Video: Full, unedited Crowder video of Lansing union protest

posted at 12:11 pm on December 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We’ve already written about the assault on an AFP tent that took place in Lansing two weeks ago over the right-to-work legislation that has now become law in Michigan, and the attack on my friend Steven Crowder.  After the video of the attack first appeared, Steven’s critics insisted that he had edited the videotape to either make the union protesters look bad or hide evidence of his own provocative behavior.  In response, Steven has released all of his raw video footage of the protests that day.  Res ispa loquitur:

Steven asks in a panel in this video why we don’t see union protesters taking video of their demonstration, while the RTW demonstrators had multiple cameras rolling during the protest.  It’s a good question.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Dedicated to the Union Goons and brain-dead Liberals destroying America.

Everything You Know Is Wrong

SWalker on December 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM

thats my point. if you see a bunch of angry union thugs, and choose to confront them (i saw crowder standing front and center) then you must accept the consequences.

least thats what i learned on public school playgrounds 50 years ago. my how times have changed.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Sorry, but being ‘angry’ isn’t an excuse for violence regardless of how desperately the left wants that to be true.

Would Crowder have been justified in pulling a 9mm and opening up? If he was angry then wouldn’t the union thugs have deserved it?

sharrukin on December 20, 2012 at 2:00 PM

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

we can try, but if we cant im secure in the knowledge that i can punch you a few times and its your fault. according to the standard being pushed here by your ilk.

chasdal on December 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM

He was not punched for his positions. – True. They didn’t listen to his position, just started punching.
He walked into an obviously hostile group to be deliberately provocative. – The tents were there BEFORE the union mob
He got exactly what he expected and is milking it for all it is worth. – Do you always expect someone to kick you in the nads every time you go out? Cause you seem to be like a person who might just deserve it.
He wouldn’t change a thing. – Well, yes. It is hard to change stupid

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

LoganSix on December 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM

so im guessing you dont have a problem if at tea party rallies they randomly start attacking anyone who displays signs that are pro-obama??

chasdal on December 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM

That was classic strawman.
You made a ridiculous assumption and then assigned it to me.

I’ll tell you what.
If you ever come upon an angry and agitated group of union goons feel free to walk into the middle of it and declare your free speech rights to be there.
Make sure you film it because I want to see the surprised look on your face when you get slapped around.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Indeed. And notice how he kept his hands up and open…clinched and tangled up the goons when possible.

I’m impressed.

Would love to put on some headgear and pillow-gloves and spar with the dude.

Got a feeling he’d take me easy…inside three rounds.

Tim_CA on December 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Haha thanks. I’d actually love to. I’m a grappler, not a striker though. That’s why I clinched to defend, but immediately realized that if I’d have defended myself, the mob would have killed me.

StevenCrowder on December 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

He walked into an obviously hostile group to be deliberately provocative.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

So, bottom line – you think that thugs should dictate the actions of everyone, right?

That it should be Mob rule?

Are you really advocating that?

What happened to the Oppressive-Left’s calls for ‘Civil discourse’?

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Has Crowder filed Assault and Battery charges yet? No?

rayra on December 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM

A police report/criminal complaint regarding assault was filed a while ago.

StevenCrowder on December 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

so its only union goons that get a free pass?? other groups advocating passionately have to do it peacefully?? but you excuse unions, becasue why??

chasdal on December 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

A police report/criminal complaint regarding assault was filed a while ago.

StevenCrowder on December 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

We get to see whether escalating from words to physical confrontation is acceptable behavior by what happens as a result.

I see here a fine application of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4 — force your opponent to live up to their own moral code.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Crowder obviously paid a special effects contractor millions of dollars to create a CGI scene falsely depicting him getting punched by a union member. Probably a non-union SFX house.

CrustyB on December 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM

he deserved to be punched. little girls like him shouldn’t be around a group of grown men.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Michigan needs Stand Your Ground.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM

A police report/criminal complaint regarding assault was filed a while ago.

StevenCrowder on December 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

We get to see whether escalating from words to physical confrontation is acceptable behavior by what happens as a result.

I see here a fine application of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4 — force your opponent to live up to their own moral code.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2012 at 2:08 PM

One slight problem with that: The Oppressive-Left doesn’t have a moral code.

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM

least thats what i learned on public school playgrounds 50 years ago. my how times have changed.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

What I learned in elementary school — on public school playgrounds — is that anything goes if the teacher isn’t watching.

The trick is to get the teacher watching.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

One slight problem with that: The Oppressive-Left doesn’t have a moral code.

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Sorry, I misstated Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4: Force the opposition to live up to their stated moral code.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM

thats my point. if you see a bunch of angry union thugs, and choose to confront them (i saw crowder standing front and center) then you must accept the consequences.

least thats what i learned on public school playgrounds 50 years ago. my how times have changed.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

And his point (in my interpretation – I could be wrong) was to show that they have no self control and are thugs.

Which they were glad to oblige.

How have times changed? That acting without self control is acceptable? That it’s okay to blame the victim instead of the people who can’t control themselves?

There are a lot of good things that have been lost from the past, but the “blame the victim” and “celebrate the lack of personal responsibility and control” are not ones that should be missed.

kim roy on December 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM

but you excuse unions, becasue why??

chasdal on December 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The same excuse is used by the left to excuse jihadis.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

What is so hard to understand here people….?

Would you approach a snarling dog?
Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?
Would you lick a frozen flag pole?
Would you talk back to a cop?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Speaking of Union Thugs, the SEIU Goon Squad are now going after Rahm for attempting a little commonsense leadership in the cash/budget strapped Progressive Utopia of Chicago:

CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) -

For several weeks, members of the Service Employees International Union Local One have been protesting Mayor Rahm Emanuel at his North Side home, the airport, and City Hall.

The union is angry with City Hall’s decision to contract out hundreds of union custodial jobs ad is fighting a new cleaning contract awarded at O’Hare. Now, it appears the fight is getting personal.

FOX 32 News obtained a copy of an SEIU plan to spend a half million dollars for what the union calls, “taking on the millionaires’ mayor.”

“In the coming months, the national news will be dominated by these types of stories. We feel strongly that Rahm Emanuel can be made the national ‘poster child’ for neo-liberals who are hell-bent on adopting these regressive policies.”

“Millionaires’ mayor.” Heh.

visions on December 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

One slight problem with that: The Oppressive-Left doesn’t have a moral code.

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Sorry, I misstated Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4: Force the opposition to live up to their stated moral code.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Unfortunately, that changes faster than the price of gold.

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

What is so hard to understand here people….?

Would you approach a snarling dog?
Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?
Would you lick a frozen flag pole?
Would you talk back to a cop?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Oh. OH! So, what you are saying is the Union is nothing more than a bunch of stupid criminal authoritarian dogs.

Well, that makes sense.

LoganSix on December 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

So you’re fine with mob rule?

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Why don’t you ask Crowder?

22044 on December 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

That says more about union goons than about Crowder.

22044 on December 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

This Crowder guy is a real tool.

Rusty Allen on December 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Why aren’t at least a few of these people in jail?

The unions are upset because they had the protest gig to themselves for a very long time. Now when people want to exercise their rights to peaceably assemble, they resort to violence and intimidation. We have seen this before – with the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany.

Is that the image the unions are intending to convey? Based on some of the responses I see here, the answer to that is yes, and thoat bodes ill for the direction of this Country. And paints the unions that engage in this behavior as less than the “Americans” they try to portray themselves to be. That kind of behavior is much closer historically to that of Russian Marxists or German Nazis.

Jim M. on December 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

i don’t get it either. decisions have consequences.

why aren’t we all on the same page?

rinos stand with crowder

conservatives scratch their heads and wonder, why?

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Oh. OH! So, what you are saying is the Union is nothing more than a bunch of stupid criminal authoritarian dogs.

Well, that makes sense.

LoganSix on December 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

No.
You have said that and then told me I said it.
I have not.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM

conservatives scratch their heads and wonder, why?

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

No we don’t.

We aren’t all on the same page because you are giving the left a blank check to attack anyone who pisses them off.

sharrukin on December 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM

“In the coming months, the national news will be dominated by these types of stories. We feel strongly that Rahm Emanuel can be made the national ‘poster child’ for neo-liberals who are hell-bent on adopting these regressive policies.”
“Millionaires’ mayor.” Heh.

visions on December 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Neo-Liberals ????

That’s a new one for me. But I do like it.
Obama-NeoLiberal

Jabberwock on December 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM

What is so hard to understand here people….?

Would you approach a snarling dog?
Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?
Would you lick a frozen flag pole?
Would you talk back to a cop?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

You’re all over the map. These childish examples are the equivalent of asking an apple why it isn’t an orange.

The relevant question is why grown men have no clue as to how to act like adults.

Skidd on December 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

“In the coming months, the national news will be dominated by these types of stories. We feel strongly that Rahm Emanuel can be made the national ‘poster child’ for neo-liberals who are hell-bent on adopting these regressive policies.”
“Millionaires’ mayor.” Heh.

visions on December 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Neo-Liberals ????

That’s a new one for me. But I do like it.
Obama-NeoLiberal

Jabberwock on December 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Maybe that should be Neo-Socialist.

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM

NeoKong, and renalin: It’s really simple. Yes, Crowder was probably certain what was going to happen. Yes, he didn’t respond violently (though he explained he figured he’d be killed if he did fight back).

This is all true. The question is: IS IT OKAY for union mobs to act this way. Crowder may or may not be “stupid” for failing to anticipate a violent reaction, though I imagine he did anticipate it. The thing people are asking is why are you guys blaming CROWDER for the violence? Why are you consistently failing to assign any blame to the union?

Yes, if you approach a snarling pack of dogs, you might get hurt. That’s the nature of dogs. But we expect better of people. Shouldn’t we be able to expect leftist union members to be able to control themselves? That’s a simple question. If you dodge that question, you are supporting mob rule and union violence.

Vanceone on December 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

It’s pretty rich hearing Dems lecture America on violence, while they support and turn a blind eye to thug rhetoric and violence by unions.

Christien on December 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I said from the beginning, that if they had video that would refute Mr. Crowder, it would have been up long long ago. And the MSM knows it.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

No.
You have said that and then told me I said it.
I have not.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM

You have said that by comparing what Steven Crowder in relation to the Union action.

You compare the Unions to a snarling dog.
You compare the Unions to doing something stupid, like licking a frozen pole.
You compare the Unions to criminal activity.
You compare the Unions to authoritarian figures.

You are basically making the comparison that the Unions should not be messed with, because they are not rational and would more likely than not cause harm if you approach them.

LoganSix on December 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM

if you see a bunch of angry union thugs, and choose to confront them (i saw crowder standing front and center) then you must accept the consequences.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

It’s amazing how this “blame the victim” mentality, which abortion advocates are always using as a straw man to try and discredit conservatives with the good ole’ “sexist” label, is suddenly a perfectly valid form of conducting a debate. Stop wearing those slutty clothes, Crowder, if you don’t want the manfolk lookin’ at yer bosoms!

Also amazing: how this implies a premise that violent and people-punching is the DEFAULT SETTING for a union worker, and it is the responsibility of everyone else on the planet to accommodate and avoid their rage. If I came into work every day yelling and swearing at people, and throwing punches at the slightest provocation, no one would say “you guys knew he was a people-puncher, you should just like not provoke him or something.” NO! I would be the one getting canned, probably with charges filed.

I brought this up in the previous thread, but apparently the fact that it was easy enough to communicate to my four-year-old through a children’s television program, doesn’t mean it’s sunk in with people who are defending violent behavior, even assuming (absent any evidence) that Crowder was verbally provoking a fight:

“Oh, I didn’t know he said mean things. Of course, you had no choice but to jeopardize the mission!”

The Schaef on December 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

If the guy at the end cared about his family he wouldn’t get tats on his neck. Just sayin…

Wagthatdog on December 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Union Thugs whine and cry when they catch the baseball bats, I’ll wager. There is no dishonor in temporarily “Crying Havoc” and making these bullies submit. Just because one may have to step into the sewer to do battle, doesn’t mean one has to live there forever.

trl on December 20, 2012 at 3:07 PM

It’s pretty rich hearing Dems lecture America on violence, while they support and turn a blind eye to thug rhetoric and violence by unions.

Christien on December 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The attitude in America has become psychotic. Very self-immersed, completely disconnected from reality. Rules only apply one way, anything that doesn’t follow their subjective view must be eliminated.

Skidd on December 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM

If you dodge that question, you are supporting mob rule and union violence.

Vanceone on December 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Oh really…?
Are those my only two choices..?
I must answer your question or I support violence ?

I can give my opinions on my own thank you.
I will be the one to tell you what I support.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM

No.
You have said that and then told me I said it.
I have not.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM

You have said that by comparing what Steven Crowder in relation to the Union action.

You compare the Unions to a snarling dog.
You compare the Unions to doing something stupid, like licking a frozen pole.
You compare the Unions to criminal activity.
You compare the Unions to authoritarian figures.

You are basically making the comparison that the Unions should not be messed with, because they are not rational and would more likely than not cause harm if you approach them.

LoganSix on December 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Oh no, that cannot be – you see those of the oppressive-left are so much smarter that the rest of us who believe the old ideals of freedom and liberty.

You’re reading too much into what she wrote, just because she wrote those all of those doesn’t mean she wrote all of those things.

Understand?

Because I don’t, I don’t understand insanity

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Why is there a controversy here?

The tent was there before the mob showed up.

The mob surrounded the tent and threatened that everyone had better get out of the tent because they were going to knock the tent down.

Crowder exited the tent to talk to the people pushing on it.

One of the mob members punched him repeatedly.

It seems fairly clear to me (and perhaps I’m missing something here) that the fault lies fully on the Union. They showed up where someone else was already present, they began attacking that group, they demanded that the group leave the tent, and finally they punched a member of that group as he exited the tent.

JadeNYU on December 20, 2012 at 3:11 PM

You have to wonder about Liberals, here’s Bette Midler with a new movie coming out (looks cute) and asking if there haven’t been enough deaths at the hands of Republicans. From a customer service aspect that seems very stupid.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Would you talk back to a cop?

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Why, yes, I would. And I have. And I drove away without a ticket or a warning, because I was right and he was wrong.

Oh, and I don’t let thugs take away my rights just because they’re thugs. I act prudently, but I don’t walk in fear.

GWB on December 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

It’s pretty rich hearing Dems lecture America on violence, while they support and turn a blind eye to thug rhetoric and violence by unions.

Christien on December 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

If you dodge that question, you are supporting mob rule and union violence.

Vanceone on December 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

The left loves to promote “democracy”.

True democracy really IS nothing more than mob rule.

bigbeachbird on December 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I think unions are irrational and their behavior based on safety in numbers is bound to be inappropriate. All the more reason to engage them. Just on the difference in media coverage from Leftists to the Tea Party, should encourage people to drop in our their little get togethers.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

The full, unedited video clearly gives unions a black eye in terms of PR.

Christien on December 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Why is there a controversy here?

JadeNYU on December 20, 2012 at 3:11 PM

There is no controversy. This is the way post-modern man stumbles around in the dark, trying to make sense of the pointless reality he created for himself.

Skidd on December 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Would you approach a snarling dog?

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

And, yes, I would. With a large stick or a firearm (though not absolutely necessary). I do not fear dogs, either.

Crowder didn’t approach these thugs unarmed – he had a video camera handy. In the end, that is a better weapon than many others for this situation.

GWB on December 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Are you comparing unions to snarling dogs? Cool.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

The full, unedited video clearly gives unions a black eye in terms of PR.

We are getting a lot of advertising extolling the virtues of the IBEW down here in Texas. I make every effort to tie Tony Cummings, of the IBEW local in Cleveland who is under indictment for stealing over $6k from said local to the punches he tosses in the video.

Trained, highly skilled and certified thugs. Who wouldn’t want to hire that?

DanMan on December 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Yes, if you approach a snarling pack of dogs, you might get hurt. That’s the nature of dogs. But we expect better of people. Shouldn’t we be able to expect leftist union members to be able to control themselves? That’s a simple question. If you dodge that question, you are supporting mob rule and union violence.

Vanceone on December 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

That brought to mind something from the past. While I live in a rural area, I used to rent a house actually on a working ranch. Part of my rent was to help around the ranch. Dogs, working dogs, are helpful on a ranch. But there is a rule about dogs in the country. If a dog, no matter what size, breed, or how beloved a pet is seen attacking livestock, the dog is put down immediately by whoever sees it. Once a dog turns on livestock or people, it cannot be trusted again and it is not safe to have around either. And almost surely has become part of a pack that attacks regularly.

We had a German Shepherd at the time, and had to agree to that proviso to live there.

Funny how rural wisdom still holds.

We don’t shoot people out of hand. We use the law. At least we do while the law still holds.

Subotai Bahadur on December 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Would you approach a snarling dog?

one of my jobs growing up was being a meter reader. I have kicked many dogs a$$es and got to where I enjoyed it. The worst was a trained police dog (fence was not signed as required btw). He was pretty smart and set me up on his terms. I had to beat that dang dog so bad it could not get up before I jumped the fence.

btw, most untrained dogs growl out of fear and will back down when challenged, especially if their owners are not around.

DanMan on December 20, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I can give my opinions on my own thank you.
I will be the one to tell you what I support.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM

And you have, repeatedly, and clearly.

Doesn’t reflect well upon you in terms of ethics, morals, common sense, or well, in any way, of course, but you certainly have made clear what you support.

Midas on December 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Doesn’t reflect well upon you in terms of ethics, morals, common sense, or well, in any way, of course, but you certainly have made clear what you support.

Midas on December 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Uh hoh geez….
And what would that be…?

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM

What is so hard to understand here people….?

Would you approach a snarling dog?
Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?
Would you lick a frozen flag pole?
Would you talk back to a cop?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

So we should cede the ground? Just let them have it, only one side gets a say?

If the snarling dog has taken up position between me and my family, I would approach it and do what it takes to beat it.

No, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to count money on the streets of Detroit, but if I did and got attacked, it still wouldn’t be my fault.

How is licking an inanimate object with no control over it’s nature the same as trying to talk union thugs down from tearing down an expensive tent with people in it?

And yes I would talk back to a cop if he was clearly in the wrong. I have and thus I have NO moving violations on my driving record. No parking tickets either . . .

I’m sure he anticipated there could be violence. But it shouldn’t change the expectation that people will control themselves and be held accountable if they don’t. He and AFP and Freedom Works had a legitimate reason to be there, as legitimate at those thugs, and if we say they shouldn’t be becuase there might be violence, we cede the argument.

Should we stop exercising our rights altogether because the left has proven to be violent? Should we stop logging altogether because environmental extremists bomb? Should women stop going outside because there are rapists? Should we just turn in our guns because the left wants to take them?

No, and Steven and AFP and FW should keep going where they can be useful and expect people to act civil. In no way should we just surrender our ground.

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Uh hoh geez….
And what would that be…?

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM

You support allowing one side to have sole authority to argue because they use violence. You support staying away from important political stances because the other side refuses to control themselves.

You would have quietly let the Nazis take your Jewish neighbors for a train ride because they might kick your teeth in, and you would even have not said anything to the young 3rd Reich teenagers chanting by your house.

If we can’t stand up as the left attempts to crush us and say what must be said despite their lack of civility, they’ve already won.

You essentially are arguing “If they told you to shut up, you should just shut up or they might hurt you.”

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I do not know why we are still talking about Crowder. He had his 15 minutes of fame. He had the chance to fight a middle aged overweight union guy, and he backed off. Crowder seems to wants some kind of medal for mouthing off and getting a punch in the nose.
He can go back to being the unknown comic until the next time he mouths off to someone who punches him in the nose, and Crowder brings a cameraman with him to film it.

smokin hot politics on December 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You have quite the imagination.
Maybe you can back up what you written by showing some examples of my obvious Nazi tendencies.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I do not know why we are still talking about Crowder.

smokin hot politics on December 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I am absolutely sure you have no idea why it matters.

sharrukin on December 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM

What is so hard to understand here people….?

Would you approach a snarling dog?
Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?
Would you lick a frozen flag pole?
Would you talk back to a cop?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

So we should cede the ground? Just let them have it, only one side gets a say?

If the snarling dog has taken up position between me and my family, I would approach it and do what it takes to beat it.

No, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to count money on the streets of Detroit, but if I did and got attacked, it still wouldn’t be my fault.

How is licking an inanimate object with no control over it’s nature the same as trying to talk union thugs down from tearing down an expensive tent with people in it?

And yes I would talk back to a cop if he was clearly in the wrong. I have and thus I have NO moving violations on my driving record. No parking tickets either . . .

I’m sure he anticipated there could be violence. But it shouldn’t change the expectation that people will control themselves and be held accountable if they don’t. He and AFP and Freedom Works had a legitimate reason to be there, as legitimate at those thugs, and if we say they shouldn’t be becuase there might be violence, we cede the argument.

Should we stop exercising our rights altogether because the left has proven to be violent? Should we stop logging altogether because environmental extremists bomb? Should women stop going outside because there are rapists? Should we just turn in our guns because the left wants to take them?

No, and Steven and AFP and FW should keep going where they can be useful and expect people to act civil. In no way should we just surrender our ground.

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Pastor, see how people who have little to no understanding of justice scream forth a subjective form of justice? It’s nonsense, but they are so lacking in foundational principles, they’re forced to create a landscape of their own.

In the example you answered, you showed the nonsense of NeoKong’s “logic.”

Skidd on December 20, 2012 at 4:30 PM

You support allowing one side to have sole authority to argue because they use violence. You support staying away from important political stances because the other side refuses to control themselves.

You would have quietly let the Nazis take your Jewish neighbors for a train ride because they might kick your teeth in, and you would even have not said anything to the young 3rd Reich teenagers chanting by your house.

If we can’t stand up as the left attempts to crush us and say what must be said despite their lack of civility, they’ve already won.

You essentially are arguing “If they told you to shut up, you should just shut up or they might hurt you.”

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 4:15 PM

well stated! i do admire your passion to engage enablers/trolls……

Dr. Demento on December 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I’d be interested to see where you draw the line.

22044 on December 20, 2012 at 4:35 PM

We have seen this before – with the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany.

Jim M. on December 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Let’s avoid the hyperbole. Six protesters were killed, thrown down subway stairs at the first national Brownshirt meeting in 1922.

No American faction approaches the Brownshirts. None. Hitler rose to national significance with the Beer Hall Putsch, an armed insurrection against the Wiemar government.

I’m not too keen on union thugs, myself. But they’re pikers compared to the Brownshirts.

Axeman on December 20, 2012 at 4:38 PM

If you ever come upon an angry and agitated group of union goons feel free to walk into the middle of it and declare your free speech rights to be there.
Make sure you film it because I want to see the surprised look on your face when you get slapped around.

She was asking for it.

NeoKong

Fixed it for you.

BD57 on December 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Maybe that should be Neo-Socialist.

Galt2009 on December 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Or Neo-Com(unist)

Mimzey on December 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I believe the correct Latin spelling is Res ipsa loquitur.

hepcat on December 20, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?

Nope. But if people took money from me, they would still be criminals.

Would it be “crying” to press charges?

And if so, DO we want the “Wild West”/”Man’s World” or DON’T we?

Of course, I can see where that question would throw any liberal, because they want it situationally.

Axeman on December 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Would you approach a snarling dog?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

The problem with your analogy is that tent was in a fixed location. It could not approach anything. Crowder also did not approach anyone. The video clearly shows the person who attacked Crowder as being the one who was always moving towards him and “snarling”.

Your analogy would be more accurate like this:

“If a snarling dog approached you in a threatening manner, would you defend yourself?”

Mimzey on December 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

smokin hot politics on December 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Delusional at best.

Mimzey on December 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Doesn’t reflect well upon you in terms of ethics, morals, common sense, or well, in any way, of course, but you certainly have made clear what you support.

Midas on December 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Uh hoh geez….
And what would that be…?

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I’ll help you NeoNuts.

You support the fist.

You support someone invading your home, stealing your goods and killing your family.

After all, shouldn’t you know better? Having more things than someone else?

Remember, when you are dragged away demanding your rights, you asked for it.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot, stamping on a human face – forever.”

– George Orwell

itsspideyman on December 20, 2012 at 4:59 PM

itsspideyman on December 20, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Uh hoh my god.
What the hell are you talking about…?

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 5:11 PM

What is so hard to understand here people….?

Would you approach a snarling dog?
Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?
Would you lick a frozen flag pole?
Would you talk back to a cop?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But we should be legal required to pay these dogs to work in our business? Frankly, I think as a matter of public safety, behavior like that should be grounds to terminate a unions right to represent.

OBQuiet on December 20, 2012 at 5:37 PM

You have quite the imagination.
Maybe you can back up what you written by showing some examples of my obvious Nazi tendencies.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Didn’t say you were a Nazi. I said you clearly want us to allow those willing to use inappropriate force to have the stage to themselves. You clearly never want those who would march on our tents, our homes, our freedoms to be confronted or challenged if they MIGHT use, or are prone to use, violence. I merely pointed out that you would have been one of the millions in Germany who took that same attitude.

People in statist governments all through the 20th century, in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Communist Vietnam, Castro and Che’s Cuba, etc. watched as the government took away their neighbor’s ability to speak up, then to defend themselves and then marched 200 million of them to their deaths.

And now you would tell Freedom Works and AFP and the Tea Party to not go argue or present their position. To disarm themselves and to stand down. To let the bullies win. We do that, we let their threats of violence go unanswered and censor ourselves, and the left will take more and more until we either have to turn to violence or be marched off to camps.

Conservatives have to keep showing up at these things, in greater numbers, and presenting the truth. WE MUST be as present and loud as we can, no matter how they intimidate, assault and attempt to suppress. Don’t answer violence with violence. Answer it with more speech and the sunshine we can shine with the web and the alternative media we have today.

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM

And I may sound extreme but I’m not. We’ve already ceded way too much, and with 90% of the media in the left’s corner, we are in grave danger of losing even more ground.

If we don’t stand up and use freedom of speech and assembly NOW, we will soon be left with their tactics. Germany was not committing genocide in 1929, but only a few years later they were. Russia was not herding people into Gulag’s only a few short years before they were. It’s not a long process.

Combine that with the gun control push, and the ship is turning.

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Steven Crowder,
Milk it for all it’s worth. Thank you for taking the lumps.
The public should know about/see the union bullies pulling down tents and striking people.

darlus on December 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM

so im guessing you dont have a problem if at tea party rallies they randomly start attacking anyone who displays signs that are pro-obama??

chasdal on December 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM

They do. Quick youtube search will give you plenty of not-Breitbartedited videos of Tea Party violence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4BU8pfz2O4

UPDATE… Charges weere pressed… we went to court and Ms. Lisa Baumberger the assailant depicted in the video with the red hair and all the stars and stripes coupled w/ her “colorful” language, pleaded NO CONTEST to the charges. Ms Baumberger was then sentenced to 6 months probation, anger management classes. A WIN for FREE SPEECH in the battle against FASCISM!

You are however unlikely to run into any of those videos on Hotair.

And make sure you don’t look like an Obama fan if there’s Tea Party around, they will try to kill you and are not concerned about your young daughter sitting next to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8

lester on December 20, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Steven, for what it’s worth, I thought you comported yourself well. You showed great restraint. Regardless of your reasons. Thanks for all you are doing.

Bmore on December 20, 2012 at 6:38 PM

PastorJon on December 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Didn’t say you were a Nazi. I said you clearly want us to allow those willing to use inappropriate force to have the stage to themselves.

No.
This what you said.

You would have quietly let the Nazis take your Jewish neighbors for a train ride because they might kick your teeth in, and you would even have not said anything to the young 3rd Reich teenagers chanting by your house.

You clearly have me living in Nazi Germany watching my Jewish neighbors being dragged off to Holocaust.
Sounds sort of like a Nazi to me but I do not want to discuss your wild rhetoric.

Let me point out the weakness of your argument instead.
You cannot make your argument based on the actual topic at hand as it occurred.
You have to invent some extreme and implausible scenario and then say that is what I support or would allow or pretend I have advocated anything close to what your wild examples suggest.
That is straw man.

Just to be clear.
I never lived in 1938 Germany.
There were no 3rd Reich teenagers at the union rally.
As far as I know nobody was gassed or put in a prison camp.
Also there were no Khmer Rouge, Stalins or Maos either.
You are arguing in hyperbole.

You speak about standing up to bullies and yet…no one did and somehow you put the blame at my feet.
Get it…?
Crowder stood up to no one.
AFP stood up to no one.
They all simply walked away.
You know why…?

It was just a publicity stunt.

Crowder was there to get something good to post on YouTube (which he did)and I don’t know why AFP was there but I doubt it was to save America from the prison camps and mass executions that you fear.

Everybody was there for publicity. Even the unions because their protest was meaningless as RTW has already become law.

If you feel the need to respond can you please do it without blaming me for some genocide somewhere and limit your examples to what actually occurred…?

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 6:38 PM

lester on December 20, 2012 at 6:37 PM

You are being snookered and in turn trying to snooker.

Bmore on December 20, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Haha thanks. I’d actually love to. I’m a grappler, not a striker though. That’s why I clinched to defend, but immediately realized that if I’d have defended myself, the mob would have killed me.

Next time employ the classic “rope-a-dope” strategy used by Muhammed Ali. You probably don’t want to float like a butterfly or sting like a bee. Rope a dope would be more applicable.

BubbaCluck on December 20, 2012 at 7:02 PM

rinos stand with crowder

conservatives scratch their heads and wonder, why?

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Reality is your friend.

I’ll tell you what.
If you ever come upon an angry and agitated group of union goons feel free to walk into the middle of it and declare your free speech rights to be there.
Make sure you film it because I want to see the surprised look on your face when you get slapped around.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You do understand that the tent was there before the goon squad?

What is so hard to understand here people….?

Would you approach a snarling dog?
Would you cash a check and then count the money walking down the street in Detroit?
Would you lick a frozen flag pole?
Would you talk back to a cop?

Some decisions will almost always have a certain and predictable outcome.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

So, you’re saying that Mr. Crowder should have kept his peace and allowed innocent people to suffer the consequences of having the temerity to peacefully stand for their beliefs?

Where do YOU draw the line? Does being in the right mean nothing, if there are enough mad dogs following the rabid pack?

It was just a publicity stunt.

NeoKong on December 20, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Obviously, Mr. Crowder wants publicity so badly that he hired a bunch of Neanderthal goons to attack him.

Nice work, DonkeyKong.

I, for one, am proud of Mr Crowder’s remarkable restraint, and his willingness to put his personal safety at risk for something that he obviously believes is worth fighting for.

Hell, most of our politicians are afraid to put a couple of votes at risk.

Thank you, Steven Crowder, for this — and all of the other things that you do against the tide of lemmings and leeches.

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Drywall came here huffing and puffing all outta breath it was edited. First link he found I guess.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Drywall came here huffing and puffing all outta breath it was edited. First link he found I guess.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Woe is me. I missed the capering clown again. :>(

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM

ha ha at 1:34 of the video, the Crowder jackass starts the fight:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/13/fox-news-contributor-gets-punched-in-face/

OOPSIE

Dave Rywall on December 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM

ha ha ha, … Watch the whole thing jackass.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

ha ha ha, … Watch the whole thing jackass.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Our resident self-proclaimed Canadian “Parliamentarian” sees what he wants to see.

Either that or he lies through his teeth. Either way, he is to be pitied.

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Not taking the union’s side here, but Crowder seems to have a unique interpretation of what ‘raw’ and ‘unedited’ means.

Nevertheless, the dual-camera shots work pretty well.

Yeah, I’m sure there are lots of boring bits inbetween, but geez, just let it roll, right?

In unrelated news, who is ‘Sire’? And why is he a dick?

And did someone just admit to ‘killing twenty MFers with a gun’?

Good times.

Reaps on December 20, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Dude at the end seems awfully confused on the topic at hand, too.

Reaps on December 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

We need more Steven Crowders.

22044 on December 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

least thats what i learned on public school playgrounds 50 years ago. my how times have changed.
renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

we can try, but if we cant im secure in the knowledge that i can punch you a few times and its your fault. according to the standard being pushed here by your ilk.
chasdal on December 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Liberal Fascists — of any age — have only one standard:

“Everything we do to you is always your fault.”

logis on December 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I’m looking at the broader picture here.

This is a portent of what will come should the systems of support fail…and they were actually restraining themselves. I don’t get why anyone with a choice would choose to live within 100 miles of these urban cesspools. Thank you Ike for the Interstate system so the rest of us can avoid them.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM

A group of grown “men” who collapse a tent with women inside? And trash a vendors cart while spewing racial epithets?

gwelf on December 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM

You have to remember…to renalin and those of his ilk, those are “grown men”. They admire them in strange and deviant ways; and they send a ‘tingle’ up ren’s leg. In fact, lil ren would like to get very up close and very, very personal with them. Maybe even get slapped around a little to get things ‘heated up’. And I’m sure the bumwads union boys would love to oblige him.

But leftists are like that.

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Heh. renalin is a keyboard warrior.

22044 on December 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/Stet/BRTky.jpg

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM

verbaluce on December 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

yep. totally agree.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Isn’t that the cutest thing! Squeeeee!

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 9:11 PM

thats my point. if you see a bunch of angry union thugs, and choose to confront them (i saw crowder standing front and center) then you must accept the consequences.

least thats what i learned on public school playgrounds 50 years ago. my how times have changed.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

So, even 50 years ago, angry union thugs were attacking children on playgrounds?
Evidently, they’re just too stupid to advance with the times.
No wonder unions are washed up, losing members and on the verge of disappearing.

Solaratov on December 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

…rabid thugs!

KOOLAID2 on December 20, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3