logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> STOMP! - The reality, Coming soon to a public space near you?
Julian
post Oct 29 2010, 10:22 AM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



This Youtube clip is doing the rounds on TV and teh interwebz.

It shows a Tea Party supporter who was (until this) on Rand Paul's campaign staff stamping on the shoulder, neck and head of an unarmed woman counter-demonstrator from MoveOn.org, outside the Kentucky Senatorial debate on Monday evening, while another Tea Party suppporter (and organiser for an Open Carry group - Mike Pezzano) held her down. The victim was, thankfully, only left with mild concussion.

The man doing the stamping - Tim Profitt, until recently the Bourbon City organiser for the Rand Paul campaign - was wearing a "Don't Tread On Me" badge at the time. Who said Americans don't do irony?

Now, many on the right have been characterised as "Islamophobic" for generalising about all Muslims based upon the actions of a few extremists, including here on ad.gif. It stcuk me this might be an interesting thread to exlplore, particularly given Bikerdad's and my exchange about hypocrisy on the Undereducated vs uneducated thread

Questions for debate:
If all Muslims are a 'problem' because some Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers/apologists, have all Tea Party activists now become a problem because of the actions of these two? If not, why not?

Coming from a different angle:

Why are tempers running quite so high in American politics just now?

Who stands to gain from this type of politics, and are they the same people who are the public face of politics on all sides?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
moif
post Oct 29 2010, 10:07 PM
Post #21


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



If all Muslims are a 'problem' because some Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers/apologists, have all Tea Party activists now become a problem because of the actions of these two? If not, why not?

No, because all Muslims are not a problem.


Why are tempers running quite so high in American politics just now?

Who stands to gain from this type of politics, and are they the same people who are the public face of politics on all sides?


Listening to the recording of President Obama refering to political opponents as enemies to Latin Americans makes it fairly obvious who stands to gain from this 'kind of politics'.


As for the tea party activists assaulting some one, they are criminals if they are guilty, regardless of which ideology they adhere to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Oct 29 2010, 11:48 PM
Post #22


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



If all Muslims are a 'problem' because some Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers/apologists, have all Tea Party activists now become a problem because of the actions of these two? If not, why not?

Loaded question much? As low of an opinion as I have for the Tea Party, I have no doubt that these goons are not representative of the whole.

Why are tempers running quite so high in American politics just now?

America still perceives itself to be in a crisis mode of the economic variety, whether or not this view is true. Where voters' wallets are involved, tempers run the highest. Whenever a society falls into a crisis, it finds a leader to invest it faith in. The great expectations attached to Obama from all sides have made him the blank slate on which anything can be written.

For better or worse, I see Obama and the Dems attempting to move us toward a European-style welfare state, albeit a more conservative one like the UK. Of course, that ain't gonna fly with conservatives. The reaction to the Obama administration very much reminds me of the reaction to Franklin Roosevelt in the '30s. FDR was seen as a savior by those who benefited from his New Deal. However, many called FDR "Hoover's second term" due to his continuation of said president's policies. To the far left and the hardcore statists like Huey Long, FDR was a corporatist wimp who didn't do enough at best and a crypto-fascist at worst. To far right figures like Father Coughlin, FDR was a socialist who had sold us out to the Jewish bankers at the Fed and Wall Street, usurped the federal government, and would let our country be overrun by Soviet communists and atheists. I think you can see where I'm going with this.

I am seeing Richard Hofstadter's seminal essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics being cited more and more these days. I think his words are as relevant as ever:

QUOTE
If, after our historically discontinuous examples of the paranoid style, we now take the long jump to the contemporary right wing, we find some rather important differences from the nineteenth-century movements. The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country—that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high.
...
Events since 1939 have given the contemporary right-wing paranoid a vast theatre for his imagination, full of rich and proliferating detail, replete with realistic cues and undeniable proofs of the validity of his suspicions. The theatre of action is now the entire world, and he can draw not only on the events of World War II, but also on those of the Korean War and the Cold War. Any historian of warfare knows it is in good part a comedy of errors and a museum of incompetence; but if for every error and every act of incompetence one can substitute an act of treason, many points of fascinating interpretation are open to the paranoid imagination. In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship, is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it has managed to survive at all.



Who stands to gain from this type of politics, and are they the same people who are the public face of politics on all sides?

No one but the media circus.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 30 2010, 09:12 AM
Post #23


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,353
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 29 2010, 03:17 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 29 2010, 02:58 PM) *
... The head stomping, however, is inexcusable.

It sure is. The activista idiot was already on the ground and secured. The "stomper" idiot deserves to have the book thrown at him.


Yep, and I have to wonder why these tough guys had to get her on the ground in the first place. How would they have handled a 6-foot plus guy weighing in at around 200 lbs of solid muscle? I don't think they could have, and the scenario would have been quite different. Polite even. Please oh pretty please don't approach the candidate. No? Okay. I will proceed to do that to myself, sure thing.

They treated her as if she were carrying a gun rather than a sign. Interesting bit of overreaction there. Maybe they thought she was carrying, being that is one of the ideals -- everyone should run around with guns. Maybe that will come out in the assault trial.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 30 2010, 05:24 PM
Post #24


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 29 2010, 06:07 PM) *
If all Muslims are a 'problem' because some Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers/apologists, have all Tea Party activists now become a problem because of the actions of these two? If not, why not?

No, because all Muslims are not a problem.
Oh, that's right, Muslims aren't the problem, Islam is.

Maybe we could rephrase the question:

If the Tea Party's ideas cause some of its followers to take actions like this, can't we say the Tea Party and its ideas are clearly bad?

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Oct 30 2010, 05:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 30 2010, 07:48 PM
Post #25


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 30 2010, 07:24 PM) *
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 29 2010, 06:07 PM) *
If all Muslims are a 'problem' because some Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers/apologists, have all Tea Party activists now become a problem because of the actions of these two? If not, why not?

No, because all Muslims are not a problem.
Oh, that's right, Muslims aren't the problem, Islam is.

Maybe we could rephrase the question:

If the Tea Party's ideas cause some of its followers to take actions like this, can't we say the Tea Party and its ideas are clearly bad?
If tea party members are citing tea party ideology as their motivation for attacking people, then yes of course.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 30 2010, 08:19 PM
Post #26


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 30 2010, 07:24 PM) *
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 29 2010, 06:07 PM) *
If all Muslims are a 'problem' because some Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers/apologists, have all Tea Party activists now become a problem because of the actions of these two? If not, why not?

No, because all Muslims are not a problem.

Oh, that's right, Muslims aren't the problem, Islam is.
...

Way to score a cheap shot by ignoring the presence of the word "all" in "moif"'s reply to "Julian"'s question, there! "Nicely" done.

Anyway, in other matters, ...

An entertaining vid clip that addresses the question "Why are tempers running quite so high in American politics just now?":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 30 2010, 09:50 PM
Post #27


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 30 2010, 03:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 30 2010, 07:24 PM) *
If the Tea Party's ideas cause some of its followers to take actions like this, can't we say the Tea Party and its ideas are clearly bad?
If tea party members are citing tea party ideology as their motivation for attacking people, then yes of course.
I see. If they don't cite the ideology, it's not the ideology; if they do cite the ideology, it IS the ideology.

Of course! Why couldn't I see that before? It's a known psychological fact that when people commit heinous, insane acts (like, say, mass murder), they will always 'fess up - giving you a precise and accurate description of their motivations. I forgot.

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Oct 30 2010, 09:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 30 2010, 10:47 PM
Post #28


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 30 2010, 11:50 PM) *
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 30 2010, 03:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 30 2010, 07:24 PM) *
If the Tea Party's ideas cause some of its followers to take actions like this, can't we say the Tea Party and its ideas are clearly bad?
If tea party members are citing tea party ideology as their motivation for attacking people, then yes of course.
I see. If they don't cite the ideology, it's not the ideology; if they do cite the ideology, it IS the ideology.

Of course! Why couldn't I see that before?
Perhaps because you find your own wit blinding?


QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not)
It's a known psychological fact that when people commit heinous, insane acts (like, say, mass murder), they will always 'fess up - giving you a precise and accurate description of their motivations. I forgot.
If an ideology incites to violence then it is clearly bad.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Oct 31 2010, 01:17 AM
Post #29


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Julian @ Oct 29 2010, 06:22 AM) *
Why are tempers running quite so high in American politics just now?


Tempers always run high during hotly contested elections, but there is no excuse for the kind cowardly behavior Rand Paul supporter Tim Profitt directed at Lauren Valle. NONE. This guy is the worst kind of thug. He attacks a woman and then refuses to take any responsibility for his actions. He's a creep and a punk and some judge should throw the book at him.

Profitt even has the stones to say, "I would like for her to apologize to me, to be honest with you." Honestly, Tiny Tim? You're a frickin' moron. mad.gif

For her part, Valle didn't apologize, but demonstrated a lot more class than the oaf who assaulted her:

QUOTE
Mr. Profitt, You have asked that I apologize to you. Perhaps this is not the apology that you are looking for, but I do have some things to say.

I have been called a progressive, a liberal, a professional agitator. You have been called a conservative, a Republican, a member of the Tea Party movement. Fundamentally and most importantly, you and I are both human beings. We are also both American citizens. These two facts, to me, are far more meaningful than the multitude of labels that we carry. And if these two facts are true then it means we are on the same team.

I have not been for one moment angry with you and your actions. Instead I feel thoroughly devastated. It is evident that your physical assault on me is symptomatic of the crisis that this country is struggling through. And it seems that I will heal from my injuries long before this country can work through our separation. Only when we decide let go of our hate, our violence and our aggression will we be able to communicate to each other about the issues that divide us. Right now, we are not communicating, we are stomping on each other. No one can ever win, no one can ever be heard, with violence.

You and I, as fellow citizens, and we, as a country, have a choice. Either we choose to continue the cycle of inflicting violence upon each other, screaming at each other, insulting each other and putting one another down or we and find a way to sit down and start listening to each other. We'll see how far we get. We are all viciously and vociferously feeding a fire that will only burn us down together. We must reach inside ourselves and make space for each other. We must forgive each other. We must believe in our capacity for transformation. The moment we choose compassion and reconciliation is the moment that we will begin to move toward freedom. There is no other way.

I believe that you should be held accountable for your actions but I also recognize the incredibly negative impact that the consequences must be having on your life, and I wish you all the best as you yourself heal from this. Violence hurts everyone.
thumbsup.gif

link


There's a place for passion, and even anger, in the political process, but it needs to be focused and harnessed. It's never going to be cool to beat up or try to bounce somebody's head off the pavement simply because they disagree with you. That's not passion. That's assault.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Oct 31 2010, 01:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 31 2010, 02:45 AM
Post #30


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



An excerpt from Ms. Valle's remarks, with some edits (in blue):

"It is evident that your physical assault on me and my shoving a cardboard sign into your candidate's face is symptomatic of how some of us are dealing with the crisis that this country is struggling through. ... Only when too tightly wound people like you and me decide to let go of our hate, our violence and our aggression will we be able to communicate to each other about the issues that divide us. Right now, some of us are not communicating, some of us are stomping on each other and shoving cardboard signs into each other's faces. Neither of us can ever win, neither of us can ever be really taken seriously by the rest of society, until both of us, and people like us, grow the rest of the way up."

ps:
Credit for the "grow the rest of the way up" phrase goes to another poster on this board. Sorry, I forgot who. Great line, whoever you are.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Oct 31 2010, 03:17 AM
Post #31


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 30 2010, 10:45 PM) *
An excerpt from Ms. Valle's remarks, with some edits (in blue):

"It is evident that your physical assault on me and my shoving a cardboard sign into your candidate's face is symptomatic of how some of us are dealing with the crisis that this country is struggling through. ... Only when too tightly wound people like you and me decide to let go of our hate, our violence and our aggression will we be able to communicate to each other about the issues that divide us. Right now, some of us are not communicating, some of us are stomping on each other and shoving cardboard signs into each other's faces. Neither of us can ever win, neither of us can ever be really taken seriously by the rest of society, until both of us, and people like us, grow the rest of the way up."


Your "edits" add nothing to Ms. Valle's reasoned and sober remarks except to add an unnecessary and blindly partisan spin to her gracious attempt at extending an olive branch to some inbred, mouth-breathing thug who is too stupid and cowardly to know whether he should take it or eat it. Perhaps you're trying for some Andrew Breitbart-style manipulation of a woman's words to create some right-wing talking point?

Nice try at blaming the victim, akaCG. Just not nice enough. Your tolerance for intolerance is showing. dry.gif


QUOTE
ps:
Credit for the "grow the rest of the way up" phrase goes to another poster on this board. Sorry, I forgot who. Great line, whoever you are.


A better line is "giving credit where credit is due." If you can't be bothered to attribute it before you lift it maybe you should omit it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 31 2010, 03:41 AM
Post #32


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 30 2010, 11:17 PM) *
...
Nice try at blaming the victim, akaCG. Just not nice enough. Your tolerance for intolerance is showing. dry.gif
...

Kindly spare me the "blame the victim" and "tolerance for intolerance" bromides.

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 30 2010, 11:17 PM) *
QUOTE
ps:
Credit for the "grow the rest of the way up" phrase goes to another poster on this board. Sorry, I forgot who. Great line, whoever you are.

A better line is "giving credit where credit is due." If you can't be bothered to attribute it before you lift it maybe you should omit it.

Good grief.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Oct 31 2010, 05:47 AM
Post #33


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 30 2010, 11:41 PM) *

Sorry, I can't because your remark "The activista idiot was already on the ground and secured. The "stomper" idiot deserves to have the book thrown at him" is such an epic FAIL in its ham-fisted attempt at moral equivalency.

Though I'll give you some props for the term "Activista." Is that from the Fox News lexicon of liberal slurs or one you made up all by yourself? unsure.gif

You're trying to equate Valle's right to demonstrate with Profitt's right to...what?...put his dirty boots on a woman's head? Her provocation doesn't justify his reaction which is why HE was charged with assault and she wasn't. Valle broke no laws, presented no threats and had every right to be there.

However, there is entertainment value in your flailing attempts in trying to craft a scenario to engender sympathy for Profitt's loutish behavior. And here I thought the Tea Party wanted the country to return to "traditional values." Isn't civility and defending the right to engage in peaceful protest and free speech one of those hallowed values? Well, at any rate, I look forward to your continued arguments and apologies for such boorish behavior.

Perhaps the reason the Tea Party often get painted with the broad brush of being intolerant zealots is dopes like Profitt prove the merit of the accusations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 31 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #34


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 30 2010, 06:47 PM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not)
It's a known psychological fact that when people commit heinous, insane acts (like, say, mass murder), they will always 'fess up - giving you a precise and accurate description of their motivations. I forgot.
If an ideology incites to violence then it is clearly bad.
But the question is: Is what crazy people SAY is their motivation REALLY their motivation?

Why, in the absence of any animus on your part, do you find the pronouncements of crazy people so credible?

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Oct 31 2010, 10:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 31 2010, 10:49 AM
Post #35


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 31 2010, 03:45 AM) *
An excerpt from Ms. Valle's remarks, with some edits (in blue):

"It is evident that your physical assault on me and my shoving a cardboard sign into your candidate's face is symptomatic of how some of us are dealing with the crisis that this country is struggling through. ... Only when too tightly wound people like you and me decide to let go of our hate, our violence and our aggression will we be able to communicate to each other about the issues that divide us. Right now, some of us are not communicating, some of us are stomping on each other and shoving cardboard signs into each other's faces. Neither of us can ever win, neither of us can ever be really taken seriously by the rest of society, until both of us, and people like us, grow the rest of the way up."

ps:
Credit for the "grow the rest of the way up" phrase goes to another poster on this board. Sorry, I forgot who. Great line, whoever you are.
As much as she might be an activista*, and she certainly seems to fit the description given that she is pushing into a mob of political opponents with a placard and a wig, I don't see her being untoward or violent in this video. I think her subsequent, and deliberate use of language indicates an attempt to bridge a gap. That could be a ploy to extend the controversy of course, but its most likely that she is scared by the fact that this sort of thing can happen at all, in what is meant to be a civilised political discourse.


* by which I am refering to a globally used term coined by left wing activists about themselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 31 2010, 11:33 AM) *
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 30 2010, 06:47 PM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not)
It's a known psychological fact that when people commit heinous, insane acts (like, say, mass murder), they will always 'fess up - giving you a precise and accurate description of their motivations. I forgot.
If an ideology incites to violence then it is clearly bad.
But the question is: Is what crazy people SAY is their motivation REALLY their motivation?

Why, in the absence of any animus on your part, do you find the pronouncements of crazy people so credible?
You appear to have lost your way, the questions in this thread do not ask about the motivations of 'crazy people'.

Furthermore, sane, rational people are just as capable of violent acts as 'crazy people' and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to assume that any one is 'crazy' simply because they carried out an act of violence.

The man stomping on the activist girl in the video (that which is the actual focus of this thread) does not appear to me to be 'crazy'. Quite the opposite. He looks rather like he knows he is guilty if his body language, after 'the stomp' is anything to judge by.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 31 2010, 02:03 PM
Post #36


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 31 2010, 06:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 31 2010, 11:33 AM) *
But the question is: Is what crazy people SAY is their motivation REALLY their motivation?

Why, in the absence of any animus on your part, do you find the pronouncements of crazy people so credible?
You appear to have lost your way, the questions in this thread do not ask about the motivations of 'crazy people'.
I think we could reasonably restate the questions of the thread as considering what, if anything, allows us to decry all members of a group when some members of that group misbehave.

You proposed our standard might be the cited motivations of the misbehavers. I more or less asked if crazy people would be included, and you've answered no. So we're narrowing this down a bit. It's all good.

But there are still questions ...
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 31 2010, 06:49 AM) *
Furthermore, sane, rational people are just as capable of violent acts as 'crazy people' and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to assume that any one is 'crazy' simply because they carried out an act of violence.
Do you see any difference between an impulsive act of violence like stomping someone's face whom you're mad at, and calculated mass murder? Or do you just consider all "violent acts" as the same?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 31 2010, 03:25 PM
Post #37


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,329
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 31 2010, 10:03 AM) *
I think we could reasonably restate the questions of the thread as considering what, if anything, allows us to decry all members of a group when some members of that group misbehave.

You proposed our standard might be the cited motivations of the misbehavers. I more or less asked if crazy people would be included, and you've answered no. So we're narrowing this down a bit. It's all good.


Let's assume that we are just speaking of crazy people, and those people do offer motivation for mass murder....do we simply ignore those motivations? Is there any point at which we take the stated motivations of those "crazies" seriously? One crazy, ten crazies, a thousand crazies with the same stated motivations...? If droves of tea party activists were murdering in the streets/bombing buildings/hijacking planes and claiming they were doing it all in the name of Glen Beck, would we shrug it off and maintain no association with Glen Beck or the tea party whatsoever?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 31 2010, 03:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 31 2010, 04:42 PM
Post #38


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 31 2010, 06:49 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 31 2010, 03:45 AM) *
An excerpt from Ms. Valle's remarks, with some edits (in blue):

"It is evident that your physical assault on me and my shoving a cardboard sign into your candidate's face is symptomatic of how some of us are dealing with the crisis that this country is struggling through. ... Only when too tightly wound people like you and me decide to let go of our hate, our violence and our aggression will we be able to communicate to each other about the issues that divide us. Right now, some of us are not communicating, some of us are stomping on each other and shoving cardboard signs into each other's faces. Neither of us can ever win, neither of us can ever be really taken seriously by the rest of society, until both of us, and people like us, grow the rest of the way up."

ps:
Credit for the "grow the rest of the way up" phrase goes to another poster on this board. Sorry, I forgot who. Great line, whoever you are.
As much as she might be an activista*, and she certainly seems to fit the description given that she is pushing into a mob of political opponents with a placard and a wig, I don't see her being untoward or violent in this video. I think her subsequent, and deliberate use of language indicates an attempt to bridge a gap. That could be a ploy to extend the controversy of course, but its most likely that she is scared by the fact that this sort of thing can happen at all, in what is meant to be a civilised political discourse.
...

It appears that you've only seen the video posted by "Julian". That's a shame, since it doesn't provide the whole story.

The incident comes in two parts.

Part I involves her standing among Rand Paul supporters, waiting for the candidate's SUV to pull up. As soon as it does, she rushes to the open passenger side window and tries to shove her cardboard sign into Paul's face. She's subsequently pulled away by a couple of supporters and a suited guy (I'm guessing he's part of the security detail). Note that, at this point, she's not thrown to the ground, "secured", etc.. She's just prevented from accomplishing her goal of shoving her cardboard sign into the candidate's face. (Question: if someone suddenly rushed YOUR open car window and tried to shove a cardboard sign in YOUR face, would you describe that as non-threatening/non-aggressive?)

Here's the "Part I" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM

Part II involves the events shown in the video posted by "Julian". In this one, we see Rand Paul exiting the SUV and starting to walk toward the entrance of the event hall. Then we see someone (I think it's the aforementioned suited guy) in his entourage pointing, and the camera pans to the right. And now we see Ms. Valle, rushing in behind Paul with her cardboard sign, pushing her way through the group of supporters, at which point she's wrestled to the ground and secured by one guy. It's at this point that she's "stomped" by the neanderthal idiot, as a third guy raises his hand and tells him "No, no, no, no ... C'mon!" to get him to come to his senses. (NOTE: interesting that the "Aha! See, we told you that those teabaggin', Rand Paul supportin' Rethuglicans were violent thugs! Here's proof!" narrative does not include the actions of this third guy. Somehow, HIS actions are NOT seen as representative. "Funny", that.)

Here's the "Part II" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnEy_U9pYk

As far as Ms. Valle's subsequent statement, I'm afraid I don't buy the "bridge a gap" or "scared by the fact that this sort of thing can happen at all" interpretations. She's a professional provocateur, if that can be considered a profession. A "true believer" in the righteousness of her cause(s) who, in pursuit of "raising awareness" about them, is quite willing to engage in activities that can easily escalate into situations that put her and others in physical danger:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-cen...not-greenpeace/
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-co...10/10/valle.jpg

IOW, this is not a gal who was just standing around, peacefully waving a sign and voicing her opposition to Rand Paul. Her actions in Part I (shoving the cardboard sign in the candidate's face) of this incident fully justified the actions of the Paul supporters and the security guy at that point. And then, her actions in Part II (undeterred by the first altercation, she wanted a "second go" at the candidate, pushing her way through the group as she rushed in behind him) of this incident fully justified the actions of the guy who wrestled her to the ground and secured her. They did NOT (I repeat, did NOT; I re-repeat, once and for all, for the benefit of "nighttimer" and any other genuinely or feignedly "hard of hearing" thread participants), however, justify in any way, shape, or form, the actions of the "stomper" idiot.

Bonus video (featuring, interestingly enough, another member of the same MoveOn.org "RepubliCorps" project that is Ms.Valle's latest cause du jour):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k23zO8aV-KU

This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 31 2010, 04:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 31 2010, 06:50 PM
Post #39


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 31 2010, 11:25 AM) *
If droves of tea party activists were murdering in the streets/bombing buildings/hijacking planes and claiming they were doing it all in the name of Glen Beck, would we shrug it off and maintain no association with Glen Beck or the tea party whatsoever?
Yeah. If droves of people were doing so, and citing the same motivation, we couldn't ignore it.

Now define "droves." And tell me how many people you think are engaged in calculated mass murder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 31 2010, 08:18 PM
Post #40


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 31 2010, 03:03 PM) *
I think we could reasonably restate the questions of the thread as considering what, if anything, allows us to decry all members of a group when some members of that group misbehave.
You can if you want to, but then you'll have to find your own justifications.


QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not)
You proposed our standard might be the cited motivations of the misbehavers.
I most certainly did not. I have not provided any argument that allows any one to decry all members of a group.


QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not)
Do you see any difference between an impulsive act of violence like stomping someone's face whom you're mad at, and calculated mass murder? Or do you just consider all "violent acts" as the same?
Context is everything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 18th, 2018 - 09:38 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.