Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Rick Perry, Stephen Broden, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and other tea baggers have at various time during the campaign called for secession, violent overthrow, insurrection, and assassinating their opponents if they lose.

Here's the problem (and the real reason Republicans want to repeal the 14th Amendment).




Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Okay.

Actually, I'm curious what will come of this if they get in.

I bet congress approves them because they're too terrified of right-wingers...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Rick Perry, Stephen Broden, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and other tea baggers have at various time during the campaign called for secession, violent overthrow, insurrection, and assassinating their opponents if they lose.

Here's the problem (and the real reason Republicans want to repeal the 14th Amendment).

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

These people are not teabaggers.

teabagger
multiple meanings. 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. 5) also see "fagbag", "lamer", "noob"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger

The rest of your post is down right stupid. At least one of those people have won so far. I bet there will be no problem, and time will show you are just being conspiratory.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
These people are not teabaggers.

teabagger
multiple meanings. 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. 5) also see "fagbag", "lamer", "noob"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger

The rest of your post is down right stupid. At least one of those people have won so far. I bet there will be no problem, and time will show you are just being conspiratory.

#4 fits them like a glove.

What's conspiratory about his claims?

Fact: tea partiers are running for office. Fact: some of them have called of secession (not sure about the other stuff). Fact: if you call for secession the 14th Amendment says you can't hold office.

No conspiracies at any point in that thinking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
#4 fits them like a glove.

What's conspiratory about his claims?

Fact: tea partiers are running for office. Fact: some of them have called of secession (not sure about the other stuff). Fact: if you call for secession the 14th Amendment says you can't hold office.

No conspiracies at any point in that thinking.

I thought they were #3.

There are a lot of people who fit under #4, and many of them are in public office right now. As far as the calling for secession, that will be interesting, but most likely, nothing will come of it. Wait, I take it back, there is one unavoidable outcome; more stupid threads to come.

Well, at least Christine O' Donnell didn't get elected

Now that the election is over, can we stop calling them Teabaggers and get back to calling them what they really are, Republicans? Of 138 candidates, not one of the candidates supported by this 'non-partisan, independant group' were democrats. They were all Republicans. It seemed a risky move to split the party, but in the end they didn't really do any better than they would have anyway.

I still don't even know what the hell these people are on about.

I like their humility most:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/PatInMichiganTweet.jpg

Originally posted by skekUng
Now that the election is over, can we stop calling them Teabaggers and get back to calling them what they really are, Republicans? Of 138 candidates, not one of the candidates supported by this 'non-partisan, independant group' were democrats. They were all Republicans. It seemed a risky move to split the party, but in the end they didn't really do any better than they would have anyway.

calling them "racist religo-facists" is too much of a mouth full though...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I like their humility most:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/PatInMichiganTweet.jpg

Wow, the last time I saw someone try to get their followers to act like Nazis was in Kickassia.

Last time I saw it was at that Rand Paul rally, where they actually stomped people on the head and then claimed they didn't do more because their health insurance didn't cover their bad back.

I love a parade.

Originally posted by skekUng
Last time I saw it was at that Rand Paul rally, where they actually stomped people on the head and then claimed they didn't do more because their health insurance didn't cover their bad back.

They did not know that the woman did not have a gun. People have killed politicians before. Just try and give a bogus award to Oboma, and getting stepped on would be your least problem.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I like their humility most:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/PatInMichiganTweet.jpg

Please provide proof that this is real. We all know that the extremist left are not trust worthy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They did not know that the woman did not have a gun.

Even if she did, stomping on her head after three guys have already piled on top of her is excessive.

Originally posted by skekUng
Even if she did, stomping on her head after three guys have already piled on top of her is excessive.

No. Unfortunate, yes, but in the heat of the moment, things happen. I hope you realize that stepping on this persons shoulder was not premeditated.

Then why did he say he would have done more if he hadn't had a bad back? It was excessive.

l9d83_ZuMiU

Originally posted by skekUng
Then why did he say he would have done more if he hadn't had a bad back? It was excessive.

That just goes to show how dangerous the kind of stunt this woman was doing can be.

The fact is that the woman who was stepped on, was taking a risk. She was approaching a controversial politician, with a political stunt. She should court her blessing, because she is still alive.

What did she do?

Originally posted by The MISTER
What did she do?

I think she was trying to give Rand Paul a fake award.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think she was trying to give Rand Paul a fake award. I can see how she was lucky. She could have been hospitalized. Some of the blame does lie with the mob for not realizing that she wasn't a terrorist or an assassin who needed to be restrained with extreme prejudice. People who throw paint on furs are'nt so viciously restrained and they are nuts who are committing assault and vandalism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That just goes to show how dangerous the kind of stunt this woman was doing can be.

The fact is that the woman who was stepped on, was taking a risk. She was approaching a controversial politician, with a political stunt. She should court her blessing, because she is still alive.

so we blame the victim?

Originally posted by inimalist
so we blame the victim?

In this case the victim was the politician who's people stopped what could have been a deadly attack. It did not turn out to be deadly, but that is hind sight. As far as the woman, do you think she would have been injured if she had not tried to do a political stunt?

I am not saying that those who stepped on her, were blameless, but there is a certain amount of justification based upon all the death threats that Rand Paul has received.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In this case the victim was the politician who's people stopped what could have been a deadly attack. It did not turn out to be deadly, but that is hind sight. As far as the woman, do you think she would have been injured if she had not tried to do a political stunt?

So, wait when a woman nearly dies at a Rand Paul rally the only real victim is Rand Paul? I obviously need to start beating more people half to death.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not saying that those who stepped on her, were blameless, but there is a certain amount of justification based upon all the death threats that Rand Paul has received.

That would only make matter if she was aiming a fake gun at him as a political stunt.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In this case the victim was the politician who's people stopped what could have been a deadly attack. It did not turn out to be deadly, but that is hind sight. As far as the woman, do you think she would have been injured if she had not tried to do a political stunt?

I am not saying that those who stepped on her, were blameless, but there is a certain amount of justification based upon all the death threats that Rand Paul has received.

LoL. It's called excessive use of force. You can clearly she she's trying to cover herself and not in any fashion threatening anyone around her, yet the rabid tea-baggers continue to grab, stomp and rip at her.

1st amendment be damned when tea-baggers are about.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In this case the victim was the politician who's people stopped what could have been a deadly attack. It did not turn out to be deadly, but that is hind sight. As far as the woman, do you think she would have been injured if she had not tried to do a political stunt?

I am not saying that those who stepped on her, were blameless, but there is a certain amount of justification based upon all the death threats that Rand Paul has received.

LOL

so, just to throw it out there, Paul, descending from the Randian school of political discourse, should believe that only the state has the right to initiate the use of force against people, and we give up this right in order to live in a free society

those people who assaulted her can't consider themselves libertarian in that regard /shrug

also, what sym and rob said, and this is like saying the "don't tase me bro" kid actually posed a real threat to Kerry. You Americans are so crazy with your paranoia. EVERYONE is an ASSASSIN!!!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you talking about definition #3 or #4 of tea bagger?

These people were supporters of a controversial politician who has received death threats. I am not excusing their violence, but simply explaining that this is what people will get for doing a political stunt. She is lucky to be alive.


Not aware of different definitions, but as we can see and have seen, the "teabag" party has a tendency to attract rabid loons.

Unless I read you wrong, you had previously implied that the woman wasn't the victim, Rand Paul was.

I'm not blaming Rand Paul, as he can't control what lunatics latch onto his scrotum, but if the man had any class, he would have with 48hrs of said attack publicly apologized to the woman for the actions of the people who did said crimes under his name and denounced the attack. Also made an effort to have those people arrested, eg the white tennis-shoe stomper. Did he do anything of the sort?

Originally posted by inimalist
you have literally given me carte blanche to attack anyone who approaches me on the street, simply because I can't discount the possibility that they might mug me

wait, because I don't support the rights of a mob to assault someone, i want a person to die?

I have done no such thing. If you think I have, then you are a fool.

If you a controversial politician who has had multiple death threat, then should you allow anyone to approach you without security?

I have a feeling if this had been anyone else, like a Democrat, you would have a different point of view.

I don't understand why some people like to pretend to not favor one side of the argument when they clearly do when they discuss things. As if not favoring one side makes you magically objective on everything.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not aware of different definitions, but as we can see and have seen, the "teabag" party has a tendency to attract rabid loons.

And extremist liberals can be just as dangerous.

Originally posted by Robtard
Unless I read you wrong, you had previously implied that the woman wasn't the victim, Rand Paul was.

Assigning victim is hind-sit. At the time the woman approached Rand Paul, he was the potential victim. Round Paul was not doing something to the woman, but the woman was intending to cause Rand Paul political harm. She payed the price, and if she believes in her cause enough, then she should be proud. That is why I say Rand Paul was the victim. The woman started all of this, and she payed the price. She does not deserve victim status from my point of view.

As far as the supporters, they over did it, but all mobs are the same rather they be left or right.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not blaming Rand Paul, as he can't control what lunatics latch onto his scrotum, but if the man had any class, he would have with 48hrs of said attack publicly apologized to the woman for the actions of the people who did said crimes under his name and denounced the attack.

Do you think the woman would have apologized for trying to politically embarrass Rand Paul? It would be a beautiful world if they both apologized.

These kind of stupid stunts fall into the category of dirty politics, and I have very little sympathy for people who participate, and that includes Rand Paul.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand why some people like to pretend to not favor one side of the argument when they clearly do when they discuss things. As if not favoring one side makes you magically objective on everything.

Because people are taught that there is no difference between neutrality and objectivity. In America, at least, it's ingrained into the culture so much that the media gives equal weight to medical researchers and random celebrities (because failing to show "both sides" would be seen as suggesting bias by the reporter).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have done no such thing. If you think I have, then you are a fool.

you have said, it is ok to attack someone if you can't dismiss the possibility they might attack you, or in this case, someone else

why then, would I not be allowed to attack someone for whom I can't dismiss the possibility that they will attack me. I'm acting in as much self-defense as these people are

spell it out for me, make me look like a fool

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you a controversial politician who has had multiple death threat, then should you allow anyone to approach you without security?

they weren't security. We aren't talking about a rational response from security personelle, or even police over-reaction. We are talking mob brutality here

also, politicans don't deserve different treatment than regular citizens. Because they are public figures does not give them the right to attack people, or have mobs attack people, or however the proper analogy to this situation would be worded (though, this points out how silly you are to locate any of this with the politician themselves, as it was a mob who attacked a woman, not the politician )

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a feeling if this had been anyone else, like a Democrat, you would have a different point of view.

I initially thought the politician was RON Paul, someone who I support over any democratic nominee I've seen, ever. In fact, as far as American politics go, I line right up with Ron Paul, so if there is anyone I'd not want to see killed, it would be him

so, that fails. Not to mention, I brought up the don't tase me bro issue, which involved John Kerry.

don't be ****ing dense. Man, Americans again, everything is democrat or republican...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So we should tolerate mob violence? I don't see where you're going with this. Humans are not hornets, humans have reason. And honestly if a nest of hornets nearly killed someone I'm pretty sure the fire department would be sent out to get rid of it.

And how did she bring this on herself? She had something to say to Rand Paul (you suggest a parodic award) and tried to approach him. That does sound like the sort of thing you enter into with the for thought that a mob of people might try to beat you to death.

I was told she was going to give Rand Paul a bogus award that would have been politically embarrassing? Very much in the same spirit as those who used pies to embarrass people in the past. If this is not correct (and I wasn't there) then I would change my point of view. As far as I know, the woman started it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Round Paul was not doing something to the woman, but the woman was intending to cause Rand Paul political harm. She payed the price

You've got to be kidding. The reasonable price for maybe intending to criticize a politician is to be beaten by a mob?

What about news reporters? Is it okay to shoot them? After all they can and do repeatedly cause "political harm" to politicians.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As far as the supporters, they over did it, but all mobs are the same rather they be left or right.

Right. When they beat people they're the bad guys and the person they beat is the victim. That's the way it always works.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was told she was going to give Rand Paul a bogus award that would have been politically embarrassing? Very much in the same spirit as those who used pies to embarrass people in the past.

So if a person pied me you'd be totally okay with me getting some friends together and beating that person into unconsciousness? Buddhism has some pretty ****ed up morals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was told she was going to give Rand Paul a bogus award that would have been politically embarrassing? Very much in the same spirit as those who used pies to embarrass people in the past. If this is not correct (and I wasn't there) then I would change my point of view. As far as I know, the woman started it.

yes, and if the crowd shouted her down and embarassed her, it would have been an appropriate response

this is like, I come up to you in the street and call you a douche bag, then you respond by knocking my face off the pavement.

the response is not proportionate to whatever the intention of the lady was.

Sure, you could say you didn't know i wasn't going to attack you, but then you have justified beating up anyone who comes up to you on the street

I have some love for Rand Paul, but he has this Religious Right insanity in his politics. Regardless, I don't see what Rand Paul has to do with it, obviously he's not at fault, but you can't beat someone half to death on the wild guess that they intend to assassinate someone, especially you can not curb stomp them American History X style after any threat they may have posed has been neutralized, you can't do it, and you have to be punished according to the law for it.

Why are we discussing this though? It's not like the actions of a couple of supporters reflect on the whole movement or the politician necessarily.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And extremist liberals can be just as dangerous.



Assigning victim is hind-sit. At the time the woman approached Rand Paul, he was the potential victim. Round Paul was not doing something to the woman, but the woman was intending to cause Rand Paul political harm. She payed the price, and if she believes in her cause enough, then she should be proud. That is why I say Rand Paul was the victim. The woman started all of this, and she payed the price. She does not deserve victim status from my point of view.

As far as the supporters, they over did it, but all mobs are the same rather they be left or right.



Do you think the woman would have apologized for trying to politically embarrass Rand Paul? It would be a beautiful world if they both apologized.

These kind of stupid stunts fall into the category of dirty politics, and I have very little sympathy for people who participate, and that includes Rand Paul.

Extremist are extremist are extremist, yes.

Oh yes, giving a "fake award" would have ruined Rand Paul, much worse than being beaten and stomped on. He's a political figure; the 1st Amendment gives her the right to protest and protest against him. It's not like she was trying to spray him with piss or making death threats.

Glad you agree on that, though I think "criminal acts" is more inline than just "they over did it."

Why should she apologize? See 1st Amendment, she has the right to peacefully protest; she was.

Originally posted by Robtard
See 1st Amendment, she has the right to peacefully protest; she was.

thats only a matter of hind sight

all protesters are potential suicide bombers

she could have had a snuke, frankly that fat guy that stepped on her back should have given her a cavity search, seeing as we are delligating the responsibilities of the police to a mob of people with no real qualification for the job

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So if a person pied me you'd be totally okay with me getting some friends together and beating that person into unconsciousness? Buddhism has some pretty ****ed up morals.

What? You sound stupid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've got to be kidding. The reasonable price for maybe intending to criticize a politician is to be beaten by a mob?

What about news reporters? Is it okay to shoot them? After all they can and do repeatedly cause "political harm" to politicians.



Right. When they beat people they're the bad guys and the person they beat is the victim. That's the way it always works.

Again, that sounds stupid, and has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why are we discussing this though? It's not like the actions of a couple of supporters reflect on the whole movement or the politician necessarily.

Obviously a mob is not representative of the movement (and possibly not even of all the people in the mob). We're discussing it because Shakya seems convinced that beating a person to the ground is okay so long as you think maybe they might do something to embarrass you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? You sound stupid.

Even though I'm just rephrasing your arguments and placing them into a marginally different context? That doesn't look good for you.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, and if the crowd shouted her down and embarassed her, it would have been an appropriate response

this is like, I come up to you in the street and call you a douche bag, then you respond by knocking my face off the pavement.

the response is not proportionate to whatever the intention of the lady was.

Sure, you could say you didn't know i wasn't going to attack you, but then you have justified beating up anyone who comes up to you on the street

I agree, they were wrong for over attacking her, but she was also stupid for trying to do what she was doing.

This has nothing to do with you are me.

If you were to come up to me and some people off the street thought you were going to kill me, and beat the crap out of you, am I responsible? Maybe you should have asked the people on the street to talk to me. But this line of thinking is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even though I'm just rephrasing your arguments and placing them into a marginally different context? That doesn't look good for you.

Your attempt to rephrasing my argument only shows that you have no idea what i am talking about.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you were to come up to me and some people off the street thought you were going to kill me, and beat the crap out of you, am I responsible? Maybe you should have asked the people on the street to talk to me. But this line of thinking is irrelevant.

ok, I get that, and I have never blamed the politician for what happened to the lady (I can quote a one of my recent posts in this thread where I explicity say this too)

however, am I responsible for the crowd attacking me, if there is no good reason for them to think I'm going to murder you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you were to come up to me and some people off the street thought you were going to kill me, and beat the crap out of you, am I responsible? Maybe you should have asked the people on the street to talk to me. But this line of thinking is irrelevant.

Good think no one has blamed Rand Paul for this even once in the thread then.

And, uh, how exactly am I at fault in that scenario?

Did anyone actually say Rand Paul is responsible?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Did anyone actually say Rand Paul is responsible?

Don't think that anyone has, though I've not read every post.

If it happens again though, I would hold him responsible in part, since he has yet to condemn it and denounce the acts of his supporters involved(unless he has and I haven't heard).

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I get that, and I have never blamed the politician for what happened to the lady (I can quote a one of my recent posts in this thread where I explicity say this too)

however, am I responsible for the crowd attacking me, if there is no good reason for them to think I'm going to murder you?

I don't know what the mob was thinking. All I know is there are people who want to kill Rand Paul (am I getting the name right?). If there were people who wanted to kill me, would be...?

This line of thinking is way over complicating the issue from my point of view.

The woman's Karma brought her to a place in her life were this happened. If she did not want this to happen, then she should have changed her mind, and not stepped into the mob. I think her Karma blinded her to the danger. Now, why did Rand Paul have such violent people around him. There is a possibility that all the death threats combined with the proximity to the election caused the mob to over react and vent their anger on this one person.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't think that anyone has, though I've not read every post.

If it happens again though, I would hold him responsible in part, since he has yet to condemn it and denounce the acts of his supporters involved(unless he has and I haven't heard).

He won now, he doesn't have to do shit now...not for another 4 years.


I think the first thing by skekUng, may be misconstrued to mean that Rand Paul incited the violence, though it's a bit of a stretch. Since then the conversation has been much different though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know what the mob was thinking. All I know is there are people who want to kill Rand Paul (am I getting the name right?). If there were people who wanted to kill me, would be...?

This line of thinking is way over complicating the issue from my point of view.

The woman's Karma brought her to a place in her life were this happened. If she did not want this to happen, then she should have changed her mind, and not stepped into the mob. I think her Karma blinded her to the danger. Now, why did Rand Paul have such violent people around him. There is a possibility that all the death threats combined with the proximity to the election caused the mob to over react and vent their anger on this one person.

Wait...so everything bad that happens to a person is their fault because of their Karma?

Another, explanation could be that his ideals attract extremists and violent people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good think no one has blamed Rand Paul for this even once in the thread then.

And, uh, how exactly am I at fault in that scenario?

That is why I said it was irrelevant. The way you wanted to look at this was just wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know what the mob was thinking. All I know is there are people who want to kill Rand Paul (am I getting the name right?). If there were people who wanted to kill me, would be...?

This line of thinking is way over complicating the issue from my point of view.

ok, and if the woman made any indication that she was going to harm paul, I'm sure the majority of us would probably be ok with the crowd restraining her

like, right now, there are terrorists who want you, your mother, and your dog to die. This doesn't give you the right to forcibly keep muslims off the bus until they prove they aren't going to blow it up

assumption of innocence, you know, right in the constitution these tea-whatevers claim to want to follow

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The woman's Karma brought her to a place in her life were this happened. If she did not want this to happen, then she should have changed her mind, and not stepped into the mob. I think her Karma blinded her to the danger. Now, why did Rand Paul have such violent people around him. There is a possibility that all the death threats combined with the proximity to the election caused the mob to over react and vent their anger on this one person.

I've written papers about how Karma is, especially in the way it is practiced in rural India, pretty much the ultimate form of victim blame

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, and if the woman made any indication that she was going to harm paul, I'm sure the majority of us would probably be ok with the crowd restraining her

like, right now, there are terrorists who want you, your mother, and your dog to die. This doesn't give you the right to forcibly keep muslims off the bus until they prove they aren't going to blow it up

assumption of innocence, you know, right in the constitution these tea-whatevers claim to want to follow



I've written papers about how Karma is, especially in the way it is practiced in rural India, pretty much the ultimate form of victim blame

All mobs are the same. It does not matter if they are one party or the other. The idea that is happened because of the tea party is wrong. This happened because the woman decided to go to the wrong place and do the wrong thing.

Was it wrong? There is more then enough blame to go around.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is why I said it was irrelevant. The way you wanted to look at this was just wrong.

It's not really my fault that you can't form coherent arguments or write sentences that means what you want them to.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not really my fault that you can't form coherent arguments or write sentences that means what you want them to.

I'm actually enjoying our debate. It just gets confusing with more then one person.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All mobs are the same. It does not matter if they are one party or the other. The idea that is happened because of the tea party is wrong.

Why are you harping on this when everyone here has acknowledged that point? Refuting an argument that isn't being made just makes you look childish.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This happened because the woman decided to go to the wrong place and do the wrong thing.

Was it wrong? There is more then enough blame to go around.

That's stupid. There are obviously levels of "wrongness". Acting like you might embarrass Rand Paul has a very low level of wrongness to it (in fact I would say there is nothing wrong with that at all). Beating a woman nearly to death has a very high level of wrongness to it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All mobs are the same. It does not matter if they are one party or the other. The idea that is happened because of the tea party is wrong. This happened because the woman decided to go to the wrong place and do the wrong thing.

Was it wrong? There is more then enough blame to go around.

stop politicizing the issue, we have gone to pains to say we think this is a matter of mob mentality, not of the tea-movement

an innocent individual was attacked by a mob of people for trying to make a political statement, and your response is, "well, she asked for it"

it is a protest version of "her dress was so short, of course she wanted it"

So if a scanty-dressed prostitute who's mongering her 'goods' get's raped, it's her Karma? Am I following this Karma business correctly?

Originally posted by inimalist
stop politicizing the issue, we have gone to pains to say we think this is a matter of mob mentality, not of the tea-movement

an innocent individual was attacked by a mob of people for trying to make a political statement, and your response is, "well, she asked for it"

it is a protest version of "her dress was so short, of course she wanted it"

Ok, I don't see it that way. It is completely a political matter, to me. Now that we know the disconnect, things will be better. I will talk about the political side, and you will talk about the mob side, and I will try to keep this in mind.

Originally posted by Robtard
So if a scanty-dressed prostitute who's mongering her 'goods' get's raped, it's her Karma? Am I following this Karma business correctly?

Rape has nothing to do with sex, and Karma has nothing to do with blame.

Maybe you should bump my old Karma thread, and ask there.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Rape has nothing to do with sex, and Karma has nothing to do with blame.

Maybe you should bump my old Karma thread, and ask there.

Rape has a lot to do with sex.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, I don't see it that way. It is completely a political matter, to me. Now that we know the disconnect, things will be better. I will talk about the political side, and you will talk about the mob side, and I will try to keep this in mind.

what political side? this isn't a political issue?

the only relevance with the political side seems to be in mitigating the responsibility of the mob, as if it is ok because there is some political dimension

Originally posted by inimalist
what political side? this isn't a political issue?

the only relevance with the political side seems to be in mitigating the responsibility of the mob, as if it is ok because there is some political dimension

I am not talking about the mob. I don't want to talk about mob dynamics.

thats my point, you are doing whatever mental cartwheels need to be done to make this about some lady trying to make a statement, when the real issue is that she was attacked by a mob

we can take this even further too:

say we have two seperate events, which we want to analyze for "wrongness"

a) woman makes a political statement at a rally, embarassing the person on stage

b) a person is assaulted by a mob

now, it is very clear why, taken as seperate issues, b) is more wrong than a).

Why then, when we combine a) and b), does the wrongness of a) make the woman responsible for b)?

Originally posted by inimalist
thats my point, you are doing whatever mental cartwheels need to be done to make this about some lady trying to make a statement, when the real issue is that she was attacked by a mob

Just walking down the street?

see, exactly my point. why does it matter what she was doing? you make it sound as though there are actions this woman made that make it her fault, when that is not true, at all.

she might as well have been walking down the street. She was breaking no law and posed no threat to anyone.

Originally posted by inimalist
we can take this even further too:

say we have two seperate events, which we want to analyze for "wrongness"

a) woman makes a political statement at a rally, embarassing the person on stage

b) a person is assaulted by a mob

now, it is very clear why, taken as seperate issues, b) is more wrong than a).

Why then, when we combine a) and b), does the wrongness of a) make the woman responsible for b)?

If the woman did not do a), then b) would not have happened.

I have always been told that if you go up to a big guy in a bar and stick your finger in his chest, you deserve whatever you get. That has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is just a fact.

Originally posted by inimalist
see, exactly my point. why does it matter what she was doing? you make it sound as though there are actions this woman made that make it her fault, when that is not true, at all.

she might as well have been walking down the street. She was breaking no law and posed no threat to anyone.

I don't agree. She was making a dangerous political statement, and payed the price. Was it right or wrong? There is more then enough wrong to go around.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't agree. She was making a dangerous political statement, and payed the price. Was it right or wrong? There is more then enough wrong to go around.

So you do blame her, you're basically saying 'if she didn't want to get stomped, she should have not been there and done that', never mind that she wasn't doing anything illegal or threatening in a manor that would have required little more than a couple men holding her off for a minute.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If the woman did not do a), then b) would not have happened.

I have always been told that if you go up to a big guy in a bar and stick your finger in his chest, you deserve whatever you get. That has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is just a fact. I assume you don't actually believe that. Say if he killed you, then he'd have crossed a line, no?

The thing is that's the same with every single crime that happens. If the woman had locked her door she would not have been raped. If the man hadn't walked through this neighborhood he wouldn't have been robbed. If the person had taken a vacation that week they would have not been killed, etc.

You are going out of your way to blame her and excuse the attackers.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you do blame her, you're basically saying 'if she didn't want to get stomped, she should have not been there and done that', never mind that she wasn't doing anything illegal or threatening in a manor that would have required little more than a couple men holding her off for a minute.

Blame? I blame the political parties for creating such an environment. She is responsible for placing herself there, and the mob is responsible for what they did. I have already said "Was it right or wrong? There is more then enough wrong to go around." Were I am casting blame on all, you are only casting blame on the mob. They are both to blame.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blame? I blame the political parties for creating such an environment. She is responsible for placing herself there, and the mob is responsible for what they did. I have already said "Was it right or wrong? There is more then enough wrong to go around." Were I am casting blame on all, you are only casting blame on the mob. They are both to blame.

But you agree that the the individuals in the mob that did that to her are legally to blame and should be punished, while she should not as she is legally blameless?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blame? I blame the political parties for creating such an environment. She is responsible for placing herself there, and the mob is responsible for what they did. I have already said "Was it right or wrong? There is more then enough wrong to go around." Were I am casting blame on all, you are only casting blame on the mob. They are both to blame.

I dont understand, what part of her action was wrong?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blame? I blame the political parties for creating such an environment. She is responsible for placing herself there, and the mob is responsible for what they did. I have already said "Was it right or wrong? There is more then enough wrong to go around." Were I am casting blame on all, you are only casting blame on the mob. They are both to blame.

What exactly is she to blame for though? You wouldn't blame someone for being shot during a shootout between criminals and the police during a bank robbery, because they decided to go to the bank that day and make a deposit, would you.

Originally posted by inimalist
I dont understand, what part of her action was wrong?

Do not equate wrong with illegal.

Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly is she to blame for though? You wouldn't blame someone for being shot during a shootout between criminals and the police during a bank robbery, because they decided to go to the bank that day and make a deposit, would you.

What was the woman doing? Your analogy suggests that she was simply in the crowd, minding her own business.

Is Bardock like, on Shakya's ignore list or something?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Is Bardock like, on Shakya's ignore list or something?

Not like, but is on my ignore list.

You should read his posts. He's making a lot of good points.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You should read his posts. He's making a lot of good points.

I am glad to hear that.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Is Bardock like, on Shakya's ignore list or something?

I am, have been for years. I'm not going to change my posting habits though to accommodate him, if he says something that I think I should reply to, positively or negatively, I do and it's there for him to read and perhaps enlighten himself some (he obviously peeks anyways )

I do think he is trolling us here though, I think he does that often actually.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What was the woman doing? Your analogy suggests that she was simply in the crowd, minding her own business.

What if the person during the bank robbery tried to call the police? Tried to run? Tried to take down the robber? Whispered something to someone nearby? Are they to blame then?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What was the woman doing? Your analogy suggests that she was simply in the crowd, minding her own business.

She was protesting; to the point, she was exercising her 1st Amendment right.

You're effecting blaming the victim (along with everyone else).

The fact that the woman was already being held down by several people when the fat hick stepped on her head invalidates the argument that she was a danger to Paul when she was stepped on. She had already been rendered harmless. The full brunt of the blame lies on the pig who stepped on her.

Originally posted by Robtard
She was protesting; to the point, she was exercising her 1st Amendment right.

You're effecting blaming the victim (along with everyone else).

Civil disobedience is nothing if the person is not willing to pay the consequences. In that case, I would not call that person the victim. They are the victor. However, I do not believe her cause to be a just one.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Civil disobedience is nothing if the person is not willing to pay the consequences. In that case, I would not call that person the victim. They are the victor. However, I do not believe her cause to be a just one.

This was not civil disobedience. This was a protest, perfectly legal in your country, and traditionally even encouraged as an expression of democratic opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Civil disobedience is nothing if the person is not willing to pay the consequences. In that case, I would not call that person the victim. They are the victor. However, I do not believe her cause to be a just one.

Civil Disobedience = refusing to obey the government's demands/comands. What she did was nothing of the sort.

Again, see the 1st Amendment, she has the right to do exactly what she did without the fear of being beaten. She effectively had her rights taken away, no different than if that same mob beat/stomped you on the way to the voting booth, cos you were voting for someone they didn't approve of.

Originally posted by Robtard
Civil Disobedience = refusing to obey the government's demands/comands. What she does was nothing of the sort.

Again, see the 1st Amendment, she has the right to do exactly what she did without the fear of being beaten. She effectively had her rights taken away, no different than if that same mob beat/stomped you on the way to the voting booth, cos you were voting for someone they didn't approve of.

I thought you (or someone else) were claiming she was doing Civil Disobedience.

I'm not talking about illegal or not. It is legal to call a black man the N word, and it would fall under the 1st Amendment, but it would be wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought you (or someone else) were claiming she was doing Civil Disobedience.

I'm not talking about illegal or not. It is legal to call a black man the N word, and it would fall under the 1st Amendment, but it would be wrong.

And to you being in the vicinity of Rand Paul is also wrong. We get it. We're just wondering why you think something so stupid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And to you being in the vicinity of Rand Paul is also wrong. We get it. We're just wondering why you think something so stupid.

Well, you remember what the parasites did to John Galt, better safe than sorry






Trying your shtick there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And to you being in the vicinity of Rand Paul is also wrong. We get it. We're just wondering why you think something so stupid.

If you get me, then why would you say that? Being in the vicinity of Rand Paul is not wrong.

She put herself there doing something she knew would get her in trouble (not legal trouble; trouble with people). She took the risk. Maybe she thought she could change the outcome of the election, or maybe it was because of hate, I don't know. I still would not call her a victim.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought you (or someone else) were claiming she was doing Civil Disobedience.

I'm not talking about illegal or not. It is legal to call a black man the N word, and it would fall under the 1st Amendment, but it would be wrong.

No, I've stood by the 'she was doing nothing wrong; what she did is directly protected under the 1st Amendment', I'm that guy.

Agreed, I think unwarranted insults are wrong. What does that have to do with her peacefully protesting (ie doing nothing wrong) and getting stomped by a mob?

Edit: cutting to the chase, you're implying that calling a negro a "n!gger" is no different than protesting Rand Paul/A Politician, and if someone called a negro a "******" and said negro put the beat-down on said insulter, you'd find blame on both parties. I don't see you could logically compare the two though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you get me, then why would you say that? Being in the vicinity of Rand Paul is not wrong.

That's all she really did. No protesting even took place on her part. But you still seem to think she was the aggressor or should be blamed for what happened to her rather than blame the violent people who beat her.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
She put herself there doing something she knew would get her in trouble (not legal trouble; trouble with people). She took the risk. Maybe she thought she could change the outcome of the election, or maybe it was because of hate, I don't know.

But she didn't even do anything. They beat the crap out of her before she could. Wanting to peacefully protest is not wrong (except to you apparently) and even if it were it would be many orders of magnitude less wrong then beating the crap out of someone. When you are beaten for not doing anything you are a victim, to deny that would require you to redefine the word (or be incredibly stupid).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I still would not call her a victim.

Is there any circumstance where you would call the victim of violent crime a victim?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I've stood by the 'she was doing nothing wrong; what she did is directly protected under the 1st Amendment', I'm that guy.

Agreed, I think unwarranted insults are wrong. What does that have to do with her peacefully protesting (ie doing nothing wrong) and getting stomped by a mob?

So, if she was not going to insult Rand Paul, then what was the point in the fake award? I think it was an insult, and I think it is equal to the N word. Should she have been hurt for that? No. Should they have stepped on her? No. However, she is not snow white, and this is not a black and white 50's TV show. She shares part of the blame, and payed the price.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's all she really did. No protesting even took place on her part...


What about the fake award?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if she was not going to insult Rand Paul, then what was the point in the fake award? I think it was an insult, and I think it is equal to the N word. Should she have been hurt for that? No. Should they have stepped on her? No. However, she is not snow white, and this is not a black and white 50's TV show. She shares part of the blame, and payed the price.

The difference, dude, the difference is that Rand Paul is a politician; and criticism from the masses comes along with the job title.

Being black doesn't (at least it shouldn't) come along with that baggage.

Please answer, if you were in a liberal bar and said out loud "I think Obama is a socialist who's ruining America!" and some rampant Obamite smashed a bottle over your head, would you consider yourself to blame in part for having had you head smashed? Would you consider yourself a victim?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the fake award?

The one that she never got a chance to present?



You know what, I'm just going to ask you think point blank. No dancing around it: Do you think the mob reacted appropriately?

The award was as follows - "The woman, Lauren Valle, tried to give Paul a fake Employee of the Month award for an organization MoveOn created that connects the GOP and business."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-on-head-of-female-moveon-rep-in-pre-debate-scuffle/

Yep, clearly the same as racism.

Originally posted by Robtard
The difference, dude, the difference is that Rand Paul is a politician; and criticism from the masses comes along with the job title.

Being black doesn't (at least it shouldn't) come along with that baggage.

Please answer, if you were in a liberal bar and said out loud "I think Obama is a socialist who's ruining America!" and some rampant Obamite smashed a bottle over your head, would you consider yourself to blame in part for having had you head smashed? Would you consider yourself a victim?

We already said that Rand Paul is not to blame for this.

Your question: Yes I would be partly to blame. I am responsible for all things in my life.



No. I have said this over and over again. Why have you not been able to get that?

this thread is like a dali painting

or maybe "Kafkaesque"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We already said that Rand Paul is not to blame for this.

Your question: Yes I would be partly to blame. I am responsible for all things in my life.

Yes. Not sure where you get that I'm blaming Rand Paul.

So you do have a "blame the victim too" mentality. Woman gets raped for walking at night in a questionable part of town, she's to blame in part.

Perhaps he means "is to blame" more in the meaning of "is the cause of".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if she was not going to insult Rand Paul, then what was the point in the fake award? I think it was an insult, and I think it is equal to the N word. Should she have been hurt for that? No. Should they have stepped on her? No. However, she is not snow white, and this is not a black and white 50's TV show. She shares part of the blame, and payed the price.
So you're saying that it is wrong for people to protest? Would you say that the protesters and military police in the Tienanmen Square incident were both equally at fault?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes. Not sure where you get that I'm blaming Rand Paul.

So you do have a "blame the victim too" mentality. Woman gets raped for walking at night in a questionable part of town, she's to blame in part.

I don't know what you mean by "blame the victim too" mentality. Please explain.

Sad day for USA...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know what you mean by "blame the victim too" mentality. Please explain. "Woman gets raped for walking at night in a questionable part of town, she's to blame in part."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know what you mean by "blame the victim too" mentality. Please explain.

Applying your view of 'we're responsible for all that happens to us in life' mentality:

-Woman at Rand Paul rally is to blame in part for being stomped because she put herself in the rally and protested.

-You'd be to blame in part for having your head smashed because you put yourself in a bar and voiced an opinion about the sitting president.

-Women is to blame in part for being raped because she decided to walk down the street at night in a questionable part of town.

What's the one common thing the rally-women, you in the fictional scenario and the women in the fictional scenario all have in common? You're all three the victims, yet are to blame in part for the crime/harm that was done to you. I.E. 'blame the victim too.'

Originally posted by Robtard
Applying your view of 'we're responsible for all that happens to us in life' mentality:

-Woman at Rand Paul rally is to blame in part for being stomped because she put herself in the rally and protested.

-You'd be to blame in part for having your head smashed because you put yourself in a bar and voiced an opinion about the sitting president.

-Women is to blame in part for being raped because she decided to walk down the street at night in a questionable part of town.

What's the one common thing the rally-women, you in the fictional scenario and the women in the fictional scenario all have in common? You're all three the victims, yet are to blame in part for the crime/harm that was done to you. I.E. 'blame the victim too.'

What do you mean by victim?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
"Woman gets raped for walking at night in a questionable part of town, she's to blame in part."

Blame for what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you mean by victim?

A person who's had a crime committed against them.

Charges have been brought against the man who stepped on her head. He's being charged with assault.

Sense the woman is an innocent victim, who was doing nothing, I wonder why charges have not been brought against the other people in the video.

They may have. I haven't been closely following the story.

Originally posted by BackFire
Charges have been brought against the man who stepped on her head. He's being charged with assault.

I like how the news portrayed it as some vicious beating when it was one feather like push from a foot to her head...Very amusing.

What's more to me from how utterly stupid the people of America are.

Will they continually elect a democratic or republican president and then elect their opposite party to rule the senate and/or congress so that nothing ever changes because no party can get any legislation though because the other keeps blocking it?

It also amuses me how much of a short memory the US public has...They've effectively voted against Obama because he hasn't fixed the economy in the 2 years he's been in office...Completely forgetting which party it was that ****ed the economy up in the 1st place.

Compare it to Scotland where only 1 Conservative (Tory party) MP has been voted in since Thatcher was in power and brought in the poll tax in the 1980's....People here have the complete opposite...The Tories will never be voted in in Scotland again because of their actions in the 1980's and 90's...despite the fact that the some of the people now voting against them and showing great anger towards them weren't even born when Thatcher was in power.

Originally posted by jaden101
I like how the news portrayed it as some vicious beating when it was one feather like push from a foot to her head...Very amusing.

No, he clearly stamps down in the footage.

Originally posted by jaden101
I like how the news portrayed it as some vicious beating when it was one feather like push from a foot to her head...Very amusing.

What's more to me from how utterly stupid the people of America are.

Will they continually elect a democratic or republican president and then elect their opposite party to rule the senate and/or congress so that nothing ever changes because no party can get any legislation though because the other keeps blocking it?

It also amuses me how much of a short memory the US public has...They've effectively voted against Obama because he hasn't fixed the economy in the 2 years he's been in office...Completely forgetting which party it was that ****ed the economy up in the 1st place.

Compare it to Scotland where only 1 Conservative (Tory party) MP has been voted in since Thatcher was in power and brought in the poll tax in the 1980's....People here have the complete opposite...The Tories will never be voted in in Scotland again because of their actions in the 1980's and 90's...despite the fact that the some of the people now voting against them and showing great anger towards them weren't even born when Thatcher was in power.

It'll probably happen in 2012 too. The republicans won't do diddly and the dems will get voted back into power. And then 2 years after that the republicans will get voted back in and so on. It will continue this way until the economy stops being shitty, which ironically will likely occur just from the basic ebb and flow of things, and not from any actual legislation that happens, though that won't stop both parties from trying to claim credit for it.

Originally posted by BackFire
It'll probably happen in 2012 too. The republicans won't do diddly and the dems will get voted back into power. And then 2 years after that the republicans will get voted back in and so on. It will continue this way until the economy stops being shitty, which ironically will likely occur just from the basic ebb and flow of things, and not from any actual legislation that happens, though that won't stop both parties from trying to claim credit for it.

Yup, and whichever party happens to be in power during that year will be quick to say "see, we fixed it; not them", regardless of the who/why/how.

I do hate politics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on, you're just ****ing with me/us now. If you're robbed/mugged, you'd be the victim of a robbery/mugging, a specific crime, not a state of being which you dwell perpetually in, 'victim addiction.'

Shakya has his own dictionary that he uses for some words. Once you realize that is the heart of the problem it's best to leave him alone, the debate can never progress beyond it.

Shakya, the piece of shit who wants to burn liberals like Jews is a rather infamous personality named Patrick Adkins who runs a blog called Political Byline. He's a fascist. Here's his twitter address- http://twitter.com/PatinMichigan here's his blog- http://www.politicalbyline.com/

Quite frankly, the Tea Baggers are nothing more than the modern day version of the Silver Legion and our society is unfortunately one of the few western societies that tolerates their ilk. So if they are going to attempt to give protesters California smiles, illegally jail reporters, threaten opposing campaign workers, snipe non-profit social services, military bases, and installations, plan to ambush police officers, publicly threaten officials, and plan assassinations while law enforcement does little other than issue warnings and occasionally make an arrest, I say we even the playing field and form an American Iron Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front . That way, the next time someone decides to protest or vote, they can be protected from fascists by people opposed to communism and fascism whose only allegiance is to Democracy who are ready to pull a loaded firearm on any physical threat. If suddenly naked fascism becomes the norm and neo-nazi cocksuckers become victims and patriotic heroes in the media, in their movement, and in their own minds, what logical response can there be?

not resorting to unrestrained violence?

see my sig, re: the fact we are trying to stop violence

Originally posted by inimalist
not resorting to unrestrained violence?

see my sig, re: the fact we are trying to stop violence The German Social Democrats thought the same and disbanded the Iron Front and because of them, Hitler consolidated his power absolutely

you are right, we do need to become the very thing we are fighting against

Originally posted by inimalist
you are right, we do need to become the very thing we are fighting against No, we just can't be intimidated by fascist scum whether they call themselves tea partiers or republicans.

and you don't see a difference between standing up to facism and forming armed vigilante groups?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The German Social Democrats thought the same and disbanded the Iron Front and because of them, Hitler consolidated his power absolutely

To be fair, Hitler also ordered many executions of his critics and rivals over a series of several years, successfully cementing his control. See: Night of the Long Knives

Though I ultimately see your point.

Originally posted by jaden101
I like how the news portrayed it as some vicious beating when it was one feather like push from a foot to her head...Very amusing.

What's more to me from how utterly stupid the people of America are.

Will they continually elect a democratic or republican president and then elect their opposite party to rule the senate and/or congress so that nothing ever changes because no party can get any legislation though because the other keeps blocking it?

It also amuses me how much of a short memory the US public has...They've effectively voted against Obama because he hasn't fixed the economy in the 2 years he's been in office...Completely forgetting which party it was that ****ed the economy up in the 1st place.

Compare it to Scotland where only 1 Conservative (Tory party) MP has been voted in since Thatcher was in power and brought in the poll tax in the 1980's....People here have the complete opposite...The Tories will never be voted in in Scotland again because of their actions in the 1980's and 90's...despite the fact that the some of the people now voting against them and showing great anger towards them weren't even born when Thatcher was in power.

People support their political party like it's their local high school basketball team. Nobody really cares about getting anything done, as long as they're fed, have a job to ***** about and a television to watch. Here, it almost becomes a matter of ego if your team loses. It's nothing but a manufactured rivalry that people take personally. It's like the myth of the liberal media, when in reality the media is as liberal as it is conservative. All the media cares about is whipping people into a frenzy. They got Obama elected, and now to keep the ratings up, they have to tear apart their own manufactured messiah. Sadly for the country, he is a good politician and a damn fine president.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, and whichever party happens to be in power during that year will be quick to say "see, we fixed it; not them", regardless of the who/why/how.

I do hate politics. Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Shakya has his own dictionary that he uses for some words. Once you realize that is the heart of the problem it's best to leave him alone, the debate can never progress beyond it. He's trolling, he's trolling, why does no one see it??? ha-sonOriginally posted by jaden101
I like how the news portrayed it as some vicious beating when it was one feather like push from a foot to her head...Very amusing.

What's more to me from how utterly stupid the people of America are.

Will they continually elect a democratic or republican president and then elect their opposite party to rule the senate and/or congress so that nothing ever changes because no party can get any legislation though because the other keeps blocking it?

It also amuses me how much of a short memory the US public has...They've effectively voted against Obama because he hasn't fixed the economy in the 2 years he's been in office...Completely forgetting which party it was that ****ed the economy up in the 1st place.

Compare it to Scotland where only 1 Conservative (Tory party) MP has been voted in since Thatcher was in power and brought in the poll tax in the 1980's....People here have the complete opposite...The Tories will never be voted in in Scotland again because of their actions in the 1980's and 90's...despite the fact that the some of the people now voting against them and showing great anger towards them weren't even born when Thatcher was in power. Originally posted by BackFire
It'll probably happen in 2012 too. The republicans won't do diddly and the dems will get voted back into power. And then 2 years after that the republicans will get voted back in and so on. It will continue this way until the economy stops being shitty, which ironically will likely occur just from the basic ebb and flow of things, and not from any actual legislation that happens, though that won't stop both parties from trying to claim credit for it.

To be fair Obama has been bending over for the Republicans and Corporate Interest since the start. He's an utter failure and the only way to show that in American politics is to vote in the other party which dos the same thing in a different style.


The truth is that the Democrats and the Republican play good cop, bad cop with the American public on behalf of the people that pay for them.

It's not the only problem of course, there's more along the same lines.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Shakya, the piece of shit who wants to burn liberals like Jews is a rather infamous personality named Patrick Adkins who runs a blog called Political Byline. He's a fascist. Here's his twitter address- http://twitter.com/PatinMichigan here's his blog- http://www.politicalbyline.com/

Quite frankly, the Tea Baggers are nothing more than the modern day version of the Silver Legion and our society is unfortunately one of the few western societies that tolerates their ilk. So if they are going to attempt to give protesters California smiles, illegally jail reporters, threaten opposing campaign workers, snipe non-profit social services, military bases, and installations, plan to ambush police officers, publicly threaten officials, and plan assassinations while law enforcement does little other than issue warnings and occasionally make an arrest, I say we even the playing field and form an American Iron Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front . That way, the next time someone decides to protest or vote, they can be protected from fascists by people opposed to communism and fascism whose only allegiance is to Democracy who are ready to pull a loaded firearm on any physical threat. If suddenly naked fascism becomes the norm and neo-nazi cocksuckers become victims and patriotic heroes in the media, in their movement, and in their own minds, what logical response can there be?

You are extremist and silly at times.

Combat violence with violence? Never works.

Originally posted by Liberator
Combat violence with violence? Never works.

So I guess the Nazi Regime was taken down with hugs and love?

Originally posted by inimalist
you have literally given me carte blanche to attack anyone who approaches me on the street, simply because I can't discount the possibility that they might mug me

If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do.


Here's how it goes down:

Punched: I reached out to pat him on the back.

Puncher: He swung at me with a closed fist so I blocked it, and punched him right in the jaw. I thought I was being mugged.



This is why you can't touch someone unless they "like" it. You have a right to not be molested.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do.

This would work so long as the people were holding signs.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you do blame her, you're basically saying 'if she didn't want to get stomped, she should have not been there and done that', never mind that she wasn't doing anything illegal or threatening in a manor that would have required little more than a couple men holding her off for a minute.

Yeah, that seems rather reasonable.

She knew that approaching that dude would cause lots of problems. She probably fully expected to get a beat down in some of her "scenarios." She took that risk to make a point. She paid the price for it.

I'm going to wear a "I've had my wife abort 7 babies. **** you God." T-Shirt to an anti abortion rally and see where that gets me...

Also, approaching someone that you obviously oppose, in front of all of that person's rabid supporters, is rather stupid. (Keep it in context and don't generalize, dudes. I know my statement is a little vague, but I'm only referring to this in context of the topic, not some other "I'm missing the point again" logic that you guys could come up with.) Yes, the first thing I would expect my "body guards" to do, if someone was rapidly approaching me and yelling while holding a sign that obviously is "anti-me", would be restrain the person. Hold them back. Take them down to the ground, etc. That's just reasonable especially if you're a public figure head or celebrity.

Conveniently, the beginning of that video was edited out that showed her obviously dumb political stunt.



She can still sue for damages, though.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would work so long as the people were holding signs.

Huh?

I know that's a joke...but, no, it doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, the first thing I would expect my "body guards" to do, if someone was rapidly approaching me and yelling while holding a sign that obviously is "anti-me", would be restrain the person. Hold them back. Take them down to the ground, etc. That's just reasonable especially if you're a public figure head or celebrity.

Yeah, body guards should absolutely have done that.

A violent mob? Not so much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Huh?

I know that's a joke...but, no, it doesn't work like that.

I'm talking about Shakya's system not the law.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do.

rational courts (re: those in Canada) would disagree

we find shooting a robber fleeing a crime scene to be excessive use of force, beating someone for tapping me on the shoulder would clearly not be acceptable (and nor should it be)

Originally posted by inimalist
rational courts (re: those in Canada) would disagree

we find shooting a robber fleeing a crime scene to be excessive use of force, beating someone for tapping me on the shoulder would clearly not be acceptable (and nor should it be)


Beating someone for touching you in a way that you thought was an attack is inappropriate (legally, you can only do up to what was necessary to stop the attack...AKA, hit once and knock them out, it's done. If you continue, then you get charged with attempted murder. Dead serious. Perfect example: father struck his kid's coach and continued to hit him after he was knocked out. He killed the man. He got charged and convicted for manslaughter. Despite the fact that it was a "fight" between both of them.) Striking them, once, however, is not.

Shooting a robber that the "shooter" identifies or reliable evidence identifies that the "shooter" knew that the robber was not lethally armed is also illegal in some states. (Not Texas: apparently, you can shoot to kill after giving a fair warning.) Basically, if the shooter knows that robber is not going to hurt anyone and he shoots him in the back while the robber flees, that's illegal in most states.


So, neither of your examples actually fit with what I addressed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do.


Here's how it goes down:

Punched: I reached out to pat him on the back.

Puncher: He swung at me with a closed fist so I blocked it, and punched him right in the jaw. I thought I was being mugged.



This is why you can't touch someone unless they "like" it. You have a right to not be molested. RAGE!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Beating someone for touching you in a way that you thought was an attack is inappropriate (legally, you can only do up to what was necessary to stop the attack...AKA, hit once and knock them out, it's done. If you continue, then you get charged with attempted murder. Dead serious. Perfect example: father struck his kid's coach and continued to hit him after he was knocked out. He killed the man. He got charged and convicted for manslaughter. Despite the fact that it was a "fight" between both of them.) Striking them, once, however, is not.

Shooting a robber that the "shooter" identifies or reliable evidence identifies that the "shooter" knew that the robber was not lethally armed is also illegal in some states. (Not Texas: apparently, you can shoot to kill after giving a fair warning.) Basically, if the shooter knows that robber is not going to hurt anyone and he shoots him in the back while the robber flees, that's illegal in most states.


So, neither of your examples actually fit with what I addressed.

In what state is punching someone considered attempted murder?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
In what state is punching someone considered attempted murder?

When you punch a person that is knocked out.




Remember the controversy over that homeless guy that got beaten to death in the Dojo? The final kick, after the guy was knocked out, is where the 'attempted murder' charge came in.




Why does this not make sense?


Edit- Here's some of the vid.

wObjWdQBeA4


I'll try and find the original for you.


Here's the "original" vid, I think....

yRBxrXsrHmo

My mistake, I misread your post. I thought that you were saying that punching someone who isn't fighting back period could get you charged with attempted murder.

Though, even then I wonder how well that would fly in California. I think, it wouldn't in most cases.