NationStates Jolt Archive

A weblog called Rising Hegemon notes that the father of the "abused little girl" in the now 10 page thread that I just ranted in has done this before (http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2004/09/bogus-assault-father-freeper-of-year.html), in 1996 and 2000 to be exact.

Serial Republican Victim complains for the THIRD straight presidential election of being assaulted and has his family assist.

Unbelievable.

Here is today's newspaper story:


A Republican family attended the rally to show support for the Bush-Cheney ticket. Phil Parlock, a Barboursville resident and strong Republican, said his family was accosted by some Kerry supporters.

"We do it peacefully and quietly to show respect. And, we don’t want to get kicked out of anything," Parlock said.

After standing on the tarmac with the Kerry supporters, Parklock and three of his children moved down to the airport road near a parking lot exit.

With Parlock were sons Phil II, 21, and Alex, 11, and daughter Sophia, 3.

Parlock said a Kerry supporter yanked a Bush-Cheney sign out of Sophia’s hands, making her cry. As they stood along the road later, someone threw the ripped-up remains of the sign at them as they passed.


Problem is, as pointed out by some (Rezmutt) at D.U. is he has done this before.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, August 27, 1996, Page 3C


Phil Parlock's experience was less calm.

The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read "Remember Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents.

"It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest."

Parlock said some of the crowd tried to make other anti-Clinton demonstrators feel unwelcome. He estimated that about 150 Dole supporters attended the rally, but their signs couldn't be seen for most of the rally.


Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, October 28, 2000, pg. 1A:


Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore.

But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical.

"I expected some people to take our signs," said Louis, 12. "But I did not expect people to practically attack us."

The two said they didn't go to the Friday morning rally to start trouble.

"I came to support Bush and try to change some people's minds," Louis said.
There are links to all the news stories at the blog.

Now, I don't expect this to change anyone's minds, but for those of us who were feeling a little queasy about this happening at our guy's rally, rest easy. The guy complaining here has as much credibility as Dick Cheney--none at all.

It doesnt matter how many times it has happened. It shouldnt have happened the first time.

If you throw a rock and break a window, and the owner of the house calls the police and your defense is "he never moved the rocks, and the windows have been broken before" who is the cop going to charge? You or the owner of the house.

Dont try to justify acts of aggression or general stupidity

and lets also try not to villify the democrats only, the republicans are no better

It doesnt matter how many times it has happened. It shouldnt have happened the first time.

If you throw a rock and break a window, and the owner of the house calls the police and your defense is "he never moved the rocks, and the windows have been broken before" who is the cop going to charge? You or the owner of the house.

Dont try to justify acts of aggression or general stupidityGee--you don't think it's a coincedence that the same guy has managed to get attacked in virtually the same way three presidential elections in a row? Give me a fucking break.

By the way--go take a look at the blog. There are pictures of the "incident" and a picture of the guy's family. There's a chance that Parlock was using another of his kids to play the part of the "Kerry stooge" who ripped the sign away.

I've never heard of any protester being assaulted by republicans at a rally. Nor do I hear as many protesters interrupting/heckling a democrat speaker. Yet liberals are regularly announcing that they are not geniuses at republican rallies.

Just an observation.

I've never heard of any protester being assaulted by republicans at a rally.

Then you haven't been paying attention.
Nor do I hear as many protesters interrupting/heckling a democrat speaker.

That's because you have to sign a loyalty oath to get into Bush rallies, or hadn't you heard?

I've never heard of any protester being assaulted by republicans at a rally. Nor do I hear as many protesters interrupting/heckling a democrat speaker. Yet liberals are regularly announcing that they are not geniuses at republican rallies.

Just an observation.
try doing a thread search for "attacked by republican" cant be too far back, hell there should be another one on page 3

Although not really familiar with how you guys go about your politics, i do have a question?

Why the hell would anyone with any sense attend a rally/convention being held by the other side.
Would be like going to a stadium to watch football (soccer for you guys) and sitting with the other side. Never seems to be a good idea.

Just goes to show you how far Republicans will go to try to discredit the opponents. Fair play is not in their vocabulary. They are taking lessons straight from Bushs senior political advisor.

Just goes to show you how far Republicans will go to try to discredit the opponents. Fair play is not in their vocabulary. They are taking lessons straight from Bushs senior political advisor.

All is fair in love, war, and politics.

Although not really familiar with how you guys go about your politics, i do have a question?

Why the hell would anyone with any sense attend a rally/convention being held by the other side.
Would be like going to a stadium to watch football (soccer for you guys) and sitting with the other side. Never seems to be a good idea.
Very good point. I doubt anyone would have much pity for someone who did that and then got into a fight. Yet this guy has used his children for 8 years now (3 elections) in exact this way. Why isn't he charged with child abuse. That's what it boils down to. He is delibrately using them by putting them in a confrontational situation and then complaining about it.

Although not really familiar with how you guys go about your politics, i do have a question?

Why the hell would anyone with any sense attend a rally/convention being held by the other side.
Would be like going to a stadium to watch football (soccer for you guys) and sitting with the other side. Never seems to be a good idea.
Adding to that, what kind of person is gonna force their little children to advocate support for a particular political party when they can't possibly have any real knowledge of what's going on?

I just love the "blame the victim" mentality. It completely removes all responsibility from the shoulders of the people who actually did the harm.

I suppose a woman who gets raped while wearing a miniskirt probably had that coming too, right?

I just love the "blame the victim" mentality. It completely removes all responsibility from the shoulders of the people who actually did the harm.

I suppose a woman who gets raped while wearing a miniskirt probably had that coming too, right?

Yes, because the second really follows from the first, doesn't it? I mean, here's this guy, innocently dragging his toddler daughter off to a political rally, and guilelessly giving her a banner supporting the political rally's opponents to wave, just like he did four years ago, and four years before that, with her older siblings. And shock, horror, just like every other time, the banner is snatched away from the child, on camera, providing footage so neat it could have been a set-up stunt for the political party the father supports. But of course, it wasn't. Good heavens no. Just exactly the same thing happening every time over the course of twelve years. That's totally the same thing as a woman in a miniskirt being to blame for being sexually assaulted. How is the weather on your planet?

maybe this guy is just trying to instill hatred of the democrats in his kids.

early childhood trauma will do that to a person.


though i bet the same would happen to someone with a kerry sign at a bush dealy...

Wow, a whole thread to justify the abuse of children. A new high here. :rolleyes:

I've never heard of any protester being assaulted by republicans at a rally.
I have but not to recently. However, the police regurlarly favor assaulting liberal protestors over Republicans.

http://www.wowktv.com/news/index.cfm?newsItemID=1361
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/nyregion/17detain.html?ex=1096084800&en=18d490bdf5b0201c&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

I've never heard of any protester being assaulted by republicans at a rally. Nor do I hear as many protesters interrupting/heckling a democrat speaker. Yet liberals are regularly announcing that they are not geniuses at republican rallies.

Just an observation.

Hmm, we let us all recall that a) you must sign a loyalty oath before getting into a Bush/Cheney speech. The Democrats actually allow Republicans to attend and listen (or heckle).

And perhaps you missed it, but protesters at Bush-Cheney events don't just get attacked... they get charged with tresspass for daring to excercise their right to free speach (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040917-105703-6884r.htm)


Yep - that is much better. Arresting the mother of a dead soldier for protesting.

:rolleyes:

I've never heard of any protester being assaulted by republicans at a rally.

umm... did you miss the picture of the 60+ year old man pulling a 20-some odd year old woman's hair last week or what?

i still find it incredibly hard to believe this guy showed up with "no intentions" of disturbing anyone. who is he trying to kid? when this sort of thing happens at bush rallies, (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/17/bush.protester/index.html) the protestors (and that's what this guy and his kids are) are drowned out by the crowd, hauled off by security and arrested.

i dont mind that a bush supporter shows up at a kerry rally, you have every right to do that in this country (unless you're bush and you make people pledge their support to get in - that's bullshit). i think's dumb if you expect everyone else there to not give you shit for it, but again, that's your prerogative. partisan politics just suck in general.

Hmm, we let us all recall that a) you must sign a loyalty oath before getting into a Bush/Cheney speech. The Democrats actually allow Republicans to attend and listen (or heckle).

And perhaps you missed it, but protesters at Bush-Cheney events don't just get attacked... they get charged with tresspass for daring to excercise their right to free speach (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040917-105703-6884r.htm)


Yep - that is much better. Arresting the mother of a dead soldier for protesting.

:rolleyes:
The key point of this idiotic statement is that the protestors thrown out of Republican events tresspassed. The small little girl abused by the West Virginai Mob was not tresspassing.

The key point of this idiotic statement is that the protestors thrown out of Republican events tresspassed. The small little girl abused by the West Virginai Mob was not tresspassing.


It is not considered "abusing" children every time a parent takes something stupid and dangerous out of their hands...

oh of COURSE, they trespassed into an OPEN event because they didnt sign a LOYALTY OATH to attend, how asinine

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the dad set it up on purpose.

Let's assume he's there trying to perform some kind of publicity stunt

Let's assume he's even trying to get his kids to hate Democrats.

How does any of that take guilt away from those who grabbed the signs from the little girl? An action which is not only callous to do, but also violates free speech.

Did the family not have every right to be there?
Did they not have every right to have their signs?
Is counter-protesting illegal now?

You can banter this back and forth as much as you want but it doesn't change the basic fact that regardless of intent, this guy and his kids weren't harming anyone, and were within their rights. The same cannot be said of the people who took her sign.

Some of you people defend those people as if you were proud of what they did. Personally, I'm impressed by this dad's self control. I have a little girl (coincidentally named Sofie) and I wouldn't have had the same level of temper control he had. If someone had done that to Sofie, I'd break their arm. (As, I suspect, a lot of daddies would)

But that's beside the point.

Nobody is saying that what was done was right. Are you all STUPID? Everyone has said "they guys are jerks. But what the hell is the father doing?"

Though I expect reading that would be easier if your head wasn't so far up your ass.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the dad set it up on purpose.

Let's assume he's there trying to perform some kind of publicity stunt

Let's assume he's even trying to get his kids to hate Democrats.

How does any of that take guilt away from those who grabbed the signs from the little girl? An action which is not only callous to do, but also violates free speech.

Did the family not have every right to be there?
Did they not have every right to have their signs?
Is counter-protesting illegal now?

You can banter this back and forth as much as you want but it doesn't change the basic fact that regardless of intent, this guy and his kids weren't harming anyone, and were within their rights. The same cannot be said of the people who took her sign.

Some of you people defend those people as if you were proud of what they did. Personally, I'm impressed by this dad's self control. I have a little girl (coincidentally named Sofie) and I wouldn't have had the same level of temper control he had. If someone had done that to Sofie, I'd break their arm. (As, I suspect, a lot of daddies would)

But that's beside the point.
ok lets argue rights, did the other people not have the right to take away those signs? they have the freedom to do that. its not like they are removing the people from the area or causing them injury. and it is obvious the father knows what he is doing, seeing as he packed SEVERAL signs smuggled them in and repeatedly removed them, THAT removes the guilt from the people who took it away, any sane person can see he PLANNED on having them taken away and creating a spectacle, for lack of a better word he was "trolling" he was inciting the action that happened thus removing blame from the people who did it

proud of his self control: you, sir, are a sad job. he PUT his daughter there, as well as his other children. REPEATEDLY, he KNEW it would happen, yet he continues to put them in the situation, child services should reprimand him or remove the children temporarily at least

It is not considered "abusing" children every time a parent takes something stupid and dangerous out of their hands...
Zeppistan, I thought you were smarter than that.. or at least you didnt stoop to that.
A Bush/Cheney sign might be misinformed, or misguided (depending on your ideological bent), but hardly stupid and dangerous.

LOL...is the issue about whether or not it's nice to scare kiddies? Or is it politics.

Cause really, they're frippen separate issues...you just keep trying to say that all liberals are evil meanies cause a couple jerkoffs stole a girl's sign.

Of course, we all know that conservatives would never do something like that.

ok lets argue rights, did the other people not have the right to take away those signs? they have the freedom to do that. its not like they are removing the people from the area or causing them injury. and it is obvious the father knows what he is doing, seeing as he packed SEVERAL signs smuggled them in and repeatedly removed them, THAT removes the guilt from the people who took it away, any sane person can see he PLANNED on having them taken away and creating a spectacle, for lack of a better word he was "trolling" he was inciting the action that happened thus removing blame from the people who did it

proud of his self control: you, sir, are a sad job. he PUT his daughter there, as well as his other children. REPEATEDLY, he KNEW it would happen, yet he continues to put them in the situation, child services should reprimand him or remove the children temporarily at least
No No No No NO. No one has the right to take away someone elses property and destroy it. That's called robbery/destruction of private property. Right or Left, it doesnt matter, it's wrong.

It is not considered "abusing" children every time a parent takes something stupid and dangerous out of their hands...
Troll! :eek:

Nobody is saying that what was done was right. Are you all STUPID? Everyone has said "they guys are jerks. But what the hell is the father doing?"

Though I expect reading that would be easier if your head wasn't so far up your ass.

The ones who start personal attacks first are typically the ones with the least wisdom on the subject. This is especially true when profanity is brought into play.

Okay--I didn't put this in the original post, but hell, no one seems to have followed the link and looked the pictures, so I'll repost them here.

Here's the "brutal incident" involving the guy who's pulled this same shit twice before and his daughter and the mean old "Kerry supporter."

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040916/capt.wvrs10309162250.edwards_wvrs103.jpg

And here's a picture of the guy with his entire family.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/photogalleries/Guard/images/photo16.jpg

Now is it just me, or does the "Kerry supporter" look suspiciously like the kid in the gray sweater?

This is the third time that Parlock has pulled the same stunt. The third fucking time.

ok lets argue rights, did the other people not have the right to take away those signs? they have the freedom to do that. its not like they are removing the people from the area or causing them injury. and it is obvious the father knows what he is doing, seeing as he packed SEVERAL signs smuggled them in and repeatedly removed them, THAT removes the guilt from the people who took it away, any sane person can see he PLANNED on having them taken away and creating a spectacle, for lack of a better word he was "trolling" he was inciting the action that happened thus removing blame from the people who did it

proud of his self control: you, sir, are a sad job. he PUT his daughter there, as well as his other children. REPEATEDLY, he KNEW it would happen, yet he continues to put them in the situation, child services should reprimand him or remove the children temporarily at least

I couldn't believe my eyes when you said these people had the rights to take away those signs. Are you serious? Those signs were this guy's personal property, which were confiscated by people who had no authority to do so. What right exactly are you citing? Please show me which Ammendment under the Bill of Rights granted them this right?

It's also interesting that you characterize him as having "smuggled" the signs in. Was this a private function of some kind? Was he carrying some sort of illicit contraband?

For the record, if I were planning to go to a counter protest I would not bring my daughter. I am not praising this guy for doing so. Having said that, I reiterate my original point. You can banter it about all day but the basic facts remain the same.

...until you show me where people have the right to take and destroy other people's property.

Dang. I didn't see this thread. Oh well. I posted nearly the same thing in a new thread.

Dang. I didn't see this thread. Oh well. I posted nearly the same thing in a new thread.
Don't sweat it. The more people who talk about this, the better it is.

I couldn't believe my eyes when you said these people had the rights to take away those signs. Are you serious? Those signs were this guy's personal property, which were confiscated by people who had no authority to do so. What right exactly are you citing? Please show me which Ammendment under the Bill of Rights granted them this right?

It's also interesting that you characterize him as having "smuggled" the signs in. Was this a private function of some kind? Was he carrying some sort of illicit contraband?

For the record, if I were planning to go to a counter protest I would not bring my daughter. I am not praising this guy for doing so. Having said that, I reiterate my original point. You can banter it about all day but the basic facts remain the same.

...until you show me where people have the right to take and destroy other people's property.

when you incite violence you lose your freedom of speech, he is inciting violence every time he has done it after the first time, he knws after EIGHT years what is supposedly going to be done. and from what i can tell, its his own kid that took the sign and tore it up, im pretty sure its ok to tear up his own personal property


and to note to the guy wit the pics. im almsot positive its his kid in the blue t shirt

Okay--I didn't put this in the original post, but hell, no one seems to have followed the link and looked the pictures, so I'll repost them here.

Here's the "brutal incident" involving the guy who's pulled this same shit twice before and his daughter and the mean old "Kerry supporter."

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040916/capt.wvrs10309162250.edwards_wvrs103.jpg

And here's a picture of the guy with his entire family.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/photogalleries/Guard/images/photo16.jpg

Now is it just me, or does the "Kerry supporter" look suspiciously like the kid in the gray sweater?

This is the third time that Parlock has pulled the same stunt. The third fucking time.

Yeah I don't doubt that it was his own son in on the scheme with him. It's obvious that it's all staged considering his history.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the dad set it up on purpose.

Let's assume he's there trying to perform some kind of publicity stunt

Let's assume he's even trying to get his kids to hate Democrats.

How does any of that take guilt away from those who grabbed the signs from the little girl? I say Phil (whore) Parlock staged the whole thing...I say one of Relatives is possing as a Kerry supporter...

And I say it is not the First time this little Whore stages this kind of stunt....

Who gives a fack anymore, really?

What is the point of this thread?

A) Is it to debate whether or not it is bad to steal signs from little girls?

B) Or is it to try to blame liberals for...well, everything?


A and B are both pointless and retarded. This thread should never have been created.

when you incite violence you lose your freedom of speech, he is inciting violence every time he has done it after the first time, he knws after EIGHT years what is supposedly going to be done. and from what i can tell, its his own kid that took the sign and tore it up, im pretty sure its ok to tear up his own personal property


and to note to the guy wit the pics. im almsot positive its his kid in the blue t shirt

Way to dodge the question.
(And no that's not the kid in the grey shirt.)

So what you're saying is that any time I disagree with the group around me, and make my disagreement known, I lose my right to speak up because it might incite violence amongst the people in the crowd.(which, according to your point, would be my fault, not theirs)

Therefore there can be no counterprotesting, no individualism, and certainly no right to speak out against the majority.

Ziek Heil!

Only a sick leftist would think that a Bush supporter would abuse his kid to get at Kerry. Sick. It is obvioucly his whole family surronding him torturing his little girl. Especialy the black woman screaming at her. :rolleyes:

and to note to the guy wit the pics. im almsot positive its his kid in the blue t shirt

You can really tell that in a 300x200 pixel photo? I wish my eyes were that good. I mean, yeah, obviously there's a resemblance - men, with brownish hair - but still ...

you know, they should start penalizing the parties for when their supporters do something stupid.

i mean, it's like in sports. if you can't keep your fans from throwing crap into the playing area, you get penalized. (well, they do it in hockey anyways)

so if at one of your conventions, you can't control your suporters, you get penalized, perhaps fined... and if the people supporting the party are there to actually support them, then they'll be well behaved to prevent their party from being penalized.

Only a sick leftist would think that a Bush supporter would abuse his kid to get at Kerry. Sick. It is obvioucly his whole family surronding him torturing his little girl. Especialy the black woman screaming at her. :rolleyes:I say That Whore is using his 3 years old kid to stage a political stunt....

if thinking that make me a sick leftist...SO BE IT.

you know, they should start penalizing the parties for when their supporters do something stupid.

i mean, it's like in sports. if you can't keep your fans from throwing crap into the playing area, you get penalized. (well, they do it in hockey anyways)

so if at one of your conventions, you can't control your suporters, you get penalized, perhaps fined... and if the people supporting the party are there to actually support them, then they'll be well behaved to prevent their party from being penalized.

That's actually a pretty good idea ... except there will probably be liberals who complain about their right to protest if they get arrested for being stupid. And conservatives who claim that they have the right to bring a gun to a democratic rally if they want.

I say That Whore is using his 3 years old kid to stage a political stunt....

if thinking that make me a sick leftist...SO BE IT.
Well, its good to see you take such a mature aproach to this. :rolleyes:

Way to dodge the question.
(And no that's not the kid in the grey shirt.)

So what you're saying is that any time I disagree with the group around me, and make my disagreement known, I lose my right to speak up because it might incite violence amongst the people in the crowd.(which, according to your point, would be my fault, not theirs)

Therefore there can be no counterprotesting, no individualism, and certainly no right to speak out against the majority.

Ziek Heil!
no the FACT, which is what im relating to you, is when what yo uare doing may or will incite violence, you lose your freedom to do that act. are you saying after 8 yers of preorchestrated events he wouldnt know it would happen? he lost his freedom of speech years ago because he repteadly has done it. something that just MGIHT incite violence loses your right to freedom of speech: yelling fire in a theatre, "fighting" words, distributing pamphlets hinting at government overthrow. do your research

i didnt make the rules, im just telling you them

and in that there is NO suggestion you can coutner protest, you just cant counter-protest in the MIDDLE of the ORIGINAL protest, yo ucan do it soemwhere else at teh same time, but not IN the event itself

You can really tell that in a 300x200 pixel photo? I wish my eyes were that good. I mean, yeah, obviously there's a resemblance - men, with brownish hair - but still ...
look at the cheek bones, hair color, heighth, size, eye shape and set

Well, its good to see you take such a mature aproach to this. :rolleyes:you have seen nothing yet :D

look at the cheek bones, hair color, heighth, size, eye shape and set

Yeah, there certainly is a resemblance. But still, "almost certain" about it? Meh.

Also, is there something somewhere showing the kid in the blue in the picture with the crying girl to be the Kerry supporter that took the sign? I haven't looked much into this; wondering if somebody already has this info.

Also, is there something somewhere showing the kid in the blue in the picture with the crying girl to be the Kerry supporter that took the sign? I haven't looked much into this; wondering if somebody already has this info.BREAKING NEWS: You are due for a trip to the Optometrist...

Only a sick leftist would think that a Bush supporter would abuse his kid to get at Kerry. Sick. It is obvioucly his whole family surronding him torturing his little girl. Especialy the black woman screaming at her. :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, why don't you just villify the black person? That sounds like a typical conservative ploy actually. How do you know that the woman is screaming at the girl? Why in the hell would she ever do that? Did it ever occur to you that she's probably yelling at the grinning asinine Parlock's SON who is the aggressor here? MunkeBrain.

BREAKING NEWS: You are due for a trip to the Optometrist...


Haha! So clever! Now I'd appreciate it if you answer my question, unless you don't have the information I'm looking for either. In that case, kindly spread your witty remarks elsewhere.

I'm being serious. I've looked at pictures, and pictures only. No captions, even. It's really not too hard for somebody to simply say "Look on a news page for the captions" or "Here's a link" and it makes you look like a nicer person than you would otherwise.

Oh yeah, why don't you just villify the black person? That sounds like a typical conservative ploy actually. How do you know that the woman is screaming at the girl? Why in the hell would she ever do that? Did it ever occur to you that she's probably yelling at the grinning asinine Parlock's SON who is the aggressor here? MunkeBrain.
whoah the black woman screaming at her? is this a video clip i missed that shows the black woman screamnig at anyone or what she is screaming?

So people who were actually protesting peacefully with Bush signs are inciting a riot thus they lose there freedoms?

I don't care if this guy has done it before! If he is there to counter protest, that is his right as long as its peaceful. That is all required by law. The right to assemble Peacefully. That is in the 1st amendment of the constitution.

Haha! So clever! Now I'd appreciate it if you answer my question, unless you don't have the information I'm looking for either. In that case, kindly spread your witty remarks elsewhere.

I'm being serious. I've looked at pictures, and pictures only. No captions, even. It's really not too hard for somebody to simply say "Look on a news page for the captions" or "Here's a link" and it makes you look like a nicer person than you would otherwise.
look at the picture of the grinning dumbass, look at the picture of the kids, crop to the kid in blue

examine the facial structure, the shape of the face is ludicrously similar, the heighth is also very exact asusmnig the family picture is on even ground, the hair color and cut is also eerily the same, thats the only details i can gather from the small photo being that small

there is also the interesting reverse farmers tan which i will assume is arm hair which makes the arm look tanned and the hand white, both the dad and the kid that looks insanely like his son

look at the picture of the grinning dumbass, look at the picture of the kids, crop to the kid in blue

examine the facial structure, the shape of the face is ludicrously similar, the heighth is also very exact asusmnig the family picture is on even ground, the hair color and cut is also eerily the same, thats the only details i can gather from the small photo being that small

Er ... I'm not talking about whether the guy in blue is the same guy in the other picture. I'm asking if there's something saying that the guy in blue is the Kerry supporter that actually took the sign. I've already acknowledged the resemblance between the two (or one) person(s) in the two photos.

So people who were actually protesting peacefully with Bush signs are inciting a riot thus they lose there freedoms?

I don't care if this guy has done it before! If he is there to counter protest, that is his right as long as its peaceful. That is all required by law. The right to assemble Peacefully. That is in the 1st amendment of the constitution.
I never said he didn't have the right to protest. All I'm questioning is whether or not what he claims happened actually happened. There's reason to think that he staged the whole thing in order to try to make Kerry supporters look bad.

Er ... I'm not talking about whether the guy in blue is the same guy in the other picture. I'm asking if there's something saying that the guy in blue is the Kerry supporter that actually took the sign. I've already acknowledged the resemblance between the two (or one) person(s) in the two photos.
you see part of the torn up sign in his hands
plus hes the only one that doesnt look disgusted, both him and his dad are hamming it up bad

I never said he didn't have the right to protest. All I'm questioning is whether or not what he claims happened actually happened. There's reason to think that he staged the whole thing in order to try to make Kerry supporters look bad.

Maybe he did then maybe he didn't! I don't know and neither do you. It is still wrong to rip up signs that were someone else's property. That is destruction of private property and it violates the law for said reason.

whoah the black woman screaming at her? is this a video clip i missed that shows the black woman screamnig at anyone or what she is screaming?
I think what MunkeBrain was refering to as 'the black woman screaming at her' was a woman in the background of the photograph with her mouth open. Now whether she was screaming or merely yawning will probably never be known, but my point was that if she's screaming at anyone why would it be a little crying girl and not the grinning simianesque guy standing next to her?

Maybe he did then maybe he didn't! I don't know and neither do you. It is still wrong to rip up signs that were someone else's property. That is destruction of private property and it violates the law for said reason.
But if the whole thing was staged, then there was no harm done to the man or his daughter, and they're perpetrating a fraud on both the media and the Kerry campaign and everyone associated with it.

That's actually a pretty good idea ... except there will probably be liberals who complain about their right to protest if they get arrested for being stupid. And conservatives who claim that they have the right to bring a gun to a democratic rally if they want.

well, if anyone's being excessively disruptive or abusive, they should be removed, so the people with the signs are fine. the people sitting quietly or marching peacefully are fine. the people yelling at speakers, or abusing those who are participating in any form of protest allowed or not, (like last week or so when that guy pulled that woman's hair or this instance) then the abuser would be removed and should the person under attack be participating in a form of excessively disruptive protest, then they should be removed as well.

they should hire the swiss guards as neutral parties for crowd control. :D

I think what MunkeBrain was refering to as 'the black woman screaming at her' was a woman in the background of the photograph with her mouth open. Now whether she was screaming or merely yawning will probably never be known, but my point was that if she's screaming at anyone why would it be a little crying girl and not the grinning simianesque guy standing next to her?
no, its obvious she was screaming, now WHAT or WHO she is screaming at or if she was jsut screaming, is indiscernable from the picture

you see part of the torn up sign in his hands
plus hes the only one that doesnt look disgusted, both him and his dad are hamming it up bad


Mm, alright, I guess that'll do. Thanks.

But if the whole thing was staged, then there was no harm done to the man or his daughter, and they're perpetrating a fraud on both the media and the Kerry campaign and everyone associated with it.

With this Incertonia, I will agree with you.

*tilts his hat towards you*

With this Incertonia, I will agree with you.

*tilts his hat towards you*
Thanks. I appreciate it.

Mm, alright, I guess that'll do. Thanks.
im not sure what his sweater says becuaes the only discernible thing is iupai and there is nothing with those letters, nothing american anyway that i can find, and it says for the Ke then cuts off as he is droppnig the ripped peices of the sign over the rail and grins like an idiot

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Your quite welcome! :)

im not sure what his sweater says becuaes the only discernible thing is iupai and there is nothing with those letters, nothing american anyway that i can find, and it says for the Ke then cuts off as he is droppnig the ripped peices of the sign over the rail and grins like an idiot

Yeah, I was kind of wondering what his shirt said, too. *shrugs*

Only a launatic would belive that an attack on a small child was staged.

im not sure what his sweater says becuaes the only discernible thing is iupai and there is nothing with those letters, nothing american anyway that i can find, and it says for the Ke then cuts off as he is droppnig the ripped peices of the sign over the rail and grins like an idiot
It's the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

It's the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.
Damn, that's it-I'm never hiring researchers. I'll just innocently ask questions on NS and wait. Damn.

My only question is this: How could a parent put there child through this type of harm two more times after the original incident?

My only question is this: How could a parent put there child through this type of harm two more times after the original incident?
You mean like taking his child out in public, only to be attacked by rabid lunatics?

My only question is this: How could a parent put there child through this type of harm two more times after the original incident?
Well in all fairness, this was the first time for this particular child. [/sarcasm]

Only a launatic would belive that an attack on a small child was staged.then I must be a launatic(whatever that is)

Only a launatic would belive that an attack on a small child was staged.

Well, its good to see you take such a mature aproach to this. :rolleyes:

*Points and laughs*

The real question here is are we expected to believe that this happened on three seperate occasions and each time the supposed victim did nothing to antagonise the crowd? That strikes me as highly unlikely. I don't know much about American law but I believe incitement is a crime. And if he was deliberately provoking the crowd then it's child abuse. Pure and simple.

It's sad, how some people will exploit their children. How old was the kid? Is she even old enough to know what the sign she was holding stood for?

It's sad, how some people will exploit their children. How old was the kid? Is she even old enough to know what the sign she was holding stood for?
She was 3. I doubt she was even capable of reading the sign.

She was 3. I doubt she was even capable of reading the sign.

3 year olds can recognize writing they've seen a number of times and learn to associate the writing with what an adult says.

i could "read" toys 'r' us by the time i was 2. though had those words been taken out of that context and written individually on paper, chances are i wouldn't have known what they were.

but yeah, i somehow coubt the child is very politically inclined at 3.

3 year olds can recognize writing they've seen a number of times and learn to associate the writing with what an adult says.

i could "read" toys 'r' us by the time i was 2. though had those words been taken out of that context and written individually on paper, chances are i wouldn't have known what they were.Yup...Toys'R'us was my first word(read) too :D

Yup...Toys'R'us was my first word(read) too :D

I was such a little dork. I dunno about my first word, but I started understanding the concepts of time when I started remembering that Mario Brothers started at 6:30 pm :p

Hey-it put me ahead of most of my class, too xD

I was such a little dork. I dunno about my first word, but I started understanding the concepts of time when I started remembering that Mario Brothers started at 6:30 pm :p

Hey-it put me ahead of most of my class, too xD
Puts you ahead of most of the graduating class in my school.

oh, i had the t.v. schedule memorized by the time i was mobile enough to walk downstairs by myself 'cause at that point my mom started sleeping in until noon and being a little kid, i was up at the crack of dawn.

but yeah, it really screwed me up when they moved the channels around on me. i went to the my little pony channel and there was a talk show and i was like "where are the ponies?" though i can assure you that had i been exposed to the phrase "what the fuck" i probably would have used that instead.

oh, i had the t.v. schedule memorized by the time i was mobile enough to walk downstairs by myself 'cause at that point my mom started sleeping in until noon and being a little kid, i was up at the crack of dawn.

but yeah, it really screwed me up when they moved the channels around on me. i went to the my little pony channel and there was a talk show and i was like "where are the ponies?" though i can assure you that had i been exposed to the phrase "what the fuck" i probably would have used that instead.

what...My Little Pony? That show sucked! :p

I was the video game dork, so I watched all those shows. There were half a bajillion mario shows, and I think I watched them all xD

But I think we can ALL agree on Transformers kicking ass ;)




Ahhhhh...them good ol' days...cartoons suck now. The only thing I would've watched as a kid would be Spongebob and Farily Odd Parents. There used to be so many awesome shows, and now they're all gone :(

what...My Little Pony? That show sucked! :p

I was the video game dork, so I watched all those shows. There were half a bajillion mario shows, and I think I watched them all xD

But I think we can ALL agree on Transformers kicking ass ;)




Ahhhhh...them good ol' days...cartoons suck now. The only thing I would've watched as a kid would be Spongebob and Farily Odd Parents. There used to be so many awesome shows, and now they're all gone :(

hey man, i'm a girl, what the hell did you expect me to watch?

i was also big on sesame street and mr. dressup (rip) who was so much better than mr. rogers (again, rip) and yeah, 80's cartoons were much better than the ones now... and even the ones they've brought back are going downhill, the old teenage mutant ninja turtles was so much better than the new one, sesame street is now designed for ravers on acid, the new x-men cartoon sucks too (though the original were later childhood for me)

but yeah, spongebob does rock, fairly odd parents isn't bad, i don't see it often... dexter's lab is pretty good at times...

hey man, i'm a girl, what the hell did you expect me to watch?

i was also big on sesame street and mr. dressup (rip) who was so much better than mr. rogers (again, rip) and yeah, 80's cartoons were much better than the ones now... and even the ones they've brought back are going downhill, the old teenage mutant ninja turtles was so much better than the new one, sesame street is now designed for ravers on acid, the new x-men cartoon sucks too (though the original were later childhood for me)

but yeah, spongebob does rock, fairly odd parents isn't bad, i don't see it often... dexter's lab is pretty good at times...
actually the new ninja turtles doesnt suck as bad as i thought, its as good as the original, so long as you dont pretend they are on the same level

now the new everything else blows

Regardless of my political convictions, the guy is a jackass for doing that to his children. Like I said in the other thread:


Of course it shouldn't be tolerated that adults do bad things to children. But you're all missing the real point:

WTF is a child doing on a political rally at the first place? To add insult to injury, it's even on a rally of the opposite party! It does not understand politics. There's no reason for a child to be there.

By principle I am against children being used in politics, even if it is only at a party meeting of your own party.

And the father is a jackass for going there with his child. Did he think people wouldn't do anything against him because he brought a kid with him? Did he go there because he could afterwards tell his daughter "see how evil they are?".

This is like deliberately going into the wrong section of the football stadium with your kids at your side and then flying the colours of your team.

hey man, i'm a girl, what the hell did you expect me to watch?

i was also big on sesame street and mr. dressup (rip) who was so much better than mr. rogers (again, rip) and yeah, 80's cartoons were much better than the ones now... and even the ones they've brought back are going downhill, the old teenage mutant ninja turtles was so much better than the new one, sesame street is now designed for ravers on acid, the new x-men cartoon sucks too (though the original were later childhood for me)

but yeah, spongebob does rock, fairly odd parents isn't bad, i don't see it often... dexter's lab is pretty good at times...

Hey, don't diss Mr. Rogers. He was cool :p.

...The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were one of the most awesome cartoons ever. Burried somewhere are some tapes I bought as a wee little kid. And the old X-Men was so incredibly supercool. At one point I couldn't get home in time, so I started taping all the episodes. I lost that tape...;_;

ok lets argue rights, did the other people not have the right to take away those signs? they have the freedom to do that. its not like they are removing the people from the area or causing them injury.

Actually, they don't have that right. Those signs were personal property of the Parlocks. Whoever took the signs and destroyed them destroyed personal property and denied the Parlocks their Constitutional right to peacefully assemble in protest of the Kerry/Edwards camp.

Whether you argue that the Parlocks shouldn't have been there or not, it's a moot point. They were well within their rights to be there, to do exactly what they did. It, unlike the Republican events I see tossed around here dealing with people being arrested for trespassing, was NOT a closed event. The crowd who stole and destroyed the signs had no right to do so, and in doing so violated the rights of others.

Actually, they don't have that right. Those signs were personal property of the Parlocks. Whoever took the signs and destroyed them destroyed personal property and denied the Parlocks their Constitutional right to peacefully assemble in protest of the Kerry/Edwards camp.
1) i am completely correct in saying he lost his freedom of speech because of what he was doing knowing full well what would happen
2) it is almost 100% obvious it is his SON that tore up the poster

Whether you argue that the Parlocks shouldn't have been there or not, it's a moot point. They were well within their rights to be there, to do exactly what they did.
no they wernt, he went with the intention and knowledge what he would doing would cause something to happen, especially sicne he more than likelu planned it, in doing so he loses his freedom of speech because its purpose was to incite violence, not convey a message


The crowd who stole and destroyed the signs had no right to do so, and in doing so violated the rights of others.
you mean the one guy that looks like his son? i see no one there that doesnt look disgusted but him and the grinning idiot who looks like his son, and isntead of looking mad he is overacting the part of sad, which i commented on when i first saw the picture without even knowing the link

1) i am completely correct in saying he lost his freedom of speech because of what he was doing knowing full well what would happen

No, you're not. He peaceably assembled. He didn't shout. He didn't throw punches. He stood there, with a sign. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution which says he cannot do that in a public gathering. There is also nothing in the US Constitution that says anyone has the right to destroy his personal property.

2) it is almost 100% obvious it is his SON that tore up the poster

Give me a DNA test, because looking vaguely like someone and being 100% positive that it's the same person... wouldn't hold up in court. Oh, wait... doesn't seem to matter, I guess. He's a Republican. I guess he's automatically guilty in the court of the internet.

no they wernt, he went with the intention and knowledge what he would doing would cause something to happen, especially sicne he more than likelu planned it, in doing so he loses his freedom of speech because its purpose was to incite violence, not convey a message

I see a lot of "100%" and "more than likely planned it." Frankly, doesn't matter if he did or not.

I don't believe it's his son... and I think you'd be rather hard-pressed to prove that.

I'm not going to argue whether or not he should bring his children. I will argue that he has every right to do so, and that he has every right to show up and peacefully protest... which means not shouting people down... not rushing a stage... not trespassing on a closed event.

I will argue the same for liberals or conservatives. Rights have to apply to everyone or they mean nothing.

you mean the one guy that looks like his son? i see no one there that doesnt look disgusted but him and the grinning idiot who looks like his son, and isntead of looking mad he is overacting the part of sad, which i commented on when i first saw the picture without even knowing the link

Once again, that's a lot of supposition there.

Have you ever had a picture snapped where you had a stupid expression on your face? I'm sure you have. Can you automatically read everyone's expressions moment to moment?

Looks more pissed off to me.

Highly subjective.

I'm not saying you're wrong, that he shouldn't have been there.

I'm saying he has every right to be there and do just what he did. Infringing upon those rights, regardless of what party you're affiliated with... that's wrong.

And on a completely unrelated note, am I the only one who couldn't help but laugh at the guy with the upside-down sign?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040917/480/wvrs10109170018

I don't care who he supports... that just made me grin. :p

No, you're not. He peaceably assembled. He didn't shout. He didn't throw punches. He stood there, with a sign. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution which says he cannot do that in a public gathering. There is also nothing in the US Constitution that says anyone has the right to destroy his personal property.
1) he had the right to go there, no prob, but he lost his rights to free speech when he held up the sign, seeing as he has done it in the past with obviously preorchestrated results, him doing it repeatedly and apparently knowing it will happen means he is inciting violence: no mor freedom of speech
2) well reprimand him, not the other protestors, examine the pictures



Give me a DNA test, because looking vaguely like someone and being 100% positive that it's the same person... wouldn't hold up in court. Oh, wait... doesn't seem to matter, I guess. He's a Republican. I guess he's automatically guilty in the court of the internet.
examine the pictures, do a google search, he just happens to be wherever democrats are acting badly, and he has done this repeatedly



Have you ever had a picture snapped where you had a stupid expression on your face? I'm sure you have. Can you automatically read everyone's expressions moment to moment?

Looks more pissed off to me.
rofl are you kidding me? get your eyes examined and look more closely



I'm saying he has every right to be there and do just what he did. Infringing upon those rights, regardless of what party you're affiliated with... that's wrong.
no one stopped him from being there, no one hand cuffed him and led him away, what looks like his son ripped up the sign and some one took a picture of him. he was inciting violence by repeatedly going to democrat protests and removing the signs to have them torn up. he knew they would be torn up, but he repeated doing it: inciting violence, lose the protections of the first amendment

And a statement issued by the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades on the issue. They seem to claim the man with the torn sign.



Statement from the General President Regarding the Events in Huntington, WV

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

www.ibpat.org/news/WVa.html

And a statement issued by the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades on the issue. They seem to claim the man with the torn sign.



Statement from the General President Regarding the Events in Huntington, WV

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

www.ibpat.org/news/WVa.html
that's probably just because of the sweater, i was wondering what that said

1) he had the right to go there, no prob, but he lost his rights to free speech when he held up the sign, seeing as he has done it in the past with obviously preorchestrated results, him doing it repeatedly and apparently knowing it will happen means he is inciting violence: no mor freedom of speech

You mean like the mother who was removed from Laura Bush's speech for shouting? The same mother who has done this repeatedly in the last few months?

2) well reprimand him, not the other protestors, examine the pictures

If you look back in my posts, you don't see me specifically condemning other protestors. I condemn the event in general because reports state that several people were involved. I condemn the one man in particular because he still has evidence in his hand. I would condemn anyone else responsible, but we have no way of knowing who they were.


rofl are you kidding me? get your eyes examined and look more closely

I'm a pilot. My eyes are fine. You can't tell a relationship strictly based upon appearance, particularly in a rural area where there are distant cousins everywhere you turn. I'm from West Virginia. I know how it goes there.


no one stopped him from being there, no one hand cuffed him and led him away, what looks like his son ripped up the sign and some one took a picture of him. he was inciting violence by repeatedly going to democrat protests and removing the signs to have them torn up. he knew they would be torn up, but he repeated doing it: inciting violence, lose the protections of the first amendment

I don't agree. Holding up a sign that is professionally done, does NOT have vulgar or offensive statements (and no, Bush/Cheney 2004 doesn't count as vulgar or offensive) does not amount to inciting violence.

Is it the smartest thing to do? Probably not. But I maintain, he had every right to do it. There is nothing in this case that would limit his free speech... except people who take exception to his beliefs and chose to deny him the right.

that's probably just because of the sweater, i was wondering what that said

There's that probably again...

Can we not just agree that the destruction of personal property was wrong?

You mean like the mother who was removed from Laura Bush's speech for shouting? The same mother who has done this repeatedly in the last few months?
inciting violence is non partisan, stop trying to play games and draw me into a blatantly obvious trap








I'm a pilot. With 20/20 vision. My eyes are fine. You can't tell a relationship strictly based upon appearance, particularly in a rural area where there are distant cousins everywhere you turn. I'm from West Virginia. I know how it goes there.
im talknig about between the kid there and the guys family photo




I don't agree. Holding up a sign that is professionally done, does NOT have vulgar or offensive statements (and no, Bush/Cheney 2004 doesn't count as vulgar or offensive) does not amount to inciting violence.
no it doesnt, but knowing that if you hold up a sign it it will be removed, then doing it again, and again and again IS inciting violence because you know what will happen if you do it

inciting violence is non partisan, stop trying to play games and draw me into a blatantly obvious trap

I'm not trying to play games. You don't know my politics... you don't know which side I support.

Frankly, I'm saying that there is a major difference between these two cases. And I support freedom of speech for both sides.

im talknig about between the kid there and the guys family photo

I know who you're talking about. I'm saying that a snapshot alone doesn't prove anything.

no it doesnt, but knowing that if you hold up a sign it it will be removed, then doing it again, and again and again IS inciting violence because you know what will happen if you do it

Doing it once, twice, three times, or even twenty times makes no difference. Is it the smartest thing to do? No. But the removal should not have happened in the first place. Because it was done repeatedly makes it no less wrong.

As I've said, I say the same applies to both parties.

The 1st Amendment applies to all citizens of the United States, irregardless if you agree with what they have to say, Chess Squares.

The 1st Amendment applies to all citizens of the United States, irregardless if you agree with what they have to say, Chess Squares.
since no one is listening im gonig tos top arguing, you people obviously dont know the rules and wont listen to me tell them to you

since no one is listening im gonig tos top arguing, you people obviously dont know the rules and wont listen to me tell them to you

No, we are indeed listening; we just know you are wrong. And you have yet to realize it.

since no one is listening im gonig tos top arguing, you people obviously dont know the rules and wont listen to me tell them to you

If by "rules" you mean rule of law, my friend, it's not there. Violations of these rules were made on one side of this issue... and it wasn't the Parlocks.

since no one is listening im gonig tos top arguing, you people obviously dont know the rules and wont listen to me tell them to you
Aw, did someone finally realize that he is not making any sense at all and being ignored? :( When you start advocating the torture of small children and displace the blame, you are ignored.

The 1st Amendment applies to all citizens of the United States, irregardless if you agree with what they have to say, Chess Squares.

Gee, does that include Bush rallies? Because its not very 1st Amendmentlike to force someone to sign a loyalty oath to the president to attend a rally. Its also not very rightful to require peaceful protestors to remain miles away from their president merely because of disagreement.

The difference between the two candidates is that with Kerry, you have every right to go to his rallies and disagree. With Bush, you're likely to be arrested for trespassing. Which of those two scenarios sounds more American to you?

Of course, with your posting name, I'm sure you'll sidestep that issue.

Aw, did someone finally realize that he is not making any sense at all and being ignored? :( When you start advocating the torture of small children and displace the blame, you are ignored.

This is your idea of torture? A moron who screams that Jews are taking over the elected body of West Virginia and blasts a reverend for being godless who then takes his kid to a political rally of the opposing candidate? A child who has their sign taken?

What the hell is going on in Abu Gharib then?

Please get some perspective....or intelligence.

You mean like taking his child out in public, only to be attacked by rabid lunatics?

No, the first time he should've known that bringing a child out to be subjected to other's torment should be reason enough to keep them away from that environment until they are old enough to fend for themselves.

Taking a child out into public is irrelevant here, and you know it. Your argument is based on the fact that you're hoping that we side with you on the basis that all children who have Bush signs are attacked by liberal lefties... which is untrue, this man has subjected his children to this, and unfortunately, this is what happens when you don't learn that.

If it were up to me, I'd call Child Services and have them investigate.

It's a publicity stunt, pure and simple, and it's not just Republicans who do this sort of stuff; it's just, that the media, only reports this vein of the effects.

Gee, does that include Bush rallies? Because its not very 1st Amendmentlike to force someone to sign a loyalty oath to the president to attend a rally. Its also not very rightful to require peaceful protestors to remain miles away from their president merely because of disagreement.

The difference between the two candidates is that with Kerry, you have every right to go to his rallies and disagree. With Bush, you're likely to be arrested for trespassing. Which of those two scenarios sounds more American to you?

Of course, with your posting name, I'm sure you'll sidestep that issue.


If you remember, someone leaked that terriorists were planning an attack on the RNC convention, it was probably bullshit but, why would they take the chance that some asshole with a rifle was hiding in a crowd of peacefull protestors. Be a hell of a place to hide. Plus, a large chunck of these "peacefull protestors" sat by and watched as a man was beat almost to death. So maybe they weren't so peacefull. And if you remember right, they did the same thing during the DNC convention. Going as far as fencing them off under a bridge. So don't sit here and tell me that only Bush requires protestors to stay away from a rally.

And its not in anyway coming close to violating the 1st amendment to require people to sign a loyalty oath if you want people who are supportive of your cause at a private rally. Remember, they had to spend big bucks on that building so its their right to refuse entrance to whoever they hell they want.

If you remember, someone leaked that terriorists were planning an attack on the RNC convention, it was probably bullshit but, why would they take the chance that some asshole with a rifle was hiding in a crowd of peacefull protestors. Be a hell of a place to hide. Plus, a large chunck of these "peacefull protestors" sat by and watched as a man was beat almost to death. So maybe they weren't so peacefull. And if you remember right, they did the same thing during the DNC convention. Going as far as fencing them off under a bridge. So don't sit here and tell me that only Bush requires protestors to stay away from a rally.

And its not in anyway coming close to require people to sign a loyalty oath if you want people who are supportive of your cause at a private rally. Remember, they had to spend big bucks on that building so its their right to refuse entrance to whoever they hell they want.
only bush requires loyalty oaths at OPEN gatherings to see his convention

I don't agree. Holding up a sign that is professionally done, does NOT have vulgar or offensive statements (and no, Bush/Cheney 2004 doesn't count as vulgar That's not the only question though. Are you prepared to say (considering this gentleman's past record) that you are convinced that there is not a significant possibility that their was verbal provocation of convention goers? And that every time this has happened to him has been the same?

When you start advocating the torture of small children You're the one who supports child abuse as long as the parent's a Republican.

No, we are indeed listening; we just know you are wrong. And you have yet to realize it.
i can always start citing case law if you dont get down off your high horse

That's not the only question though. Are you prepared to say (considering this gentleman's past record) that you are convinced that there is not a significant possibility that their was verbal provocation of convention goers? And that every time this has happened to him has been the same?

I wasn't there. I can't say with 100% certainty that there was not provocation. Neither can anyone else here say that there was.

But ask yourself this: if I came up and said, "You're an idiot for voting for Kerry," does that give you the right to not only deny me the use of my personal property, but also to destroy it? Does anything I say give you that right?

Simple answer is no.

Again, it doesn't matter that this man is a Republican. I would say the same for a Democrat in the same situation. The fact of the matter is that it was wrong, no matter how you slice it.

I'm not going to go as far as I've seen on these boards with suggesting that Kerry supporters are thugs. Obviously some are. But likewise some Bush supporters are. No one here knows my political views and it will stay that way.

The fact remains: the right of freedom of speech (when you are NOT violating the law) must be granted to everyone or they mean nothing.

....When you start advocating the torture of small children.I also advocate the mandory use of condoms by MonkiBrain...

As an aside, for all the people who believe the man beside him is his son...

Huntington is the second largest city in West Virginia, with 51,475 people. I'm originally from only a couple of hours from there and lived in Huntington for a year. Barboursville (Parlock's town) neighbors Huntington and has a population of 3,183. (Both populations are from the 2000 Census and can be viewed here http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&mt_name=DEC_2000_PL_U_GCTPL_ST7&format=ST-7&_box_head_nbr=GCT-PL&ds_name=DEC_2000_PL_U&geo_id=04000US54 )

Huntington is a college town (with Marshall University) and is just across the river from Ohio and about five miles from Kentucky. It also has all the failings of larger towns, on a smaller scale (crime, drugs, etc.).

By any measure except West Virginian, it's small town USA. In West Virginia, it's a big city.

I have to question the odds of pulling off a stunt with his son in a town that size. I grew up in one the same size only about two hours from there... and trust me, everyone knows when something happens. Opinion alert: It would be pretty difficult to get away with something like he's been accused of on this and other threads (namely posing his son as an thug) and have apparently no one in the town notice.
i still find it amusing he has managed to do this year after year after year, and using his children to get publicity, it has to be staged one way or another for it to continue happening and him to keep getting airtime

As an aside, for all the people who believe the man beside him is his son...

Huntington is the second largest city in West Virginia, with 51,475 people. I'm originally from only a couple of hours from there and lived in Huntington for a year. Barboursville (Parlock's town) neighbors Huntington and has a population of 3,183. (Both populations are from the 2000 Census and can be viewed here http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&mt_name=DEC_2000_PL_U_GCTPL_ST7&format=ST-7&_box_head_nbr=GCT-PL&ds_name=DEC_2000_PL_U&geo_id=04000US54 )

Huntington is a college town (with Marshall University) and is just across the river from Ohio and about five miles from Kentucky. It also has all the failings of larger towns, on a smaller scale (crime, drugs, etc.).

By any measure except West Virginian, it's small town USA. In West Virginia, it's a big city.

I have to question the odds of pulling off a stunt with his son in a town that size. I grew up in one the same size only about two hours from there... and trust me, everyone knows when something happens. Opinion alert: It would be pretty difficult to get away with something like he's been accused of on this and other threads (namely posing his son as an thug) and have apparently no one in the town notice.

i still find it amusing he has managed to do this year after year after year, and using his children to get publicity, it has to be staged one way or another for it to continue happening and him to keep getting airtime

I would be curious to read those articles. I was living in WV at the time and I don't remember it. Granted, it may be bad memory. But I don't see mention of either the '96 or 2000 incidents after a quick check of the Charleston Gazette's site (www.wvgazette.com). If anyone has a link to the actual articles from an actual newspaper (and not a blog or

And before anyone says it, yes... a quick survey just now shows articles going all the way back to at least 1991.

I would be curious to read those articles. I was living in WV at the time and I don't remember it. Granted, it may be bad memory. But I don't see mention of either the '96 or 2000 incidents after a quick check of the Charleston Gazette's site (www.wvgazette.com). If anyone has a link to the actual articles from an actual newspaper (and not a blog or

And before anyone says it, yes... a quick survey just now shows articles going all the way back to at least 1991.
this guy is in the news way too much, if its a news story about something, this moron apparently manages to get into it, there are half a dozen articles in the herald that he just happens to wander into

For example?
search google for phil parlock, go to the herald link, search the site for phil parlock

I'm also not seeing it in the Huntington paper's archive (which only goes back to '99). www.herald-dispatch.com

If I'm missing it and someone else can find it, please let me know.

this guy is in the news way too much, if its a news story about something, this moron apparently manages to get into it, there are half a dozen articles in the herald that he just happens to wander into

For example?

I just did. All I'm seeing is a failed attempt to run for the Board of Education. Am I missing something?
yeah about 6 or 7 articles... there is one about the bush rally, one or 2 about lynch, another 1 or 2 about rallies he attended

http://www.theunionleader.com/prez_show.html?article=44182

search google for phil parlock, go to the herald link, search the site for phil parlock

I just did. All I'm seeing is a failed attempt to run for the Board of Education. Am I missing something?

the amount of partisan assholes trying to villify kerry for what was SUPPOSEDLY done by his supporters is ludicrous. why arnt they villifying bush for having people attending his conventino areested and charged with crimes? or villifying him for what should be more than grown men pulling young womens hair and assaulting them then having those people being assautls ARRESTED and CHARGED.

Which is not a Herald link...

And this is the same information from the blog. I would still rather read it from the local papers, who would have covered it. But I'm finding no mention of either of these incidents in them.
which is also not the point.
oh, so if i find a source you discredit it. good job being a partisan ass.

you think the news got the info from a blog? are you honestly that stupid or blinded by petty partisanship?

why are you trying to get me to convicne you of soemthing if you have already made up your mind?

yeah about 6 or 7 articles... there is one about the bush rally, one or 2 about lynch, another 1 or 2 about rallies he attended

http://www.theunionleader.com/prez_show.html?article=44182


Which is not a Herald link...

And this is the same information from the blog. I would still rather read it from the local papers, who would have covered it. But I'm finding no mention of either of these incidents in them.

which is also not the point.
oh, so if i find a source you discredit it. good job being a partisan ass.

you think the news got the info from a blog? are you honestly that stupid or blinded by petty partisanship?

why are you trying to get me to convicne you of soemthing if you have already made up your mind?

Excuse me?

I asked for a local source for this. Not New Hampshire.

And I'm being nice and trying to find these references... I see no reason to lower the tone of this conversation to name calling.

Excuse me?

I asked for a local source for this. Not New Hampshire.

And I'm being nice and trying to find these references... I see no reason to lower the tone of this conversation to name calling.
you said a newspaper originally, you never specified.

you said a newspaper originally, you never specified.

I asked for a newspaper talking about the original events, not recounting them years later.

I've searched the Herald-Dispatch and the Charleston Gazette sites. I see no mention of this whatsoever.

If someone can find reference to this that predates the tearing up on Thursday, I would be most interested to read it. So far, I'm not finding anything. Still looking.

I wasn't there. I can't say with 100% certainty that there was not provocation. Neither can anyone else here say that there was.Not with a 100% certainty no. But the fact that this has happened before on two seperate occasions suggests that the balance of probability is for provocation.

But ask yourself this: if I came up and said, "You're an idiot for voting for Kerry," does that give you the right to not only deny me the use of my personal property, but also to destroy it? Does anything I say give you that right?

Simple answer is no.What if he said "you're a coward who wouldn't dare take this off me"?

Again, it doesn't matter that this man is a Republican. I would say the same for a Democrat in the same situation. The fact of the matter is that it was wrong, no matter how you slice it.

I'm not going to go as far as I've seen on these boards with suggesting that Kerry supporters are thugs. Obviously some are. But likewise some Bush supporters are. No one here knows my political views and it will stay that way.

Surely deliberately placing your child in danger is far worse? (For the record I'm not a Kerry supporter. I'm a Brit so I can't vote in American elections anyway. If I could I'd be backing Nader).

The fact remains: the right of freedom of speech (when you are NOT violating the law) must be granted to everyone or they mean nothing.But if it was incitement surely that is a violation of the law? (Do you also condemn Bush's loyalty pledges?)

As an aside, for all the people who believe the man beside him is his son...

Huntington is the second largest city in West Virginia, with 51,475 people. I'm originally from only a couple of hours from there and lived in Huntington for a year. Barboursville (Parlock's town) neighbors Huntington and has a population of 3,183. (Both populations are from the 2000 Census and can be viewed here http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&mt_name=DEC_2000_PL_U_GCTPL_ST7&format=ST-7&_box_head_nbr=GCT-PL&ds_name=DEC_2000_PL_U&geo_id=04000US54 )

Huntington is a college town (with Marshall University) and is just across the river from Ohio and about five miles from Kentucky. It also has all the failings of larger towns, on a smaller scale (crime, drugs, etc.).

By any measure except West Virginian, it's small town USA. In West Virginia, it's a big city.

I have to question the odds of pulling off a stunt with his son in a town that size. I grew up in one the same size only about two hours from there... and trust me, everyone knows when something happens. Opinion alert: It would be pretty difficult to get away with something like he's been accused of on this and other threads (namely posing his son as an thug) and have apparently no one in the town notice.

No one here cares....because we all know that Phil Parlock is an insane nutjob. We've known that since 1998 during the Cabell County School Board elections.

Case in point: this is apparently big time news outside of West Virginia. It has not made a ripple here. The Charleston newspapers aren't making any issue of it, even the heavily rightwing Daily Mail. The news stations here have had little to no mention of this.

Any situation that involves Parlock gets the same sort of credibility as Mothman sightings.

What if he said "you're a coward who wouldn't dare take this off me"?

It doesn't matter. It's words. Words don't involve putting your hands on people or stealing their property. The excuses of "He started it!" or "He called me names!" should have gone out when we were kids. There comes a point where we're supposed to have a certain level of self discipline and control.

If Parlock incited with words, I question his maturity... however, that is speculation. I definitely question the maturity of the people responsible for destruction of personal property.

Surely deliberately placing your child in danger is far worse? (For the record I'm not a Kerry supporter. I'm a Brit so I can't vote in American elections anyway. If I could I'd be backing Nader).

For the record, I will not say who I am supporting, although some seem to think they know my politics when, in fact, no one here knows anything about me or who I will be voting for. My concerns here are not partisan. I want to see equal protections for all parties. That's the way it should be.

I am still looking for evidence that this has happened before. So far (and I'm checking all the local papers), I'm seeing nothing. The only evidence that this has ever happened before seems to have materialized on Thursday or Friday, and there is no mention of any of that in the local papers either.

Again, if anyone else would like to look, the local websites are www.herald-dispatch.com for Huntington's paper and www.wvgazette.com for Charleston's. I find plenty of articles that pre-date the alleged 2000 and 1996 events, but nothing mentioning anything remotely associated with this sort of situation.

If someone finds articles regarding this issue that pre-date that, in a credible news source (particularly a local one), I will most definitely be interested in reading them. You'll earn my gratitude and appreciation and I will gladly retract my concerns on this board.

But if it was incitement surely that is a violation of the law? (Do you also condemn Bush's loyalty pledges?)

It comes down to words versus actions. Words are speculation (mainly because we have no knowledge whatsoever if that anything like that happened). We do know that signs were torn.

As for the loyalty pledges, I have never been to a Bush event. It's never been a concern for me. I really know nothing more about them than what has been mentioned in here and I tend to take the majority of what's said in here with a grain of salt, no matter which direction it goes. So to be perfectly fair and honest, I can't condemn that with which I'm not that familiar.

No one here cares....because we all know that Phil Parlock is an insane nutjob. We've known that since 1998 during the Cabell County School Board elections.

Case in point: this is apparently big time news outside of West Virginia. It has not made a ripple here. The Charleston newspapers aren't making any issue of it, even the heavily rightwing Daily Mail. The news stations here have had little to no mention of this.

Any situation that involves Parlock gets the same sort of credibility as Mothman sightings.Isn't it funny how that happens sometimes? Thing is, if Parlock hadn't made a big deal of it (another thing that makes me think it was at least partially staged), no one would ever have heard about this. But according to one person on the scene--this came from the newspaper's message board, reprinted elsewhere) the second it was over, Parlock walked away and called a local reporter from his mobile phone. He was looking for the attention in hopes of making Kerry supporters, and by extension Kerry, look bad.

Now this is pure speculation, but who wants to bet that the second the article came out in the local paper and the picture was out there that Parlock emailed it to someone at the Free Republic or Newsmax or somewhere like that?


Update: I just wanted to let y'all know where I'd gotten that information from. It's eyewitness accounts from the Huntington News Network message board (http://huntingtonnews.net/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001898), so apparently these are local people, some of whom were actually there. I need to take another look at the original article, but if the journalist wrote this story as though it were fact and not just the one-sided reports of a "victim," then he needs to have his credentials dropped.