Quote:

Pariah said:
Okay, hold on there, allow me to get a bit technical for moment; To be fair, he was only holding that one kid up on his shoulders (prolly cuz' she was real small). Also, I'm not implying that he didn't pre-plan this venture or that he wasn't being a bit stupid for bringing his kids in on the political retalition, but I wouldn't say that it was really an "asshole" thing to do if he took into mind that it was people he was dealing with and not pushy......Uh....Boars.



People do stupid things. You protect your child from the potential danger, against people or boars.

He could have simply been harrassed verbally, and the damage still would have been significant because a child is extremely vunerable to something like that.

Quote:

I stress again (in the form of a question): Is that necessarily violently hostile?



I'm not getting why you're asking this. Why does it matter?

Let's not take this into a discussion of whether or not the guy deserved to be attacked.

Quote:

But who's to say that he was going for any sort of physical OR verbal unpleasentness?



Common sense.

To make a sports analogy, which is my nature, if you go to a Red Sox game with a shirt that says "I love the Yankees", just about anything could happen.

Quote:

Like I said before, considering these were rational human beings (and he knows this), why is it so conclusive that they would get rowdy any sort of way rather than brood at his presence?



It didn't have to be "conclusive". It was a possibility. It could have happened(and don't get into semantics on this, the chances of an altercation in this situation are significantly greater than in a typical public setting). Suggesting that the guy is completely faultless because there weren't posters up saying "we will attack if you if attend this rally with Pro-Bush signs" is absurd.

Politics are a very touchy area. This very forum should prove that! Not to mention the riots in New York....

And again, just to drive this point home, so that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever(because they're shouldn't be), none of that makes what happened to the young girl right, or justified.

Quote:

They're definitely more to blame than him, by far.



Yes, they most certainly are.

Quote:

And I think it should be noted that most of those kids were mature enough to know what was going on.



I disagree. They might have known that the gathering was in support of a guy, but I really doubt they could have understood why it was a poor situation to walk in to. Especially in the case of the little girl. She was way to young to have any idea of what was going on.

Quote:

He wanted more signs to be seen so his message would be noticed obviously.



That's no reason to involve his kids.

Quote:





Don't know why you're rolling your eyes. This topic wasn't started for polite debate. It was started so that wbam could blast liberals. I imagine even he would admit that. The title of the thread tells you all you need to know.

MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.