View Full Version : Liberal Activist Attacked by Zealous Conservative
Aramike
10-27-10, 04:15 AM
This has absolutely no place in political discourse:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/125785-moveon-activist-attacked-outside-rand-paul-rally
Okay, look, that woman in my opinion is probably a wackjob. But I swear if I ever saw a man stomping on a woman's head I would beat the daylights out of him. I can hardly describe how revolted I am when watching that video, and I suspect most of my fellow subsimmers will see it the same way.
As such, it put things in perspective, doesn't it? At the end of the day, there are jerks who stomp on a helpless woman's head, then there are the rest of us who comprise the vast majority, who will vehemently disagree on some things but at least can agree to not go THERE...
Schroeder
10-27-10, 04:31 AM
In a different country in a different time they would probably have been proud members of the SA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung).....:-?
Skybird
10-27-10, 05:20 AM
Verbal violence and every type of verbal foul-playing seems to be acceptable - so that it turns into physical violence next to me is just a logical consequence. If the atmosphere is allowed to get heated up more and more, sooner or later valves are breaking. The current midterm election campaigns are said to be the dirtiest and most aggressive campaigns ever in the history of the US, just two days ago I saw a whole collection of campaign spots whose dirtiness and bad taste and offence and lying and mud-throwing left me speechless.
If such verbal stuff is seen as acceptable and is said to be total freedom of speech, the pace is set and the standards are changed so that physical violence takes place sooner or later, too. Verbal violence first, physical violence second.
The difference, the balance between censorship of opinion's content/argument, and banning offensive speech by style, is a sensibel one, and it is often difficult to find it and to keep it. It seems that the US and the EU each represent one of these extremes, presently. Still, both these possible extremes do more bad than good. Political correctness fans wanting to ban all opinion that is different from what they think should be allowed to be said and thought in content (EU), are the one extreme. The claim of total freedom of speech that often is expressed and acted by in America, is just the extreme at the other end of the spectrum, not less extreme than the first. And both lead to intolerance, digging trenches, and violence.
Walking somewhere in the middle, keeping polite and honest while sticking to clear aergument, is the trick that solves it. But many people think that yelling loud or using plenty of rethorics or raising cultural or relgious demands, is as good as argument. That's when things start to become messed up.
All I can say is: Wehret den Anfängen. The wise man solves rising problems while they are still small - so that he must not try to solve big problems later, says Lao Tse.
the_tyrant
10-27-10, 05:35 AM
Marx was right
He once claimed as both parties in an evil capitalist country become increasingly similar(after all, he thinks that both party works for the capitalists). Less and less people will vote after they know the truth about both parties.
Well he was half right, now i wouldn't go participate in political activities if I was fearing for my life
Marx was right
He once claimed as both parties in an evil capitalist country become increasingly similar(after all, he thinks that both party works for the capitalists). Less and less people will vote after they know the truth about both parties.
Well he was half right, now i wouldn't go participate in political activities if I was fearing for my life
LOL.
If you think political rallies are somehow more dangerous than the past you're pretty unschooled in history. 100 years ago someone sneaking into a rally to heckle would have been very harshly treated, I guarantee. Things are less violent than ever, without any question. In the "political machine" systems, people were roughed up all the time. heck, it's less now even within the incredibly corrupt bastions of machine politics (like Chicago).
SteamWake
10-27-10, 08:31 AM
"Get the police here, get the cops" sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The dork that stepped on her head was quickly waved off. There is no excuse for that and he did not help things. But it was 5 seconds of video that we see over and over and over. Its being portrayed as if the entire crowd went all postal and stomped the living crap out of this woman which is simply not true. But it paints a picture they wish to portray of 'tea party wackos'.
What we dont see nor is described is the following.
The woman was wearing a 'costume', she had identifying garb denoting her as a 'moveon.org' associate, she was forcing her way through the crowd with some sort of 'package' towards the candidate. Slightly suspicious to say the least.
The only thing put into perspective here is that 1.) Theres idiots in every crowd and 2.)The liberal progressives want very badly to portray the tea party as 'nut jobs'.
Takeda Shingen
10-27-10, 12:55 PM
I agree completely with Armike. The woman was no doubt a loon, but physical violence has no place in these proceedings. As to the media coverage, people shout at each other all the time. This would not have been news if not for the stomping of this woman. It is no different than people rubbernecking when driving by an accident; an unfortunate effect of our society of voyeurism.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 12:58 PM
2.)The liberal progressives want very badly to portray the tea party as 'nut jobs'.
Not hard to do when Teabaggers tackle and stomp on the heads of those with different political opinions.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 01:15 PM
In an ideal world no one would suddenly and inexplicably charge a candidate for national office and no one would have to step on the charger's head. But this isn't an ideal world now is it?
frau kaleun
10-27-10, 01:16 PM
And now the stomper has gone on record with the local TV news (albeit with his face off camera per his own request) to say that he deserves an apology... from the person he stomped on.
"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIv9kN7Ze7Y
WTF? :nope:
Oh, waaaah, I couldn't bend over to restrain her because I have back issues.
Then GTFO and let someone who is physically capable deal with a potential threat* if and when it develops.
*Please note that appearing at a public event with views other than your own, or representing those whose views differ from your own, does not constitute a "threat" to which physical assault is a legitimate response. Just in case there's any confusion. Nimrod.
Ducimus
10-27-10, 01:28 PM
" it paints a picture they wish to portray of 'tea party wackos'.
I got news for you. They don't have to try and portray anything. The Tea partiers are doing a good job of it all on their own between this and open carry demonstrations. I don't care who you are, you don't go carrying around weapons to make a point in politics. To this layman, gives the overall picture of a bunch of fringe whack jobs id rather not have anything to do with.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 01:33 PM
I guess just saying we have our boots on some ones neck, ala Ken Salazar v. BP, is more PC then actually doing it. If the gal, who was in disguise, had done the same thing to Barry she'd have had more trouble. But safety for the one is more important than anyone else.
Freiwillige
10-27-10, 01:57 PM
Just speculation here but whose to say that the guys that ripped her to the ground and stepped on her head (Ever so lighty might I point out, wasn't exactly a skinhead boot party) weren't in on the whole thing? Move on.org and their ilk have a history of fraudulent schemes.
Not saying that is the case and it probably isn't but just presenting another option as in this day and age anything is possible.
Also I would like to say that I feel sorry for people such as this girl who live in the fantasy land of leftist division who see corporate republican conspiracy every where. The youth are brainwashed in higher education and come out whacko's.
Its funny because Communist's always use that same class\racial warfare struggle to gain power. Its an old playbook yet it almost never fails.
When are we going to come together as American's and try to solve these problems on a whole without the division?
Its funny because Communist's always use that same class\racial warfare struggle to gain power. Its an old playbook yet it almost never fails.
Could that possibly because there's, you know, a lot of injustice and inequality in societies like even the US? But sure, let's call it a communist conspiracy instead of addressing it as part of the political process...
Just speculation here but whose to say that the guys that ripped her to the ground and stepped on her head (Ever so lighty might I point out, wasn't exactly a skinhead boot party) weren't in on the whole thing? Move on.org and their ilk have a history of fraudulent schemes.
Good point. So far there is no proof of that in this case but radical Democrats do have a history of using agent provocateurs and it's definitely the height of stupidity to be stomping someone in front of TV cameras...
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 02:15 PM
Then that rabbit hole goes deep, as the stomper was Tim Profitt, the former Rand Paul campaign coordinator for Bourbon County.
Quit being nutzoids.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 02:16 PM
I remember a SEIU fella bighting the finger from a Obamacre protester. Where was the outrage?
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-finger-bitten-rally,0,7135717.story
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 02:17 PM
When are we going to come together as American's and try to solve these problems on a whole without the division?
When inbred yahoos stop physically assaulting people with differing political opinions.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 02:19 PM
I remember a SEIU fella bighting the finger from a Obamacre protester. Where was the outrage?
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-finger-bitten-rally,0,7135717.story
I can't be outraged when a guy gets his finger bitten off in a fight that he started when he threw a punch at someone.
Not hard to do when Teabaggers tackle and stomp on the heads of those with different political opinions.
"Teabaggers" and "stomp."
I try pretty hard in my posts not to hurl epithets. Generalization is also often not a good idea. There is exactly zero pattern of violence here. There are assaults in virtually every large gathering of people. Last time there was a concert someplace, do you think the police or security had any incidents? Sure, they probably had a bunch.
How many "incidents" per 1000 people is normal/typical in any gathering?
How many in political rallies?
Do Tea Party rallies have more than average, or fewer than the average number of incidents?
Basing a POV on anecdote is pretty normal in the US, I'll admit. It's not terribly rigorous, however.
Bad incident, press charges. When you can demonstrate a statistically significant increase in such incidents as a function of politics, by all means, post away.
frau kaleun
10-27-10, 02:19 PM
Just speculation here but whose to say that the guys that ripped her to the ground and stepped on her head (Ever so lighty might I point out, wasn't exactly a skinhead boot party) weren't in on the whole thing?
Tim Proffit, the man shown stepping on the woman's head in the video of the event and interviewed in the news report I linked to, is (or, one hopes, was) a county coordinator for the Paul campaign (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-curbstomper-rand-pauls-bourbon.html) who has met and been pictured with the candidate and been interviewed while working other campaign events. His name was featured as one of Paul's supposedly prominent supporters in a campaign ad touting endorsements from "Central Kentuckians For Rand Paul" that just ran in the Lexington Herald-Leader (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/10/full-page-ad-in-herald-leader-today.html).
So I'd say that the likelihood of him being a liberal "plant" put in place to embarrass the campaign at this event is essentially nil.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 02:23 PM
"Teabaggers" and "stomp."
I try pretty hard in my posts not to hurl epithets. Generalization is also often not a good idea. There is exactly zero pattern of violence here. There are assaults in virtually every large gathering of people. Last time there was a concert someplace, do you think the police or security had any incidents? Sure, they probably had a bunch.
How many "incidents" per 1000 people is normal/typical in any gathering?
How many in political rallies?
Do Tea Party rallies have more than average, or fewer than the average number of incidents?
Basing a POV on anecdote is pretty normal in the US, I'll admit. It's not terribly rigorous, however.
Bad incident, press charges. When you can demonstrate a statistically significant increase in such incidents as a function of politics, by all means, post away.
When people defend this kind of behavior by saying she had it coming because she worked for moveon or that it's all a big dadgum librul conspiracy, that's what seals the deal on looking crazy.
Tim Proffit, the man shown stepping on the woman's head in the video of the event and interviewed in the news report I linked to, is (or, one hopes, was) a county coordinator for the Paul campaign (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-curbstomper-rand-pauls-bourbon.html) who has met and been pictured with the candidate and been interviewed while working other campaign events. His name was featured as one of Paul's supposedly prominent supporters in a campaign ad touting endorsements from "Central Kentuckians For Rand Paul" that just ran in the Lexington Herald-Leader (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/10/full-page-ad-in-herald-leader-today.html).
So I'd say that the likelihood of him being a liberal "plant" put in place to embarrass the campaign at this event is essentially nil.
Agreed, looks like they overreacted, and assaulted her. She should press charges, IMO. Still, an isolated incident.
Note that had someone approached a candidate under Secret Service protection with a package... bottom line, is trying to "ambush" a candidate, even with a joke-like presentation is probably a pretty bad idea.
Arguably as dumb as taking weapons to a crowded rally—even if both activities are perfectly legal.
Bubblehead1980
10-27-10, 02:28 PM
Could that possibly because there's, you know, a lot of injustice and inequality in societies like even the US? But sure, let's call it a communist conspiracy instead of addressing it as part of the political process...
I am so sick of hearing about injustice and inequality, it's a major selling point of the Left, they exploit the less fortunate and un or undereducated, disgusting.Guess what, everyone is not equal when it comes to $, just how it is.The individual's job is to do their best to make it, not whine or expect others to pick up their slack.
When people defend this kind of behavior by saying she had it coming because she worked for moveon or that it's all a big dadgum librul conspiracy, that's what seals the deal on looking crazy.
Ever read huffpo or kos?
They routinely wish death on conservatives in comments. They have taken to turning off comments on news stories about a congress critter with cancer if he's an R, for example, cause of all the crazy death-wishing, and "I hope he suffers" nonsense.
Or the fact that BO's campaign website was filled with bloggers (they offered blogging space) that advocated for terrorism, etc (only pulled when pointed out by other blogs). (no, I'm not saying BO endorsed this, just that given the free opportunity, some pro-Obama nuts posted their insanity there)
There are crazies in every group.
She didn't "have it coming," no one does. That said, she was certainly engaging in a possibly dangerous activity. She could certainly expect she might be hassled contrary to her rights, just as the guy with the gun might have been hassled (heck, SHOT) by the cops overreacting—in spite of any legal rights he had.
What would a scab with an anti-union message expect showing up to a union rally? Hugs?
Would his abuse be legal? No. Should he have thought it to be likely before he headed there? Hell, yeah.
Not excusing it, they should be charged, but it doesn't surprise me.
Bubblehead1980
10-27-10, 02:35 PM
On the whole stomping incident...
watch the video again, she was trying to shove her sign into Rand Paul's vehicle at the begining unless that was edited it out, I just saw it earlier on tv.Although this goober was not security he felt his candidate was in danger, so along with others they took her down, which was absolutely justified(women can do harm to candidates also, remember the wacko who tried to shoot Gerald Ford?) Now this idiot shouldnt have put his foot on her but he didnt "stomp" her, that is a gross overstatement.Looked more like he was watching out while using his foot to hold her down, should not have done it but lets not go overboard as the Left wing media is trying to do.Look up this moonbat's interview with Keith Olberman(disgusting individual that he is) from last night, she is off her rocker yet they are trying portray everyone else as so.
Bottom line, the Left knows they are losing and most of the citizens have finally realized how dangerous and just WRONG Left wing ideology and policies are, so they are acting like babies, getting desperate etc, kind of fun to watch but highly annoying.Six days....
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 02:38 PM
On the whole stomping incident...
watch the video again, she was trying to shove her sign into Rand Paul's vehicle at the begining unless that was edited it out, I just saw it earlier on tv.Although this goober was not security he felt his candidate was in danger, so along with others they took her down, which was absolutely justified(women can do harm to candidates also, remember the wacko who tried to shoot Gerald Ford?)
Bull.
YOU DON'T TACKLE AND STOMP/STEP ON/TICKLE WITH YOUR FOOT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS.
What's scary is that there's people like you who believe this sort of thing is justified.
Bull.
YOU DON'T TACKLE AND STOMP/STEP ON/TICKLE WITH YOUR FOOT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS.
What's scary is that there's people like you who believe this sort of thing is justified.
What part is bull? The part where she tried to assault Rand Paul or the part where she was assaulted herself?
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 02:42 PM
What part is bull? The part where she tried to assault Rand Paul or the part where she was assaulted herself?
The part where people try to make this yahoo thug out to be a hero like he jumped in front of a bullet. No one was in any danger.
gimpy117
10-27-10, 02:43 PM
On the whole stomping incident...
watch the video again, she was trying to shove her sign into Rand Paul's vehicle at the begining unless that was edited it out, I just saw it earlier on tv.Although this goober was not security he felt his candidate was in danger, so along with others they took her down, which was absolutely justified(women can do harm to candidates also, remember the wacko who tried to shoot Gerald Ford?)
yeah, well thats all wonderful except you forgot the part where they stomped on her head. She was already restrained on the ground. If their goal was to be "good citizens" and restrain here they would have stopped at the part where 2 guys were on top of her holding her down. This was just violence.
That's a reasonable way to look at the situation, from the security standpoint. Up to this point I hadn't really (I've been calling it assault, right?).
In the context of someone rushing a candidate with a package, what did the attack on Senator Kennedy (Bobby) look like? What did the attack on Reagan look like (you can watch the vid). Or Jack Ruby vs Oswald, or the recent attack on Bhutto (killed 21).
Someone moves in close, then attacks. The decision point to act or not act is tiny, and needs to happen before they are a threat. This is why the secret service tries to control crowds in advance to prevent incidents like this.
Seen from a security standpoint, I think anyone moving quickly towards a candidate of any party needs to be taken down. This may well be why the police have not charged anyone, the security angle would be hard to beat in court, and they used "reasonable" force to secure her (not like someone dropped her on the spot with a pistol).
Interesting point, though.
I'd say the same about an Obama or Pelosi protested rushing them (in the former case if the Secret Service popped them, they'd be well within their rights—don't like him, but he's the Pres, and you don't **** with the President).
Bubblehead1980
10-27-10, 02:44 PM
Bull.
YOU DON'T TACKLE AND STOMP/STEP ON/TICKLE WITH YOUR FOOT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS.
What's scary is that there's people like you who believe this sort of thing is justified.
They didnt take her down and he did not hold her down with his foot because of her political views, she got too close, was in disguise and tried to put her sign in the car, she had some package or something also.Tensions are high, I hate to say it but I would not be surprised if some wacked out Lefty tries to take out one of the candidates.They felt she was threatening Paul so they took her down, absolutely justified.I bet if someone did the same to some Dem candidate you'd say "oh te crazy tea partier was trying to harm so and so" and I would agree they deserved to be taken down even though I dislike the candidate .This wacko was asking for trouble and she got it.Now as I said, prob shouldnt have put his foot on her but its a technique used, seen cops do it, it works, no real harm, if he stomped her she would be in hospital.So lets get off the false outrage soapbox:arrgh!:
Honestly, this girl seems like she may be borderline retarded, and I am not saying this as an insult.I watched her on Lord Douche Olberman's show last night in addition just watched this edited version of the video on youtube with her post incident interview, she seems a bit slow.Would not surprise me if moveon sent a borderline retarded person out for something like that.The Left certainly likes to exploit the weaker among us for their own political gain.
EDITED video, does not show the entire incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsrD9NxRC74
The Third Man
10-27-10, 02:46 PM
Absolutely correct. It had nothing to do with her politics. It had everything to do with a threat scenerio.
yeah, well thats all wonderful except you forgot the part where they stomped on her head. She was already restrained on the ground. If their goal was to be "good citizens" and restrain here they would have stopped at the part where 2 guys were on top of her holding her down. This was just violence.
Except they didn't "stomp" on her head. Looks more like held her down with a foot. Put a cantaloupe on the floor. Stomp it.
Messy, no?
krashkart
10-27-10, 02:48 PM
Man, the sixties had nothing on this horribly violent decade. :O:
When are we going to come together as American's and try to solve these problems on a whole without the division?
Except when anyone on the right asks this question, it means "When is the left going to give up and do it our way?", and when it's asked by the left, it means "When are they going to give up and do it our way?"
gimpy117
10-27-10, 02:50 PM
Except they didn't "stomp" on her head. Looks more like held her down with a foot. Put a cantaloupe on the floor. Stomp it.
Messy, no?
except it was after the fact and pointless. he just wanted to bash her in the head
The part where people try to make this yahoo thug out to be a hero like he jumped in front of a bullet. No one was in any danger.
They're only doing the same thing that you do when the shoe is on the other political foot. You saw nothing seriously wrong with billy club wielding Black Panthers patrolling polling places and they see nothing seriously wrong with a half hearted foot "stomp" to someone who went out of her way to make herself into a victim.
Meanwhile both sides ignore the moderating voices who try to say that such incidents are not representative of the mainstream of either political group.
And the beat goes on.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 02:53 PM
Man, the sixties had nothing on this horribly violent decade. :O:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Weather-Underground-21jul03e.jpg http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/2007_bill_ayers.jpg
Democrat candidate comes to your work. A person wearing a shirt or sign that is negative to that candidate starts rushing the guy visiting with something in his hand.
What do you do? Probably tackle him.
Watched the vid again, the whole thing transpires in a few seconds. It's not like they "secured her" then started wailing on her. The foot part is a couple seconds.
BTW, I know some cops and firefighters, and they have talked to me about getting pumped up with adrenaline during emergency situations. We've all read about cops going too far in that state, even if just for a few seconds. It happens.
A guy that worked for me once was burglarized. At lunch the next week I needed to get some wood at home for a shelf we were going to build at the office. he volunteered his PU truck and asked to stop at home since it was close and he was still freaked out. Jokingly, I put on my holster (open carry being legal) and told him we were set for his check of his house. When we arrived there was a car in the driveway (not one of his). The burglar was indeed back! As we went around back, I find myself in the odd position of unsnapping my holster, and working the safety off. He wants to charge in and stop the guy, and though my heart was pounding out of my chest I told him to go to a neighbor and call 911. As I walked past the perp's car, I noticed he left his keys in the ignition for a quick get away :D
I leaned in, removed his keys, then joined my employee on the neighbor's stoop. I could see him as he left (setting off the as of yet unheard house alarm) sit down, then do the "pat yourself all over looking for keys" dance. Cops got him within 100 yards of the house.
After that, I never doubted the adrenaline rush thing again. I was wired for hours.
Isolated incident. No one really hurt, thankfully.
Bubblehead1980
10-27-10, 03:00 PM
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Weather-Underground-21jul03e.jpg http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/2007_bill_ayers.jpg
God he is just a waste of protoplasm, disgusting vile man and a personal friend of Barry O. Also, someone should tell him he is old now, time to give up the ear ring.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 03:00 PM
They're only doing the same thing that you do when the shoe is on the other political foot. You saw nothing seriously wrong with billy club wielding Black Panthers patrolling polling places Did I say that?
and they see nothing seriously wrong with a half hearted foot "stomp" to someone who went out of her way to make herself into a victim.
"She was asking for it" is never a good defense.
AVGWarhawk
10-27-10, 03:01 PM
Yeah man...them teabaggers are all whacked and violent and crap. Look at these teabagger.
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/black-panther1.jpg
NO WAIT..... Hell, these fellas just waited until election day to get their vote out as well as what your vote was 'gunna be.'
American's can't remember crap for longer then a week....:down:
SteamWake
10-27-10, 03:04 PM
I got news for you. They don't have to try and portray anything. The Tea partiers are doing a good job of it all on their own between this and open carry demonstrations. I don't care who you are, you don't go carrying around weapons to make a point in politics. To this layman, gives the overall picture of a bunch of fringe whack jobs id rather not have anything to do with.
I think they are getting quite a bit of help being portrayed as 'wackos' the vast majority of them are just plain folks.
Have one guy do something stupid and its 5 seconds of video over and over and over as if thats all they do is beat pepole up.
Oh and 'carry' thing again? Sheese.
Lastley about the comments "Stomp on them because you disagree with their politics" . I honestly dont think politics had alot to do with that. She was acting strangly and percieved as a threat. Rightfully so or not lets not forget that small fact.
Bubblehead1980
10-27-10, 03:04 PM
Yeah man...them teabaggers are all whacked and violent and crap. Look at these teabagger.
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/black-panther1.jpg
NO WAIT..... Hell, these fellas just waited until election day to get their vote out as well as what your vote was 'gunna be.'
American's can't remember crap for longer then a week....:down:
They are examples of why abortion is a good thing sometimes:D
AVGWarhawk
10-27-10, 03:04 PM
God he is just a waste of protoplasm, disgusting vile man and a personal friend of Barry O. Also, someone should tell him he is old now, time to give up the ear ring.
I agree 100%.
UnderseaLcpl
10-27-10, 03:06 PM
Bull.
YOU DON'T TACKLE AND STOMP/STEP ON/TICKLE WITH YOUR FOOT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS.
What's scary is that there's people like you who believe this sort of thing is justified.
Mookie is absolutely right. Doubly so when one considers that this was a Rand Paul rally and the ideals he stands for.
Yeah, the fact that a liberal tried to infiltrate the rally and pull some horse**** stunt is pretty annoying. Yeah, there are many of us who are quite fed up with the liberal agenda, and how insidious it is. Yeah, the lady who tried to sabatoge the rally was a total bitch.
Even so, the act of restraining and hurting her is completely inexcusable, thrice so when the people performing the act are supposedly supporters of a libertarian agenda.
Why not let her make a fool of herself? Why not let her demonstrate to the public that her view is what it really is? Having a wigged, phony sign-bearer is pure political captial, and yet a few members of the Paul rally chose to attack her, instead.
The fact of the matter is that these people are really pissed off, even to the point of forsaking their own ideals. I sincerely doubt that they put the thought I've put into this post before they decided to step on that woman's head. Or shoulder. Or whatever. It doesn't matter. The use of force or coercion against another person who has not forced or coerced anyone is never acceptable.
krashkart
10-27-10, 03:06 PM
Yeah man...them teabaggers are all whacked and violent and crap. Look at these teabagger.
[pic]
NO WAIT..... Hell, these fellas just waited until election day to get their vote out as well as what your vote was 'gunna be.'
American's can't remember crap for longer then a week....:down:
Securing the votes Tammany-style. Strangely enough I didn't even hear about that. :-?
Did I say that?
Maybe i'm wrong, and it's not worth wading through two year old messages to find out, but as I recall you were quite dismissive of the whole incident at the time.
"She was asking for it" is never a good defense.
She wasn't "asking for it" like she wore a revealing dress, she deliberately tried to incite the over reaction that she got for the political purpose that the incident is now being used for, and, tellingly I might add, you are being dismissive of that deliberate effort and eager to play up the severity of this foot "stomping".
Surprise, surprise.
Aramike
10-27-10, 03:10 PM
Mookie is absolutely right. Doubly so when one considers that this was a Rand Paul rally and the ideals he stands for.
Yeah, the fact that a liberal tried to infiltrate the rally and pull some horse**** stunt is pretty annoying. Yeah, there are many of us who are quite fed up with the liberal agenda, and how insidious it is. Yeah, the lady who tried to sabatoge the rally was a total bitch.
Even so, the act of restraining and hurting her is completely inexcusable, thrice so when the people performing the act are supposedly supporters of a libertarian agenda.
Why not let her make a fool of herself? Why not let her demonstrate to the public that her view is what it really is? Having a wigged, phony sign-bearer is pure political captial, and yet a few members of the Paul rally chose to attack her, instead.
The fact of the matter is that these people are really pissed off, even to the point of forsaking their own ideals. I sincerely doubt that they put the thought I've put into this post before they decided to step on that woman's head. Or shoulder. Or whatever. It doesn't matter. The use of force or coercion against another person who has not forced or coerced anyone is never acceptable.Considering the circumstances I can understand restraining her. What I don't understand is the lack of restraint by some involved in restraining her.
Bubblehead1980
10-27-10, 03:13 PM
Mookie is absolutely right. Doubly so when one considers that this was a Rand Paul rally and the ideals he stands for.
Yeah, the fact that a liberal tried to infiltrate the rally and pull some horse**** stunt is pretty annoying. Yeah, there are many of us who are quite fed up with the liberal agenda, and how insidious it is. Yeah, the lady who tried to sabatoge the rally was a total bitch.
Even so, the act of restraining and hurting her is completely inexcusable, thrice so when the people performing the act are supposedly supporters of a libertarian agenda.
Why not let her make a fool of herself? Why not let her demonstrate to the public that her view is what it really is? Having a wigged, phony sign-bearer is pure political captial, and yet a few members of the Paul rally chose to attack her, instead.
The fact of the matter is that these people are really pissed off, even to the point of forsaking their own ideals. I sincerely doubt that they put the thought I've put into this post before they decided to step on that woman's head. Or shoulder. Or whatever. It doesn't matter. The use of force or coercion against another person who has not forced or coerced anyone is never acceptable.
Again, they felt Paul was in possible danger and took her down, completely justified.Using his foot to hold her down or "stomp" as some have mislabled it, prob shouldnt have done that but she wasnt harmed, she is okay.
Find the unedited video online(hard to) but I saw it on CNN earlier as well as Fox, it shows where she shoved her sign into front passenger window Paul's vehicle as he arrived then kept trying to get close once he emerged.Apparently Paul didnt have any real security which he should, so supporters of his took action as they should.What if she had been another "Squeaky From"(the woman who tried to shoot Gerald Ford) she could have taken out Paul.So taking her down was justified, the foot hold was justified but not the best course of action, although as mentioned, justified.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 03:16 PM
She wasn't "asking for it" like she wore a revealing dress, she deliberately tried to incite the over reaction that she got for the political purpose that the incident is now being used for, and, tellingly I might add, you are being dismissive of that deliberate effort and eager to play up the severity of this foot "stomping".
Surprise, surprise.
I don't care what she was doing. You don't beat someone for their political beliefs, no matter how obnoxious they are about it. The fact that this needs to be pointed out makes me shake my head.
AVGWarhawk
10-27-10, 03:17 PM
Securing the votes Tammany-style. Strangely enough I didn't even hear about that. :-?
Sadly these 'thugs' were not prosecuted. Good old appointed Holder blew off the case.....
This is just one of many issues that have set off a seemingly violent voting body of people who just do not want to take it anymore.....:stare:
In some respects I can not blame them. However, stomping a wig wearing whacko is not acceptable for any reason.
SteamWake
10-27-10, 03:18 PM
I like Reids approach of free food and 'coupons' for the teachers unions if they turn out to vote (for him).
Much more subtle.
AVGWarhawk
10-27-10, 03:19 PM
I don't care what she was doing. You don't beat someone for their political beliefs, no matter how obnoxious they are about it. The fact that this needs to be pointed out makes me shake my head.
Yes...standing there with a club is intimitation enough. These teabaggers should have taken notes on election day. :88)
But ultimately Mookie is right. She was on the ground. For some very dumb reason the one man had to send his size 13 into her head. It was completely uncalled for.
Yeah, the security angle is 100% reasonable, IMO. Regular citizens doing the job of police certainly cannot be expected to do it as well as the police would do, and even the cops overstep more often than many would like in the heat of the moment.
The narrative of "conservative zealots attack protester" looks pretty nonsensical when you actually see what happened. Had she carried a sign and not rushed in, do you think this would have happened? I think not.
I don't think there was any premeditation to harass someone who disagreed with the candidate, I think it just happened.
"Don't tase me, bro!"
AVGWarhawk
10-27-10, 03:20 PM
I like Reids approach of free food and 'coupons' for the teachers unions if they turn out to vote (for him).
Much more subtle.
Just like good old Monte Hall.... "Let's make a Deal!"
frau kaleun
10-27-10, 03:22 PM
"She was asking for it" is never a good defense.
Thank you.
Most statistics/reports I have seen estimate that a female human being's chance of being assaulted at some point in her life simply for being "alive while female" is somewhere around 1 in 4, maybe 1 in 5.
While I see no reason to believe that the victim's sex was a factor here, the tendency to play "blame the victim" given the worldwide prevalence of violence against girls and women really hits a nerve. It always ends up being about what she shouldn't have done to avoid "provoking" whatever was done to her as though that somehow mitigates the culpability of the person who did it, when in most cases the only thing she did "wrong" was exist within arm's reach of someone who can't control their own violent impulses. It gets old, people.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 03:25 PM
Thank you.
Most statistics/reports I have seen estimate that a female human being's chance of being assaulted at some point in her life simply for being "alive while female" is somewhere around 1 in 4, maybe 1 in 5.
While I see no reason to believe that the victim's sex was a factor here, the tendency to play "blame the victim" given the worldwide prevalence of violence against girls and women really hits a nerve. It always ends up being about what she shouldn't have done to avoid "provoking" whatever was done to her as though that somehow mitigates the culpability of the person who did it, when in most cases the only thing she did "wrong" was exist within arm's reach of someone who can't control their own violent impulses. It gets old, people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon
Thank you.
Most statistics/reports I have seen estimate that a female human being's chance of being assaulted at some point in her life simply for being "alive while female" is somewhere around 1 in 4, maybe 1 in 5.
While I see no reason to believe that the victim's sex was a factor here, the tendency to play "blame the victim" given the worldwide prevalence of violence against girls and women really hits a nerve. It always ends up being about what she shouldn't have done to avoid "provoking" whatever was done to her as though that somehow mitigates the culpability of the person who did it. It gets old, people.
I don't see her gender in this at all.
Looked at from a security standpoint, anyone rushing a candidate has no reasonable expectation that they will not be detained with force I think. There have been enough assassinations (and attempted ones) that crowd control pretty much requires "sedate" movements, otherwise you are likely to set someone in motion in a "security" role (even a bystander). There have been a few post 9-11 incidents on planes that leap to mind with passengers detaining unruly passengers—sometimes more forcefully than was strictly required.
Again, the time frame from protester in the crowd to threat next to candidate is TINY.
Still think any force over an above is indeed criminal, but I can certainly understand the situation.
It's not fair to compare this, say, to the counter protested merely at a tea party rally or something. In that case, the attack would have been political. In this case, the presence of the candidate entirely changes the dynamics, as well as the security concerns. Free speech has historically taken a hit in the US when it comes to security around politicians. Even joking about hurting the President, for example, would have the Secret Service calling on you.
I don't care what she was doing. You don't beat someone for their political beliefs, no matter how obnoxious they are about it. The fact that this needs to be pointed out makes me shake my head.
That you ignore the fact that nearly everyone who has contributed to this thread has agreed that it was wrong makes me shake my head.
Again where is your outrage when the Black Panthers guard polling places? Where was your outrage when Union thugs beat up Tea Party protesters at Dem events?
I don't doubt your sincerity but I do see a double standard.
There is also the presumption on mookie's part that she was beaten up for her political beliefs.
I think her politics was incidental. She rushed a candidate. Try rushing Obama with an I love Obama shirt just to give him a hug—and a present your kid made him.
How will that work out for you? Think the Secret Service will see the Obama shirt, and ignore you rushing him?
Will they stomp your head? No. They are, OTOH, highly trained and deal with this sort of thing daily—unlike bystanders in the case of this incident.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 03:41 PM
Again where is your outrage when the Black Panthers guard polling places? Muddying the waters. Not even a comparable event. No one was assaulted.Where was your outrage when Union thugs beat up Tea Party protesters at Dem events?
When? Where?
AVGWarhawk
10-27-10, 03:55 PM
Muddying the waters. Not even a comparable event. No one was assaulted.
Nothing muddy about it. The comparison is in the volitale nutbaggers as complared to the volitale lovebaggers with clubs. For some reason and for some good reason the media paints teanutbaggers as 'volitale' yet we see the same volitility for the party of lovebaggers. :hmmm:
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 04:10 PM
Nothing muddy about it. The comparison is in the volitale nutbaggers as complared to the volitale lovebaggers with clubs. For some reason and for some good reason the media paints teanutbaggers as 'volitale' yet we see the same volitility for the party of lovebaggers. :hmmm:
Because the lovebagger's 08 campaign theme was:
http://tcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obama.png
http://www.designforobama.org/prints/view/1409_f79067670da93dca8c0cd8adb717bc21_fe0.jpg
The tebagger's campaign theme is:
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/tpm-20090912-protest4.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_nweQSRDkBhs/TI5soEoZkGI/AAAAAAAAANk/vgKhjLDIYDk/1_thumb[3].jpg?imgmax=800
There's an undercurrent of hatred and violence in the tea movement. This is just the latest example.
Aramike
10-27-10, 04:20 PM
Because the lovebagger's 08 campaign theme was:
http://tcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obama.png
http://www.designforobama.org/prints/view/1409_f79067670da93dca8c0cd8adb717bc21_fe0.jpg
The tebagger's campaign theme is:
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/tpm-20090912-protest4.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_nweQSRDkBhs/TI5soEoZkGI/AAAAAAAAANk/vgKhjLDIYDk/1_thumb[3].jpg?imgmax=800
There's an undercurrent of hatred and violence in the tea movement. This is just the latest example.We like to call that "cherry picking".
You can't even TRY to see this for what it is?
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 04:23 PM
We like to call that "cherry picking".
You can't even TRY to see this for what it is?
Yeah it's just those 1 or 2 or 10,000 loonies giving everyone a bad name.
Yeah, a couple hateful signs means that the the basic sentiment of the movement.
How about this. Most all the anti-war protests during the Bush years were sponsored by ANSWER. All anti-war people are therefore also communists (ANSWER is a communist group).
That's actually much more of a connection since the tea party stuff is not as top-down as ANSWER was.
I was at my dentist's office which was along a place here where the tea party people had their signs (a couple miles along Montgomery Blvd. in ABQ). In fact his officI drove right past them. there was a bit of a traffic jam, and I was stuck at a few lights. I saw no signs like those. Not one. Anecdotal? Sure, but I saw a LOT of signs, and 0% were hateful. Had they been common, or even slightly common I'd have seen some. Heck, I had enough time that geek I am I started counting people and then guestimating the number per 1/10th of a mile on my odometer.
For someone who claims not to have an affiliation, you certainly regurgitate talking points on the whole tea party thing. Lemme guess, you prefer the likes of Amy Goodman? (used to listen to her daily to get a feel what real whack-jobs thought)
Bottom line is that random people show up, and you can say very little about their actual beliefs short of doing real statistics on them. Internet pictures of a few signs is utterly meaningless, as is a single recorded assault (under circumstances that would likely remove it from violence considerations).
You'd need to scour police records and record reported violence during pure demonstrations. Do demonstrations by different organizations, then non-political events as a control. You can do the same with signs if you like.
There is a video posted a long time ago that someone made walking through that big tea party rally in DC. It;s several minutes. You could likely go through counting total signs, then count "offensive" signs, or signs that suborn violence, etc.
Would be a useful benchmark.
Yeah it's just those 1 or 2 or 10,000 loonies giving everyone a bad name.
What % of all the signs were hateful. Be precise.
What does that % tell you about the other people there? That's right, nothing since there was zero control over who came.
I cannot tell you one way or another except I saw none when I left my tooth cleaning appt whenever the rally here was. Anyone claiming more than "I don't know" is as bad as some creationist. They've got no data.
Data matters.
gimpy117
10-27-10, 04:39 PM
a couple of hateful signs? its been more than that.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 04:43 PM
Its over. With a week to go even the B. knows it.
The question is will the sweeping probationary change give Obama the reason to change his agenda, or will a more permanant change be required?
a couple of hateful signs? its been more than that.
What is the %?
You've counted a statistical sample (random sample—so that means large group pics, otherwise the photographer's choice makes the sample not random), right, then determined this?
Without that simple (though time consuming) step, you can say exactly squat about the tea party based on signs.
You might be right, but without real data you are talking out your ***.
gimpy117
10-27-10, 04:46 PM
Its over. With a week to go even the B. knows it.
The question is will the sweeping probationary change give Obama the reason to change his agenda, or will a more permanant change be required?
It's ironic that all Obama has done is basically continue programs you guys started. The stimulus? Bush's idea. The war? Bush's idea. Healthcare? They privatized it remember...so basically your idea. If anyone should be pissed it's us Dems.
SteamWake
10-27-10, 04:48 PM
a couple of hateful signs? its been more than that.
No it hasent it really hasent. I know its hard to believe otherwise from what you hear but its true.
Id also be willing to venture that some of those were 'plants'.
There is an all out effort to portray the tea party as wackos 24/7.
I say go to a rally and judge for yourself.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 04:48 PM
It's ironic that all Obama has done is basically continue programs you guys started. The stimulus? Bush's idea. The war? Bush's idea. Healthcare? They privatized it remember...so basically your idea. If anyone should be pissed it's us Dems.
The healthcare bill is almost a carbon copy of the one the R's floated in response to "Hillarycare"
And you're right. I am pissed, and thus that's why I can;t call myself a Dem. They're not the party that's going to get real change done.
Remember the Che poster in the HQ of Obama in Houston or wherever it was?
Obama supports Che and communists, as do his supporters.
http://www.moonbattery.com/barack_obama_che_guevara_1.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/barack_obama_che_guevara_2.jpg
Oh, wait, those were isolated offices, no endorsement was made by the real campaign. So yeah, while that shows that some nuts support Obama, you cannot generalize unless you can show that a significant number of campaign offices shared that choice in art.
When? Where?
Geez, how quickly you forget mookie.
Well I didn't.
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_deathto.jpg
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_kidshirt.jpg
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_frenchking.jpg
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20081021PalinHate.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRy9vigP7Zsc5W2pfYpCEHLYHYxJMcfe 39ruuzN1tbiQ4jTpGU&t=1&usg=__KbyYmD0PtDEvSc-c4uzoaCmxtxY=
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AiXjZwvSgbI/S61PzZgwbWI/AAAAAAAABAI/csB9spBKsfI/s1600/11codepink.jpg
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll80/HillbillReport/KillHim2web.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hfjJRQxmcHwxpM:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/111407scream.jpg&t=1
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRebH3YGU_E7BfZUBXY4QIBudLH6ZYRP 6fXUEqbUEinDuI9jQ8&t=1&usg=__fz-FoxUJFpQH6RARnlwYWsZf0nE=
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_hangringo.jpg
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 04:53 PM
Geez, how quickly you forget mookie.
Well I didn't.
Yes you did. You forgot to answer the question. When were Tea Party people beat up by Dems?
And those pictures weren't from the 2008 campaign. Stay focused here. I know you can do it.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 04:53 PM
It's ironic that all Obama has done is basically continue programs you guys started.
A money influx from a private entity, which the FED is, is not the same as plunging all tax payers into the fire that the Dems and Obama has done.
mookiemookie
10-27-10, 04:56 PM
A money influx from a private entity, which the FED is, is not the same as plunging all tax payers into the fire that the Dems and Obama has done.
You're wrong. The original $700 bn bailout was taxpayer money. It came from the Treasury. Get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
the_tyrant
10-27-10, 05:00 PM
Geez, how quickly you forget mookie.
Well I didn't.
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_deathto.jpg
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_kidshirt.jpg
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_frenchking.jpg
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20081021PalinHate.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRy9vigP7Zsc5W2pfYpCEHLYHYxJMcfe 39ruuzN1tbiQ4jTpGU&t=1&usg=__KbyYmD0PtDEvSc-c4uzoaCmxtxY=
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AiXjZwvSgbI/S61PzZgwbWI/AAAAAAAABAI/csB9spBKsfI/s1600/11codepink.jpg
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll80/HillbillReport/KillHim2web.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hfjJRQxmcHwxpM:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/111407scream.jpg&t=1
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRebH3YGU_E7BfZUBXY4QIBudLH6ZYRP 6fXUEqbUEinDuI9jQ8&t=1&usg=__fz-FoxUJFpQH6RARnlwYWsZf0nE=
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_hangringo.jpg
I actually like bush
He could have been that second Teddy Roosevelt
The Third Man
10-27-10, 05:04 PM
You're wrong. The original $700 bn bailout was taxpayer money. It came from the Treasury. Get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
But you supported it then. Didn't you. See the hipocracy in work. I knew I would catch some one. mookiemookie...its you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZ5X0JMd3Q
Guy was apparently a union guy.
Quick google.
The actual bailouts are arguable in both directions. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the derivative problems, etc.
The "stimulus" OTOH, was pure political payback. Nothing more. It was inexcusable.
Yes you did. You forgot to answer the question. When were Tea Party people beat up by Dems?
And those pictures weren't from the 2008 campaign. Stay focused here. I know you can do it.
And I know you're not as rude as you're pretending to be. Have you already forgotten the SEIU St Louis incident, or does beating up a conservative for daring to hand out Gadsden flags not count?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZ5X0JMd3Q
Guy was apparently a union guy.
Quick google.
I forgot about that one. Guess with that and the St Louis incident and the Tampa incident makes it a bonafide trend doesn't it?
I forgot about that one. Guess with that and the St Louis incident and the Tampa incident makes it a bonafide trend doesn't it?
If I were the type to generalize based on anecdote, then yeah. I don't apply the gimpy/mookie standard, though. I think violence has been isolated enough that it's on par with the background of violence (no data, just a gut feeling).
People seem to forget that if X% of the population at large are *******s, then X% of any given group are also likely to be *******s.
A better example of systemic violence or vandalism (a friend of mine describes vandalism as "a hate crime against civilization") might be the G-7 protests. Any time there is some global economic meeting, the nuts come out of the woodwork to protest "globalization" and light stuff on fire, break windows, etc. It virtually always happens.
I think violence has been isolated enough that it's on par with the background of violence (no data, just a gut feeling).
For the record I agree with that feeling as well.
krashkart
10-27-10, 05:41 PM
It's certainly not as bad as it could be; nobody has been CS'd, blasted with water cannons, or shot. :up:
Anyway, just heard on the news that Mr. Profitt was dropped as a campaign volunteer.
gimpy117
10-27-10, 06:08 PM
If I were the type to generalize based on anecdote, then yeah. I don't apply the gimpy/mookie standard, though. I think violence has been isolated enough that it's on par with the background of violence (no data, just a gut feeling).
isn't a "gut feeling" anecdote?
I guess it's okay when you do it, because it fits your agenda which is obviously right, and everything else is anecdote.
oh and by the way...anything said about such large issues as the tea party, or democrats or republicans can be either "too general" or two specific. Unless I sit down and chronicle an account of all the silly political signs, or violence since 2001, you can just say "ohh well thats only a couple signs its generalizing" But if i say on the other hand: "here's two signs that prove my point" you would say "oh well thats too specific".
Ohh! can i play too?...i can pretend to be Descartes and challenge everything until i get to something that cannot be denied as untruth or anecdote!
isn't a "gut feeling" anecdote?
oh and by the way...anything said about such large issues as the tea party, or democrats or republicans can be either "too general" or two specific. Unless I sit down and chronicle an account of all the silly political signs, or violence since 2001, you can just say "ohh well thats only a couple signs its generalizing" But if i say on the other hand: "here's two signs that prove my point" you would say "oh well thats too specific".
I said it was a gut feeling. I didn't say "X is violent." My caveat implicitly stated that the statement was not to be taken too seriously. Still we'd have heard of much more if it was common. The idea that is is likely on par with background violence is in fact the base assumption until proved otherwise.
In general, groups roughly mimic the society at large. So any claim that a group is particularly violent needs to demonstrate they are more violent than society at large. Not that they have a violence >0, but that they have a violence > the norm.
The burden of proof is on YOU. I think they likely mimic society at large.
Aramike
10-27-10, 06:23 PM
Hmmm ... let's see, the people who generally lean conservative all condemn the attack mentioned in this topic and have all alluded to their belief that extremism exists on both sides but is fringe and not mainstream in both cases.
The people who generally lean liberal tend to think that this is the status quo of mainstream conservatism and choose to completely ignore the extremism from their side because they claim it's only fringe.
I find it interesting that the moderate voices are the former while the latter is complaining about extremism.
gimpy117
10-27-10, 06:28 PM
well, I don't know many liberals who contemplate bringing guns to a rally. I would think that when teabaggers are bringing guns to rallies, violence isn't that far off their minds. Considering they aren't bringing then about to scare all the deer and small game in the area.
but you haven't really shown me anything that says liberals beat up people at a reallies a lot too...so i'm going to say it's anecdote. your game is really easy and fun to play!
Aramike
10-27-10, 06:31 PM
well, I don't know many liberals who contemplate bringing guns to a rally. I would think that when teabaggers are bringing guns to rallies, violence isn't that far off their minds. Considering they aren't bringing then about to scare all the deer and small game in the area.
but you haven't really shown me anything that says liberals beat up people at a reallies a lot too...so i'm going to say it's anecdote. your game is really easy and fun to play!I think that several examples were given ... are you just content in ignoring them? That WOULD make the game pretty easy to play. It's like single player Monopoly, really.
Hmmm ... let's see, the people who generally lean conservative all condemn the attack mentioned in this topic and have all alluded to their belief that extremism exists on both sides but is fringe and not mainstream in both cases.
The people who generally lean liberal tend to think that this is the status quo of mainstream conservatism and choose to completely ignore the extremism from their side because they claim it's only fringe.
I find it interesting that the moderate voices are the former while the latter is complaining about extremism.
+1
Playing the perpetual victim must be hard on the nerves. :DL
well, I don't know many liberals who contemplate bringing guns to a rally. I would think that when teabaggers are bringing guns to rallies, violence isn't that far off their minds. Considering they aren't bringing then about to scare all the deer and small game in the area.
but you haven't really shown me anything that says liberals beat up people at a reallies a lot too...so i'm going to say it's anecdote. your game is really easy and fun to play!
Liberals don't have too bring guns too rallies, they have the full weight of the US government backing them, not too fear they will bring guns too the party if they win , and you will see who's foot is on who's neck when they take away your stuff and give it too a illegal immigrant, all in the name of redistrabution ,show me where's that is in the constitution. Speaking of deer I'm sitting in OIA heading to Corning New York too wack a few liberal bambi kong.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 07:09 PM
+1
Playing the perpetual victim must be hard on the nerves. :DL
Really? you said that? :cool:
Aramike
10-27-10, 07:13 PM
well, I don't know many liberals who contemplate bringing guns to a rally. I would think that when teabaggers are bringing guns to rallies, violence isn't that far off their minds. Considering they aren't bringing then about to scare all the deer and small game in the area.
but you haven't really shown me anything that says liberals beat up people at a reallies a lot too...so i'm going to say it's anecdote. your game is really easy and fun to play!Those gun rallies got super violent too, didn't they?
Sailor Steve
10-27-10, 07:17 PM
Those gun rallies got super violent too, didn't they?
I know every gun show I've ever been to has broken out in extreme violence, with many killed. Happens every day. :rotfl2:
I'd like to fix the title of the thread for truth, though:
"Liberal Idiot Attacked By Over-Zealous Conservative Jackass"
Neither one displayed the proverbial "brains God gave a goose". And of course this thread is mostly smug zealots on both sides trying to show how stupid the zealots on the other side are, all the while avoiding the mirror like a plague.
So who do you think is going too fire the first shot? My money is on the liberals I think they are going too go all out stalker boyfreind, if I can't have you no one can.
Aramike
10-28-10, 12:03 AM
I know every gun show I've ever been to has broken out in extreme violence, with many killed. Happens every day. :rotfl2:
I'd like to fix the title of the thread for truth, though:
"Liberal Idiot Attacked By Over-Zealous Conservative Jackass"
Neither one displayed the proverbial "brains God gave a goose". And of course this thread is mostly smug zealots on both sides trying to show how stupid the zealots on the other side are, all the while avoiding the mirror like a plague.It's too bad, isn't it, when any side is so tethered to its ideological brethren that it cannot see the reality the lies before them?
gimpy117
10-28-10, 12:28 AM
Those gun rallies got super violent too, didn't they?
luckily they didn't. But you never know. theres always the chance, why tolerate groups of people with guns. Mob rule is a dangerous thing. It causes people to do thing that normally would be out of their moral scope. Some guy might get whipped into a frenzy and lock and load. what might have happened if one of the head stompers would have had a gun? or a baseball bat? it could have been a different story.
Im not saying we should take away guns, I enjoy shooting sports. But we have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms in totally inappropriate settings.
I guess you haven't been to Virginia right to carry state they carry them every where. So who's head got stomp in , seen worst with the Rodney King thing. Still in OIA 0500 Oct 28 2010
...theres always the chance, why tolerate groups of people with guns
Because they have a constitutional right to have them. If you don't like it then get a constitutional amendment passed.
Im not saying we should take away guns, I enjoy shooting sports. But we have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms in totally inappropriate settings.
Any setting where it isn't illegal to bear those arms is by definition an "appropriate setting".
If someone—even a kid dressed like a gangbanger—bumps into me at a gun show, guess what, he says "excuse me."
Probably because like everyone else I'm probably holding a GUN.
Armed people are polite people.
gimpy117
10-28-10, 10:46 AM
Any setting where it isn't illegal to bear those arms is by definition an "appropriate setting".
you're joking right? Remember when I said "it's legal to wear a bright red shirt to a funeral, But we wouldn't do it". Exactly. Just because you can legally bring a gun around does not mean its socially acceptable to do so.
you're joking right? Remember when I said "it's legal to wear a bright red shirt to a funeral, But we wouldn't do it". Exactly. Just because you can legally bring a gun around does not mean its socially acceptable to do so.
At some funerals a red shirt would not only be socially acceptable, it would not be at all unusual or even the brightest clothing being worn.
You don't get to deny people their constitutional rights because it goes against your personal social expectations.
gimpy117
10-28-10, 11:03 AM
You don't get to deny people their constitutional rights because it goes against your personal social expectations.
I'm not talking about constitutionality, I'm talking about what one ought and ought not to do
I'm not talking about constitutionality, I'm talking about what one ought and ought not to do
Again you don't get to decide what people ought and ought not to do.
gimpy117
10-28-10, 12:33 PM
Again you don't get to decide what people ought and ought not to do.
But I can comment on it. I certianally can judge, and personally I think it's shameful. I'm sure my sentiments are shared by many other countrymen
But I can comment on it. I certianally can judge, and personally I think it's shameful. I'm sure my sentiments are shared by many other countrymen
And not shared by others.
gimpy117
10-28-10, 02:26 PM
And not shared by others.
of course. thats why some people bring guns to rallies. But I think violence, or the threat of violence has no place in american politics.
of course. thats why some people bring guns to rallies. But I think violence, or the threat of violence has no place in american politics.
The protest of bringing guns is NOT the threat of violence (though Jefferson would have no problem with that). The purpose is 2d Amendment rights and a constuctionist viewpoint (that the Constitution needs to be read in the way it was originally intended, and any "interpretation" that goes past that requires Amendment to accomplish.
It's a Bill of Rights protest, though it could also be a nod to the revolutionary nature of our founding.
Aramike
10-28-10, 06:51 PM
Where do you think the threat of violence is greater: a rally where everyone is armed or a rally where only one person is illegally armed?
...cause it seems to me that hardly anything violent ever happens amongst groups of armed individuals, and most of it happens when there's only one guy shooting at the defenseless...
gimpy117
10-28-10, 10:54 PM
id rather not have any individuals in a group armed if i had a choice.
Aramike
10-29-10, 12:55 AM
id rather not have any individuals in a group armed if i had a choice.Yet you don't have a choice when it comes to someone who decides to illegally bring a weapon to a group with the intent of using it...
...so my question stands. In that case, where do you think the threat of violence is greater? Idealism isn't an answer.
SteamWake
10-29-10, 11:46 AM
Those crazy Tea Party conservatives...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k23zO8aV-KU&feature=player_embedded#!
Oh... wait :doh:
I got news for you. They don't have to try and portray anything. The Tea partiers are doing a good job of it all on their own between this and open carry demonstrations. I don't care who you are, you don't go carrying around weapons to make a point in politics. To this layman, gives the overall picture of a bunch of fringe whack jobs id rather not have anything to do with.
Then I guess socalism is your cup of tea . God bless Glen Beck and the TEA Party, let's take back our country.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.