New Hampshire Government worker attacked in Illinois-congressman thought funny!

[Arude13]

A New Hampshire highly decorated, wounded war vet working at a VA Hospital in Marion, Il was physically attacked and beaten by a coworker because it was thought the worker was a "Dirty F...ing Jew"  The person who did the beating was promoted and the one who was beat was fired for because his religion was a distraction.  A Hearing was brought forth and State Rep John Bradley heard the EO Rep say yes we dont want Jews working here and the state Rep agree that jews shold not be allowed in Illinois.  The funny thing is the so called Jew, is a Ordained Babtist Preacher?  I am wondering how  to start a good protest to warn the people here of the blatnet racism occuring or what actions should be taken because if a Vet can be beat at work in the Land of Obama and it is ok what is the rest of us up against?

[Lex]

I am wondering how  to start a good protest to warn the people here of the blatnet racism occuring or what actions should be taken because if a Vet can be beat at work in the Land of Obama and it is ok what is the rest of us up against?

I agree that racism is unproductive but I don't understand what you're trying to do.

In front of whom are you going to protest? And what do you want as an outcome? Also, where is "here"?

I think the core issue here is that someone was beaten who didn't hurt (I presume) anyone. The reason for the beating is irrelevant, it's the beating that's the problem. People are going to be racist no matter what anyone does, how they act on it is the issue. But that's true for anything, beating someone up who didn't do anything to anyone is just plain wrong.

[Jim Johnson]

Illinois is the center of the American Nazi movement from the the 1930's.
The movement was driven underground by WWII.
Nazis where not hunted and segregated like the Japanese in America.
The American Nazis still exist there.
They are going to bubble up with out extra attention every now and again.

Baptists are not immune from Nazi rancor.

[Free libertarian]

Somehow there's a Mel Gibson movie in this thread, somewhere, I just know it. 

[MaineShark]

But that's true for anything, beating someone up who didn't do anything to anyone is just plain wrong.

Remember that, when someone lights a campfire without the permission of government thugs...

Joe

[Lex]

Remember that, when someone lights a campfire without the permission of government thugs...

Someone got beat up for lighting a campfire without permission from government?

Can you provide a link please.

[AntonLee]

threat of force = force.

[Lex]

threat of force = force.

So, if you had a choice between being threatened to be beat up and actually being beat up it wouldn't matter because they are the same thing???

Maybe I'm just weird but I'll take the threat over actual violence any day if I have the choice. Hence, in my option, threat of violence != actual violence.

Would you also equate the Cold War to WWII? I mean, they both had threats of violence, the fact that 50+ million people died in one of them and not in the other is irrelevant?

[KBCraig]

threat of force = force.

So, if you had a choice between being threatened to be beat up and actually being beat up it wouldn't matter because they are the same thing???

Maybe I'm just weird but I'll take the threat over actual violence any day if I have the choice.

Your choice is to comply with what the threatener wants, or get the actual violence. That's not a choice, that is force.

All that aside... I want details from the OP. A news link would be nice.

[AntonLee]

yes Lex, you must be weird.

what KBCraig said.

[CJS]

All that aside... I want details from the OP. A news link would be nice.

Good luck finding a link .

The Nazi party in Illinois is all but dead , most white power groups exist in the prisons for protection . Their numbers are falsified by groups like the southern poverty law center to help keep their funding stream flush .

[MaineShark]

threat of force = force.

Exactly.

If not, then a rape victim who submits rather than be murdered would actually be said to have consented, because no force was used.  Once you threaten, you have used force.  There are degrees of force, but a credible threat of force is, itself, force.

Barskey and Russell defused the situation, and prevented additional force from being used.  If they had simply stood on their rights, the agents of the State would have continued escalating the force continuum until Barskey and Russell were dead.  State thugs don't get to take credit when their victims defuse a situation.

Joe

[Lex]

Barskey and Russell defused the situation, and prevented additional force from being used.  If they had simply stood on their rights, the agents of the State would have continued escalating the force continuum until Barskey and Russell were dead.  State thugs don't get to take credit when their victims defuse a situation.

How exactly did they defuse the situation? Neither Barskey nor Russell put out the fire or agreed to have the fire put out. Russell continued to use the fire to cook food as John was putting it out and Barskey was verbally trying to stop what was happening. Even after the fire was put out Barskey was being confrontational with Merle (when Merle was leaning on the car).

[Lex]

Your choice is to comply with what the threatener wants, or get the actual violence. That's not a choice, that is force.

All that aside... I want details from the OP. A news link would be nice.

Maybe in your fantasy world. But in real life, a lot of people threaten and never actually back it up with force. I have been threatened many times and nothing ever came of it.

The state threatens bodily harm to people all the time and doesn't act on it besides possibly some harassment and maybe stealing some stuff.

It must be nice to sit so far away from New Hampshire and say that it wouldn't have made a difference if Russell and Barskey were violently beaten or not. But you have to realize that they are real people and this isn't some kind of video game or TV show you are watching from far away. The difference between the state threatening, taking money and things away versus actually beating people and rendering them permanently handicapped is pretty drastic.

Try explaining this to someone who has actually been permanently handicapped by state thugs. I find it very hard to believe that they will agree with your idealistic notion that threat of violence is the same as actual violence.

[Lex]

yes Lex, you must be weird.

what KBCraig said.

I wouldn't side too closely with KBCraig. He works at a prison and has probably become desensitized to people being beaten. Maybe to him beating someone senseless and threatening to beat someone could very well be the same thing.

If you think of people not as human beings but as philosophical abstractions I can see how threat and actual violence can appear equal.