LGBT activist douses Newt Gingrich with rainbow glitter

Source: Raw Story

LGBT activist douses Newt Gingrich with rainbow glitter



Just before fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) spoke to the anti-gay group Minnesota Family Council on Tuesday night, an LGBT activist dumped rainbow glitter on him and shouted, “Feel the rainbow, Newt!”

The protester, Nick Espinosa, was quickly rushed away by private security. He later told ABC News: “Today, I invited Newt to feel the rainbow because he decided to bring his anti-gay politics to my state. Newt has a long history of anti-gay politics and has chosen to focus on divisive social issues instead of working to fix our economy. I don’t think a free will adulterer like Newt has any ground to stand up while telling others who they can and can’t love.”

This video is from Sky News, broadcast Wednesday, May 18, 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T3bV01_DY2Y

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/lgbt-activist-douses-newt-gingrich-with-rainbow-glitter/

Quoting Nick from above:

"I don’t think a free will adulterer like Newt has any ground to stand up while telling others who they can and can’t love.”

Well said!

throwing anything at public officials. This guy threw glitter. Maybe the next time a tea Party person throws something worse at a liberal.

Liberals make non-violent statements, Wingnuts make violent ones.

The sad part? It's because wingnuts can't tell the difference. They'll just call this an 'attack' rather than see it for what it is.

There's no legal distinction whether it is glitter or a rock.

(Psst... you're missing the point!)

The POINT I made had nothing to do with whether this was 'legal' or not. (so much as might have been determined by perusing my post) The POINT, as stated in the post you responded to, was the distinction between violent and non-violent. Not 'assault and non-assault'.

The POINT is that wingnuts will call this an attack for the purpose of ignoring its harmlessness.

Unless, of course, you measure the harm from a rock and glitter as the same.

Hope that clears things up.

So I would appreciate it greatly if you did not lie about what I said, k?

Yes, the wingnuts will call it an attack.

It remains an unlawful assault, and why give them an opening?

Whether you like it or not, and whether I like it or not, an assault is a crime against the person which is classified as a violent crime.

You can live in this reality, or one of your imagination. Thems the facts.

I didn't claim you said it was a 'savage attack', it was meant to put what you said in contrast with the actual event.

I know that it's a form of 'assault', and I know that the wingnuts will do their level best to characterize it as such. At the same time, it was clearly harmless and the idea that anyone should press charges for it is asinine.

Here, in the real world, throwing glitter on someone is little more an 'assault' than yelling at someone's face.

If you can classify glitter as 'violent', then I can classify an attack on my eardrums as 'violent' as well.

has a heart attack because they were so surprised by a non violent act is it still superior? Is it still not an attack?

:eyes:

If someone has a heart attack because glitter was tossed on them, it's hardly the fault of the 'attacker'. Seriously, siding with the wingnuts to paint this as a 'violent attack' doesn't help.

If we don't make the distinction clear, they'll happily use this as justification for violence.

"Gingrich hit with glitter at Minneapolis event"

Not 'sprinkled', 'thrown', 'dusted', or 'showered'.... 'hit'.

They MUST see things this way in order to keep their rage-meters in the red.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sometimes, less is more. A small handful would have been a sprinkling, but this was an entire box, making it more of a dumping than a dusting. I like the spirit of the action, but I would have done it differently.

So, apples/oranges.

Just IMO....if somebody threw something on me, I wouldn't think "that made me look bad" I'd think "what a jerk." As much as I loathe Newt....I don't think he's the one who looks bad in this.

Great statement.

you can say or do anything you want with a sh**-eating grin on your face and a wad of cash in your pocket and people won't notice or forget if they do.

The guy made his point peacefully. The flying glitter did made me giggle a little.

Or rather, on a newt.

K&R

"The thing about glitter is, if you get it on you, be prepared to have it on you forever cause glitter is the herpes of craft supplies."

:rofl:

:spray:
...only not so graphically.

I was thinking more like cat hair...once it's on ya, it's darn near impossible to remove.

...that you're a childish moron. It didn't get any point across. It did nothing to promote the facts of LGBT rights. It was just a silly act that put this guy in a spotlight and make Newt look like a damned victim.

The glitter would have been far more effective combined with glue and posterboard to highlight facts and to dispel rumors.

I can see it as evidence of "violent leftists" coming from right-wing political blogs, but then the other part of me really doesn't give a shit considering the hateful things that have been done to fellow lesbians and gays. Fuck them if they can't take a joke, and if they want to escalate it, have at it.