It’s my own fault. I should never have defended a conservative.
Over on Viewshound yesterday, I put up a short post arguing that, while I despise Michele
Bachmann’s views, I objected to the lesbian mother using her son as a political prop in a viral
video to embarrass her. I thought I’d get some flak from my fellow liberals. I didn’t; they all
concurred. I got flak from a conservative. Or perhaps I should say, asshole.
Here’s the exchange (so far):
John Q. Smith:
So...who EXACTLY is the "extremist" here?
I'm a little shocked that so many self professed "liberals" were taken-a-back by this. There's
nothing new here; this is the typical order of the day kind of underhanded, cowardly
gamesmanship that goes on all the time. This is right up there on the "class and intelligence
scale" with assualting and destroying private property by throwing paint on someone wearing an
animal product. You guys may not condone it, but face it, this stuff is talked about and planned
by people in organizations you support. I think the "just" response it to immediately call the
police and have the mother cited and arrested for tresspassing and disturbing the peace, and have
the child go into protective custody for about a week while the authorities review the fitness of a
mother who would subject her child to this kind of "abuse". Then, maybe everyone wouldn't find
this so funny.
First off, she was not trespassing. It was a bookstore and Bachmann was signing books. Anyone
had a right to be there.
Second, having your child talk to the author is not disturbing the peace. Besides, Bachmann was
inviting him to speak.
Third, prodding your child to talk to someone against his will may be objectionable but it hardly
qualifies as "abuse."
Nice name and picture, Mr. "Smith."
John Q. Smith:
Richard Brown : actually, I am a state licensed trainer associated with law enforcement and I am
telling you that by definition she was in fact trespassing. The bookstore is not public property, it
is PRIVATE property and there is and expectation by the owner or representative that people
entering those premises are there to conduct business that is relevant to standard use and/or a
particular event. This was a BOOK SIGNING, not a place for demonstration. The child was
“invited” to speak because everyone else thought it was relevant to the situation, not a coerced
act; hence disturbing the peace. I’m not even saying it all sticks in court, but there is enough gray
area to consider teaching someone a lesson.
And it certainly IS abuse when you coerce a child into doing something that is obviously so off-
putting and emotionally difficult as it clearly was for him. Part of the problem with a lot of
liberals is this self righteous and flawed idea that your 1st amendment stomps on everything else.
The FACT is the 1st amendment does not give you the right to infringe on others and violate
land owner rights. That's why "occupy-ers" are getting their butts kicked out.
Richard Brown by the way, I assume that the ridiculous Sergio Aragones looking cartoon on
your profile is the picture on your driver's license? And what's up with "school of hard knocks"?
That usually translates to "no formal education worth mentioning" or "I fail to know anything
and just go through life making one mistake after another until I get something right".
John Q Smith: Seriously, nobody is ever going to get arrested for approaching Michele
Bachmann at a book signing and telling her they disagree with her politics, unless they start
screaming or getting abusive. And the idea of the authorities "teaching someone a lesson" even
though it wouldn't "stick in court" is repellent to me.
John Q. Smith:
Richard Brown : neither of those statements is surprising to me.
John Q Smith: 1. My picture is a caricature drawn by my daughter and which I use for all of my
online accounts, so thanks for insulting her art work. Interesting that yours is the symbol for a
men's room. 2. The "school of hard knocks" is a joke, but thanks for assuming I'm ignorant when
you know nothing about me, but considering your political opinions expressed here, "none of
those statements are surprising to me." 3. I find your authoritarian attitude frightening. But I
don't wish to take up any more of your time. You're probably busy teaching law enforcement
people how to properly pepper spray.
John Q. Smith:
Richard Brown; so you'd prefer I just sit quietly while you take whatever cheap shots you want at
1.I didn’t “insult” anyone. YOU are responsible for initiating the personal assault on my profile.
So save your attempt at displacing shame on me for your shortcomings. As it happens; Sergio
Aragones is a great cartoonist. What makes it “lame” is that you would use a line drawing and
then chastise someone else for opting to stay anonymous. In fact, the rest room sign has a depth
of sarcastic meaning to me that I won’t bother to explain here.
2. I didn’t try to make any assumptions. I truly summarized what many people understand
regarding that particular colloquialism. For YOU to intend that as a “joke” requires that this is
also known to you.
3.I can’t control the fact that you feel threatened and embarrassed because I provided factual
information that disputed your flawed generalizations.
* I do notice that in keeping true to form, you’ve wasted no time in making more negative
insinuations to cover the fact that you were simply mistaken. A simple “you may be right” would
have sufficed. Frankly, I’m surprised you didn’t work in a comment about wearing a brown shirt.
You know, this is a completely new profile that I wanted to remain civil in using, to try and have
constructive open dialogue with, but pathetic rhetoric spewing hypocrits just ruin that. I actually
appreciated your initial take on the situation, but now…..
John Q Smith: I was making fun of your name, which I assume is an alias. I use a caricature
which resembles me in real life, and I am using my real name.
"That usually translates to "no formal education worth mentioning" or "I fail to know anything
and just go through life making one mistake after another until I get something right". " If that is
meant as a humorous reply, you are a very poor comedian. I made fun of your anonymity, you
made fun of my intelligence. Not equivalent.
For the record, my brother is a police officer, so I'm very respectful of the work they do. Also
for the record, he doesn't share any of your authoritarian attitude or disdain for people who have
different opinions. I don't feel threatened by your "factual information;" I feel threatened by
your apparent eagerness to separate a child from his mother for what I consider a very minor and
not at all illegal occurence.
No, I did not feel tempted to use the word "brown shirt." However, I have had similar terms
thrown at me on this site by another conservative, who, in disagreeing with me, said my avatar
looked like Hitler and that I would fit right in with the goose steppers. So if you think liberals
are the only ones who throw around Nazi imagery, you're not paying attention.
Let me add two points: 1. My article is about how this incident has nothing to do with ideology
(both sides pull stunts like this). You chose to make it about ideology. 2. You'll notice that all of
the liberal commenters to this article agreed with me. This indicates that you have a very
mistaken view of how liberals see the world.