Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Monday, January 18, 2010

By the way...

There are still some very sick Obots out there clinging to the fantasy that Republicans created the PUMA movement. If you peruse the PUMAPAC page, you'll see that the "curling iron" nonsense has solidified Murphy as a Coakley supporter. (Incidentally, Brown says he didn't hear it. As I say below, I don't care.)

This just in: Since Brown looks like a lock, the Dems may push through health care reform real, real fast.
Oh come on Joseph!

You know very well the Obots never let a little detail like the truth stand in their way.
I don't think he was responding to that. Whatever it was he was responding to, it wasn't that. He may be a rightwinger, but he is by no means stupid.His response is "We can do this" (probably means WIN). He does not say NOT "We can do THAT." (as in do the act the creep mentions)

But as we found out in the primary, the Obots will jump on anything. I can barely hear what the guy says.
Closer to the truth to say the O-holes were planted by the Republicans. The Democratic Party died the minute those pr*cks started calling their fellow Democrats racists.
I feel very sorry for Coakley b/c she should have won easily but the arrogant POS in DC wanted to be known that she must and will support the hc bill. Her political career is probably over.
bluelyon, just because the tape was made from one vantage point where other comments drowned out most of the "Shove a curling iron up her butt!" doesn't mean it wasn't heard by Scoot and the crowd and wasn't responded to. Scott fell silent and responded to it with a smirk and double entendre. Of course he chose a double entendre. The fact that the crowd laughed proves that they got his message and responded in kind. "We can do this!" may very well be a standard stump slogan, but combined with the pause, the smirk and the pointed look from where the comment originated, the crowd was able to deduce that it was a joke to be laughed at. Show me where any rallying cry like "we can do this!" garners a laugh instead of a cheer or applause. It NEVER happens. Those there gathered Scott's meaning. The laughter proves it.

And as far as Murphy goes, Joseph, she's been saying vote for women and specifically that she's voting for Coakley for a long time now. As have other PUMAs. I think you may be confusing "solidifying" her support with enflaming her outrage. My outrage began with the original curling iron smear campaign...which was not much different from this outrageous joking about raping the opponent, IMO. Before that, a lot of us merely advocated Martha without much venom towards Scott. But using the toddler's horrific ordeal to tar Martha is inexcusable.
I think the break down in Mass. voters is still 52% undeclared (independent) 32% Democrat and 12% republican. If Brown wins it will be because the Independents have rejected Obama.

One light at the end of the tunnel is who ever wins is only there until 2012 so there won't be too much of a chance if it's Brown that he can do too much damage.
Zee, I listened to and watched two different versions of this incident. I listened to one of the videos at least four times and I never heard the offending comment. On the other video it took me four times watching to hear two or three words of the so called offending comment. And on that one the voice is in the foreground and Brown in the background and he does not appear to turn his head toward the comment.

I also heard on the longer video a brief ‘blip’ or noise on the video that was suspicious and could have been an indication the sound was tampered with. I am not an expert in such detection so I don’t really know.

There is a lot of noise including some chanting from his supporters. I could not tell with even 10% certainty one way or the other. Research on eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Therefore, I out little faith in this video and what people heard.

My opinion is this entire episode looks like it was manufactured by Obots to try and damage Brown. I have seen him on several media interviews and I think he does an excellent job of deflecting bombshell questions. He is quick on his feet. He handles himself very well. Based on this I find it hard to think this was nothing but a set up job by a desperate Dem Party at worst that is willing to cheat (Ed Schultz) to defeat the voter's choice or an attempt by an individual Coakley supporter to do the same.

This does not pass the stink test for me.
Oh, please, Roberta. Here's the long version, the incident starts around 30 seconds in and at 58 seconds someone is *still* laughing at the joke! Yes, the comment is hard to detect in full because it's not in the foreground of the recording, but it was clearly audible to the crowd. Again, the crowd doesn't cheer, chant or applaud at the generic slogan "We can do this!" (the way they do later on for the later slogans). No. They *laugh.* Because Scott is making a deliberate joke, and they get it. However, according to you, these genius "Obots" manufactured this entire exchange, and did so in a manner that put the offending comment in the background making it hard to hear, then dropped in a random slogan that just happened to be a double entendre, sliced in a pause and a smirk as well, and then were able to generate crowd laughter. Oh, and were able to do that from two different vantage points, because I've seen it now from front and back. We're talking some brilliant talent there. Too bad they didn't tweak the offensive comment up a bit to be more audible, but that just goes to show how evilly genius they really are, making it seem so realistic. Guess what test that doesn't pass? Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation covers it: they laughed at a standard slogan instead of cheered because it was meant as a double entendre for them to laugh at, and in no other scenario would that slogan generate laughter.
Zee - that long version video you link to in your response is the exact same video I refer to as the second video I watched and listened to in my original response. My opinion is still the same.

And like for Joseph, for me it doesn't matter.
Even if it happened as you say, Zee, i still don't believe Brown was reacting to the comment. Brown was at a rally, not a question and answer session. He was talking to the crowd, not listening to them. Brown was concentrating on what he was going to say next, not reacting to the outburst. The crowd around the person who said it must have been imature and thought it was 'hysterical' that Brown's next statement of "We can do this!" 'appeared' to be in answer. It was just unfortunate timing.

This looks like manufactured outrage to me.

When I viewed the clip, I thought Brown certainly responded and the crowd responded to his response, as Zee did.

That said, I also think there is too much ginned up outrage substituting for policy discussions, and a tactic of the outrage du jour whipsawing what passes for political analysis and commentary from older triviality to newer triviality, as a method of distraction.

I note some here mention a suggestion that some people can set up others to look bad. Quite true. It's a classic tactic, dating from before the golden oldie COINTELPRO days.

So why do we continue to fall for such gaming? Time to take an thicker-skinned longer term adult point of view instead of this hypersensitivity and reactivity, which allows others to push our buttons to our detriment.

What could be more obvious than that those diabolical tacticians opposing the people in favor of their masters would, OF COURSE, sow dissension among the peoples' party, and by dividing, conquer?

You don't have to play that game with them.

Oh, sure. A "smirk" is just a "smirk" huh? Brown was merely an oblivious idiot? And it surely wasn't innocent little him who started the smear campaign against Martha in the first place, using the details of a child's horrific rape to enflame people against a prosecutor who was following the law of "innocent until proven guilty" (or does that little principle not matter to you, EITHER?). It was only his CAMPAIGN who did that. Or independent well-wishers. Hm?

So, let's take a tally. Rape jokes don't matter, exploiting a child's painful torture doesn't matter, and the principle of following the law of innocent until proven guilty doesn't matter. Lies, rape jokes, principles and campaign smears all are merely "Dem tricks" or "manufactured" outrage. Got it.

And here I've been outraged all along at this tactic the Scott "curling iron" Brown camp was using. I correctly predicted that they didn't really care about the raped child, but were personally titillated by the details they were using to confuse and enflame voters...and I was proven right by the ass-rape jokesters who make up Scott Brown's enthusiastic and vocal base. I must be a home-based outrage-manufacturing plant of one according to all you rape-joke-hardened cynics.
The curling iron remark was plainly said by somebody in the crowd, and one can tell from Brown's lips and listening carefully he said exactly what he is said to have said.

There should be no debate here.
Whew! I'll listen to the tape next week when it is less radioactive-- and yes the controversey does remind me of fauxrage but it also reminds me of real rage, so maybe policy is what we really need to focus on. Vote with your head.
I understand that Brown said "We can do this." I am not debating that. What I am saying is that Brown did not hear the specifics of the outburst, or merely carried on what he was going to say regardless. He may only have heard that someone shouted out, and not the specifics of what was said. It's possible he even heard what was said, was taken aback and decided to forge ahead with what he was going to say anyway in an effort to get past the hideous outburst. Do you really think "We can do this," was code for, "Yes, if I you vote for me I promise I will stick a curling iron....." Riiiiiight. The smiling or smirk proves Not. One. Thing. He heard someone holler out in the crowd. He responded. That. Is. All.

Well, I understand what XI means by thicker skin and not getting caught up in backs and forths. But. Anonymous/"I'll be damned" --- nice try. As I said before, their campaign *already* used those horrific details to launch a faux-outrage campaign of misinfo against Martha Stewart. So. Brown. Knew. All. About. Using. Curling. Iron. Rape. Details. As. A. Campaign. Tactic.

So, are you up to speed yet? The candidate gave tacit approval to those who gloat and smirk and revel in a little girl's rape in order to gain political points and smear a political opponent's long, good record with misinfo.

You still with me? That's a given. Now. After his campaign already made AMPLE WIDESPREAD use of the rape details for gain, if you still want to believe that Scott "curling iron" Brown didn't hear exactly what was said, I hear there's a new Tooth Fairy movie out you may like. Brown, according to your fairy tale, didn't hear what was shouted, but just HAPPENED to pause, smirk and make an *inadvertent* double entendre. Uh-huh.

And who "got" it? Scott's woman-hater-curling-iron-club following. They got it so much that they laughed and laughed. Did Brown look *puzzled* as to why a standard stump slogan garnered laughter instead of the usual applause and chants? Uh, that would be NO. He looked smirky.

Nice try, but Scott is busted. As are his followers.
Meh. I choose not to participate in your outrage, Zee.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic