Speaking of forgeries and hoaxes...

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-17 09:20pm

The Parlocks are at it again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Of course Matt Sludge ran with this bullshit story... again.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-18 02:44am

And these disprove the photo and story how?

Media Matters and DU?
Are those the only two sources you can find for this 'expose'?

Irregardless of whom the sign supported, the cocksucker who did that to the girl deserves a good beating.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-09-18 02:46am

His union issued a statement of apology and stated that he will face disciplinary action within the union. Whatever that might be.

But still at least an apology was quickly offered.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-09-18 03:44am

How does this the fact that this guy frequently protests Democratic rallies make the picture a "forgery and hoax"? Does that justify the attack somehow?

That said, I think the father was rather irresponsible bringing his daughter to the event. He should know that partisan crowds (of any stripe) can get rowdy; the girl could've gotten hurt.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-18 04:06am

I gotta to say I think the blame lies completly on the attackers. They and they alone made the choice to attack, to frighten a 3 year old girl and behave like a pack of hyenas.

The only creatures that should be behaving like a pack of hyenas are hyenas in a pack.

I want to know what is so damn threatening about a little girl with a sign that you have to attacker her and rip up the sign. The people who did this are right on Bushes level in my opinion. Because they sure don't shrink away from taking his tactics to the next level.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-18 08:41pm

Glocksman wrote:And these disprove the photo and story how?

Media Matters and DU?
Are those the only two sources you can find for this 'expose'?

Irregardless of whom the sign supported, the cocksucker who did that to the girl deserves a good beating.

He sure does. He's the son of the guy holding the little girl!

The sign was grabbed from a Parlock and torn up BY a Parlock. Scroll down and look at the photos. This is just a GOP version of the Phelps family. While Fred Phelps bashes gays, the Parlocks set up phony "incidents" to make themselves look like brave pilgrims beset by Democratic savages. These douchebags even staged a shooting at the RNC headquarters.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-18 08:44pm

Shep is of course quoting the same Mark Steyn who claims that Max Cleland didn't deserve his medals.

Maybe you should go back to the Moonies, Shep.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-18 09:29pm

Elfdart wrote:
Glocksman wrote:And these disprove the photo and story how?

Media Matters and DU?
Are those the only two sources you can find for this 'expose'?

Irregardless of whom the sign supported, the cocksucker who did that to the girl deserves a good beating.
He sure does. He's the son of the guy holding the little girl!

The sign was grabbed from a Parlock and torn up BY a Parlock. Scroll down and look at the photos. This is just a GOP version of the Phelps family. While Fred Phelps bashes gays, the Parlocks set up phony "incidents" to make themselves look like brave pilgrims beset by Democratic savages. These douchebags even staged a shooting at the RNC headquarters.

So it's all a setup now?

Proof, and this time from somewhere else than DU or David 'The Real Anita Hill' Brock's site.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-18 09:50pm

Oh yes, the Union itself says that one of their 'overzealous members' did it.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades believes in the fundamental right for civil discourse, freedom of speech and activism to support our candidates and issues.

What happened in Huntington, West Virginia yesterday is an affront to everything we, as a union, pride ourselves to represent. We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them.

I have personally taken steps to address this issue internally, and will take immediate disciplinary action to the fullest extent allowed under U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the constitution of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

It is my hope that this incident reminds all of our members that every last citizen in this country has the right to express his or herself freely. Not one single one of us has the right to tell them otherwise.

General President James A. Williams
The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

Until the union (cause they know if the guy was genuine union or not) says it was a setup, the conspiracy theory is merely one more looney tunes theory passed along by the whackjobs at the DU.

Though I do admit to enjoying Auntie Pinko. That writer is one of the few DU denziens with more than one functioning brain cell.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-18 11:30pm

Look at the photo of the "union" guy and the Parlock family photo. I know people in W.Va. are supposedly inbred, but c'mon.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091804X.shtml

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-18 11:45pm

There's a resemblance all right, but a fuzzy picture taken at a different angle doesn't constitute decisive evidence.

And yet again I ask if it was Parlock's son, why isn't IUPAT pointing out that the guy wasn't one of their members, instead of apologizing for the incident and promising to impose internal discipline on him?

I'm afraid that I'll have to take the union president at his word that it was one of his members that did it.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-09-18 11:48pm

Of course, the Union could simply be apologizing at the first sign of trouble to avoid any repercussions.

"Shit, um, we're sorry, we'll kick this guy's ass..."

Later...

"Wait, who the hell is that guy, anyway?"

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-18 11:54pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Of course, the Union could simply be apologizing at the first sign of trouble to avoid any repercussions.

"Shit, um, we're sorry, we'll kick this guy's ass..."

Later...

"Wait, who the hell is that guy, anyway?"

True, and if they later announce that they have no idea who he was, I'll lean towards believing the guy was Parlock's son as there is a resemblance.

But until then I'll take the union guy at his word.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-09-20 02:16am

Look at the photo of the "union" guy and the Parlock family photo.

Why do you assume the looks-like-a-Parlock guy in the photo is one one who tore the sign? The Yahoo photo doesn't say he is, nor do any of the other mainstream media sources.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-20 09:54am

White Cat wrote:Look at the photo of the "union" guy and the Parlock family photo.

Why do you assume the looks-like-a-Parlock guy in the photo is one one who tore the sign? The Yahoo photo doesn't say he is, nor do any of the other mainstream media sources.

He has a piece of the torn sign in his hand.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-09-20 10:13am

Elfdart wrote:He has a piece of the torn sign in his hand.

And how do you know he didn't pick it up off the ground?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-20 01:44pm

aerius wrote:
Elfdart wrote:He has a piece of the torn sign in his hand.
And how do you know he didn't pick it up off the ground?

Why would he bother? Unless he wanted to make sure he was seen in a union T-shirt with a torn-up sign. Another thing: The father isn't holding onto his daughter as much as he is the sign fragment. Why? For the same reason his son is posing in a union shirt: it's a fake!

I'm not a parent, but if someone had yanked anything out of my nephew's hands while he's sitting on my shoulders, they would need Jaws of Life to remove my size 15 shoe from the guy's ass. This guy, after his little girl is supposedly accosted, doesn't even look at the "perp". This whole thing is phonier that John O'Neil's wig.

Let's recap:

A guy with a history of staged "incidents" appears at a Kerry rally (if Dem rallies are so hazardous to the Parlocks, why do they go?) with his daughter holding a sign. Some guy (who just happens to look like a photo of Parlock's son) is seen with a union T-shirt and a piece of the sign. In spite of the fact that a cameraman took pictures, no charges were filed. Not only that, but the photos must have been taken over a period of time because of differences in the crowd -none of whom pay any attention to the "altercation". And the dad is holding the sign, more than his "traumatized" daughter.

The pictures are a fake and so is the whole incident.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-20 02:29pm

What does that have to do with the Parlocks, Sheepshagger? Go hijack someone else's thread.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-20 02:31pm

Elfdart wrote:What does that have to do with the Parlocks, Sheepshagger? Go hijack someone else's thread.

Your thread title said: "Speaking of forgeries and hoaxes....." so it's accurate

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-20 02:53pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Elfdart wrote:What does that have to do with the Parlocks, Sheepshagger? Go hijack someone else's thread.
Your thread title said: "Speaking of forgeries and hoaxes....." so it's accurate

*High-fives Shep.*

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-20 04:58pm

Deleted Shep's irrelevant tangents. I've told you before that I'm not standing for your hijacking anymore. Any further posts of yours regarding CBS and the Killian documents in this thread will be deleted without any warning or notification at all.