Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Thankfully the Rand Paul has kick out Man for his behaviorFollow

#1 Oct 26 2010 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Really nothing excuses the behavior of the Rand Paul supporters treatment of Lauren Valle of MoveOn.org at the Conway - Paul debates. Thankfully calmer heads prevail and banned Mr Tim Profitt from working as an volunteer for the Rand Paul Campaign.

Relevant article.
Quote:

Woman stomped outside Conway-Paul debate
Posted: Oct 25, 2010 9:58 PM EDT

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB Fox 41) -- A supporter for U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is apologizing for an incident in which video shows him stomping on a liberal activist's head.

Tim Profitt is a volunteer with the Paul campaign. He tells the Associated Press that the camera angle made the scuffle look worse than it was. Profitt also criticized police for not stepping in, and he says other supporters warned authorities about the activist.

The Rand Paul campaign has cut ties with Profitt, removing him as Bourbon County campaign coordinator and banning him from campaign events.

Lauren Valle was representing the liberal organization MoveOn.org and claimed to be presenting Paul with an award from RepubliCorp. That's a group created by MoveOn.org that focuses on what it calls the merger between corporate America and the Republican Party.

"I'm here to present Rand Paul with the 'Employee of the Month' award, however his supporters were not very nice to me and my message which is same as everyone else. I got my head stepped on and I have a bit of a headache," said Lauren Valle, MoveOn.org.

The woman denied police were involved, but afterwards officers pulled her aside to question her about the incident. Lexington police have viewed the Fox 41 video and are investigating whether to charge Profitt.

Moveon.org's executive director released a statement, saying "We're appalled at the violent incident that occurred at the Kentucky Senate debate last night. This kind of violence has no place in American society, much less at a peaceful political rally."

Paul's campaign released its own statement saying in part, "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."




[i]While I have much reason to not like Fox cable news, I do think many of the local stations have great local coverage of the news. There are times when I can count on Fox 45 here in Baltimore to cover the news here faster then other stations.[/i]


There is video available taken by Fox41 news at the event.


Though I got to wonder why the supporters thought the police should be called so to stop her for being there, as was her right to be there at the Debate. Somehow people forget the Right to Free Speech protects the right of those we don't agree with, to voice their views too.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2 Oct 26 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I find it amusing that Moveon.org of all organizations has a bogus "award" they present to Republicans designed to make them appear to be cronies of fat cat corporations. The irony is staggering...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3 Oct 26 2010 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
I'm curious, Elne, did you have the same level of indignation when union members were beating up old people at town hall meetings for daring to express an opinion about the health care legislation last year? I certainly don't remember you making any posts about how awful it was. Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
#4 Oct 26 2010 at 2:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I was going to make a point about how it would be nice if the Democrats would kick their candidate out for his behavior during the debate itself. While I'm not a huge Rand Paul supporter, I think that Conway's attack has got to be the most embarrassing display of classlessness I've ever seen in a candidate. It's one thing to toss innuendos and repeat rumors and unfounded allegations in press statements and political ads. But to bring it up in a debate? How far does someone have to be down the "I don't have anything to say to win people over" path in order to stoop to that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5 Oct 26 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
I'm curious, Elne, did you have the same level of indignation when union members were beating up old people at town hall meetings for daring to express an opinion about the health care legislation last year? I certainly don't remember you making any posts about how awful it was. Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
What's even funnier is that even when you try to play the hypocrisy card you still don't condemn the action yourself. It was a dipshit move for him to do. By the way, why was she being tackled in the first place? Because of a stupid sign? Why didn't she have the right to be there?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#6 Oct 26 2010 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Moe I'm just as discusted at the fact that Democrates beat up protesters to the health care law that was being debated at the time. I don't add my voice on every issue that comes across the Asylum and debated often to death.

What people don't know is the fact that if I don't post it may be due to the fact that I'm feeling depress and don't want to be social. I'm posting today *** I am trying to kick myself in the pants, to get myself through the depression brought on by the season and awful weather we been having.

Sometimes I feel like my goal is being the longest active Asylumite with the lowest post count.

And welcome back Moe, I miss your sane right wing posts after months of just the Nuts we Lefties normally have to debate with.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#7 Oct 26 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
bsphil wrote:
What's even funnier is that even when you try to play the hypocrisy card you still don't condemn the action yourself. It was a dipshit move for him to do. By the way, why was she being tackled in the first place? Because of a stupid sign? Why didn't she have the right to be there?

I also don't typically comment on how wrong it is to rape people and decry murder of 3 children and their mother because you had a bad day. Mostly I leave the obvious for people like you who feel that the discussion must begin with expounding on the societal norms in order to have merit.

I don't know anything about this story outside of what I read in link, but I am none the less amused with there even being a story about it somewhere outside purely partisan venues because that's the only place where the violence of the President's supporters was detailed during the health care debate. Now, suddenly, the actions of supporters is worthy of network news coverage.

EDIT: F'uck me I can't quote today.

Edited, Oct 26th 2010 4:16pm by MoebiusLord
#8 Oct 26 2010 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I was going to make a point about how it would be nice if the Democrats would kick their candidate out for his behavior during the debate itself. While I'm not a huge Rand Paul supporter, I think that Conway's attack has got to be the most embarrassing display of classlessness I've ever seen in a candidate. It's one thing to toss innuendos and repeat rumors and unfounded allegations in press statements and political ads. But to bring it up in a debate? How far does someone have to be down the "I don't have anything to say to win people over" path in order to stoop to that?

Pals around with terrorists. Right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Oct 26 2010 at 5:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I was going to make a point about how it would be nice if the Democrats would kick their candidate out for his behavior during the debate itself. While I'm not a huge Rand Paul supporter, I think that Conway's attack has got to be the most embarrassing display of classlessness I've ever seen in a candidate. It's one thing to toss innuendos and repeat rumors and unfounded allegations in press statements and political ads. But to bring it up in a debate? How far does someone have to be down the "I don't have anything to say to win people over" path in order to stoop to that?

Pals around with terrorists. Right.


Get back to me when it's discovered that Rand Paul's first campaign kick off party was held at the Agua Buddha's home. Cause then we'd have some kind of comparison.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Oct 26 2010 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As much fun as watching you spaz around saying "No! It's DIFFERENT!!" would be, the simple fact is that McCain's gloaming onto that attack line and trying to hammer it home was seen as pathetic desperation. If you want to make yourself feel better by pretending otherwise, have fun with it. I know I will.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11gbaji, Posted: Oct 26 2010 at 8:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Pretending? Um... take off those partisan glasses for a moment. No one has denied Ayers involvement in a terrorist organization. No one has denied that years later Ayers and Obama worked for/with the same political organizations and walked the same political circles. No one has denied that Ayers helped get Obama's political career off the ground. The only disagreement is how relevant this is to Obama's own political positions. And that's pretty much going to differ based on people's own political slant.
#12 Oct 26 2010 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But I'm sure you'll disagree.

Tee-hee.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Oct 26 2010 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But I'm sure you'll disagree.

Tee-hee.


So you condemn McCain's statements, but not Conway's?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Oct 26 2010 at 11:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not saying I'm condemning anything. I'm laughing at you saying "OMG! I've never seen such a desperate display at a debate! How embarrassing!"

Edit: I don't really give a wet slap about Conway and, by most accounts, his ads trying to use the Aqua Buddah thing are pretty stupid and ineffective.

Edited, Oct 27th 2010 12:25am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Oct 27 2010 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
I was following the story last night on MSNBC, were it was top story on nearly all the shows but Rachel Maddow's. She went to Alaska to speak to the candidates for the Senate. Watching Miller try to avoid answering her questions while he walked from the roof down to his SUV, was funny in a very sad way. His supporters were filled with anger about things they couldn't give reasons for. Specially when they tried to paint Eric Holder as someone who voted against the 2nd amendment.

While I can see how the Right is trying to make it look like he only step on her shoulder, careful review of the tape and the fact that it was confirmed she has a concussion, prove that Tim Profitt's boot did connect with her head. The hood of her jacket is partly covering her head and all of her neck and that is where the heel of his boot came down on her. Yet he feels what he did wasn't much and Lauren Valle owes him an ApologySmiley: oyvey

The more I listen to these Tea Party supporters the more I think they could use a good Civics and American Government and History class. Though it may have to be taught at the 5th grade level so some of them will be able to understand the lessons.

Just watching the video several times today I feel the Rand Paul supporters look like kids bullying a nerd. Adults should be able to think before they act out their aggression. It's a basic coping skill taught in anger management and coping skills, yet few of the people with anger issues get treatment for it. Those I know who have after being lock up, work hard to learn how to cope and not let their anger control their actions.

I have a lot more to say over this but then maybe the Angle, Illegal Alien ads and Whitman's wanting to return Calif. back to when it was a great state 30 years ago, ad needs a separate thread. Jerry Brown's new Ad showing just a bit of Whitman's ad were she made the 30 year ago statement is a great ad.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#16 Oct 27 2010 at 9:54 AM Rating: Decent
ElneClare wrote:
The more I listen to these Tea Party supporters the more I think they could use a good Civics and American Government and History class. Though it may have to be taught at the 5th grade level so some of them will be able to understand the lessons.

No more than some Democrat members of Congress that I've heard speak over the last 4 years, Elne. It's one thing for a man on the street to not have a firm grasp on 2 centuries of divergent court rulings & precedent, but for elected representatives to not care what the constitution says is something else entirely.
#17 Oct 27 2010 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
ElneClare wrote:
The more I listen to these Tea Party supporters the more I think they could use a good Civics and American Government and History class. Though it may have to be taught at the 5th grade level so some of them will be able to understand the lessons.

No more than some Democrat members of Congress that I've heard speak over the last 4 years, Elne. It's one thing for a man on the street to not have a firm grasp on 2 centuries of divergent court rulings & precedent, but for elected representatives to not care what the constitution says is something else entirely.
The Tea Party has produced very few candidates that seem to have anything resembling a firm grasp on the Constitution and court rulings. To avoid the same situation - lets just not let them be elected.
#18REDACTED, Posted: Oct 27 2010 at 10:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I would wager that the Tea Party candidates have a better understanding of the constitution than most of their opponents. Christine O'Donnell, for instance (for as much of a train wreck she has been otherwise), at least understands that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. The modern construct of effectively barring any government entity from any contribution (direct money, space for a display, etc.) to any religion or religious group is based largely on opinions from post WWII Supreme Courts.
#19 Oct 27 2010 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
The Tea Party has produced very few candidates that seem to have anything resembling a firm grasp on the Constitution and court rulings. To avoid the same situation - lets just not let them be elected.

I would wager that the Tea Party candidates have a better understanding of the constitution than most of their opponents. Christine O'Donnell, for instance (for as much of a train wreck she has been otherwise), at least understands that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. The modern construct of effectively barring any government entity from any contribution (direct money, space for a display, etc.) to any religion or religious group is based largely on opinions from post WWII Supreme Courts.
So you're saying that court rulings have interpreted the first amendment as a separation of church and state? Huh. Imagine that.
#20REDACTED, Posted: Oct 27 2010 at 10:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Moebius,
#21REDACTED, Posted: Oct 27 2010 at 10:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lilwoc,
#22 Oct 27 2010 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
The Tea Party has produced very few candidates that seem to have anything resembling a firm grasp on the Constitution and court rulings. To avoid the same situation - lets just not let them be elected.

I would wager that the Tea Party candidates have a better understanding of the constitution than most of their opponents. Christine O'Donnell, for instance (for as much of a train wreck she has been otherwise), at least understands that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution.


Nope, but there's a thing called judicial review, and the SCotUS has established that the first amendment does in fact create such a separation. It's nice to say "It doesn't say those exact words"... but it's meaningless, because it's ignoring the reality that such a separation is well-established based on the first amendment. I mean, what was her point? Why mention it if it's irrelevant? Reading text is fine - a second grader can do it. Not knowing, or (worse) ignoring, crucial court cases is pretty much a complete lack of understanding.
#23 Oct 27 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
LeWoVoc wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
The Tea Party has produced very few candidates that seem to have anything resembling a firm grasp on the Constitution and court rulings. To avoid the same situation - lets just not let them be elected.

I would wager that the Tea Party candidates have a better understanding of the constitution than most of their opponents. Christine O'Donnell, for instance (for as much of a train wreck she has been otherwise), at least understands that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. The modern construct of effectively barring any government entity from any contribution (direct money, space for a display, etc.) to any religion or religious group is based largely on opinions from post WWII Supreme Courts.
So you're saying that court rulings have interpreted the first amendment as a separation of church and state? Huh. Imagine that.

That is exactly what I am saying. The modern construct is not in the constitution, and is actually contrary to the state of the country when the constitution was written and ratified. As several states did have an established religion at the time it seems fairly clear that the modern "separation doctrine" is not as intended.

#24REDACTED, Posted: Oct 27 2010 at 10:50 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elne,
#25REDACTED, Posted: Oct 27 2010 at 10:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kao has asked me not to step on his admins in public, so if you can't at least educate yourself on a particular point before engaging, do me a favor and cork it so I don't have to call you a f'ucking moron. I'd like to point out that I am not calling you a f'ucking moron at this time because that would be rude. I am simply asking you not to put me in a position of needing to call you a f'ucking moron.
#26 Oct 27 2010 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Nope, but there's a thing called judicial review, and the SCotUS has established that the first amendment does in fact create such a separation. It's nice to say "It doesn't say those exact words"... but it's meaningless, because it's ignoring the reality that such a separation is well-established based on the first amendment. I mean, what was her point? Why mention it if it's irrelevant? Reading text is fine - a second grader can do it. Not knowing, or (worse) ignoring, crucial court cases is pretty much a complete lack of understanding.

Kao has asked me not to step on his admins in public, so if you can't at least educate yourself on a particular point before engaging, do me a favor and cork it so I don't have to call you a f'ucking moron. I'd like to point out that I am not calling you a f'ucking moron at this time because that would be rude. I am simply asking you not to put me in a position of needing to call you a f'ucking moron.


Shall I restate the criticism? The Constitution does not say there is a separation of church and state verbatim. It has been interpreted to mean there is such by the Supreme Court, and her denying as much seems to show a startling disconnect from reality. Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution." However, she did not say this during the debates, and your point that she understands not only the Constitution, but the cases around it, seems very flawed if she would press the exact wording if the reality of the amendment itself is more than that.

And I don't mind how you refer to me, but I also don't dole out punishments.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 286 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (286)