"Still pushing that bullshit? The video shows no such thing, and if you were honest you'd admit that."

Did you even look at the video? It clearly shows the union guy hitting and kicking the guy on the ground. If you want to refute that, you're going to have a hard time of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpfU_AC7Ls&feature=related

BTW, those guys were arrested too.

And here's where they got mad at someone trying to video the scene.

Are you paying attention now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwxf_2GFOBc

"Do you think it is somehow "American" to yell as loud as you can when someone is making a point (be it a Congressman or other political opponent)?"

Well, I seem to recall our founding fathers did similar things...but they weren't unAmerican. Labeling someone such because they yell out their opinions isn't helping and you know it.

"People were taking signs with swastikas, crude Photoshops making Obama look like Hitler, etc. to the town hall meetings. This is FACT as many photos have shown up on the Internet proving it. I'm sorry if this is an "inconvenient truth" for you but reality is reality."

Oh yes...one DID show up. And I will grant you they did show up - a very few. But the majority did NOT...and generalizing all as swastika carrying nazi is not helping either. But then, all you want to do from what I've seen is catagorize your opponents. Bad move as there appears to be a lot more opponents than there are of you.

"Why don't more Republicans disavow these hateful people who make the party look like a bunch of bigots? Oh yeah, that's the "party base" they are pandering to."

See what I mean about catagorizing your opposition.

BTW, what did your parents think about how those on the liberal side catagorized Bush as Bushitler, Chimp in Charge, etc. Were they just as ashamed as well? Because I was.

"I thought that's what they called themselves."

Actually they called themselves teapartiers. But I can understand the mistake, given that everyone seems to have forgotten that.

"As far as anybody knows from this video, Jackson may have asked for a moment to check her voice mail, and the woman might have ignored her and asked her question anyway. The context is essential here. You're making an out-of-context video (that is purposely edited to make things look as bad as possible) the entire evidence for your conclusion."

Oh please...so you are assuming that she did ASK for a moment to check her voice mail or whatever. Ok...then WHY didn't she ask for a moment in the video. Worse, WHY didn't she say that was exactly what she was doing while defending herself, rather than say the video must have been doctored?

"Had it been going on for 20 minutes, or several hours? Was Jackson momentarily doing this, or was she like this the entire time? No way of knowing from the video, which is purposely edited to obscure a fuller view of what was going on."

If you're talking to your boss, are you going to blow him off for a phone call WITHOUT explaining to him why you are doing it? Sorry but that doesn't wash.

"She didn't turn away from the woman or cross her arms at her. She didn't roll her eyes. She put the phone down. You say she "ignored her constituent," but how do you know this for certain when the video does not show what happened after the woman finished asking her question? As far as we know from the video, Jackson might have apologized for the momentary distraction. "

Oh please, she looked away from the woman three times that I counted watching the video again. In the background, you even heard people people say "Dude, really." I'll grant you that the video didn't keep going...but then when she defended herself, she was asked if she apologized and she said the woman never asked for one so she didn't get one.

"It would seem that anything that's done on camera that doesn't look great is a bad move these days, given the propensity for opponents to take things out of context in a dishonest fashion."

Let's just say if you KNOW you're on camera, it behooves you to be on you best behavior, if you're a politician.

"Oh noes! She defended herself! God forbid anybody should defend themselves. The video IS doctored -- did you not see the constant overlay of text to help viewers interpret events in the worst way possible?"

Doctored to show she ignored her constituent? I don't think so...if it were, she would have said as much. And there would be others out there right now jumping to her defense as there WERE some proponents of her legislation in the audience.

Still, if someone DOES come up with an unedited version...a FULL version of what really happened I would like to see it.