customers served (give or take a few hundred thousand) since September 2004!
Comments and opinions expressed on THE KNIGHT SHIFT are those of Christopher Knight and not necessarily those of subjects discussed in this blog, of advertisers appearing on it or of any reasonable human being. Any correspondence/irate letters/lawsuit threats/Nigerian e-mail scams can be sent to theknightshift@gmail.com.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Anti-Bush guys may have forged memos, and Anti-Kerry dads may have staged their daughters getting their signs torn up...
...it's a sad day in America when pro wrestling is more real than the Presidential election. Is it too late to start a campaign to draft Vince McMahon into the White House?
IIRC, the vast majority of media outlets dropped the story like so much bat guano (Drudge yanked it without offering any explanation) after it was found out that Phil Parlock has been a chronic victim of the Democrat party for at least the past three elections, without fail. He's also been quoted as saying that Democrats can't be Christians. His rabid reverence for the Republicans, his previous history of claiming being attacked (none of which have been authenticated) and the fact that it appears the person who allegedly tore up the sign was his own son, has led just about every rational news agency to conclude that Parlock cooked up this whole story to make Edwards (and Kerry) look bad.
First you point out that it was found out he has been a victim of Democrat violence for the past three elections, then you complain that none of the incidents have been authenticated. Well, which is it?
If the stories are true, so what? He goes to where the Democrats protest or rally to make his (opposing) voice heard? Haven't you done that? Haven't all of us at some point in time? And if he became a victim of violence at these places, that speaks volumes about the Democrats and their respect for opposing points of view. Parlock is a patriot.
As for that "the fact that it appears the person who allegedly tore up the sign was his own son" nonsense. Yes, I said NONSENSE. That conspiracy theory was originally cooked up by the loonies over at Democratic Underground. That has been debunked. I do not know why you accept it as "fact". Parlock has denied it, Parlock's daughter has denied it. The Union has indeed identified the guy, they know who he is, apologized for the incident and promised that the guy in question would be disciplined.
PARLOCK UPDATE (Union Now Has IDed Attacker as Union Member, NOT PARLOCK'S SON. DEFINITIVE.) http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1222807/posts
Thanks for the update. I did not know that he had been identified and was not Parlock's son. I hadn't kept up quite as well with this story as some people have apparently: if I'm wrong about something, I do appreciate being told about it. Unlike some people these days, I don't base my perspective of the truth on what I want the truth be.
Regarding your comment about Democratic Underground: I can't remember having visited that site in at least two years. I heard the thing about that might having been his son through other channels. I don't even remember that much about DU, except that FR was becoming every bit as driven by hatred and spite as it was.
Belonging to a certain political party and being active in it does not a patriot make. Indeed, real patriots have more often than not been those who DISSENT from the party, or the mob if you will.
I do believe that Parlock needs to stop looking for trouble though, whether or not he's been cooking it up on his own. If he hasn't been, then it makes him out to be a person who has a very blind and foolish loyalty to a party rather than to principles. In any case, he should not be trying to cause trouble when he has his young child with him.
And given the chance, I would remind him that Jesus asks that we work toward building up the Kingdom of Heaven in our time on earth. There is precious little of that as it is to waste it on establishing empires of men.
Maybe some other people deserve having their freedom of speech also... you know, the ones that Bush ordered to be screened out and herded off to "free speech zones" or even had them arrested.
I'm not voting for Kerry, but I do at least admire how he's been willing to let ALL Americans have their chance to get up close to him, instead of "picking and choosing" a homogenized fraction. If this had been a pro-Kerry supporter, he wouldn't have been allowed within a hundred feet of Bush. All Parlock really did was exploit an advantage that Kerry himself created by possessing a lot more self-confidence than Bush seems to have.
"Anti-Kerry dads may have staged their daughters getting their signs torn up... "
ReplyDeleteMay have? That wasnt staged. Just another lie from the left that managed to grow some before it was debunked.
IIRC, the vast majority of media outlets dropped the story like so much bat guano (Drudge yanked it without offering any explanation) after it was found out that Phil Parlock has been a chronic victim of the Democrat party for at least the past three elections, without fail. He's also been quoted as saying that Democrats can't be Christians. His rabid reverence for the Republicans, his previous history of claiming being attacked (none of which have been authenticated) and the fact that it appears the person who allegedly tore up the sign was his own son, has led just about every rational news agency to conclude that Parlock cooked up this whole story to make Edwards (and Kerry) look bad.
ReplyDeleteFirst you point out that it was found out he has been a victim of Democrat violence for the past three elections, then you complain that none of the incidents have been authenticated. Well, which is it?
ReplyDeleteIf the stories are true, so what? He goes to where the Democrats protest or rally to make his (opposing) voice heard? Haven't you done that? Haven't all of us at some point in time? And if he became a victim of violence at these places, that speaks volumes about the Democrats and their respect for opposing points of view. Parlock is a patriot.
As for that "the fact that it appears the person who allegedly tore up the sign was his own son" nonsense. Yes, I said NONSENSE. That conspiracy theory was originally cooked up by the loonies over at Democratic Underground. That has been debunked. I do not know why you accept it as "fact". Parlock has denied it, Parlock's daughter has denied it. The Union has indeed identified the guy, they know who he is, apologized for the incident and promised that the guy in question would be disciplined.
PARLOCK UPDATE (Union Now Has IDed Attacker as Union Member, NOT PARLOCK'S SON. DEFINITIVE.)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1222807/posts
Thanks for the update. I did not know that he had been identified and was not Parlock's son. I hadn't kept up quite as well with this story as some people have apparently: if I'm wrong about something, I do appreciate being told about it. Unlike some people these days, I don't base my perspective of the truth on what I want the truth be.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comment about Democratic Underground: I can't remember having visited that site in at least two years. I heard the thing about that might having been his son through other channels. I don't even remember that much about DU, except that FR was becoming every bit as driven by hatred and spite as it was.
Belonging to a certain political party and being active in it does not a patriot make. Indeed, real patriots have more often than not been those who DISSENT from the party, or the mob if you will.
I do believe that Parlock needs to stop looking for trouble though, whether or not he's been cooking it up on his own. If he hasn't been, then it makes him out to be a person who has a very blind and foolish loyalty to a party rather than to principles. In any case, he should not be trying to cause trouble when he has his young child with him.
And given the chance, I would remind him that Jesus asks that we work toward building up the Kingdom of Heaven in our time on earth. There is precious little of that as it is to waste it on establishing empires of men.
"In any case, he should not be trying to cause trouble when he has his young child with him."
ReplyDeleteHe was not causing any trouble, nor was he trying to. He was exercising his freedom of speech.
Maybe some other people deserve having their freedom of speech also... you know, the ones that Bush ordered to be screened out and herded off to "free speech zones" or even had them arrested.
ReplyDeleteI'm not voting for Kerry, but I do at least admire how he's been willing to let ALL Americans have their chance to get up close to him, instead of "picking and choosing" a homogenized fraction. If this had been a pro-Kerry supporter, he wouldn't have been allowed within a hundred feet of Bush. All Parlock really did was exploit an advantage that Kerry himself created by possessing a lot more self-confidence than Bush seems to have.