I've seen some ridiculous defenses of the union guys who beat on Matt Margolis and his brother, but this one gets filed under "Are you fucking kidding me?"
bq. You have this little smart ass college kid
with too much time and money on his hands, all dewy-eyed because his hero, the Great Deceiver in Chief is in town and he gets in the face of burly blue collar worker who is struggling to meet his mortgage because of Bush's economic policies. What did they expect? That the union guy was going to thank this spoiled brat, whose parents are probably still paying his bills, for his input?
And further down:
bq. Margolis, enjoying the privilege of an expensive college education, verbally pushed this guy first. The union guy probably didn't get the same advantage, so he fought back with what he had, his fists - and Margolis is, or should have been, smart enough to know that he was likely to do so.
From those two paragraphs alone we can infer two things: That this mental midget thinks educated white deserve to be pummeled just for the hell of it; that union guys are dumb and uneducated and therefore can only respond to being "verbally pushed" with their fists.
Then there's the guy who responded on Matt's blog
with this comment:
bq. Hitler had his beliefs, just like Matt has his. Sometimes violence is the only way to show people how devastatingly bad their ideas are. When society is so distraught about policy that individuals feel the need to take violent action, revolution is not only expected, but neccessary. I'm no union man, but I'd have probably taken a swing at you too.
What's really frightening is how many people blame Matt for this incident and never take the union guy to task for resorting to violence. Actually, I shouldn't be surprised. The left is all about blaming the victim and comforting the aggressor.