Rand Paul, intolerant loser

[clyde]

Everyone go to bed!!



GoodNightypoo-kins has sounded!

[Antitrust32]

After reading the moveon womans' account of the events, it looks like both parties are at fault.

In no way could it seem like it is premeditated (the pushing her to the ground thing). You can tell by the description exactly what both sides intention were.

The move on bitc.h had one purpose.. and it wasnt innocent. Her goal was to be as close to Paul as possible and get a picture of him with her stupid sign in the background so she could use it as propaganda.

Once the dumb-ass Paul supporters saw her, they knew exactly what her intent was. They did not agree with her purpose and wanted to stop it. So they did a non-violent act and stood infront of her when Paul drove up so she couldnt get her dumb sign in the picture.

She, being a crazy bitc.h like it seems she is (only crazy bitc.hes travel around the country with stupid signs), she decides to highten the situation and run around the people who stood in front of her to block the sign.. and run in the direction of Paul. If she would have just stayed where she was, and didnt run around towards Rand Paul, I would bet a lot of $ she would have not been pushed to the ground.

So then the dumbass Paul supporters take off after the crazy bitc.h & the rest is history. No man ever has the right push a woman to the ground, & there is no doubt that those few Paul supporters were dumbasses. But the moveon bitc.h is certainly no way innocent. She provoked the incident and ususally when people take off running towards a politician they end up on the ground. Both parties involved are epic failures.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

After reading the moveon womans' account of the events, it looks like both parties are at fault.

In no way could it seem like it is premeditated (the pushing her to the ground thing). You can tell by the description exactly what both sides intention were.

The move on bitc.h had one purpose.. and it wasnt innocent. Her goal was to be as close to Paul as possible and get a picture of him with her stupid sign in the background so she could use it as propaganda.

Once the dumb-ass Paul supporters saw her, they knew exactly what her intent was. They did not agree with her purpose and wanted to stop it. So they did a non-violent act and stood infront of her when Paul drove up so she couldnt get her dumb sign in the picture.

She, being a crazy bitc.h like it seems she is (only crazy bitc.hes travel around the country with stupid signs), she decides to highten the situation and run around the people who stood in front of her to block the sign.. and run in the direction of Paul. If she would have just stayed where she was, and didnt run around towards Rand Paul, I would bet a lot of $ she would have not been pushed to the ground.

So then the dumbass Paul supporters take off after the crazy bitc.h & the rest is history. No man ever has the right push a woman to the ground, & there is no doubt that those few Paul supporters were dumbasses. But the moveon bitc.h is certainly no way innocent. She provoked the incident and ususally when people take off running towards a politician they end up on the ground. Both parties involved are epic failures.

[geeker2]

I'm not saying he should'a stomped her....

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/ch...19h8S3VukVX-Rw

[Riot]

After reading the moveon womans' account of the events, it looks like both parties are at fault.

If you ever attend a public gay rights rally, and you hold up a sign touting gay rights while standing next to a crowd of ignorant rednecks, and they grab you, throw you to the ground and stomp on you - well, I hope you remember you are at fault for that.

[geeker2]

Sorry Riot - but the truth shall set you free..the women would appear to be a LIAR


http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2...ead-stomp-vid/

I didn't see any other protesters/supporters charge the SUV. Of course that's no excuse for the shoulder smash!

Giggidy giggidy giggidy!!

[geeker2]

She should thank the guy in the video that tried to put her blonde wig back on -

Those moveover people have no couth !!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Sorry Riot - but the truth shall set you free..the women would appear to be a LIAR


http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2...ead-stomp-vid/

Liar? LOL - this exactly matches her description of what happened.

If that was the start of it (holding up a sign they don't like to the car, which is perfectly legal, btw) - that further verifies her version of events - where they subsequently chase her all around the car to take her down. Only it adds being singled out, roughed up and jerked away from the car at the start of it all, too.

These guys are doomed in court.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Riot

Liar? LOL - this exactly matches her description of what happened.

If that was the start of it (holding up a sign they don't like to the car, which is perfectly legal, btw) - that further verifies her version of events - where they subsequently chase her all around the car to take her down. Only it adds being singled out, roughed up and jerked away from the car at the start of it all, too.

These guys are doomed in court.

Did she not stick the sign into the open window of the SUV?

I thought she said she was an innocent bystander - just standing there holding her sign?

[clyde]

Ralphy...Riot's rear view mirror.



She sees what she wants to see,whether anything's closer to her than anything appears to be...or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Did she not stick the sign into the open window of the SUV?

I thought she said she was an innocent bystander - just standing there holding her sign?

It matches exactly what she said happened. It further verifies her veracity.

She said she went up to the car - you can see suits rushing up to push her away (although they didn't push away the Rand sign guys right next to her, of course).

Then take all the time it takes for Paul to get out of the car, etc (where the other full-length video picks up) - meanwhile the volunteer goons are chasing her around the car (which is exactly what she said happened) and pull her back and down to the ground and stomp on her. There are two Lexington PD standing right next to Paul as he gets out of the car.

They tried to get the police to get her out of there beforehand - Proffitt foolishly admitted it - and the police of course said no reason to get her away (because it is, you know, entirely legal to protest political candidates). They knew this girl from previous Rand Paul events.

So the absolute rush to pull her back by the suits - that just plays into her hands about them deciding to target her beforehand. And after they push her back about 10 feet (shown on your tape) - the goons take it up and continue chasing her around the car, finally taking her down and stomping on her?

That makes it WORSE for the goons - she already is no longer any possible "threat" (not that holding up a political sign is justification for assault in the USA in the first place)

You know who revealed the names of Tim Proffitt and Mike Pezzano to the police, in response to the pictures posted on blogs taken from the tape, and from cell phone pics taken by other Rand supporter people there who couldn't believe what was going on?

Female Kentucky Tea Party members who were disgusted by what happened.

And the main blog responsible for identifying these guys was the blog of a Rand Paul supporter who was at the event, and made sure he got good pictures of the guys faces immediately afterwards.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Liar? LOL - this exactly matches her description of what happened.

If that was the start of it (holding up a sign they don't like to the car, which is perfectly legal, btw) - that further verifies her version of events - where they subsequently chase her all around the car to take her down. Only it adds being singled out, roughed up and jerked away from the car at the start of it all, too.

These guys are doomed in court.

you really are an idiot

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you really are an idiot

And you're a snarky bitch with self-esteem issues. And stupid. So?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you ever attend a public gay rights rally, and you hold up a sign touting gay rights while standing next to a crowd of ignorant rednecks, and they grab you, throw you to the ground and stomp on you - well, I hope you remember you are at fault for that.

not exactly the same... in fact totally different (not that I expect anything else from you)

If I attend a Catholic rally in rainbow chaps and decide to rush the Pope, I will expect to get pushed to the ground and held down.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

not exactly the same... in fact totally different (not that I expect anything else from you)

If I attend a Catholic rally in rainbow chaps and decide to rush the Pope, I will expect to get pushed to the ground and held down.

But I"ll bet you don't expect, after you get pushed away from the Pope and that threat is gone, to be continued to be chased by the crowd, and held down and stomped on by other attendees who decide they are now in charge of "security"?

Hard to run fast in chaps, btw ....

You could attend a Rand Paul rally and propose gay rights, and I'm sure you will get shoved to the ground. Our next Senator doesn't believe in gay rights. I'm angry over that for you. It's not fair. You sex life is none of his business. How dare he throw his religion over your rights as a person. Of course, according to you I'm just an idiot, so probably Rand Paul is right on that.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

But I"ll bet you don't expect, after you get pushed away from the Pope and that threat is gone, to be continued to be chased by the crowd, and held down and stomped on by other attendees who decide they are now in charge of "security"?.

If she ran around the Pope mobile she surely would be wrestled down.

Originally Posted by Riot

Our next Senator doesn't believe in gay rights..

Are you admitting defeat? And where does Rand say he wants to be involved in gay people's sex lives?

[Riot]

Are you admitting defeat?

Defeat? Rand's been way ahead in the polls since forever - I doubt there is any way he could lose.

And where does Rand say he wants to be involved in gay people's sex lives?

Uh ... his long history of statements demonstrating his anti-gay stance? Duh.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

But I"ll bet you don't expect, after you get pushed away from the Pope and that threat is gone, to be continued to be chased by the crowd, and held down and stomped on by other attendees who decide they are now in charge of "security"?

Hard to run fast in chaps, btw ....

You could attend a Rand Paul rally and propose gay rights, and I'm sure you will get shoved to the ground. Our next Senator doesn't believe in gay rights. I'm angry over that for you. It's not fair. You sex life is none of his business. How dare he throw his religion over your rights as a person. Of course, according to you I'm just an idiot, so probably Rand Paul is right on that.

you're not JUST an idiot.. you are many other things also!!

I dont agree with Rand Paul about gay rights. I also wont be voting for anyone in Kentucky.. I'll probably be voting for Marco Rubio down here in Florida. He also I'm sure doesnt support gay rights. Gay rights may mean something to me, but it really doesnt affect my vote, because neither Republicans or Democrats do anything to help advance gay rights. Everything has been the same with obama and the Dem congress since 2006 than it was the 6 years prior to 2006. Obama says he's for gay rights, but his office asks for a Stay on DADT... and his Justice department released some very unkind words about gays in the past that I'm sure you remember. Dems will cater to the gays when they want their vote... but I dont see them actually doing anything about it. If Obama ever does get DADT out of the law books, I'll give him his props.. but he needs to actually come through on that before he is given the benefit of the doubt.

I dont vote based on abortion or gay rights. A lot of republicans have no problem with gays. Unfortunately, the ones who run for office seem to have to cater to the ignorant religious folks. But even when they had all the branches of the government for 6 years, no new anti-gay laws were put in place.. they just carried on Clinton's laws. (a dem, btw).

Gay rights will be sorted out in time. this type of "change" doesnt occur over night. The vast majority of today's youth are accepting and rational. Old people will die off pretty soon.

IMO, there are much more important matters going on in this country to vote for someone based on gay rights, when I know said someone isnt going to do anything for or against gay rights anyway.

That is why I'll vote conservative. I dont care for either party, but the conservatives are slightly less of an evil. only slightly though.


Now when it comes to the issue of crazy moveon bitc.h.. I'm sure you saw in my post where I said the Rand Paul guys are dumbasses, and that no man ever has the right to push a woman to the ground. You ignored that part as usual. But if you think that this woman was just some innocent victim, than we really dont have anything to discuss about this topic. You cant do what she did and expect people to just watch you thrust signs into Senate Candidates windows. If I would have done that, I would have expected to be restrained. Plus, I'd be willing to bet that all adults have been pushed to the ground at one point in their life... this story does not deserve all the attention it is getting.

[Riot]

I dont vote based on abortion or gay rights.

You get what you vote for. Looks like you are willing to lose rights you have right now. Your choice.