Win or lose, MANY TEA PARTIERS ARE INELIGEBLE TO HOLD OFFICE!

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.