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

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.