Apparently they thought she was pelosi
Rand Paul Supporter Who Stepped On Activist's Head Wants Apology
- Thread starter witness23
- Start date
Apparently they thought she was pelosi
For all of the apologists for this supposedly well-meaning liberal messenger, I would like to remind you of another individual that made an aggressive movement out of a crowd at a political rally - Sirhan Sirhan; and don't forget Arthur Bremer. In this day and age, a malcontent knows no age, sex or racial distinction. Also remember that Gerald Ford survived two assassination attempts - both by women (Sarah Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme). These clowns should know better, so if they get trampled, attacked, beaten and arrested, it shouldn't come as any surprise. The fact that she was "only carrying a sign" doesn't matter; what better prop to have at a political rally? This dopey chick was just plain stupid and got exactly what she deserved. If she had been a Tea Party member, (a) this wouldn't even be mentioned in passing, or (b) the neck-stomper would be doing guest appearances on Letterman and the daily show.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I'm not going to make much of this, to me is seems first staged and then got out of hand. The guy stepping on the girls head should know better and it looks like he was a bit p*ssed off, maybe some legal action against him is needed.
Whether or not the issue of her being a nuisance is really not the issue to me but rather the security people failed to do their job, which is very obvious. What seems to be bothersome (to me at least) after getting her out of there the first time is he had time to roll the window up (I think that took 5 seconds), take his time getting out of the vehicle and slowly walking into the building. IF IT was a case where there was a credible threat, then the security people would not have chased her, but got a hold of her, moved her out of the way that if she did get loose not to do any damage and then either got him out of there or moved into the building very quickly. NONE of that happened at all but the opposite.
Stupid on her part, yep but also on Rand's part.
Keep in mind that this was a debate, not a rally for a single party candidate, so it is expected that there would be a mingling of people from both sides of the election being there and the only one who should be policing any division are ... well ... the police.
I conclude few things;
She wasn't doing any harm that can be proven and it got out of hand for too many reasons, one is clear that there is a lack of security that he has paid for and a lack of coordination between the event coordinators, the security teams and the police.
If she just wants an apology, then Mr. Profit, apologize.
Whether or not the issue of her being a nuisance is really not the issue to me but rather the security people failed to do their job, which is very obvious. What seems to be bothersome (to me at least) after getting her out of there the first time is he had time to roll the window up (I think that took 5 seconds), take his time getting out of the vehicle and slowly walking into the building. IF IT was a case where there was a credible threat, then the security people would not have chased her, but got a hold of her, moved her out of the way that if she did get loose not to do any damage and then either got him out of there or moved into the building very quickly. NONE of that happened at all but the opposite.
Stupid on her part, yep but also on Rand's part.
Keep in mind that this was a debate, not a rally for a single party candidate, so it is expected that there would be a mingling of people from both sides of the election being there and the only one who should be policing any division are ... well ... the police.
I conclude few things;
She wasn't doing any harm that can be proven and it got out of hand for too many reasons, one is clear that there is a lack of security that he has paid for and a lack of coordination between the event coordinators, the security teams and the police.
If she just wants an apology, then Mr. Profit, apologize.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I usually reserve this statement for another here in the Soapbox but it seems appropriate.
Stay classy dave, stay classy.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Apologists? Well meaning liberal messenger? Nobody here, I repeat, Nobody here, in the Soapbox has defended the actions of this woman or has said what she was doing was anything but stupid. The fact remains, this so-called man, stepped on a woman who was restrained and on the ground.
Clown is an accurate description of this woman, for sure. Being trampled, attacked, beaten??????? Really? Really? It's funny you list all those things first then add arrested. So, as you see it Pilgrim, a person is detained, on the ground, not showing any resistance, but, but , he/she is from an organization we don't like, get 'em, step on 'em, beat 'em to a pulp. Then when that's finished, excuse me police officer.....can you arrest this person.
You truly believe that? Defending this mans actions is bad enough but for someone to say that, "she got what she deserved". You think its alright to strike a defenseless woman, no matter how stupid they might be?
Why are you bringing the Tea Party into the conversation, not one person has mentioned them.
Yeah, I am sure the "Lame Stream" media would have just ingnored the incident, then praised the same person they were ignoring.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
This "child" is abolutely disgusting.........
"PAID" activist by moveon.org......
Preplanned her actions by showing up days before the Debate was to take place........
Let it be known during those days why she was there.........
Was wearing the attire of a Rand Paul staff supporter..........
Was also in disguise by wearing a blonde wig (very clear in the video when that guy has that wig in his hand).............
Stated at the end of the video Witless originally posted that all she wanted to do was to stand there and hold her sign peacefully as everyone else was doing. But if you notice in the video, that motorcade went by hundreds of people who were "holding signs" that were NOT trying to forcefully shove their sign into the vehicle Rand Paul was in.
I copied down a sentence she said in the video that really struck me the wrong way..........
Her quote:
Well......you got that right that child.
This country has not been this divided since Lincoln was in office. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation was a government mandated policy that several states were not in agreement with, which was one of the five reasons of the civil war.
Top Five Causes of the Civil War
Look over the link above.........is history about to repeat itself???? (minus the slavery issue) If so, I'm ready and will fight for my cause.
This little girls "President" and party in power could quite possibly be this generations "Black Lincoln Caucus".
I do not condone the actions that took place that night. But, a rodeo clown knows quite well what "might" happen to him every time he steps into that arena. This little girl was the rodeo clown at that debate that night. She put on a costume and stepped into the bull pen. It is my strong opinion that she got what she deserved, and quite frankly, expected.
"PAID" activist by moveon.org......
Preplanned her actions by showing up days before the Debate was to take place........
Let it be known during those days why she was there.........
Was wearing the attire of a Rand Paul staff supporter..........
Was also in disguise by wearing a blonde wig (very clear in the video when that guy has that wig in his hand).............
Stated at the end of the video Witless originally posted that all she wanted to do was to stand there and hold her sign peacefully as everyone else was doing. But if you notice in the video, that motorcade went by hundreds of people who were "holding signs" that were NOT trying to forcefully shove their sign into the vehicle Rand Paul was in.
I copied down a sentence she said in the video that really struck me the wrong way..........
Her quote:
Well......you got that right that child.
This country has not been this divided since Lincoln was in office. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation was a government mandated policy that several states were not in agreement with, which was one of the five reasons of the civil war.
Top Five Causes of the Civil War
Look over the link above.........is history about to repeat itself???? (minus the slavery issue) If so, I'm ready and will fight for my cause.
This little girls "President" and party in power could quite possibly be this generations "Black Lincoln Caucus".
I do not condone the actions that took place that night. But, a rodeo clown knows quite well what "might" happen to him every time he steps into that arena. This little girl was the rodeo clown at that debate that night. She put on a costume and stepped into the bull pen. It is my strong opinion that she got what she deserved, and quite frankly, expected.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
You are really that angry, really?
Once you resort to name calling, your credibililty is then shot. The below pretty much sums up your whold post quite well actually.
Name calling is a phenomenon studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse
As a cognitive bias in propagandaName calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fearmongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.[1]
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well Brisco,
The country has been divided as much as it is today in the post civil war country - Prohibition is one example that divided the country and made heroes out of thugs and criminals. Reconstruction is another and the Civil rights movement is another.
BUT you know this happens on both sides of the political spectrum, no one is immune or innocent of doing the same thing for the same reasons. We need to not worry about the purpose she tried to serve but worry about the reaction of all these groups and try to stop the bs before it really turns ugly.
The actual sad note to all of this is who really gives a crap anyway what happens. It is like the debates, which are not speaking to any of the common men and women but is a show for the elite who feel we are too stupid to understand and they know better. When it really comes down to it, people need to decide not based on an idiot holding a sign but rather what the candidate represents to them.
I got my politcal mail today, a lot of negative ads to say the least. I don't care much for those types of ads but I decided that the one with the most negitive ads will not get my vote, and surprise that it is not a republican candidate that has flooded my mail box with that crap.
The country has been divided as much as it is today in the post civil war country - Prohibition is one example that divided the country and made heroes out of thugs and criminals. Reconstruction is another and the Civil rights movement is another.
BUT you know this happens on both sides of the political spectrum, no one is immune or innocent of doing the same thing for the same reasons. We need to not worry about the purpose she tried to serve but worry about the reaction of all these groups and try to stop the bs before it really turns ugly.
The actual sad note to all of this is who really gives a crap anyway what happens. It is like the debates, which are not speaking to any of the common men and women but is a show for the elite who feel we are too stupid to understand and they know better. When it really comes down to it, people need to decide not based on an idiot holding a sign but rather what the candidate represents to them.
I got my politcal mail today, a lot of negative ads to say the least. I don't care much for those types of ads but I decided that the one with the most negitive ads will not get my vote, and surprise that it is not a republican candidate that has flooded my mail box with that crap.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Taking someone's screen name and then changing it into something else, similarly spelled or similarly sounding, especially if the newfound name is derogatory or is used as a snort of derision kind of fashion, while exceedingly immature, it isn't really name calling, per se. It's a classic textbook ad hominem logical fallacy with a little Straw Man tossed in for good measure. You make fun of someone's name, and if you can do it so as to besmirch and belittle them in the process then it's even better, and you avoid having to deal with the issues directly and intelligently, because you are, essentially, trying to dismiss or diminish the other person's argument by dismissing or diminishing them personally, and thus if they are dismissed or diminished so is their argument.
There isn't a screen name that can't be made fun of in some way, which is why many people on the Internet so easily and readily use the tactic. For example, just off the top of my head, pick any name, but let's go with Brisco since it's handy. You can go many ways with that one, depending on where you want to go with it. If you wanted to conjure up a mental image of someone with a massive, almost narcissist ego, albeit a shallow one, and at the same time associate them with something truly silly and lame, you might want to plant the mental image into reader's minds of John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever and that whole 70's caricature thing by calling him Disco Brisco. Or, you could go the Brokeback Mountain route and it becomes Crisco Brisco.
'Frisco Brisco also works.
My own screen name, of course, has an almost built-in parody that rolls off the tongue in icky yet silky chocolaty brown fashion. And so it goes.
There isn't a screen name that can't be made fun of in some way, which is why many people on the Internet so easily and readily use the tactic. For example, just off the top of my head, pick any name, but let's go with Brisco since it's handy. You can go many ways with that one, depending on where you want to go with it. If you wanted to conjure up a mental image of someone with a massive, almost narcissist ego, albeit a shallow one, and at the same time associate them with something truly silly and lame, you might want to plant the mental image into reader's minds of John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever and that whole 70's caricature thing by calling him Disco Brisco. Or, you could go the Brokeback Mountain route and it becomes Crisco Brisco.
'Frisco Brisco also works.
My own screen name, of course, has an almost built-in parody that rolls off the tongue in icky yet silky chocolaty brown fashion. And so it goes.
She was "beaten to a pulp"? Must have missed that. However, all that aside if she had done what she did to a presidential candidate she would have received very similar treatment from the Secret Service - and justifiably so. She would have also been arrested. I suggest you google Sirhan Sirhan and Sarah Jane Moore if you don't understand why this type of activity is verboten at political rallies. It's kind of like making jokes about bombs while you're in line for security clearance at an airport.
Watch the video again and set your stopwatch. How long do you think it takes to evaluate whether or not this woman poses a threat to Mr. Paul? Seconds matter in these situations, and nobody knew what she was up to, or whether or not she was defenseless. On second thought, maybe she didn't get exactly what she deserved; she got exactly what she wanted - notoriety. At any rate, what she did wasn't based on impulse.
You're telling me you don't see a pattern with these liberal protesters setting themselves up to be victimized? Remember the former college professor posing as a destitute cancer victim, sitting in the street at a conservative rally in Ohio? My point is what would happen if a conservative plant would do the same thing at a liberal rally - baiting those in attendance with an aggressive action toward the candidate. I'll bet there would be very little sympathy shown toward them by the media.
Also consider that anyone who displays this type of threatening behavior at a public gathering - especially a political rally - shouldn't be surprised if they find themselves in serious trouble. In spite of what some people in this country like to think, we live in a post-9/11 world. Terrorists still blow themselves up in the Middle East at birthday parties, funerals and crowded markets. What better venue for homicide bombers to use than to attack political rallies in an effort to disrupt our distinctively American way of life? This goofy chick could have very easily been one of them.
Actually, they did know. She's a well known "professional" protester (whiner) and the men who restrained her knew very well who she was, according to the words of the Proffit himself. She was in town for several days before the event and had made her intentions relatively well known. They knew her from previous campaign events, too. About five minutes before Paul showed up, the men began taking pictures of her, telling her hot to start anything. They then formed kind of a wall right behind her, ready to pounce. So the Profitt and his men were ready and waiting.
Interjecting Sirhan Sirhan or others into this, or Secret Service and presidents, where worst case scenarios are in place, is really more of a deflection in trying to defend the overreactions of a small group of men, who's job was not to protect the political candidates, incidentally, who physically took out their political passions and frustrations on a woman they knew posed no physical threat. Restraining her is one thing, she probably deserved that, but the stomping went too far, and cannot be defended.
But she wasn't, and they knew it. They used her actions as an excuse to beat up on a woman, and someone of the other party. Proffit apologized, but at the same time blamed the police and Valle for his actions. He's got a point with Valle, but only up to a point. She may have instigated it, but she is hardly responsible for his actions. She's a classic professional protester who was arrested and charge with felony vandalism when she defaced a drilling boat after the Gulf Oil Spill. That was when she was with Greenpeace. She was also one of 5 members of 'Students for a Free Tibet' detained in Beijing, China for unfurling a "Free Tibet" banner in Olympic park. So she's not exactly a totally innocent bystander in all this.
Yet, Proffit and a small group of people took on the self-appointed position of "crowd control" as they announced it, and had told Valle at least twice before the incident for her not to start anything. One witness said they heard Proffit tell Valle, "If you know what's good for you, you won't start anything here." Five minutes later she did, and instead of her getting arrested, Proffit and the others make her the victim.
From this point, the stories will change, and it will be about something else. Proffit will say that he feared for Paul's life or some such nonsense, and Valle and MoveOn.org will say that it's about assault and abuse against women, anti-women and probably anti-American. Got to ratchet up the fake outrage as much as you can.
Statement from Rand Paul:
"The Paul for Senate campaign is extremely disappointed in, and condemns the actions of a supporter last night outside the KET debate. Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable, and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists -- on both sides -- to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind."
Statement from his opponent Jack Conway:
"I was shocked to see video footage of a Rand Paul supporter stomping the head of a woman outside the debate last night. We can disagree on issues, and I don't know what preceded the incident, but physical violence by a man against a woman must never be tolerated. It is my hope that steps have been taken to ensure this kind of thuggish behavior never happens again in this campaign."
The only way that anyone can defend this is if they feel it's OK because it was a conservative doing it to a liberal, which is absurd on the face of it. Using anything else to defend it is equally absurd.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
As you can plainly see in my scenario, it was to represent your logic in handling a situation where someone is detained. In your words:
Hence the reason I used he/she, is from an organization to represent how your timeline of events and how they should happen before you are arrested.
It is quite clear what I meant, so you are either purposely misrepresenting it or you're reading comprehension skills need to be brushed up on. Considering your comment, I would guess the latter.
Phew....you got it bad my man. They have really gotten to you, haven't they?
bobwg
Expert Expediter
You keep crying about the woman being stomped the man did not stomp on her he put his foot on her back (again not her head) and pushed her down and then used some pressure to help hold her down geez stomp would be to jump up and put all you weight on the one foot into her which he did not do and yes I would defend a liberal if they were restraining some one doing something like this woman was doing ha thuggish behavior do you defend the Black Panthers ? now that is real thugs at work
Last edited:
witness23
Veteran Expediter
lol.......
bobwg
Expert Expediter
made correction to previous post fingers going faster than the rest of me , looks like got a load time to roll
Considering she was a "professional protester", it's hard to believe she and her associates (let's not think for a minute she was there by herself) weren't aware of this group and that they - or someone like them - would be in attendance. I see what you're saying, but I still think she got what she wanted along with the accompanying publicity.
I agree wholeheartedly - my reading comprehension skills are not on the same level of competence as your literary prowess.
I hate to make assumptions, but that statement would lead me to believe you haven't been around at the time of an assassination (or attempt) of a major US political figure. Are you so naive to think that the USA isn't still a target of terrorists? Do you actually think that there aren't nut cases out there that will stop at nothing in an attempt to take out a politician they consider to be dangerous? You must have found history to be boring in high school (so did I). Now is a good time explore the subject from 1929 to present and make an effort to understand its relevance to the events of the present day.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
You've taken this totally off topic and into bizarro world. So, I will gracefully bow out of the conversation with you, and not even try and attempt to address the above.