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: 2,932
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 (40 - 48)
AuthorMusician
post Oct 31 2010, 08:56 PM
Post #41


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,330
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



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."

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.


Huh, putting words into someone's statement/mouth. How about that. I've never seen this attempted on ad.gif before, other than among participants, but I might be wrong.

Your point is that she provoked the attack. If so, a court of law will review the videos and figure out from witnesses what the heck actually happened. It's for sure she got stomped upon. Might be justified if she had kneed someone in the balls, except with all that padding, it might not have been felt.

Beer guts are good for that. But I have to ask, where was John Wayne, hero of the old-timey conservatives, defending the honor of womankind? Nowhere to be found. Seems that wimpy Pillsbury dough boys have taken over. Amazing, and to think liberals used to be thought of as the wimpy types.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 1 2010, 12:49 AM
Post #42


*********
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 31 2010, 12:42 PM) *
It appears that you've only seen the video posted by "Julian". That's a shame, since it doesn't provide the whole story.


Well, aren't I the lucky one to have you to explain what I missed.

Pray elucidate. dry.gif

QUOTE(akaCG)
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?)


To answer your question with a question, since when is a cardboard sign considered a lethal weapon?

You are assuming Lauren Valle was trying to shove a cardboard sign in Rand Paul's face. That's only your speculation about her motivations and not an established fact.

The fact is you don't KNOW what Ms. Valle's "goal" was, akaCG. There's no way you could. You imagined a scenario and then interpreted the video to fit the scenario, whereas the criminal behavior of Tim Profitt is right there for all the world to see.

You claim she wasn't thrown to the ground or "secured" but you're vague on how she got to the ground. Or are you suggesting she deliberately flung herself to the ground with the hopes of manipulating events so that some innocent, but overzealous, Paul backer might decide to wipe their feet on the top of her head? wacko.gif

I'm just trying to get a sense of how thick this web of conspiracy is spun. shifty.gif

QUOTE(akaCG)
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.)


The funny thing is I don't see Valle "rushing in behind Paul" armed with her car board sign (was she hoping to inflict a wicked paper cut on Randy? laugh.gif). I see one woman in a sea of Paulinistas (hey, making up new words is fun!) acting out the part of Daniel in the lion's den, but nothing that explains or justifies being used as a doormat by some "Neanderthal idiot."

It would be remiss to overlook the fact that Tiny Tim Profitt isn't just a "Neanderthal idiot." He's also a part of Paul's campaign and described as a "major donor" by no less than Fox News:

Image Link

Tim Profitt gave the Paul campaign $1,900, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records. A review of FEC records also shows a woman with the same last name and same address donated at least $500.

Paul's campaign dropped Profitt as campaign coordinator in Bourbon County, in central Kentucky, and banned him from future events. But Paul's campaign has not said whether it will return the donations.
link

The reactions of the third guy are essentially nothing but a "way too little, far too late" attempt at damage control because if you're going to tap dance on the skull of a liberal "activista" you outweigh by at least 100 pounds, it's probably not the smartest move to do it with a ton of cameras trained on you. But if Tim Profitt were smart he wouldn't be a woman stompin' creep. wacko.gif

QUOTE(akaCG)
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:


The same exact thing could have been said about Martin Luther King and there's a place in this world even for "professional provocateurs." Just not under the foot of blubbery thugs like Tim Profitt.

I don't care if this lady protests Rand Paul appearances, military funerals, and the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. There's NO justification for taking violent action against a non-threatening protester. NONE.

You have to be a totally blind partisan without one shred of concern for civility, respecting the right of people to peacefully protest and to hold a conflicting viewpoint to be an apologist for this ugly act of thuggery.

On the other hand, I'm sure this is going down very well when it's viewed overseas in Europe and the Middle East. Kind of makes the U.S. look rather clownish when it wags a crooked little finger at other nations on how well we practice "democracy."

QUOTE(akaCG)
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.


So what does that mean? She should have expected Rand Paul supporters were a unruly mob that would physically attack her?

Your tepid, hand-wringing caveat that you "condemn" the use of force is undercut by your insinuation she had it coming. There is no justification for the actions of the Paul supporters and that is why Mr. Profitt, not Miss Valle, is facing fourth degree assault charges.

I'm not "hard of hearing" OR "hard of reading", "akaCG." YOU seem to suffering from a problem best described as "hard to accept reality."

You get an "A" for an extremely imaginative bit of speculation and spin. I just hope you don't believe anybody's buying it...

This post has been edited by Jaime: Nov 1 2010, 03:10 AM
Reason for edit: Edited to replace image with link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 1 2010, 01:13 AM
Post #43


*********
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 31 2010, 08:49 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 31 2010, 12:42 PM) *
It appears that you've only seen the video posted by "Julian". That's a shame, since it doesn't provide the whole story.


Well, aren't I the lucky one to have you to explain what I missed.

Pray elucidate. dry.gif
...

It appears that you imagined that I was addressing you, instead of "moif". I can't say that it surprises me, since it fits right in with your continuing inability to deal with what I actually write/post, as opposed to what you imagine (or, perhaps more likely, pretend to imagine) that I do.

Far be it from me to stop you from continuing to follow your imagination(s), however. By all means, go for it. But I would be remiss in not telling you that I won't be joining you.

Have fun.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 1 2010, 02:07 AM
Post #44


*********
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 31 2010, 09:13 PM) *
It appears that you imagined that I was addressing you, instead of "moif". I can't say that it surprises me, since it fits right in with your continuing inability to deal with what I actually write/post, as opposed to what you imagine (or, perhaps more likely, pretend to imagine) that I do.

Far be it from me to stop you from continuing to follow your imagination(s), however. By all means, go for it. But I would be remiss in not telling you that I won't be joining you.

Have fun.


Gee, I don't know how I could have made the mistake that you were talking to me. unsure.gif

There is the fact that you (mis)quoted my posting of Miss Valle's words to Mr. Profitt:

QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 31 2010, 12:42 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."


Then there's the fact you specifically name-checked moi.

QUOTE(akaCG)
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.


So if I got the impression you were talking to me it's because you left the impression.

I don't blame you though taking your ball and for heading for the EXIT sign. When you've already painted yourself into a corner applying another coat isn't going to help you get out. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Nov 1 2010, 10:46 AM
Post #45


*********
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, 04:18 PM) *
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.
Of course you are correct. You are nothing if not technically precise about your animus. You reserve it for the ideology, not the idealogue.

I must rephrase.

You proposed our standard might be that the cited motivations of the misbehavers allow us to decry the motivation or ideology.


QUOTE(moif @ Oct 31 2010, 04:18 PM) *
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.
Then we agree.

You don't have to be "crazy" to get mad at someone and try to stomp his face. We can certainly conceive of someone merely temporarily losing it in the heat of the moment.

Now what about people who coolly plan and execute mass murder? What is our conception of their state of mind ... their sanity, if you will? At the very least there has to be a strong element of sociopathy involved. Have you ever dealt with a sociopath? How much do you trust what they say?

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Nov 1 2010, 10:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 1 2010, 11:36 AM
Post #46


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 31 2010, 02:50 PM) *
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.


I'm not the one implying that we shouldn't take the stated motivations of killers seriously because "they must be crazy", so what difference does my definition of a drove make? Apparently the number makes a difference to YOU so perhaps you could tell me what number would be cause for concern?

I also have to wonder what your point is? The stomper isn't crazy, so his motivations are of concern but if he shot into a crowd his motivations wouldn't be of concern?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 1 2010, 11:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Nov 1 2010, 12:15 PM
Post #47


*********
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 @ Nov 1 2010, 07:36 AM) *
I'm not the one implying that we shouldn't take the stated motivations of killers seriously because "they must be crazy", so what difference does my definition of a drove make? Apparently the number makes a difference to YOU so perhaps you could tell me what number would be cause for concern?
You're correct that I'm really arguing with moif here, not you.

The question of the number of people involved gets to the question of "craziness" and to the question of the legitimacy of generalizing. If literally "droves" of people engage in some activity, it's harder to claim they're all crazy, and it's legitimate to impute their motives to their whole group. If it's smaller numbers we're looking at the opposite applies.


QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 1 2010, 07:36 AM) *
I also have to wonder what your point is? The stomper isn't crazy, so his motivations are of concern but if he shot into a crowd his motivations wouldn't be of concern?
No. The level of craziness is higher if he shot into a crowd, so the credibility of his assertions of his motivations is lower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Nov 1 2010, 10:15 PM
Post #48


*********
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 @ Nov 1 2010, 11:46 AM) *
You proposed our standard might be that the cited motivations of the misbehavers allow us to decry the motivation or ideology.
If there is enough 'bad stuff' in an ideology to suggest that misbehavers are acting in according with the 'bad stuff' than I think its very difficult to ignore the conclusion that the ideology is a problem.


QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Nov 1 2010, 11:46 AM) *
You don't have to be "crazy" to get mad at someone and try to stomp his face. We can certainly conceive of someone merely temporarily losing it in the heat of the moment.

Now what about people who coolly plan and execute mass murder? What is our conception of their state of mind ... their sanity, if you will? At the very least there has to be a strong element of sociopathy involved. Have you ever dealt with a sociopath? How much do you trust what they say?
I don't think there is any single formula to explain why people act to kill many people. Bomber Command slaughtered hundreds of thousands of German civilians during World War Two, and only legal arguments and personal opinions seperate their acts from others which are considered utterly evil. The Allies certainly weren't defending themselves by the time they fire bombed Dresden and they weren't all psychopaths either. They did what they felt they had to do.

The problem I find with sociopathy as a means for arguing the state of mind of people who commit horrendous acts of violence hinges on the fact that sociopathy is usually identified in the eyes of a professional beholder and as such requires a great deal of analysis in order to be accurate. I suspect also that there are more subtle degree's of the mental state which is termed antisocial personality disorder than can be easily isolated by human investigation. Its a bit like bisexuality. At which point does heterosexuality become homosexuality? At what point in the mental state of a violent person do they stop being responsible for their actions?

Furthermore, there is the possibility that an ideology by its very nature attracts violent people, or even that an ideology is itself the product of a deranged mind.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 2 2010, 01:23 AM
Post #49


*********
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 @ Nov 1 2010, 06:15 PM) *
...
Furthermore, there is the possibility that an ideology by its very nature attracts violent people, or even that an ideology is itself the product of a deranged mind.

Yes, indeed.

"Violence breeds fanaticism, and fanaticism begets violence."

"Unity and self-sacrifice, of themselves, even when fostered by the most noble means, produce a facility for hating. Even when men league themselves mightily together to promote tolerance and peace on earth, they are likely to be violently intolerant toward those not of a like mind."

"The hatred and cruelty which have their source in selfishness are ineffectual things compared with the venom and ruthlessness born of selflessness."

"The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind."

"Every era has a currency that buys souls. In some the currency is pride, in others it is hope, in still others it is a holy cause. There are of course times when hard cash will buy souls, and the remarkable thing is that such times are marked by civility, tolerance, and the smooth working of everyday life."


--- Eric Hoffer

Book recommendation: The True Believer .

This post has been edited by akaCG: Nov 2 2010, 01:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 24th, 2018 - 12:25 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.