Liberal Activist Attacked by Zealous Conservative

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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....

Securing the votes Tammany-style. Strangely enough I didn't even hear about that.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by krashkart

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.....

In some respects I can not blame them. However, stomping a wig wearing whacko is not acceptable for any reason.

[SteamWake]

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.


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.

[tater]

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]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

"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]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

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

[tater]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

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.