so far beyond "compassionate" conservatism it has gotten scary...

[acroyear]

Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on MoveOn Activist's Head (Video) | Focal Point | Big Think:

The Paul campaign is equivocating about something as basic as a curb stomping caught on video, issuing this smarmy statement:

We understand that there was an altercation outside of the debate between supporters of both sides and that is incredibly unfortunate. Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election.

The campaign is blaming the victim. The head stomp wasn't an altercation, i.e., a two-sided conflict. This was an attack. It wasn't just uncivil, it was criminal.

A candidate with a shred of integrity would denounce the attackers and apologize sincerely to the victim. Instead, Rand Paul is covering for his thugs.

Any campaign event can attract loose cannons. It's not necessarily the candidate's fault if someone wearing a campaign button gets violent. However, if this happens, it's the candidate's responsibility to unequivocally denounce the violent supporter and make it absolutely clear that his twisted values do not reflect those of the campaign. Paul isn't willing to do that. So, if they weren't his thugs before, they're his thugs now.

So, Rand Paul thinks that curb stomping is on par with street theater. Good to know.

As Mike The Mad noted, if this had been a Democratic party supporter being violent, it would have been the lead news item for a week (and probably killed the election for that candidate).  But this has barely gotten a footnote in the news...

The media had given the "real americans" who are violent, abusive, ignorant, hypocritical, and utterly self-righteous beyond any sense of normality a total free ride for the last 10 years, and because of that, they've merely gotten MORE violent, abusive, ignorant, hypocritical, and utterly self-righteous.

And quite frankly, I'm f'in' sick of it.

I just hope this free ride they've gotten ends sometime in my lifetime.

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm stunned you continue to argue this, but okay—let me go through this again.

All the people around her are Paul supporters. They're wearing his apparel and stickers.

They push her to the ground, tearing her wig off in the process. She has been to all appearances, peaceful—not one of the video crews has said anything about violence from her side. When she is ON THE GROUND, with the Paul supporters all over her, the goon with the blue shirt and baseball cap lifts his foot and stomps on her, his heel (which by the time it makes contact, is covered by the back end of his jeans) hitting her square in the head.

So you're arguing that all of those people were pretending to be Paul supporters, so as to reflect bad on the candidate? Really? Really?

Plus you argue that she is putting up "little resistance?" Might I remind you that there is a protest technique called "creative non-violence" which had been used historically going back to Mohandas Gandhi and some minister guy from Atlanta who got shot back in 1968?

Jay, please stop. You're going to all sorts of lengths to justify a blatant and violent attack on a woman who was guilty of nothing more than wearing a wig and carrying a sign. You've made the "she asked for it" defense, you've [falsely] claimed that if conservatives did this at an Obama rally, they'd lose teeth when in reality, right-wing protesters showed up—in any number of times, not an "isolated incident"—carrying weapons.

And let me remind you that I have worked for more than a few political candidates and campaigns, and carrying protest signs and wigs is not an invitation to violence in the America I live in. Of course, as I pointed out above, under the Republican president, people claiming to be Secret Service agents would gets protesters arrested and removed from public events, even when they had legitimately-procured tickets.

I won't even go into the right wing Senate candidate in Alaska, who used active-duty military personnel to "arrest" a credentialed journalist, violating both the law and (in their case) the UCMJ. And these are all candidates who claim [loudly and often] to respect the Constitution.

Please stop, Jay. You can't defend this one. Don't try.

Conservative supporters doing something stupid ensures a media frenzy. I've seen this one in three news feeds since breakfast. Liberal supporters doing the same, it gets quiet all of a sudden. Unless it's a slow day on Fox.

You're right—I haven't heard a single word about that Juan Williams guy. Not a word. No media firestorm, nothing.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm stunned you continue to argue this

Then why are you encouraging me?

They push her to the ground, tearing her wig off in the process.

Actually her wig was off long before she made it to the ground.

the goon with the blue shirt and baseball cap lifts his foot and stomps on her, his heel (which by the time it makes contact, is covered by the back end of his jeans) hitting her square in the head.

No kick, no stomp. Watch it again and pay some attention, Diego. He places his foot on her shoulder and pushes down. And he's not using a lot of force to do it.

So you're arguing that all of those people were pretending to be Paul supporters, so as to reflect bad on the candidate? Really? Really?

I'm saying it's a possibility. Moveon has done that kind of crap before, it could happen again.

Plus you argue that she is putting up "little resistance?" Might I remind you that there is a protest technique called "creative non-violence" which had been used historically going back to Mohandas Gandhi and some minister guy from Atlanta who got shot back in 1968?

Remind me all you like. Doesn't change that she doesn't look to be resisting all that much.

Jay, please stop.

No.

You're going to all sorts of lengths to justify a blatant and violent attack on a woman who was guilty of nothing more than wearing a wig and carrying a sign.

I'm saying that grainy, several-second long videos rarely tell the whole truth, no matter what it shows. I'm not justifying, I'm questioning.

You've made the "she asked for it" defense,

No I haven't. You and Zombie have put words in my mouth. Rather tacky of you.

you've [falsely] claimed that if conservatives did this at an Obama rally, they'd lose teeth when in reality, right-wing protesters showed up—in any number of times, not an "isolated incident"—carrying weapons.

None of the weapon-carriers tried to deliver a package to the candidate in question. You going to read everything I write or just pick and choose what you want to argue about?

Please stop, Jay. You can't defend this one. Don't try.

Watch me. So far you've given me strawman arguments, not paid attention to details I pointed out, and taken my comments out of context.

Right now all you're doing is feeding me crap in the twisted hope of turning me into a troll. I'm doing my best to resist (and trust me, I'm being far more polite than I normally am)

You're right—I haven't heard a single word about that Juan Williams guy. Not a word. No media firestorm, nothing.

You call that a firestorm? One, it's not, and two, it's a different topic entirely.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

I'm saying it's a possibility. Moveon has done that kind of crap before, it could happen again.

If MoveOn was able to get one of their operatives* installed as the county volunteer coordinator for the Paul campaign, do you really think that the best use of that sleeper agent* would be to stage an assault on another MoveOn protester?

*Spy language used ironically.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

I'm saying it's a possibility. Moveon has done that kind of crap before, it could happen again.

Prove it. Please. I'd like to see some evidence of this, even a citation.

I can see you're going to parse every statement. By saying that MoveOn supposedly pulled this crap before, you are, whether you use the exact words or not, claiming that their behavior warranted the response from the Paul supporters. Which is why we say you are arguing for blaming the victim. Just because you don't use the specific words, "I, jaythebarbarian, BLAME THE VICTIM," doesn't mean that you are not making the argument, my friend. Nothing warrants people pushing down a woman and then stepping on her. Stomping, stepping, "pushing down" or "putting"—it's arguing nits. It's battery, period.

Whether or not she resists matters? In what universe? Non-violence training tells you not to resist, because if you do, you get injured worse. Your argument here seems to be, "So what?" Which puts you in the position of defending the bullies. I doubt that's the position you want to be in.

None of the weapon-carriers tried to deliver a package to the candidate in question. You going to read everything I write or just pick and choose what you want to argue about?

Package or not is immaterial. You just made another argument ("approaching a political candidate while wearing a wig and carrying an anonymous gift is a good way to get yourself jumped, but security or otherwise") that it's her fault for getting jumped because she was carrying "an award." Said "award" was a sign, not a package. By your langage, "gift," you're painting it worse than what it was, which gives you license to say that she might be taken down for cause. People had less when Bush was president; I repeat, they had tee shirts and bumper stickers. In many cases they weren't even allowed to be within blocks of the president. And now you say that under Obama it would be worse than that, when they were showing up with guns? You still haven't yet made a case. You're projecting.

Already the dude who did it (whose heel contacted her head; I've watched the video more than a dozen times now), has been identified as the Bourbon County coordinator for the Paul campaign, who the campaign has already cut loose (which tells me that he's guilty as sin—why fire him if he didn't do anything wrong?).

Right now all you're doing is feeding me crap in the twisted hope of turning me into a troll. I'm doing my best to resist (and trust me, I'm being far more polite than I normally am)

I'm not trying to "turn you into a troll," and I'd prefer you not characterize my motives, and I'll try to do the same for you. :)

You call that a firestorm? One, it's not, and two, it's a different topic entirely.

This is called, "providing an example to buttress my argument." I find it would be hard to describe what might be a firestorm without giving some sort of example. Especially if it were on another topic. But I guess what constitutes a "firestorm" is probably a judgment call, subject to one's viewpoint.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

ok, since you're a fan of caps, let me spell it out.

I, JAYTHEBARBARIAN, DO NOT FUCKING KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED!

By bringing up the mere possibility that this incident could be more than what it seems, you seem convinced that I'm blaming the victim.

Speaking as someone who's been shot at more times than anyone in this thread has had good sex, any violent incident can and often does contain more than meets the eye. I'm pointing that out. Nothing more.

Nothing warrants people pushing down a woman and then stepping on her.

The fuck it doesn't. Mitigating circumstances happen. They might not have here (and most likely didn't) but it's still a possibility.

why fire him if he didn't do anything wrong?

Two words: ass covering.

If this is what it seems, then yeah, fuck this guy and the other one, throw the book at them both.

As far as citations, I wish I still had mine lying around from during the campaign, but I deleted most in disgust as bigger things came up in my life. And not to be offensive, but I don't think stubbornly trying to prove a point to you is worth the effort it would take for me to dig them up again. Ditto the citations on what's been done to protesters under Bush Vis-a-vis Obama, respectively.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

I dunno.

I've had a lot of good sex in my almost-forty nine years.

;)

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

I was 'bout to say. I'm not even THIRTY yet and I challenge that statement.