Activists Attack Speaker's Residence

[luckytxn 2,264]

I'd equate it as a public nuisance. There is certainly a difference between feeling harassed by people specifically targeting a residence- which may or may not be loud (and law enforcement at that time can be called in) vs potentially violating public ordinances that may be in place to protect private property.

Then there's the whole can of worms with having a public figure's residence singled out for potential violence- political or not, which in this day and age, can't be ruled out.

OK. Lets do it this way. Tell me how I misread this.

Crazies. Reminds me of the Tea Nuts doing the same with Democrats.

I have never heard of the Tea nuts doing this at private homes and have asked for proof since you made the slander I have asked for the proof. Since you can't do so then I say you are just talking out of your blow hole falsely. Now I get someone else saying they think it has happened.

[Zero Sum 305]

OK. Lets do it this way. Tell me how I misread this.

Crazies. Reminds me of the Tea Nuts doing the same with Democrats.

I have never heard of the Tea nuts doing this at private homes and have asked for proof since you made the slander I have asked for the proof. Since you can't do so then I say you are just talking out of your blow hole falsely. Now I get someone else saying they think it has happened.

I think the incorrect logic you're using (libel, not slander), would mean you'd have to prove I'm being libelous. For 'proof' as you seem to want it, visit www.google.com

I only believe you take offense for *some* Tea Party supporters being classified as Tea Nuts. That's fine, if you fail to understand that not all human beings act equally within a particular set of beliefs, and if your personal observation bias only applies to seeing one thing and not another.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I think the incorrect logic you're using (libel, not slander), would mean you'd have to prove I'm being libelous. For 'proof' as you seem to want it, visit www.google.com

I only believe you take offense for *some* Tea Party supporters being classified as Tea Nuts. That's fine, if you fail to understand that not all human beings act equally within a particular set of beliefs, and if your personal observation bias only applies to seeing one thing and not another.

Actually most tea partiers are nuts. You are the one that made the slander to a group as a snide remark and I have called you out. You can't do so as I suspected because I have did twice a google search but thought maybe since YOU are the one that made the slanderous remark that you could maybe back it up. I have been called out before and I always have produced and I expect the same from others.

[Pooky 3,792]

I think the incorrect logic you're using (libel, not slander), would mean you'd have to prove I'm being libelous. For 'proof' as you seem to want it, visit www.google.com

It is common practice to ask the person who made the accusation to provide a link to an article proving it. You don't seem to want to, or can't, provide a link to Tea Party supporters attacking Democrat politicians residences.

[slim 1,525]

I'd equate it as a public nuisance. There is certainly a difference between feeling harassed by people specifically targeting a residence- which may or may not be loud (and law enforcement at that time can be called in) vs potentially violating public ordinances that may be in place to protect private property.

Then there's the whole can of worms with having a public figure's residence singled out for potential violence- political or not, which in this day and age, can't be ruled out.

So I post something about peaceably assembling on a public sidewalk to protest and you open that up as a can of worms for potential violence?

I'd guess you're one of those "the police should keep our streets safe" type folks as well. It's the government's job to protect us from ourselves, isn't it?

[Zero Sum 305]

Actually most tea partiers are nuts. You are the one that made the slander to a group as a snide remark and I have called you out. You can't do so as I suspected because I have did twice a google search but thought maybe since YOU are the one that made the slanderous remark that you could maybe back it up. I have been called out before and I always have produced and I expect the same from others.

I know there's a few Tea Party groups, but none, to my knowledge, is called the Tea Nuts. Hence, you certainly called something out- just that's its not rooted in reality. To add, in no place do I claim to label an entire group (entity, as you now claim quite clearly up above) of people; furhtermore complexing your confusion with the concept of slader and libel.

If any statement could be considered libelous, although vague and very hard to pinpoint, it would be your characterization of 'most tea partiers are nuts.' And that's your statement.

Nevertheless, if you have done two google searches, then you could do a few more. It may not be as easy in spotting as you may want it to be, but its there. Clearly though I wouldn't be surprised if someone that mislabels things in thought (perhaps not, specially if you do so on purpose) and expression (as you do with the whole Socialists/identifying things not said by others, etc) would have an extra difficult time in locating googleproof.

Just a *hint* to lead you in your third search with one example:

The Tom Perriello and brother issue in Virginia

In case you still have a hard time, there was a pertinent FBI investigation too.

It is common practice to ask the person who made the accusation to provide a link to an article proving it. You don't seem to want to, or can't, provide a link to Tea Party supporters attacking Democrat politicians residences.

See above for one topic.

[Zero Sum 305]

So I post something about peaceably assembling on a public sidewalk to protest and you open that up as a can of worms for potential violence?

I'd guess you're one of those "the police should keep our streets safe" type folks as well. It's the government's job to protect us from ourselves, isn't it?

Regarding peaceful protests in residential areas- no. That's what public, non-residential areas are for. A review of the concept of zoning could perhaps help out your interpretation of what I wrote.

No, its better if we didn't have segments of the population that may be on different grades on the road to total insanity.

As for the police and laws, well- they are there for a reason. I don't try to generalize or label you, so there's no need to be that way with me. Even though you try to lead it with a 'I'd guess' which *implies* that I am exactly that which you ask.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I know there's a few Tea Party groups, but none, to my knowledge, is called the Tea Nuts. Hence, you certainly called something out- just that's its not rooted in reality. To add, in no place do I claim to label an entire group (entity, as you now claim quite clearly up above) of people; furhtermore complexing your confusion with the concept of slader and libel.

If any statement could be considered libelous, although vague and very hard to pinpoint, it would be your characterization of 'most tea partiers are nuts.' And that's your statement.

Nevertheless, if you have done two google searches, then you could do a few more. It may not be as easy in spotting as you may want it to be, but its there. Clearly though I wouldn't be surprised if someone that mislabels things in thought (perhaps not, specially if you do so on purpose) and expression (as you do with the whole Socialists/identifying things not said by others, etc) would have an extra difficult time in locating googleproof.

Just a *hint* to lead you in your third search with one example:

The Tom Perriello and brother issue in Virginia

In case you still have a hard time, there was a pertinent FBI investigation too.

See above for one topic.

So pretty much you are unable to. As I thought. Thanks anyway.

[Zero Sum 305]

As you thought or as you failed to read?

Just a *hint* to lead you in your third search with one example:

The Tom Perriello and brother issue in Virginia

This is indeed a worrisome tendency of many of us in this country: reading comprehension appears to be decreasing, even with so much exposure to text online.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It is common practice to ask the person who made the accusation to provide a link to an article proving it. You don't seem to want to, or can't, provide a link to Tea Party supporters attacking Democrat politicians residences.

Not going to happen here. As I thought.

[Pooky 3,792]

This is indeed a worrisome tendency of many of us in this country: reading comprehension appears to be decreasing, even with so much exposure to text online.

Yes. You failed to comprehend that it's up to you to post the link to an article substantiating your story.

[HAL 9000 96]

I guess this is one of a couple of different possible games-

1. initiate the newbie (fine, and no, I'm not interested)

2. see who can get the last comment, contrary to having solicited information posted, *if reading were actually executed*

or both.

Where do I send the trophy to the winners?

In so many months of absence from this site, nothing has changed.

[slim 1,525]

Regarding peaceful protests in residential areas- no. That's what public, non-residential areas are for. A review of the concept of zoning could perhaps help out your interpretation of what I wrote.

No, its better if we didn't have segments of the population that may be on different grades on the road to total insanity.

As for the police and laws, well- they are there for a reason. I don't try to generalize or label you, so there's no need to be that way with me. Even though you try to lead it with a 'I'd guess' which *implies* that I am exactly that which you ask.

So you're in favor of zoning laws that prohibit someone from standing on a public sidewalk in a residential area?

I understand the attempt to preserve the "quiet neighborhood" and I'm sure there is a law somewhere in there that prohibits people from loitering, especially in residential areas, but isn't protest one of our basic rights as Americans? You're kind of saying it's OK, as long as they do it in a commericial or industrial area, on the public square, etc., - just not in front of that person's house. Right?

So... when that person votes in favor of legislation that affects my house, is that OK since he's zoned to do so in Washington?

[HAL 9000 96]

Hi Slim, what's up?

[slim 1,525]

Hi Slim, what's up?

I've missed you, HAL.

I'm about to go watch some gun-related TV shows so my debates are almost over for today. But, hey, it's good to see you back! I haven't had a "proper" debate in quite a while!