Brown Shirts?

Rand Paul Supporters Violently Assault Female MoveOn Rep Outside KY-Sen Debate Site[YOUTUBE]txU55iFG9UA[/YOUTUBE]

:(

Bunch of goddam fucking rednecks. :mad2:

That head stomping guy needs shot in the face. Gave me flashbacks to American History X.

(late edit: AND flashbacks to The Tracy Thurmann story where the woman got her head stomped on repeatedly by her abusive ex fuck piece of shit goddam husband.)

Zero tolerance.

He didn't stomp on her head, his foot slipped!

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Gray"]while he was stomping on a different part of her

while she was on the ground getting B F I T M [/COLOR][/SIZE]

Kentucky can have their neo-nazi. I'm just glad I don't live there anymore. I looked him up and he sounds like the standard politician du jour, feeding the masses what they want to hear and not meaning a single word.

It warms my heart to see that he is apparently in the coal industry's hip pocket. The EPA's very shadow shall not desecrate eastern Kentucky's strip mines, slag heaps, unsightly tailings, etc. Let those hillbilly miners stay black on the outside to remind them of their role as Kentucky's perpetual underclass.

I sent Paul an e-mail on his campaign site demanding that he apologize to the lady in question. I'm not holding my breath. :eyebrow:

Another one, Tim Profitt, claims to be the actual head stomper. The article says he apologized, but the only provided details of the apology are that the camera angle made it look worse than it was, the police should have gotten involved, and that the victim had been reported to authorities.

Tea partiers are some mean bad asses, huh. Thats just disgusting and seriously sick.

Until people stop tearing each other apart, nothing is much likely to get done. You don't change someone's political leanings by giving their head a good stomping. It's not the individual that is to blame.

It's an odd thing to watch. I was rooting for the tea party, because it started as a real organization based in the solid beliefs of individuals who were pissed about the bailouts. Then Hannity, Palin and others stepped in to redirect and suddenly all talk of the bailouts was gone. That familiar mantra that "what's good for business is good for the individual" was touted and all talk is now seemingly back on the old course. I figure there are a few people out there with a clear vision, but mostly I see that people are easily manipulated.

One thing Obama has done is completely polarize the majority of the populous against the Democrats. Things are so bad that suddenly Bush is welcome. I see this as an indicator that the next president elect will be the biggest, baddest bastard to have come along yet. I'm guessing it will be Perry from Texas, but who really knows. I'm just positive it will be curtains for all of us.

One thing is for certain, government never relinquishes power.

Bogart;690607 wrote:

Until people stop tearing each other apart, nothing is much likely to get done. You don't change someone's political leanings by giving their head a good stomping.

True. Molotov Cocktails work much better.

Although honestly I don't see civilian political extremism necessarily as bad as long as it doesn't go too far. They are the ones that will actually get shit done compared to moderates. It's when political extremism gets into the government that we get a problem. Civilians can only push politics one way or another, elected officials can do some real damage.

You call stomping a person on the head on a curb "civilian political extremism?" I ask this in the knowledge that this is your first contribution to this thread, therefore not very negotiable by way of past posts or some sort of nuance I might have missed.

That's a lovely turn of phrase for an ugly act. :headshake

piercehawkeye45;690608 wrote:

True. Molotov Cocktails work much better.

Although honestly I don't see civilian political extremism necessarily as bad as long as it doesn't go too far. They are the ones that will actually get shit done compared to moderates. It's when political extremism gets into the government that we get a problem. Civilians can only push politics one way or another, elected officials can do some real damage.

I cheer both sides, as long as someone is getting up and doing something, anything.... But I don't agree, or understand the hypocritical action of ganging up and shouting down someone countering your exercise of free speech. I guess that's what happens when frustration sets due to a lack of leadership and an inability to be clever with a calm head.

It was a despicable act. One lone voice amongst a sea of supporters and (possibly) the organizer decides it is a good idea to stomp their head? WTF? I'm sure the other 364 days he's a normal guy, but there's seriously something unresolved in his personality.

Extremism is effective because it involves goals and a clear vision. Induce a dose of altruism into your subjects and you are good to go with a rabid mob ahead of you. No politician has risen up yet which can seem to muster that kind of support, so we continue into the abyss. With all that has occurred, and is still happening, you'd think someone could rally a little righteous indignation amongst the people.

....and I don't mean by pitting them against each other.

Anarchy is effective too, but it always ends the same way. Some leader rises from the ashes and ends up a dictator.

Shawnee:
Assault would fall under the "goes too far" category. The views of the more extreme tea partiers would be under "civilian political extremism".

The tea party has potential to make a positive impact on our deficit and it is the more extreme members that will get the most done. The more extreme members will be the ones that have the motivation to do more activism and whatnot compared to moderate tea partiers. Whether they are actually having a positive impact is another story.

Political extremists will be the ones that shift the politics to one side (think labor laws and anarchists or civil and womens rights by activists who were considered extremists at the time) and the moderates will, ideally, prevent them from going too far.

Although, this only applies to intelligent political activists that actually know how to shift political opinion. Terrorism will not shift political opinion. Stomping someone's face into the curb will not shift political opinion. Killing animals to "free them from injustice" will not shift political opinion.

Also, when political extremists get elected into office they have much more power and will do much more damage.

Shawnee123;690615 wrote:

You call stomping a person on the head on a curb "civilian political extremism?" I ask this in the knowledge that this is your first contribution to this thread, therefore not very negotiable by way of past posts or some sort of nuance I might have missed.

That's a lovely turn of phrase for an ugly act. :headshake

I'm guessing this falls under his "as long as it doesn't go too far." qualifier.

Bogart;690618 wrote:

Extremism is effective because it involves goals and a clear vision. Induce a dose of altruism into your subjects and you are good to go with a rabid mob ahead of you. No politician has risen up yet which can seem to muster that kind of support, so we continue into the abyss. With all that has occurred, and is still happening, you'd think someone could rally a little righteous indignation amongst the people.

....and I don't mean by pitting them against each other.

I don't think Americans will get too violent even if a leaders tries that route. Palin and Obama have gotten a lot of support and I don't think anyone more extreme will be able to accomplish what they have. Americans are very good at complaining but I see very few actually resorting to violence unless it gets REALLY bad economically.

I think the extent of violent tendencies is, as it has been since the beginning of man, out of our realm of understanding.

This individual act cannot be excused or tossed aside with your assertion that "most extremists" don't do this or that. That's a given. None of us are stupid.

This footage was indefensible, but you think you want to defend it. Why is that?

I think you missed my response to you. I am not defending his actions.

piercehawkeye45;690622 wrote:

I don't think Americans will get too unruly just yet. Palin and Obama have gotten a lot of support and I don't think anyone more extreme will be able to accomplish what they did. Americans are very good at complaining but I see very few actually resorting to violence unless it gets REALLY bad economically.

I see the majority as easily placated and led along by the nose. People are afraid of violence, people are afraid of change, people just want to go on living the American Dream; even if it's been placed more out of reach. Threaten that with some indistinct boogeyman and you have a war which has no borders. Threaten that by pointing at a viable candidate who is espousing real change and he/she will be branded a threat, or a kook.

So no, unless they are looking at starving, or shivering in the cold, you won't find much civil unrest. But, how much longer can the handouts go on? I don't see any clear plan for a recovery and I see a general misunderstanding of the monetary system among our politicians. The majority of the people don't have a clue how it all works either, but then you would think it would pique their interest when shown the amortization sheet for their mortgage.

I think you missed my response to you. I am not defending his actions

I might have, and I'm sorry if that is true. I just can't get over the video. I'll read again with a clearer head tomorrow and let you know if I stand by the "sorry" or if I just have stronger views along the lines of my current views. I'm a bit tired this evening.

I just don't get how someone can watch that and put any kind of meaningful spin on it. I don't give a flying rat's ass (another thread) who is who and who is running for what.

Don't Bogart that joint my friend.....

Clone thread:


Ah, never mind. Too obvious.

Brown shit? :lol:

Apparently it was all a misunderstanding. He just wanted to join the rest of the men piled on the woman in the normal, non-head-stomping assault and battery, but he had a sore back, so he had to step on her head.

Happy Monkey;690666 wrote:

Apparently it was all a misunderstanding. He just wanted to join the rest of the men piled on the woman in the normal, non-head-stomping assault and battery, but he had a sore back, so he had to step on her head.

You just never know when lack of preventive and sufficient medical care will cause you to resort to less than publicly supported means of assault.

Poor guy.

Bogart;690618 wrote:

I cheer both sides, as long as someone is getting up and doing something, anything.... No politician has risen up yet which can seem to muster that kind of support, so we continue into the abyss.

People who are the problem have you successfully confused and deceived.

For example, the bailouts - ie $700billion - was George Jr; not Obama.

Business means companies constantly loaning money - short term loans and long term loans - to each other. Without those constant equity transfers, then business cannot happen.

Spread sheets were intentionally perverted especially during that decade. But when economic pressures created by overt fiscal irresponsibility caused caution and mistrust, well, eventually nobody could trust anyone else's spread sheets. Enron accounting continues and accelerated long after Enron. Nobody dared loan money to anyone. And they were right. Companies such as GM were essentially bankrupt for almost 20 years. When only four hours from bankruptcy in 1991, GM instead aggressively used spread sheet games to mask reality.

GM even owed their pension funds tens of $billion. To claim ten and hundred $million profits, GM simply stopped funding the pension funds. And that was legal. Or did your sources forget to inform you?

Before Obama came into office, Congressmen and Senators were briefed. Their white faces when leaving that meeting scared the shit out of reporters who were just beginning to grasp that the entire American economy was literally on a cliff.

Did you know how close we came to 40+% unemployment? Why things are now so spectacularly good compared to what should have happened?

Bridge loans - what the naive call bailouts - literally forced companies to have cash - to continue business deals. To purchase each other's products. You should be praying to every god you ever knew that those loans were provided. People such as Bernanke did not make the same mistake made on and after 1929.

Those who want you to hate do not say how desperate economic conditions were when Obama took office. And will not also admit that we have only just begun to start paying off the debts incurred in the 2000s. Never forget, we have just started to pay for Mission Accomplished. That is how economics works. And just another in so many reasons why the recession was inevitable, necessary. Debts even predicted here by some in 2003 when that disaster was being created. But nobody - not even the worst estimates - expected the disaster to be this severe. The $2 billion Mission Accomplished is at least $1trillion. $600 billion above even the worst estimates. $1 trillion to killed 4,400 valuable Americans for no purpose.

Where did Fox News discuss any of this? For example, did you know GM was essentially bankrupt 20 years ago? Probably not. All top GM executives - in classic bean counter tradition - told the government last February that GM was in the best condition it has ever been in. That GM's only problems were due to unions, unfair foreign competition, tax laws, and government obstructions. GM is only one of so many corporate icons in the 2000s that created this mess.

Why do so many not save every four letter word even used to label these people? Because propaganda is not telling you why we have this mess. You have no idea how healthy this economy is compared to where it should have gone. Propaganda has, instead, got you inspired in hate and myths. For example, most of the so called bailouts will probably result in good profits for the government.

To be blunt – the American economy is in the best state anyone could have expected especially due to massive fiscal mismanagement in the 2000s. Bean counters doing the damage that only bean counters can do.

We have not even begun to deal with another scam. Large blocks of Americans are now massive debtors. In the greatest debt they have even been in when they should have been starting to approach creditor status. As was discussed in another thread, your entire purpose for working is to go from debtor to creditor. Large blocks of the American economy are now underwater. Owe more money on their house then the house is worth.

Why is that part of the American economy not collapsing? We are using cash flow games to avoid paying all debts at once. We have no choice. Banks, et al have chosen to ignore these massive debts - to not foreclose. Eventually the spread sheets will reflect reality. But never for one minute forget this reality. Spread sheets do not reflect current economic conditions. Spread sheets will not report how disastrous our real estate markets are for many years. IOW we have yet to start paying for that part intentionally created by the bean counter mentalities mostly during the mid 2000s.

We will be paying for this fiscal disaster for at least a decade. As a result, American GDP (growth) will probably drop to something between 1% and 1.5%. The debts incurred with the Chinese to pay for Mission Accomplished will eventually paid with 8% interest. So where were you when this was so obvious in 2003? If you did not see the problem, then you remain part of the problem. You should know what happened through the entire 2000s. And you should know why so many of those debts have yet to appear on profit and loss statements. The average American income DROPPED 2% from 2000 through 2008. If your information sources do not emphasis this, then your information sources should be accused of lying. This has only happened once in the entire American history - the Great Depression.

Also troubling is another problem directly traceable a 'welfare to the rich' program. Most of America's wealth moved from those who create most jobs and products to those who once did and no longer do - the richest. This also has only happened once previously in American history - the Great Depression.

For example, over the past decades, the richest among us have now seen their taxes drop below 16% whereas average Americans are paying something exceeding 22%. Warren Buffet and other richest leaders have been complaining loudly about this unhealthy fiscal mismanagement for at least a decade. As Buffet said, he pays less taxes than his receptionist. But again, did wacko extremist propaganda discuss any of this? Or course not.

Obama's biggest failing has been to not explain this to a public. Obviously reality can never appear in a soundbyte. Most in the public are reciting Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox News myths rather than dealing with what is now so much better than anyone could have expected. Much of the $700 billion will come back with profits. Extremists even forget that George Jr – not Obama – created the $700 billion fund. Conveniently forget such facts so as to hype hate and fear.

We will be paying for disasters from Mission Accomplished to Constellation, et al for maybe a next decade. We have yet to see the biggest bills from Afghanistan because George Jr virtually surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2003. Of course, we do not yet know what are already pre-ordained results in Afghanistan. Welcome to another unknown and how reality really works. We will not know if we have already lost this war for many more years.

Nobody yet knows how much more American wealth was lost in real estate scams. We are only just beginning to address that disaster that was created on Wall Street.

And finally, you should also know something obvious. Wall Street does not create jobs, national wealth, or long term American growth. So many of America's most productive and growing companies could not get financing from traditional Wall Street. This Wall Street cannot invest in anything innovative. Because innovation does not appear on spread sheets until long after the innovation is no longer innovative. But again, a reality you will not hear from the major propaganda sources that are also blaming everything on Obama.

Bogart. Read more about this as was known even in 2008 in: How the GAME is played.

What should be obvious. The worst is over. Things are finally starting to improve. Which is why so many more of the 2000's created disasters can now being addressed - ie mortgage foreclosures are just beginning. It will take ten years to undo the mess created by overt fiscal mismanagement mostly from (but not limited to) the years after 2000. No soundbytes that can explain any of this. Welcome to hard reality.

tw;690684 wrote:

People who are the problem have you successfully confused and deceived.

For example, the bailouts - ie $700billion - was George Jr; not Obama.

Well, if you wish to play partisan politics, then I should point out that Bush sought to create an agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003. As for the bailouts/bridge loans, it doesn't really matter who initiated them; the relevant fact is that they were implemented. I don't doubt that among the choices on the table this was the least destructive, but I'm not certain this was the best that could be done. Either of what could have been done, or what should have been done.

I don't know who you think I have been listening to, but you're mistaken. I also don't disagree with anything you've written. But, I don't believe that the current system needs fixing; it needs dismantling.

I saw Reagan implement changes in the eighties which seemed to work. That of giving corporations huge tax breaks to get the economy going and create jobs. Unfortunately, once the economy got going, they should have been rescinded. The result was that large corporations gobbled up smaller until competition dropped and power was centralized. Things are grossly out of balance on who is now carrying the greatest tax burden compared to before enacting those tax breaks.

I have a problem with the current monetary system. If someone makes money, pays their taxes, etc., then the money which they place into savings should increase in interest accordingly. No IRAs should be necessary. If one loses money, then it is a hidden tax and the government isn't doing its job because they are devaluing the dollar.

I won't pretend to understand fully economic theory. I have a friend who is a professor and co-authored a few textbooks, while he'll listen and give feedback, he's least interested in discussing economics. He does enjoy discussing the porn industry, but likewise, it's something I'll give feedback on and listen, but have no interest in discussing. Go figure.

Economics was a subject I avoided completely until about 8 years ago. I'll admit I've been fairly heavily influenced by Murray Rothbard's writings, as well as that of G. Edward Griffin. While I can understand the fear that basing the dollar on gold has its limitations, I don't think it would stagnate the level of growth that many would imply. I think the system of fiat currency is prone to both fraud and failure. Even Hitler managed to pull out a post-Weimer, debt-ridden economy by basing the currency on something seemingly as intangible as labour.

The whole of our society is about profit at any cost. They cite the same reasons manufacturing has been moved overseas as they do for why we utilize illegal labour for harvesting crops and building homes; because American workers want too much money for the job. But why is this so now? They would like me to believe that it is because we are greedy, but the truth is, I believe that it is because of the devaluation of the dollar. As long as we can buy our trinkets, have affordable housing and feed ourselves, we think we we're doing ok. It's the veneer over what is rotten underneath.

Oh well, I didn't come here to discuss politics or religion, but it always ends up that way.

Shawnee123;690669 wrote:

You just never know when lack of preventive and sufficient medical care will cause you to resort to less than publicly supported means of assault.

Poor guy.

HA!

I'm going to agree with my last night self.

No matter what you all want to say about the political atmosphere, the subject at hand cannot (SHOULD NOT) be all wrapped up in "why" and "how" the people brought their pitchforks.

It's inexcusable to step on someone's head. End of story. Go plant your fucking soapboxes somewhere else, your pontificating is not needed here.

Jesus fucking christ.

piercehawkeye45;690608 wrote:

They are the ones that will actually get shit done

They'll come up with a really groovy final solution, huh?

piercehawkeye45;690619 wrote:

it is the more extreme members that will get the most done.

They'll probably also be the first ones to complain about destructive fires, due to fire fighter cutbacks and bridges collapsing due to delayed maintenance.

lol if the Tea Party is now going to be characterized as the movement of people who stomp on other people's heads.

How pissed do you think Rand Paul is about this? Elect me, or else my minions will stomp on you head!

People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. - Men In Black

Undertoad;690784 wrote:

People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. - Men In Black

Correction, REPUBLICANS are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.
Correction, DEMOCRATS are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

::: rinse and repeat :::

He's clueless at this point. He only thinks what he's told to think since he met with Karl Rove in Washington, and agreed to sell everything he ever believed in for the Republican money.

This is the most non-partisan opinion that I'll ever have: someone should beat the living fuck out of that guy.

That is all.

Flint;690780 wrote:

How pissed do you think Rand Paul is about this? Elect me, or else my minions will stomp on you head!

Or "elect me, because my people will stomp heads" That'll attract a certain portion of the electorate.

I can name one.

Shawnee123;690793 wrote:

I can name one.

Does his name start with M and [strike]is he a[/strike] rhyme with jerk?:sweat:

Well, I don't want to cast asparagus. :lol2:

I can name an ACORN.

What did he do?

Bogart;690697 wrote:

I saw Reagan implement changes in the eighties which seemed to work. That of giving corporations huge tax breaks to get the economy going and create jobs. Unfortunately, once the economy got going, they should have been rescinded. The result was that large corporations gobbled up smaller until competition dropped and power was centralized. Things are grossly out of balance on who is now carrying the greatest tax burden compared to before enacting those tax breaks. ...

The whole of our society is about profit at any cost. They cite the same reasons manufacturing has been moved overseas as they do for why we utilize illegal labour for harvesting crops and building homes; because American workers want too much money for the job. But why is this so now? They would like me to believe that it is because we are greedy, but the truth is, I believe that it is because of the devaluation of the dollar. As long as we can buy our trinkets, have affordable housing and feed ourselves, we think we we're doing ok. It's the veneer over what is rotten underneath.

Reagan's economy prospered because the solution was implemented so many years earlier. Volker stopped the 'fix the problem with money games'. He ran interest rates up approaching 20%. A resulting and necessary economic pain finally started fixing the economy three and more years later. That is how economics works. What finally appears in spread sheet numbers must be implemented so many years earlier.

To appreciate why so many jobs go overseas, well, appreciate what engineers see. Anything a product persons does will not appear on spread sheets for four to ten years. Example. William Clay Ford replaced Jacque Nasser in 2000. So bean counters were demoted. Finally Ford engineers started designing again. In 2000, Ford engineers finally started the design of the 70 Hp/liter engine that was originally developed by GM in 1975. Therefore resulting profits finally started appearing in Ford in 2008. It takes that long for innovation to appear on any spread sheet.

Engineers are not an asset. Engineers are an expense according to bean counters. What engineers do never appears for 4 to 10 years later. Example. Engineers started designing Taurus in 1981. When did those profits finally appear in Ford? 1990.

If jobs go to China, then what appears as costs on the domestic spread sheet today also result in sales today. On spread sheets, moving jobs to China means no more costs four and ten years earlier. That 'spread sheet' mentality is why, for example, every engineer I graduated with quit within ten years. American engineers are poorly respected. To business school graduates, designers and innovators are only an expense; do not create profits. More American engineering today is done by tech school graduates - not engineers. Another money game to cut costs. A reality too complex for tea partiers educated only in soundbytes who would rather blame China. The resulting economic downturn will begin to be apparent on spread sheets (ie GDP) in 20 years.

Clinton gave the auto companies $100million to build a hybrid in 1994. In 2010, GM's first hybrid (the Volt in America, the Ampera in Europe) still are not selling. Productive companies introduce massive new innovations sometimes in as little as four years - ie Nissan Maxima. GM takes 16 years? Why? Due to bean counters, engineers could not design it right the first time. So who does Wagoner blame? Japanese. Government. Unions. All the typical soundbytes. All the same reasoning that passes for intelligence in the tea party.

Sound bytes cannot explain reality. Sound byte promoters often do not remember relevant facts from four years ago. Therefore have no idea why economics today is due to actions four and ten years ago.

Was the BP oil spill an accident? Of course not. It was the inevitable result of cost controls. When the purpose of a company is profits - not its products. A philosophy implemented more than ten years earlier in all BP operations. For those not in America, the Frontline piece can be found in The Spill first aired 26 Oct 2010.

Another example of how actual costs and profits do not appear on spread sheets for so many years or decades later. And why tea party activision preaches sound bytes logic - what happened today is due to what occurred yesterday. Nonsense. This is not and never was about partisan politics. This is about what is productive and when the numbers finally report it. Reagan's economic upturn is directly traceable to what Volker, et al did in the late 1970s.

Debts from Mission Accomplished are just beginning to punish us today. That is how economics works. The debts from lies about Vietnam in 1968 and 1970 appeared in the American economy in 1975 and 1979. That is how economics really works. Profits that only innovation can create appear four to ten years after an innovation was created. Again, that is how economics really works. But that requires tea partiers to remember realities four and ten years ago. Those educated in sound bytes quickly forget what happened even two years ago. Those same people and their soundbyte reasoning are why we are driving innovation overseas.

Who owns the Bell Labs? The French. Basic research does not appear on spread sheets for at least ten years. So business school types cut costs. They eliminated R&D first at AT&T; then at Lucent that also generated another ignorant business school pervert - Carly Fiorina. That is not politics. She is dumb because (and I was in the meeting) she insisted productive activities today result in profits this year. She is not an exception. This dumbest people are widespread when business school types use the exact same 'sound byte' reasoning. Same 'spread sheet' reasoning is also used to educate tea partiers.

Where our society remains productive, it is not about profits. It is 100% about the product. Companies that thought profits were more important (BP, GM, AT&T, IBM, Xerox) ended up having no profits. In an America that works, products (not profits) are the most important aspect. What did William Clay Ford change in Ford Motor? He stopped all programs to maximize profits. IOW Ford did not even have one new car in development. Nasser had cut costs. William Clay simply went back to the only thing that made America great. A productive America worries first and foremost always about the product - not about money games. About things that will never appear as profits on spread sheets for four to ten years.

Of course, this is too complicated for tea partiers who are educated only in sound bytes. Same people who cannot think through problems will also resort to hate and violence. Ie a mosque in Manhattan must be attacked. To see why economic (and decreased standards of living) problems exist, start at four and more years earlier. Do what business schools fear. And what economics often fails to measure. The most productive people in America cause no profits (and often increased costs) for at least four or ten years on the spread sheets. Innovations typically create profits after the innovation is no longer innovative. Economics and sound byte logic cannot grasp that.

Tim Profitt "is currently being served with a criminal summons ordering him to appear before a Fayette County District Court Judge," said a statement issued by the Lexington Division of Police.

No court date for the appearance has been set, said Sherelle Roberts, the police public information officer.

According to Roberts, the summons involved a possible fourth-degree assault charge, a misdemeanor, and the judge will determine whether any formal charge is filed. The summons was issued because no police officer was present to witness the alleged assault, as required for a misdemeanor arrest, Roberts said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/26/kentucky.debate.scuffle/index.html?hpt=Sbin

A man walks into a bar. He and friends arbitrarily attack a woman. Drive her to the ground. Then he stomps on her. He then says he did this to protect the bar owner who was in a back room. Is that misdemenor assult?

Spexxvet;690752 wrote:

They'll come up with a really groovy final solution, huh?

Impressive. You took me completely out of context to make is seem like I support groups that could carry out genocide.

They'll probably also be the first ones to complain about destructive fires, due to fire fighter cutbacks and bridges collapsing due to delayed maintenance.

2 for 2!

piercehawkeye45;690839 wrote:

Impressive. You took me completely out of context to make is seem like I support groups that could carry out genocide.


2 for 2!

My comments had nothing to do with who you support, they are entirely about the type of people who kick others in the head because of their opinion. Get over yourself.

I don't see him as being that far out of context.

This is a stupid argument but I was pretty sure when I said "as long as they don't take it too far" that meant I wasn't talking about Nazi Germany when I was writing my post. Obviously when I say "political extremists get shit done" that could mean genocide but have some fucking common sense. I even cleared up my first post's ambiguity in my second post.

This was the work of a couple fucking idiots who should get charged with assault. I disagree with most of the tea party movement but labeling the tea party or even Rand Paul supporters as Brown Shirts is ridiculous. It was an immature emotional outburst not an organized attack.

How many fucking times do I have to repeat what I've said, over and over, in this thread?

Spexx is right, get over yourself. You go on a diabtribe about extremists being the only ones who can effect change, then fall all over yourself talking about how you're not talking about this incident.

Then go start a thread about how only extremists can effect change, and quit shitting all over this one with your wise and calculated remarks that can only come from one so much more wordly and aware than those of us who have said, fifty thousand fucking times "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE TEA PARTY OR RAND PAUL THE GUY WHO STOMPED ON A WOMAN'S HEAD (and the guy who grabbed her booby) IS AN ABUSER AND THIS WAS A SHIT ACT."

You just can't stop condoning it in your effort to move the attention to your agenda. So yeah, I DO think your thoughts are akin to scary extremism.

Shawnee123;690852 wrote:

How many fucking times do I have to repeat what I've said, over and over, in this thread?

Remember, whoever types the most loses the thread.



Problem?

Yeah, I have a problem with your potato chip looking face up there.

You know, that hurts, because that's a photograph of my real face.



My face got stomped on during 9/11 by a cheeseburger in a can on a plane on a treadmill.

Is it supposed to do a trick or something?????

The stomper wants an apology.

piercehawkeye45;690851 wrote:

Obviously when I say "political extremists get shit done" that could mean genocide but have some fucking common sense.

They are extremists. They have no common sense.

piercehawkeye45;690851 wrote:

This was the work of a couple fucking idiots who should get charged with assault. I disagree with most of the tea party movement but labeling the tea party or even Rand Paul supporters as Brown Shirts is ridiculous. It was an immature emotional outburst not an organized attack.

How do you know?

Shawnee123;690859 wrote:

Is it supposed to do a trick or something?????

I'll bet it's supposed to be 3-D. See the blueish outline?

Happy Monkey;690861 wrote:

The stomper wants an apology.

You have to admit, the man has balls. Big ones.

So, when you watch the video....

Do you really think her head was stomped on? and as offensive as the act was do you really think that this was an act of assault? or is this just another attempt to demonize the opposition and score electoral points?

Be honest now.......

Once he put his foot on her shoulder, HE FUCKING PUSHED! In the process his foot moved and her face was forced onto the pavement...notice when she puts her hands to her glasses.

So goddamn yeah its assault...especially since she was already immobilized by the 180lb guy on top of her.

He made a very poor decision with that foot and its going to haunt him for a long long time.

And you are a total dick, and proved it once and for all, by trying to give this incident a pass.

Merc, you know that had this been done to a tea partier all hell would have broken loose. YOU KNOW THAT.

Of course it's assault, as soon as he touched her. :eyebrow:

http://bluewavenews.com/blog/2010/10/26/rand-paul-supporters-violently-assault-female-moveon-rep-outside-ky-sen-debate-site/

Now, just in case there’s still any doubt, let me be excruciatingly clear: This is what happens when the puppetmasters of a “grassroots” political movement tacitly encourage the belief that violence is a valid solution to political disagreements. It’s what happens when you tell your so-called “leaderless” minions that they are the heirs to the “true” American spirit, that those who oppose them ideologically are “unAmerican” and killing the America they grew up in. It’s what happens when you plant the idea that any common yokel with an oversized ego is qualified to run for the U.S. Senate, when you allow those “qualified” candidates to accuse their opponents of violating the Constitution and bankrupting your grandchildren and, oh yes, suggesting that if their movement doesn’t prevail, they might take matters into their own hands and overthrow the government.

This is what the “tea party movement” has wrought – a political process that is two parts Barnum & Bailey, one part half-baked militia. Those people had no business laying a finger on Lauren Valle; she was doing nothing more than exercising the same right to free speech as they were doing. But committing assault and illegally physically restraining her just wasn’t enough for the guy in the ball cap – no, that didn’t send enough of a message. It didn’t put the liberal bitch in her place. So he made sure that he drove home his point with his sneaker, stomping on her neck and head. It looked to me that he was prepared to continue, possibly go even further, had not another bystander persuaded him to stop.

bold mine

I read that she has a concussion and a shoulder injury.

But I'm just trying to demonize the opposition. :headshake

No Shaw you don't get to smear an entire political movement based on this one guy's actions.

For fuck's sake.

I mean, what if it turns out that the woman in question was a paid political operative, wearing a disguise and rushing the candidate's car several times trying to "give him something", and the guys who tackled her were trying to get the police's attention about her for a long time?

I was quoting that article mainly for the points (directed at PH and that other guy) about the constitution thumpers and the right to free speech.

But you're right: it's about the guy's action. It's a scary action, and defending it as a political matter is a scary thing to me. I do believe that the seemingly innocent talk about "overthrowing" the government if need be is a misguided and medieval notion. Notions such as this have brought too many wars and death.

I must admit, not unlike the bullied, I have no place or compassion for violent behavior, especially towards women...so my reaction may be harsh. I was literally sick to my stomach seeing that clip. It can't be made shiny and pretty, no matter how anyone tries to paint it.

But "trying to give him something" reminded of an old Jack Handey: I bet a nice gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver, but since he's so busy you would have to run up to him really fast to give it to him." *snort*

Wow.

The douche-yness of some people will never cease to amaze me.

I don't talk to them here, but sometimes, just...WOW. Sometimes the comments these people make are stomach churning and beyond stupid.

wow.

Undertoad;691015 wrote:

No Shaw you don't get to smear an entire political movement based on this one guy's actions.

Even just this event was more than just one guy. And there's also the journalist who was handcuffed by private thugs for asking a tea partier questions. And the long history of liberals being ejected for trespassing on public events that turned out to secretly be only open for the conservative public.

I mean, what if it turns out that the woman in question was a paid political operative, wearing a disguise and rushing the candidate's car several times trying to "give him something", and the guys who tackled her were trying to get the police's attention about her for a long time?

If the police won't get rid of someone you don't like, that doesn't in any way justify doing it yourself.

Undertoad;691015 wrote:

No Shaw you don't get to smear an entire political movement based on this one guy's actions.

Tony, do you believe that an organization that espouses a particular view will attract a certain type of follower?

Even just this event was more than just one guy.

If tackling people you don't agree with at political rallies is an outrage you might want to check up on Al Franken's history. The Rand Paul rally was just trying to get a Senator elected. Franken IS a senator.

Bogart;690607 wrote:

I see this as an indicator that the next president elect will be the biggest, baddest bastard to have come along yet. I'm guessing it will be Perry from Texas, but who really knows.

That made me :vomit:

You're right though, he is a bastard.

Wow, merc...seriously? WTF? Did YOU watch the video? He clearly stomped after he put his foot on her. Wrestling her to the ground in of itself was assault.

morethanpretty;691214 wrote:

Wow, merc...seriously? WTF? Did YOU watch the video?

A man walks into a bar. He and friends arbitrarily attack a woman. Drive her to the ground. Then he stomps on her. He then says he did this to protect the bar owner who was in a back room. Is that misdemeanor assault?

Clearly the woman was trying to demonize the bar owner - TheMercenary's reasoning.

Strange that some find men attacking a woman as acceptable behavior. All in the name of politics driven by myths and hate. Clearly Saddam had WMDs. Obviously because he too was evil.

We have met the enemy and he is us. 40 years later and still so many don't get it.

TheMercenary;690924 wrote:

So, when you watch the video....

Do you really think her head was stomped on? and as offensive as the act was do you really think that this was an act of assault? or is this just another attempt to demonize the opposition and score electoral points?

Be honest now.......

WTF, Merc. I'm starting to believe you're actually an astroturf bot for the right-wing.

Oh wait, I think I see Merc's point now....it was more of her neck that was stomped.

Well, it wasn't really a stomp, he just sort of stood on her head.

Here stood...

Bogart;690607 wrote:

I'm just positive it will be curtains for all of us.

Howdy, Bogart, welcome and all that. They said the sky would fall in and crush our skulls when Reagan got elected in 1980, because he reckoned it good to defeat and smash the Communists. We're still fine. Some others, more directly Communist-plagued than we were, are doing even better than they were.

They said Paradise was at hand when Clinton got in -- voted against the man myself -- him being a Democrat. We all remember how that Administration turned out -- overly anti-American and anticonstitutional too, and politically reflecting its upbringing in a one-party state, Arkansas. As Presidential timber, Clinton was balsa wood. No Paradise.

They bewailed G.W. Bush as an apocalypse, and lied relentlessly about the man in an attempt to punish him for his heinous act: practicing foreign policy while Republican. How terrible is that?

Fortunately for the Republic, Bush43 did not greatly concern himself with the howlings made in the service of the fascists' fellow travelers. I suppose there may have been some honestly mistaken individuals in that chorus, but the prototalitarian leanings of the majority were as evident as they were disgusting to the people of freedom.

One thing is for certain, government never relinquishes power.

Not without circumcising a lot of government dick. And you might as well do it daily, just to keep up.

Tw, you forgetful slob and antihistorian, Saddam had WMDs. He had far less of them after Gulf War I, but remnant stockpiles were repeatedly uncovered, the lion's share of these in a neglected condition. The mystery convoy from Baghdad into Syria of March 2003 has never been unriddled nor accounted for in open source. But there was the twinned-agent Sarin, brought out of Syria, that somebody wanted to unleash on Amman not much time later -- and twinned-agent Sarin was not known to be in the Syrian arsenal. Fortunately for the good burghers of Amman, the plotters and the Sarin were nabbed by Jordanian security.

And you call yourself a thinker?? No. You're an offense. And I do wish you were not -- but I don't get all my wishes.

Hardly weapons of mass destruction, that's WW I shit. :rolleyes:

Twinned-Sarin, IIRC, is a good bit newer. And all the nerve agents began between the wars anyway.