Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on Woman's Head

[JordAnime]

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

So the Tea Party rhetoric of taking back America has finally inspired violence against the opposition, I think the video says it all.  

Also the goon wants her to apologize:

Proffit Wants an Apology

[Bidet to you sir]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever

Hahah this is pretty damn ridiculous.

[Geneaux486]

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

So the Tea Party rhetoric of taking back America has finally inspired violence against the opposition, I think the video says it all.  

Also the goon wants her to apologize:

Proffit Wants an Apology

Yeah, headstomping is pretty fucked up.  That said:

So the Tea Party rhetoric of taking back America has finally inspired violence against the opposition

The Tea Party was quick to distance themselves from that horrible act of violence, and this is far from the first time that a member of a political group has lashed out physically against opponents.  To say that this was caused by or indicative of the Tea Party movement is a logical fallacy.

[hisak]

The Tea Party was quick to distance themselves from that horrible act of violence, and this is far from the first time that a member of a political group has lashed out physically against opponents.  To say that this was caused by or indicative of the Tea Party movement is a logical fallacy.

It's true.



It's not the Tea Party's fault, but when your entire political movement is based on romantic comparisons to revolution, it's not surprising that something like this would happen.

[Geneaux486]

A fair point, if the Tea Party was the first to bring ridiculous hyperbole to the political game.  They are not.  A more likely explanation for the agression displayed here was the intent of the woman, to present the candidate with that psuedo-award to make him look bad.  Don't misunderstand, that absolutely does not justify what they did to her, and it never will.  My point is that you would run the risk of similar consequences if you tried something like that at any demonstration, among any political group.

[JordAnime]

The Tea Party was quick to distance themselves from that horrible act of violence, and this is far from the first time that a member of a political group has lashed out physically against opponents.  To say that this was caused by or indicative of the Tea Party movement is a logical fallacy.

I think the rabble rousing of the Tea Party is precisely to blame for this kind of violence; the rhetoric coming out of the candidates mouth about throwing out the establishment and taking up arms, etc. etc. 

A more likely explanation for the agression displayed here was the intent of the woman, to present the candidate with that psuedo-award to make him look bad.  Don't misunderstand, that absolutely does not justify what they did to her, and it never will.  My point is that you would run the risk of similar consequences if you tried something like that at any demonstration, among any political group

What you seem to be doing here is what Rush Limbaugh did on on his radio program.  "Nothing justifies what happened here; but now I'm going to justify it". 

What happened was wrong among any political group, but the fact that it's happened in a group well known for its...for lack of a better word, "craziness" is quite telling.  And also, it isn't an isolated incident, and in fact, it seems even law enforcement isn't exempt from this sort of dubious assault on free speech.

It seems the general policy of the Tea Party is to keep their lines, not answer questions, and when the opposition arrives, force them away, violently, if necessary.

[Geneaux486]

I think the rabble rousing of the Tea Party is precisely to blame for this kind of violence;

And I think you're wrong.

the rhetoric coming out of the candidates mouth about throwing out the establishment and taking up arms, etc. etc.  

And democrats said the same things about the Bush administration back in the day, how it failed miserably, was ruining the country or the world, etc.  That's politics, mudslinging and hyperbole are part of it.  Those actions are not exclusive to the Tea Party, nor is the unfortunate instance of violence by some of the more over-zealous members.

What you seem to be doing here is what Rush Limbaugh did on on his radio program.  "Nothing justifies what happened here; but now I'm going to justify it".  

lol no.  What I'm saying is "Nothing justifies what happened here, here's the most likely reason why it happened, based on the fact that it's happened in the past with other organizations."  I also find it hard to believe that Limbaugh did any different.

And also, it isn't an isolated incident, and in fact, it seems even law enforcement isn't exempt from this sort of dubious assault on free speech.

To the first story, it was the fault of private security.  Assuming the investigation into the matter does indeed prove that the journalist's version of the story is correct.  To the second, if the owner of a shop asks you to leave, you leave.  In fact, the shop owner seems to indicate that it was they who were the agressors.  I mean this shit's just ridiculous, people show up to these things with some kind of gimmick to make the candidate there look bad then go "What?  I'm just here to express my free speech."  In not one of  those three stories do I see any reason to blame the candidates, and in only the first story in this thread do I see a reason to even blame the members of the party for acting out of line.  We still don't know for sure what happened with the private security guards and which story is true, and, like I said, if a store owner asks you to leave because you're being disruptive, you leave.  It's like arguing with a cop who pulls you over for speeding, there's a time and a place to challenge it, the heat of the moment is neither.  

It seems the general policy of the Tea Party is to keep their lines, not answer questions, and when the opposition arrives, force them away, violently, if necessary.

How 'bout no.  All I've seen so far is a lot of slanted coverage, witholding of details, and a shit ton of second guessing.  Based on what people here have posted, I mean.  

[JordAnime]

And democrats said the same things about the Bush administration back in the day, how it failed miserably, was ruining the country or the world, etc.  

Well aside from that fact that he was, I don't recall much of any violent outburst from the Democrats; perhaps they simply weren't publicized enough.

I also find it hard to believe that Limbaugh did any different.

I don't.

the second, if the owner of a shop asks you to leave, you leave.  In fact, the shop owner seems to indicate that it was they who were the agressors

I'm sure, but the evidence shows that the police seemed to use unnecessary force to subdue the man.

  It's like arguing with a cop who pulls you over for speeding, there's a time and a place to challenge it, the heat of the moment is neither. 

Sure you do; you can argue it, doesn't mean you'll get out of it but it's your right.  Then when he beats you up or zaps you with a taser for not respecting his authority it's called police brutality; likewise if you're being moved outside of an establishment for something minor like disorderly conduct, it's not within the police rights to slam you onto the ground when they have no reason.

We still don't know for sure what happened with the private security guards and which story is true

Just like evolution, right?

How 'bout no.  All I've seen so far is a lot of slanted coverage, witholding of details, and a shit ton of second guessing.  Based on what people here have posted, I mean. 

Well try following politics by reading reputable news papers and watching the TV box, instead of just reading about it on a Zelda forum, you might learn something.

[Geneaux486]

  

Well aside from that fact that he was, I don't recall much of any violent outburst from the Democrats; perhaps they simply weren't publicized enough.

There was one specific instance I remember during the Republican national convention when some democrats went in there and started some fights.  Back during one of the W. campaigns, I mean.  It did happen.  

I'm sure, but the evidence shows that the police seemed to use unnecessary force to subdue the man.

Okay?  Again, what does that have to do with the Tea Party?

Sure you do; you can argue it, doesn't mean you'll get out of it but it's your right.  Then when he beats you up or zaps you with a taser for not respecting his authority it's called police brutality; likewise if you're being moved outside of an establishment for something minor like disorderly conduct, it's not within the police rights to slam you onto the ground when they have no reason.

You're missing the point a bit.  I guess I should have been more clear and said "It's not wise to challenge it in the heat of the moment because situations involving law enforcement tend to escalate quickly".  Though it's irrelevant to the topic since we're not debating police ethics, I'll go ahead and put this out there anyway.  Again, think of a routine traffic stop.  Any time a police officer pulls a car over, he's putting his life in danger.  Sound melodramatic?  Think again, I’ve seen dashboard cam vids of people getting out of their cars immediately after the officer gets out of his and trying to take the cop’s gun.  Good cops have a ridiculously dangerous job, and they can never be certain of what they’ll be dealing with during even the most routine or minor of actions.  The best thing to do in those situations is to take the ticket, let the cop go about his job, and challenge it in court.  Due process and courtesy goes both ways, and there are MANY good cops who deserve both.  Again, not proven to be relevant to the situation at the coffee house, but worth mentioning all the same.

Just like evolution, right?

A nice batch of straws you're grasping there.  Do you associate everyone who's skeptical of slanted news articles with the rejection of evolution, or am I a special case?

 

Well try following politics by reading reputable news papers and watching the TV box, instead of just reading about it on a Zelda forum, you might learn something.

Stop playing the arrogant jackass, it’s beneath you.  I read quite a bit of print media, which is why I call bullshit on the more extreme depictions of instances and people I come across, because further research USUALLY tells at least two sides of the story.  The articles posted in this thread are perfect examples of what I'm talking about.

[Bidet to you sir]

Do you associate everyone who's skeptical of slanted news articles

Why are all articles that show the tea party in a bad light slanted NH? I just re-read that and at no point does the journalist insert any opinion into that story, he simply states the facts and quotes official sources from both sides.

I mean what part of that article was biased? show it to me.

Or is this your annoying trend of deeming everything you dissagree with as biased?

Because you do it all the time, and we're all sick of it.

[Geneaux486]

Why are all articles that show the tea party in a bad light slanted NH? I just re-read that and at no point does the journalist insert any opinion into that story, he simply states the facts and quotes official sources from both sides.

You're right about that.  In this case I was going more by conclusions reached by the readers than the actual article, so I was wrong there.  However, as I've been arguing, these three instances, while not slanted as you pointed out, don't really show the Tea Party in a bad light.  They cover a small angry mob that went way too far, private security that may or may not have been in the wrong, and local police in a similar situation.  None of which originated with the Tea Party or are exclusive to them.  That said, you and I both know that Jord's bafflingly inaccurate "evolution" crack was based on more than just the contents of this thread, extending to the other thread, who's article, which actually does attempt to portray the Tea Party in a negative light, is clearly slanted, as I pointed out in the other thread, giving examples.

Because you do it all the time, and we're all sick of it.

I call them like I see them, as do you.  When we disagree, we debate it.  In cases like this specific thread, I'm proven wrong about something, I admit it.  If I think a story posted here is biased, which several have been, or if I think the conclusions drawn based on them are inaccurate, which many have been, then I'm going to say so.  You'd do the same, and rightfully so.  You and I both know how these things work.

[Bidet to you sir]

You rarely explain why you think an article is biased in the first place and we have to do the rigamarole of trying to figure out why you think that, it's infuriating.

You have to admit in comparison, my long rambles usually cover all the bases compared to your short pithy replies.

[Geneaux486]

Actually I explain why I think that most of the time, and it's either disagreed with or ignored completely.  The alleged times I didn't, were probably because I thought it was too obvious, if there actually was a time when I outright refused to explain my reasoning.  Also, there's some rigamarole to understanding your point of view as well.

And as for the second part of your post, your posts cover the bases of your arguments, while my posts cover mine. 

[Bidet to you sir]

Good first post reading skills there.

[Geneaux486]

Said the pot to the kettle.

[Bidet to you sir]

that wasn't directed at you, TW posted a link to an article stating that the guy asked for an apology, and I posted that it was mentioned in the first post, so he deleted his post but not mine.

[Geneaux486]

Sorry about that then, without TW's post it looked like you were talking to me xD