Dunedan, no one, and I mean NO ONE is a 24/7/365 agent of the state. It's just not possible. With that in mind, was the Congressman acting as an agent of the state? Did he abuse his powers?
No and no, in my mind.
As for "egregious violence" I don't see any of that. Sure, he's guilty of the lowest level of assault - a misdemeanor - but this isn't even the most violent confrontation I've seen today (right now, that's the Vince Young upside-down-Hookem-Horns debacle). This isn't even in the same ballpark.
For the State to have done anything wrong the state has to, you know, do something. If an off-duty cop beats someone up, that's not on the city/state/county. It's on the cop. I just see a drunk on his way back from a 5 martini lunch proving he's an ass.
---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Possible Topics For Discussion:
1: State/private-violence double standard.
2: Violence not unique to Rightists, despite stereotypes. See also: Peaceful Tea Party Rallies Where Nobody Got Their Fingers Bitten Off.
3: The apparent self-appointed "right" of State functionaries (in this case a drunken Congressman) to enact violence at will upon those Plebs who annoy them.
4: Whether a person with such an obvious impulse-control problem should be allowed to continue working for people he sees no problem assaulting on the street.
5: Whether "Public Servant" still means anything: when the Butler assaults the Master Of The House, or the Steward, or one of the guests, the Butler gets fired and then arrested, after all.
6: Whether we should be paying a Congressman's salary for someone to get that drunk on "Company time."
|
Is this a concession that your OP sucks and that you want this thread deleted so you can try again? Because that sure seems appropriate based on what you've done thus far.
You're smarter than this thread makes you look, Dunedan.