<<No need to shoot the messenger , they do a good enough job of shooting themselves.>>
Now you're gonna deny shooting the messenger? Your post didn't go away, BT, it's still there. Need or no, you DID respond first by shooting the messenger. And without any proof at all that it deserved to be shot.
<<The HuffPo and you have been on a mission to discredit the tea parties . . . >>
Huh? No need to discredit the tea parties, they do a good enogh job of discrediting themselves.
<< . . . first by assigning a gay slur as a derogatory name for them>>
I did? The Hufpo did? Please enlighten me, I've really forgotten all about it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, racism and fascism do have a rather inflammatory affect on most decent people.
<< . . . then claiming they are lily white, when photo evidence indicates they aren't>>
My photoanalysis indicates they are lily-white and they throw in a few Toms for colour, usually at the head of the line.
<< . . . then saying a placard is more violent than an actual physical beat down>>
How could I say that, not knowing the extent of the alleged "beat-down?" What I indicated was that I had seen no evidence whatsoever of the extent of the violence involved in the beat-down, but the threat implicit in posters advocating the use of semi-automatic pistols as agents of political persuasion promised a lot more violence than a mere beat-down and (I would have thought) conclusively answered your rather silly question of what he (the Congressman who didn't press charges) could have been afraid of.
<< . . . then minimizing the victims pain>>
Impossible, not knowing how much he suffered, or even if he really had been "beaten down."
<< . . . by calling him another racial slur>>
Please. "Tom" indicates he betrays his own people. It's "racial" the same way that "black" or "white" or "Asian" are racial in that they necessarily indicate which race one is talking about. You are taking political correctness to a ludicrous extreme by attempting to stigmatize the word as a racial slur as if it were no better than "nigger." "Nigger" slurs every member of the race, regardless of character or accomplishment, "Tom" slurs only those who by their own disgraceful conduct have brought the slur down on their own heads.
<<then changing the meaning of the term ID from identify to identification when your original premise falls apart.>>
My original premise stands untouched, especially when considering the absurdity of the alternative interpretation you offered, which would make any protestor immune from arrest if he merely left his ID at home and refused to identify himself to the arresting officers. An interpretation so absurd in fact that I believe you must have understood perfectly well the natural meaning of what I said, which is STILL the likeliest explanation of why charges weren't pressed, and tried to discredit it by pretending to misunderstand it. ID is short for identify and identification, and while I concede that ID most commonly refers to identification papers, its use in this case ("to identify") was easily apparent from the context. The absolute absurdity of the alternative explanation you offered should have made that perfectly apparent by now.
<<And then you have the balls to say video evidence is inconclusive when it is as spot on as the Zapruder film, why? , because it doesn't fit your agenda.>>
Well, you tell me - - apart from "Kill the Bill" chanted in unison by the mob, what other word or phrase can be distinguished on the audiotape in all that din? What is your next pathetic argument, that the videotape proves the complete absence of small flying insects at the scene? What's apparent to me is that the tape quality isn't good enough to pick up spoken words from a noisy mob UNLESS they are chanted in unison. As I said before, your pathetically lame argument boils down to this: They weren't chanting "Nigger" in unison, therefore no individual members of the mob could have been shouting out "Nigger."
<<Pathetic.>>
Your arguments, as made in this thread? Yes, they ARE pathetic, aren't they?