candidates and political parties will take it, because a vote is a vote.
Even if, unlike me, you like rooting for sports teams, I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here. Had that mugger been a sports fan and had seen the wrong city's team bumper sticker on the victim's car, he might have carved the team's initials instead. It would be the same criminal mentality, and the responsibility rests with the criminal, not the object of the criminal's affection and loyalty.
In America, the kind of person who would have wanted what happened to the victim to have happened to her almost always fails to get elected. Senator Obama is not that kind of person (nor is any member of the US Congress, or President Bush, nor is any elected politician in the history of this country, even the very worst of them, so far I can think of any). Governor Palin is probably my least favorite American politician right now, but I'm quite sure that if Gov. Palin thought any action or inaction of hers would lead to actual violence, she'd be horrified, and she'd stop and rectify the situation immediately. I'm sorry you don't feel that kind of faith in the basic underlying goodness of your fellow Americans, and in particular, in the people your fellow Americans have elected. Criticizing politicians is healthy, and politicians are capable of evil, but I think you ascribe evil far too often to situations where you should ascribe simple wrong-headedness, or, as in this case, no criticism whatsoever.
Why is the B in the pictures backwards?
It's not backwards, if you carve it looking down at your victim from above, standing behind her head.
Bob, I'm sure that Barack Obama didn't intend for his supporters to literally get into their political opponents' faces like this, but his wording was not helpful. Obviously, his political thuggery was intended to be much more subtle, via ACORN and the like.
What pattern? Do you mean Obama nuts have a tendency to be totalitarian racists thugs? Well, yes. That's exactly the kind of person who is attracted to a collectivist intolerant philosophy such as the New Left espouses.. This was my point.
But...if you're saying the pattern is of events that seem like it's all orchestrated from Obama headquarters, well, that seems overly paranoid to me. I thought you were doubtful that Axelrod sponsored astroturfing in blog comments, possibly including TT? Wouldn't that be a step they'd take before they started a program of naked street intimidation?
I can't believe I'm thinking Carl Pham is a voice of reason here, but it's true. Not his belief that the New Left (whatever that is) espouses a collectivist intolerant philosophy (since the current nationalization of the banks is happening under Bush), but his reasonable observation that Obama HQ wouldn't orchestrate crazed muggers. Maybe we can all agree to disagree as citizens...
> You know very well what he meant by "get in their faces" and everyone who has any sense does, too.
Those of us of Obama's age know that "get in their faces" means physically get in people's faces and try to intimidate them, because that's exactly what happened during his college years and that's how they described what they were doing.
This video clip shows what we're all talking about, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4
The expression "get in their face" seems unnecessarily aggressive out of context, but the video clip shows the context: Obama was encouraging rational political discussions about policy.
Obama was not encouraging his supporters to intimidate or worse.
since the current nationalization of the banks is happening under Bush
What is it with you Obots and the endless tu quoque arguments? Like, if Bush turned out to have beaten up a drunk just for fun in college, then it would be cool for Obama HQ to deploy brownshirts to rough up McCain volunteers?
Here's a thought: just because Bush does something stupid or classless or low does not inoculate your guy against any similar charge. It's not a zero-sum game. It's perfectly possible to think that Bush has been a poor President and that McCain would be a so-so President but that Obama would be a truly awful President.
Sheesh.
The story is she was punched in the back of the head when her attacker saw the McCain sticker, knocking her to the ground. Her attacker was probably right handed and kneeling above her head when he carved the B into her face.
I doubt this is a fake attack since even women who commit suicide tend to avoid disfiguring their face.
Rand, I think you are headed to the sign that says going crazy.
Rand, see a shrink. Seriously. If you are actually beginning to believe this stuff, you've got yourself a problem.
Sincere best wishes on a speedy recovery to the relatively sane version of yourself that we like to joust.
Meanwhile, look at this:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/pains-makeup-stylist-fetches-highest-salary-in-2-week-period/
The ratio of this make-up cost for lipstick on a babe to a $400 haircut is what again?
The irony, the comeuppance, the wheel of karma, chocolate cake with mounds of topping.
A playwright couldn't write this stuff up. It boggles the mind. Is there an actual intent to blow up the Republican brand on the part of McCain. Or is this the work of Obama agents embedded in the McCain campaign. Er, I better not give Rand any more paranoid ideas, but who knows?
Rand, I think you are headed to the sign that says going crazy.
Rand, see a shrink. Seriously. If you are actually beginning to believe this stuff, you've got yourself a problem.
Sincere best wishes on a speedy recovery to the relatively sane version of yourself that we like to joust.
You're sounding a little unhinged (and desperate) yourself, Mike.
What part of "I'm sure that Barack Obama didn't intend for his supporters to literally get into their political opponents' faces like this" do you not understand?
LOL, while Carl says you can lay this within 100 miles of Obama's feet, we have the former Bush speechwriter calling Rand crazy for believing the story. This is the same Obot that wrote this.
Well played Rand.
> The expression "get in their face" seems unnecessarily aggressive out of context, but the video clip shows the context: Obama was encouraging rational political discussions about policy.
That might be relevant if the meaning of "get in their face" hadn't been previously established AND if the video was only way the words got out.
Neither of those things is true. Obama may have said it nice (he seems to have a knack for saying everything nice, so the fact that he said this nice doesn't mean much), but the phrase have a call to violence meaning. Moreover, it's the bare words, not the happy talk pictures that are being distributed.
However, it's nice to see once again that the great communicator is "misunderstood".
Andy,
Who is distributing those words?
We had Obama-opponents distributing the words "spread the wealth around" as if Obama was a socialist, but if you actually listened to even a few sentences surrounding those words, you'd see immediately that Obama was saying that if you can lower taxes for 95% of the people, there will be more customers for Joe the Plumber. If the distribution of the words "spread the wealth" had been done fairly, it wouldn't have been damaging, and honest conservatives might have even been somewhat heartened by an explanation of why lowering taxes is a good idea.
Now we have Obama-opponents distributing the words "in their face", but if you listen to the video clip above, you can see Obama was telling his supporters to point out that Obama will defend the 2nd ammendment, and, again, lower taxes for 95% of Americans. Even if those claims aren't true or if you don't agree with them, Obama's words should be distributed fairly, in their full context, and if that was done, there would be no discussion of whether Obama was inciting violence, as the context makes it completely clear that he was not.
In any case, I agree with Carl: It seems like a safe bet that the mugger never heard about any of this.
---
Hey, it would be fun if Mike Gerson was really the Washington Post's Mike Gerson posing as a more liberal version of himself.
I have a hard time that she would keep her head still enough for the perp to carve that "B" on her face.
Note this detail:
"She told police the man then sat on her chest, pinning both her hands down with his knees and used what she believed was a dull knife with a roughly 5-inch blade to carve the B"
http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=21533
(Link via a skeptical Michelle Malkin.)
That means that her head was right side up when the mugger carved it (if that's what happened).
Maybe it's an underlined M instead of a B?
Actually, it looks like two thirds of the EIB logo
Look at her pic in the Malkin post. The skin isn't even broken. What kind of a mugger carries a knife that dull? I've seen butter knives sharper than that.
If it weren't for the letter carving allegation, this would be dog-bites-man. Of course muggers are offended by the party that's tougher on law enforcement.
Why didn't he carve an O on her? Why a B ?
Now the Police do seem to think she is faking it.
Apparently she wasn't vetted properly. Kind of the story line for the campaign, yes?
Rand,
I find it somewhat amusing about how willing partisans on all sides get snookered by hoaxes like this so easily. Democrats were perfectly willing to believe Rather's line about Bush, and Republicans (and so-called "classical liberals") are willing to buy into crap like this. Oh well, at least it's entertaining.
Can't wait for silly season to be over.
~Jon
Rand says: Sorry, Carl, but it's all of a pattern.
Care to reconsider?
Care to reconsider?
Sure. So this particular incident isn't part of the pattern.
But the pattern remains.
Sheesh...gullible much?
gullible much?
Occasionally, but no, not much.
Gotta love Rand's pseudo-semi-apology that blames leftists!
Maybe it is part of a pattern. McCain has built his campaign out of stunts (Palin, "suspending" his campaign), gimmicks (Britney Spears, "Drill, Baby, Drill", Joe the Plumber), and scare tactics (Ayers, ACORN, socialism). None of it has helped him for long. His only hope now is for a last-minute stunt/scare that taps into some deep-seated fear about Obama. A McCain volunteer saw what he needed, and tried to give it to him.
Work on the reading comprehension thing, cowardly anonymous moron. I wasn't "blaming the leftists." I was simply putting it into context.
>>gullible much?
>Occasionally, but no, not much.
Hmm... Let's see. Looking at your credulity about:
- Somali pirates actually being Mossad agents boarding a tanker which was actually carrying radioactive sand which was actually meant to blow up Israel...
- Ayers actually writing Obama's autobiography...
- The "Whitey" tapes actually existing...
- Saddam Hussein actually having weapons of mass destruction...
- ...et cetera ad nauseum; basically, any and every batshit crackpot conspiracy bullshit that seemed like it might be vaguely politically fortuitous for the right...
...begs the question: what exactly constitutes "much"?
...begs the question: what exactly constitutes "much"?
Gullible. Don't forget the Article of Faith Number One of the right-wing, the premise that dare never be questioned: namely, that the MSM is liberal.
The beauty of this premise is that it can be used to legitimize every crackpot conspiracy that arises. Some woman claims an Obama mugger carved a B in her face. Is this not being reported because there's widespread doubt about the woman's story? No! It's the liberal MSM!
The utility of this theory can also be used to explain every failure: past, present, and future. Did McCain lose because the Republican brand is discredited, McCain is incompetent, and/or he was simply out-maneuvered by a more capable opponent? No! The liberal MSM wanted Obama to win!
Expect more of this stab-in-the-back theory after the election.
> Who is distributing those words?
All of the print media, the Obama-friendly blogs, and so on.
Surely you're not going to argue that they're secret McCain supporters.
"Get in their face" is an example of a "dog whistle".
If you're going to argue that we should ignore the dog whistle because of Obama's comments around it, you get to cite cases where you did the same wrt folks with whom you disagree politically. What? You don't? Some principle you've got there.
> his supporters to point out that Obama will defend the 2nd ammendment
Like he did when he was on the Joyce Foundation board?
Feel free to cite some evidence that Obama has ever opposed a gun control law or proposal.
It says a lot that when leftists are right about something they fumble the ball with straw men, false accusations, and general idiocy. They don't want beach balls they want enormous blimps and there's only one way they're going to get them so they "help" themselves. Hot air greed Hollywood & Berkeley style.
Yeah just like they do when they're wrong, great consistency of self-destructive behavior ^_^
As for the McCain campaign volunteer: shame on her, no excuses, good that she confessed and stopped wasting everybody's time with false testimony. Now the law will deal with her.