Tea Partiers mock Parkinson's victim

[Invictus ChiKen]

Link

Guys, I think I am gonna be sick....

[wautd]

So why do teabaggers find embryos more important than living human beings again?

[Invictus ChiKen]

So why do teabaggers find embryos more important than living human beings again?

Sorry for typos half asleep.

As a guy leaning pro-life I can tell you. It isn't about the unborn. They don't give two fucks about the unborn they just wanna use pro-life to keep women as property and to enforce there views on sex. If they really cared about embryos they'd be all over this health care reform free health care = more prenatal care = healthier babies being born.

Also there is the fact an embryo can't disagree with you, or hold opposing views to you and if anyone attacks you just play the you hate the babies card.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Absolutely... Fucking... Disgusting.

Fuck them all. I hope they all reap that which they sow.

[Mayabird]

ShadowDragon, do you have anything useful to add or are you just going to spam tough-guy internet bullshit?
[line 2]

[Uraniun235]

One of the guys there issued an apology.

The man who berated and tossed dollar bills at a man with Parkinson's disease during a health care protest last week says he is remorseful and scared.

"I snapped. I absolutely snapped and I can't explain it any other way," said Chris Reichert of Victorian Village, in a Dispatch interview.

In his first comments on an incident that went viral across the Internet and was repeatedly played on cable television news shows, Reichert said he is sorry about his confrontation with Robert A. Letcher, 60, of the North Side. Letcher, a former nuclear engineer who suffers from Parkinson's, was verbally attacked as he sat before anti-health care demonstrators in front of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy's district office last week.

"He's got every right to do what he did and some may say I did too, but what I did was shameful," Reichert said. "I haven't slept since that day."

"I made a donation (to a local Parkinson's disease group) and that starts the healing process."

Earlier this week, Reichert, 40, denied any involvement in a confrontation featured in a Dispatch video that drew an emotional response from viewers across the country.

"I wanted this to go away, but it won't and I'm paying the consequences," Reichert said.

He said he's fearful for his family after reading comments about his actions on the Internet.

"I've been looking at the web sites," he said. "People are hunting for me."

The demonstration took place just days before the House voted on health-care reform legislation, drawing hundreds of supporters and opponents. Kilroy herself condemned the action, entering a link to the video into the Congressional Record. Ohio Democrats plan to use the incident to raise money.

When Letcher sat down in front of opponents and held a sign indicating that he had Parkinson's disease, an unidentified man berated him, saying, "If you're looking for a hand-out, you're on the wrong end of town."

Reichert then stepped from the crowd, bent down, pointed a finger in Letcher's face and as he tossed a pair of dollar bills yelled, "I'll pay for this guy. Here you go. Let's start a pot, I'll pay for you. I'll decide when to give you money. Here. Here's another one."

Organizers on both sides of the debate quickly condemned the actions of Reichert and the other man, who still has not been identified. Reichert, a registered Republican, said he is not politically active. He said he heard about the rally on the radio and a neighbor invited him to attend.

"That was my first time at any political rally and I'm never going to another one," Reichert said.

"I will never ever, ever go to another one."

[Serafina]

Nice proof that these statements are not just rhetorics, but actual beliefs.
It is a big difference if some senator says "no stuff for free!" or if you can actually say "nothing for free for you scumbag" right into a fact of a crippled man.

Unfortunaltey, it's not just rhetoric

@ Uraniums post:
This shows nicely how crowds can work. The man who apologized is propably a decent person most of the time, but he is so ingrained with the movement that following it becomes a reflext, bypassing any tought-process.

[ShadowDragon8685]

ShadowDragon, do you have anything useful to add or are you just going to spam tough-guy internet bullshit?
[line 2]

Exactly what of any use can be added?

OP: *video of Righttards being Righttards in especially heinous and disgusting, disturbing way*
People: *shock*

I do hope they reap what they sow. I hope those guys who mocked the poor Parkinson's victim wind up in dire need of healthcare owing to problems which vastly outstrip their ability to purchase said care. They deserve it, and oftentimes the only way these people learn is by being made an object lesson of.

Can you honestly say that you don't? I don't think so. It may be ITG stuff, but it's not like I said they should all be lined up against a wall and shot, or all injected with AIDS or whatever. I just said that I hope that they reap what they sow; in this case, they're sowing mockery of someone in a horrible state, they're sowing the lack of a healthcare system which is capable of caring for those in situations where the alternative is to rot and die in a gutter.

Is it wrong to wish that upon them? Is it really? There's only so much other cheek that you can turn, and frankly this was particularly heinous and vile.

@Uranium: wow.

I am truely amazed.

A righttard turned from the pack. Granted, it was only after-the-fact, thus indicating that it might only have been his fear of retribution. If he really did donate money to a Parkinson's charity, then that would at least speak more to his favor.

What're the odds it's really a realization of just how much of a shit he is if he doesn't change course sharply now, as opposed to just saving face (and possibly skin?) I'd put them long, personally, but not incredulously long.

[Tanasinn]

The man who apologized is propably a decent person most of the time, but he is so ingrained with the movement that following it becomes a reflext, bypassing any tought-process.

He's also admittedly afraid of being hunted down on the internet and being given a friendly real-life "hello" from all his new-found "fans."

Call me cynical, but I think it's more likely that he's just an asshole who's scared.

[Chris OFarrell]

One of the guys there issued an apology

*snip*

Is it just me or is this guys 'apology' sounding less like a guy who is genuinly sorry, and more like a guy who is sorry about the fact that his actions actually have consequences and his bullying BS is actually coming back to haunt him...

"I wanted this to go away, but it won't and I'm paying the consequences," Reichert said.

He said he's fearful for his family after reading comments about his actions on the Internet.

"I've been looking at the web sites," he said. "People are hunting for me."

Granted, he at least had the guts to publiclly come clean, make a donation -though I think it would be a lot more meaningful if he simply went to the man and publically apologised for his actions- but its clearly still fear of a T-Bager suddenly realising he can't hide in the crowd anonymously IMHO...

[The Romulan Republic]

Exactly what of any use can be added?

OP: *video of Righttards being Righttards in especially heinous and disgusting, disturbing way*
People: *shock*

I do hope they reap what they sow. I hope those guys who mocked the poor Parkinson's victim wind up in dire need of healthcare owing to problems which vastly outstrip their ability to purchase said care. They deserve it, and oftentimes the only way these people learn is by being made an object lesson of.

Can you honestly say that you don't? I don't think so. It may be ITG stuff, but it's not like I said they should all be lined up against a wall and shot, or all injected with AIDS or whatever. I just said that I hope that they reap what they sow; in this case, they're sowing mockery of someone in a horrible state, they're sowing the lack of a healthcare system which is capable of caring for those in situations where the alternative is to rot and die in a gutter.

Is it wrong to wish that upon them? Is it really? There's only so much other cheek that you can turn, and frankly this was particularly heinous and vile.

Not nearly as vile as death threats and attempted murder. There's a lot worse out there (not that that in any way excuses it, of course).

And yes I can honestly say that I don't wish ill on any of them. I prefer that progress be made without any more hardship being inflicted upon anyone.

@Uranium: wow.

I am truely amazed.

A righttard turned from the pack. Granted, it was only after-the-fact, thus indicating that it might only have been his fear of retribution. If he really did donate money to a Parkinson's charity, then that would at least speak more to his favor.

What're the odds it's really a realization of just how much of a shit he is if he doesn't change course sharply now, as opposed to just saving face (and possibly skin?) I'd put them long, personally, but not incredulously long.

Even the most hardcore extremists can sometimes (even if its rare) change for the better. It does happen. As disgusting and frightening as a lot of recent behavior from the far-Right has been, its members are not pure evil, nor do they think entirely in lock-step. So I agree, it doesn't sound like there's anything particularly incredulous about it.

Edit: Granted, fear is clearly a motive, though that doesn't nessissarily preclude him feeling real remorse. And frankly, if his claims about being "hunted" are accurate, fear in his position is perfectly reasonable.

[Darth Wong]

The man who apologized is propably a decent person most of the time, but he is so ingrained with the movement that following it becomes a reflext, bypassing any tought-process.

He's also admittedly afraid of being hunted down on the internet and being given a friendly real-life "hello" from all his new-found "fans."

Call me cynical, but I think it's more likely that he's just an asshole who's scared.

I'm with you on this one. Bullies have a way of finding the courage to say "sorry" when they get in trouble, but the minute they think the authorities aren't looking any more, they act like bullies again.

More importantly, people like this never re-evaluate their thinking process. They might admit a mistake, but they will never admit a flaw in the thinking process that led to that mistake. It's like all of the right-wingers who cheered America into Iraq. Years later, they admitted that "mistakes were made", but they were never willing to critically re-examine the thought processes that led to those mistakes. They admit the mistake but they continue to unapologetically use the same thought processes.

[eion]

Melissa Harris-Lacewell was on Countdown tonight, and she was talking about the Teabaggers who hurled homophobic and racist insults at congressmen, but she said something that is absolutely germane to this as well.

To paraphrase, If you are operating in a social movement: civil rights, gay rights, anti-war, anti-government, etc., and you have serious policy goals, one of the first things you do is to train your members not to behave in ways that will distract from your goals. If you're Martin Luther King Jr. and your goal is non-violent Gandhian-style direct action against segregation, you have to train your fellow protestors to resist the natural urge to defend yourself from attacks.

The Tea-Party movement has yet to do this, and this unconscionable incident is just one example of many that distract from their goal of (I'm assuming here) creating a groundswell of support for voting out certain candidates. We shouldn't take the Tea-Party too seriously as a social movement because they aren't acting like a serious social movement does. They're a mob: unruly, undisciplined, and unthinking. And they ought to be treated as such.

[Flagg]

The man who apologized is propably a decent person most of the time, but he is so ingrained with the movement that following it becomes a reflext, bypassing any tought-process.

Bullshit.

The guy acted this way not because he had a lapse in judgment, or because of "mob mentality", he did it because he had enough like-minded dickshits with him to back him up if someone tried retaliating and he lost his inhibition against such behavior and let his true colors show. It's the same with drunks who say stupid or embarrassing shit. The alcohol isn't forcing them to act in some way counter to their beliefs, it's simply stripping away the social constraints and letting their true selves show.

I mean was anyone surprised when Mel Gibson drunkenly ranted and raved about the Jews shortly after releasing his antisemitic snuff film?

[Gil Hamilton]

Notice that not a single person on the Teabagger side did anything but grin along with this douchebag. That didn't look like a guy who got lost in mob mentality, that looked like a guy who was looking to score some points before his own and got caught on video. What a tool box and that whole crowd was right behind him.

[Simon_Jester]

The Tea-Party movement has yet to do this, and this unconscionable incident is just one example of many that distract from their goal of (I'm assuming here) creating a groundswell of support for voting out certain candidates. We shouldn't take the Tea-Party too seriously as a social movement because they aren't acting like a serious social movement does. They're a mob: unruly, undisciplined, and unthinking. And they ought to be treated as such.

There's a catch: mobs are dangerous as hell if they're big enough and operating in enough places. An organization that can summon up a big angry mob anywhere, any time may not be a "serious social movement" in the classic tradition of civil-disobedient protests. But it doesn't have to be; if it wants to it can instead become the Nazi Brown Shirts.

[eion]

The Tea-Party movement has yet to do this, and this unconscionable incident is just one example of many that distract from their goal of (I'm assuming here) creating a groundswell of support for voting out certain candidates. We shouldn't take the Tea-Party too seriously as a social movement because they aren't acting like a serious social movement does. They're a mob: unruly, undisciplined, and unthinking. And they ought to be treated as such.

There's a catch: mobs are dangerous as hell if they're big enough and operating in enough places. An organization that can summon up a big angry mob anywhere, any time may not be a "serious social movement" in the classic tradition of civil-disobedient protests. But it doesn't have to be; if it wants to it can instead become the Nazi Brown Shirts.

Only if they are supported by a sympathetic government. Which is why we should clamp down on them as we would a riot.