Rand Paul, intolerant loser

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Silly? Her whole shtick is to provoke what happened to her in order to swing voters to her candidate/agenda. To not have reservations about the validity of that video would be borderline naive.

How does one provoke someone to step on their head? Provocation for votes is one thing that I'm not particularly fond of, but it's not like you can just provoke someone into throwing you to the ground and stepping on your head when you're already completely neutralized.

You know what would have kept her from getting her head stepped on? Not a lack of provocation on her part, but if there wasn't someone around who was willing to step on a woman's head. That whole personal responsibility thing that conservatives pretend to love rears its ugly head again.

Oops.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

How does one provoke someone to step on their head? Provocation for votes is one thing that I'm not particularly fond of, but it's not like you can just provoke someone into throwing you to the ground and stepping on your head when you're already completely neutralized.

You know what would have kept her from getting her head stepped on? Not a lack of provocation on her part, but if there wasn't someone around who was willing to step on a woman's head. That whole personal responsibility thing that conservatives pretend to love rears its ugly head again.

Oops.

Dude you're being dense just to be right. Or maybe you are a complete idiot. Who knows. Don't care enough to continue this conversation with a simplistic robot.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Dude you're being dense just to be right. Or maybe you are a complete idiot. Who knows. Don't care enough to continue this conversation with a simplistic robot.

Dense? Would her head have been stepped on when she was in an unthreatening position if there wasn't some jackhole around who was willing to step on her head?

That's simplistic, of course. But the main reason why is that the reason is SIMPLE, so by nature, it's a simplistic argument.

Her head didn't go get itself stepped on. Or maybe it did, and I'm too simple and dense to understand how those kinds of things happen. I don't care if she has a concussion or whether she just had to experience it...it's pretty wild watching you make excuses for public violence towards a woman just because "both sides have crazy people."

And I'm the dense and simplistic one. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Dense? Would her head have been stepped on when she was in an unthreatening position if there wasn't some jackhole around who was willing to step on her head?

That's simplistic, of course. But the main reason why is that the reason is SIMPLE, so by nature, it's a simplistic argument.

Her head didn't go get itself stepped on. Or maybe it did, and I'm too simple and dense to understand how those kinds of things happen. I don't care if she has a concussion or whether she just had to experience it...it's pretty wild watching you make excuses for public violence towards a woman just because "both sides have crazy people."

And I'm the dense and simplistic one. Sheesh.

So now it's acceptable behavior to put on a wig, make a sign with bad liberal humor, travel from Massachusetts on company dime, and have a gotcha moment with a politician?

Consequences for actions, Brian. Not everything is cut and dry in the wild. There are laws but the government hasn't put a chip in our heads to remind us how to behave. If they did this incident would of never have happened.

It happened. You have two people with a financial interest in the election. Their livelihoods will benefit if their candidate gets elected. These people are desperate. This isn't some Utopia we're in right now and if you aren't aware of your actions in public and you don't realize the consequences then there is a chance you will end up on the ground with a foot on your shoulder.

And I'm giving MoveOn.org the benefit of the doubt here. They can't be so retarded that they've never considered their actions could lead to an occasional physical altercation.

Of course I could be the naive one and maybe the Repubcorp sign or whatever the f.uck it said was all they were going for. But then I'd have to sniff lots of gas for that to happen so I'll go with the first one.

[brianwspencer]

Well we completely disagree on that. It's not Utopian to think that people should be able to control themselves and behave like human beings, even if provoked (and hilariously enough, especially when that provocation involves a wig and holding a sign....some extreme provocation in the big picture, we agree on that, at least).

It's the same exact argument in a different sphere that women should be aware of what they wear in public and how much they drink so they don't get raped by people prone to raping women and trying to blame their outfit or intoxication for forcing them to grab the woman off a street and force them into an alley.

These things happen because there is someone willing to do them, not because someone wore a short skirt, or wore a wig and held a sign to get a gotcha moment with a politician. That's just absolving people of personal responsibility and the duty to have some common decency and self-restraint towards other people.

The absence of people who were willing to be violent towards each other would guarantee that they wouldn't happen. That's not Utopian, that's the truth. If people can't control themselves and keep themselves from harming each other, it's THEIR fault, plain and simple, and passing the blame in even the slightest way to the person they attacked is horrid.

We can disagree on that, but it's hardly naive to expect people to control themselves, and in turn, expect them to take ALL the responsibility for it when they don't.

And he will be punished for it.

We just fundamentally disagree on the human condition...correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that humans, for the most part, are lousy and beyond changing. You seem to believe that this can change and expect the best out of everyone.

Well it would be nice. I'd like to live like a polygamist without the religion and inbreeding but realize it's never going to happen...just like humans will never be truly civilized.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

And he will be punished for it.

We just fundamentally disagree on the human condition...correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that humans, for the most part, are lousy and beyond changing. You seem to believe that this can change and expect the best out of everyone.

Well it would be nice. I'd like to live like a polygamist without the religion and inbreeding but realize it's never going to happen...just like humans will never be truly civilized.

I agree that lots of humans are lousy and pitiful...but I don't believe that that's an excuse for violence or not having to be responsible for it.

[Riot]

Here's what MoveOn.org does: They dress up like businessmen and hold up signs. They don't yell, don't provoke, they are completely passive. The woman was holding the "Rand Paul Employee of The Month" sign.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/moveon/...44709765/show/

This showed these Rand Paul supporters involved in KY for exactly what they are - intolerant, physically violent losers. Wearing "Don't Tread On Me" stickers. Hypocritical morons who talk one story about liberty and freedom, yet physically assault a passive woman holding a sign they don't like at a public rally.

The conversation should be about how much people like Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck should take responsibility for ginning up the base to physical violence and "Second Amendment Remedies" if the democratic political process doesn't turn out the way they want.