October 27, 2010

Yes, yes, I know there was that eye-catching "head stomping" to talk about yesterday...

... but that just highlights the lack of anything serious in the political news this week.

Yes, yes, I know that liberals would like to purvey the notion that tea partiers are violent and that incident fit their template, but:

1. One data point proves nothing about a large group (unless you follow the thinking style of bigotry).

2. The "violent Tea Party" meme has been pushed since the very beginning of the Tea Party movement, so it's nothing new. And the failure to pick up enough data points to look anything like a pattern is glaringly obvious.

3. The MoveOn.org woman came to the event to create an incident and caused the Ron Paul's supporters to worry about his safety, so that violent incident was prompted by the urge to defend, in which case even that one incident isn't a data point that fits the gapingly empty template.

4. "A person in a disguise, carrying a sign from a radical organization, tries to push through the crowd to hand a political opponent an unknown object.  What would the Secret Service have done to her?"
Indeed!

5. I bet some of you, reading #4, thought of saying: "Person"?! It was a woman. How threatening could a woman be? But:
A: That's sexist. You think women cannot be dangerous?

B: Squeaky Fromme, Sara Jane Moore. It happens.
6. Are we really going to elevate every prank and beating to a political event deserving analysis? That "stomping" had nothing do with anything worth thinking about in deciding who to vote for. If that counted as substance, it's evidence of the extreme dearth of substance this week.

7. And let me say one more thing to those who delighted in what they imagined was the political usefulness of the "stomping" incident. There is a big rally in Washington this weekend that will draw many thousands of persons. Within that throng of presumed liberals and lefties, there will be all sorts of characters, with their diverse problems and motivations. You don't know who will act up, what foolishly overstated signs they will carry, and what provocations will lead someone with clouded judgment or poor impulse control to do something that will look awful on video. That will happen 3 days before the election, leaving very little time to explain. If that happens, you will want to eat all the words you've been saying about the stomper.

ADDED: New video shows the aggressive behavior of the woman — Lauren Valle — that took place before the men took her down. 

428 comments:

1 – 200 of 428   Newer›   Newest»
Salamandyr said...

I called the sexism bit early on.

AlphaLiberal said...

The MoveOn.org woman came to the event to create an incident and caused the Ron Paul's supporters to worry about his safety

Bullshit. What an idiotic statement. Even the offender has not claimed that he was worried about his safety.

She came there to exercise her free speech.

Disgusting, althouse.

Salamandyr said...

By pushing her way over to a Congressman, trampling over his free speech rights, in a bid to co-opt him to make her own point.

Yep, she's a real winner.

bagoh20 said...

"She came there to exercise her free speech.
"


So did everyone else, but imagine if they all wore disguises and rushed the candidate. What if a thousand wingnuts tries that with Obama? Got any problem with that "free speech."

Michael said...

Alpha Liberal: For a definition of "stomped" I would come back a week from today when the stomping will be evident. And it won't be one little sissy foot push. It will be a real stomping. Meaning: stompstompstompstomp on and on more than fifty times.

TRO said...

"Even the offender has not claimed that he was worried about his safety."

True, he didn't say he was worried about his own safety. He said he was worried the candidate's safety.

And Ann is correct, the Secret Service would have detained her for showing up as she did. More professionally no doubt, but in the end she would not have gotten near the candidate.

shoutingthomas said...

Alpha,

How do you survive with your panties up your ass all the time?

What's your blood pressure?

You're face must be red and swollen and ready to explode.

Smoke a reefer or something.

Daniel said...

I don't really care about any of these points. I don't and won't draw any larger conclusions from the stomping incident. I'm just totally disgusted by somebody who always rails about needing video evidence for any Tea Party slight, watching that video and:

-calling it fake;
-calling assault restraint;
-never questioning the account of the stomper (sorry, the cushioner) despite no video evidence for it (and you still haven't);
-set up a logical sequence that was unfalsifiable absent a confession from the guy, then claiming that the lack of falsifying comments 35 minutes after posting meant something; and
-never bothering to understand the consequences of or take any responsibility for getting it so abysmally wrong.

Rand Paul comes out fine in this. Rand Paul supporters come out fine in this. Only two people come out poorly -- the dude who stomped, and you Ann. Well, and a few of your commenters too.

Rialby said...

What she did yesterday reminds me of what the CBC did last spring during their healthcare ramdown... push through a crowd that's hostile to your ideas in an effort to get somebody to do/say/mouth something that you can take offense to

1jpb said...

"If that happens, you will want to eat all the words you've been saying about the stomper."

Hilarious. Althouse assumes that everyone is as conniving as she is. She can't understand how it could be possible to think in a non-manipulative way. How could anyone simply say 'stomping folks is bad, no matter who's stomping who.'

She exposes the how and why that controls her thinking/posts. Not that there was any doubt.

The Crack Emcee said...

There is a big rally in Washington this weekend - hosted by Oprah - that will draw many thousands of persons.

FIFY.

As she would say - to the usual wild applause of the cultists:

Let sanity be restoooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrred!

shoutingthomas said...

Alpha,

How many times are you going to be disgusted and outraged today?

Once already.

About a hundred times yesterday.

100 times a day times 365 days a year = 36,500 attacks of disgust and outrage per year.

Are you sure your system can handle this?

traditionalguy said...

You certainly have a way with words Professor. But your sudden new crop of progressive commenters don't listen to words much. They have for so long needed something on which to express their fear and loathing of independent thinkers, and this is it.

Michael said...

Daniel: Is a stomp a single putting of the foot upon a person or multiple puts? I am curious why a sentient person who watched the video would use this verb which is the very definition of repeated and harsh violence. Just curious.

Salamandyr said...

I'm not really sure how Althouse comes out poorly. She questions an incident, then updates her post when the incident turns out to be real. Not sure what else you expect her to do.

Daniel said...

Michael, you have your answer. I'm not sentient. I'm auto response software that was, through a massive statistical unlikelihood, shat out of Michael Moore after a slightly turned meal of Mexican food.

Daniel said...

Salamandyr, if only I had just written a comment that detailed what I thought she did wrong that made her come out poorly, maybe I could get you to understand...

jimspice said...

Ann, you should have just said "Wow, I was really off base yesterday. I jumped to conclusions, and should not have done so."

"When a crowd is around a women being brutalized, I expect the crowd to detain the men."

And they didn't. So what does this say about the men present?

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I read most of the (45 thousand or so) comments on the earlier post before I watched the video. I've just got to say that, one both sides, there's a lot of arguing in bad faith around here.

1) AA's post didn't assert anything other than wariness. She didn't blame the victim, or assert that anything was true. Skepticism is not a failure, even if it is not proven correct.

2) The man who stepped on her was clearly out of line; he reacted after the danger had passed and was not caught up in the initial fray. He should be charged; he has been. He should be condemned by the Rand campaign; he has been. All is going as it should.

3) I'm glad that she wasn't hurt. I'm glad that he was charged.

4) Calling it a "stomp" was clearly out of line, and the news person who did that initially should be sanctioned. Even the woman who went down referred to it as a "step", not a stomp. That kind of dishonesty does nothing to help the discourse.

5) Why did at least 15 people feel the need to point out that the story had changed, when it had already been pointed out. If you're going to act superior about pointing something out, at least make sure that you really are the first one. Jeeze!

6) What is the record for comments on a single post, anyway?

- Lyssa

MadisonMan said...

Senatorial Candidate != President of the United States.

Asking What if she did this with Obama is an interesting philosophical exercise, perhaps, but not very illuminating -- unless you're advocating Secret Service Protection for all Senatorial candidates.

Daniel said...

"The man who stepped on her was clearly out of line"

"Calling it a "stomp" was clearly out of line"

Nice equivalency Lyssa.

Fred4Pres said...

Meh.

Unions do it, no big deal. Some random Randian does it, then it is Storm Troppers, Aqua Buddha,...

Rand is going to win. Get over it.

Salamandyr said...

I think the point is, MadisonMan, that her behavior was suspicious and warranted her being restrained from reaching her goal until her actions were ascertained.

Of course, knocking her to the ground and hitting once she was on the ground go considerably farther than was warranted.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

The Professor slashes through the fog....

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Ann, you should have just said "Wow, I was really off base yesterday. I jumped to conclusions, and should not have done so."

What was her conclusion? She expressed skepticism and withheld judgment. Althouse never said that it definititively was fake, only that there were reasons to be concerned.

Seems to me that all of the people who have accused Althouse of jumping to conclusions are the ones doing the jumping.

Daniel said...

Salamandyr, what's your evidence that her behavior was suspicious and warranted her being restrained? Because even in the account of the guy who stomped/stepped, the police didn't seem to think so. Don't we need video evidence of these sorts of things around here?

traditionalguy said...

The Jack Booted stomp is code words for a Nazi murderer. How are you gonna get out of that accusation so easily. The Tea Party is therefore guilty of inciting Nazis. Such is the Red Meat that can now be thrown out to liberals, all because of the heroic actions by this trained professional demonstrator. She deserves her own statue in the Progressive's hall of Fame.

Palladian said...

This topic was tiresome by the 50th comment about it yesterday.

Steve Burri said...

the extreme dearth of substance...

Ann, you've been reading my blog again, haven't you?

Salamandyr said...

Daniel, her own account of what she was doing there, and her behavior, ie. weaving past blockers to get up close to a candidate, darting in front of the vehicle, wearing a disguise, were suspicious.

Yes, the police refused to question her before her move to get near the candidate, in the other thread, I defended that response (or lack thereof), though I think they should have moved to interpose themselves.

MadisonMan said...

I think the point is, MadisonMan, that her behavior was suspicious and warranted her being restrained from reaching her goal until her actions were ascertained.

Well, I doubt the person who was evaluating her suspicious behavior -- whatever that was -- prior to pushing her head into the soft cushion of the curb had much training. He's just a volunteer.

Why are volunteers in charge of a Candidate's security? It seems like that is a recipe for what happened.

edutcher said...

As I said in the earlier thread, the Lefties lost this one on facts and are just invoking Dr Goebbels' Law to salvage as much as they can.

Ann Althouse said...

You don't know who will act up, what foolishly overstated signs they will carry, and what provocations will lead someone with clouded judgment or poor impulse control to do something that will look awful on video.

Excellent point, and the odds are about even something will happen. Those Lefties are always so respectful of law and other peoples' rights.

PS On one video of this I saw last night, you can clearly hear someone say, "Somebody get the cops", which poses an interesting question:

Where were the cops?

Isn't stopping unidentified intruders their business, so why weren't they doing it?

MadisonMan said...

This topic was tiresome by the 50th comment about it yesterday.

I'm glad I was traveling yesterday, then, until it was time to land in Madison last night.

Salamandyr said...

Aww, Paladian, you missed the new guy claiming that Republicans were going to take Democrats guns away from them.

That for me was the highlight of the thread.

rdkraus said...

The "victim," from moveon.org came in a disguise looking to cause an incident. Unfortunately, she was successful.

This tells us ZERO about any substantive issue, or Rand Paul.

WV: phorsubj

I will not comment on WV's which end in bj, other than to say, maybe this belongs on the Ebert thread.

Daniel said...

Salamandyr, so you're supporting vigilantism. As I mentioned at the tail end of the thread last night:

So if I'm at a Rand Paul rally and I yell "SHE'S GOING RIGHT FOR HIM!!" am I allowed to beat the shit out of anyone I want?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE5pGeCUM-Y

Palladian said...

And let me add that it's this sort of "AHA!" one-upmanship over an unfortunate yet ultimately meaningless incident that continually reinforces my revulsion over partisan politics. Actual significant political and philosophical differences are irrelevant to people who revel in this sort of pugilism. It's "us-vs-them" and like so many other Americans these days, I'm going with "neither".

Salamandyr said...

Why are volunteers in charge of a Candidate's security? It seems like that is a recipe for what happened.

Good question. I didn't believe that this was a candidate's security, but a reaction by a supporter/staffer, who overreacted. There were police present as well.

Hagar said...

Daniel et al.,

You could listen to the woman's own story. It is out there on video.

She says they (Rand supporters) had her blocked in front, so she attempted an end run, and they brought her down. Kind of like a tomboy in a backyard football scrimmage?

With the additional fillip that she might have been up to some serious no good.

If you want violence, look up the last few IMF or G-20 meetings!

Pastafarian said...

Just 3 points to make here:

1) There was no stomp. This big, dumb, awkward guy decided that he was security, and he put his big, dumb foot on her shoulder, as if this would pin her in place. It slipped off and came in contact with her head, with very little force, and he removed it somewhat sheepishly.

2) Although there was no stomp, this was clearly inappropriate, and somewhat creepy. There wasn’t a reason to take this person down to the ground.

3) Given all of the false-flag ops and shenanigans that these leftists have tried, skepticism was called for here.

If this stuff is the best that the left has in this election cycle, then they’re really going to have their asses handed to them in a few days.

Palladian said...

"Why are volunteers in charge of a Candidate's security? It seems like that is a recipe for what happened."

Wasn't it claimed that the police at the event initially refused to get involved?

Daniel said...

Hagar, I got it. It's not that she was charging the candidate. It's that she didn't do what they wanted her to do, so THAT's why they got to tackle her and step on her. Got it. Thanks.

DADvocate said...

Bullshit. What an idiotic statement. Even the offender has not claimed that he was worried about his safety.

Could you be a bigger idiot? Read below what the guy said. Does he have to use the actual word "safety" for you to understand. AlphaLame would be a better handle for you.

"A friend of mine went up to three policeman before Rand got there, and told them about the girl who was standing there with that wig on and that she was getting ready to do something,..."


...you will want to eat all the words you've been saying about the stomper.

As we've already seen not AlpaLame and his ilk. No shame, no conscience, no sense.

As I stated this morning, what about the woman whose foot was stomped by the Conway supporter? Her foot was in a surgical boot, a clear indicator of an already existing injury. Lame and garbage seem to be able to completely ignore that incident.

AllenS said...

Any conservative/Tea Party candidate or follower should always keep in mind, there is and always will be, a double standard regarding your actions. People need to be reminded of this fact before any and all events. Every. Single. Time.

shoutingthomas said...

I refuse to participate in this nonsense again...

Eek!

I think I just participated.

Daniel said...

1) There was no stomp. This big, dumb, awkward guy decided that he was security, and he put his big, dumb foot on her shoulder, as if this would pin her in place. It slipped off and came in contact with her head, with very little force, and he removed it somewhat sheepishly.

Clearly in the eye of the beholder. Next.

2) Although there was no stomp, this was clearly inappropriate, and somewhat creepy. There wasn’t a reason to take this person down to the ground.

Defining assault down. No reason, no right.

3) Given all of the false-flag ops and shenanigans that these leftists have tried, skepticism was called for here.

Maybe. But it turned out to be true. Only none of the skepticism went away.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Obviously this overzealous Rand Paul supporter represents just a tiny, infintestimal percentage (hardly worth mentioning really) of the 99.999999% of law abiding and peace loving Tea Party citizens and this isolated and regrettable incident in no way represents the Tea Party movement as a whole.

To paraphrase that icon of journalism, Barbara Walters; “It was [an] extremist. You cannot take a whole [law abiding political movement] and demean them.”

Kumbaya my friends, kumbaya. All together now.....

shoutingthomas said...

So, let me get the moral of this story straight:

This incident proves:

1. All conservatives, and especially Tea Party members are primed for violence.

2. Anybody who doesn't condemn the Tea Party condones this violence that they are primed for.

3. Everybody who doesn't condemn the Tea Party is a Nazi who approves of wife beating.

Have I got this correct?

Shit! I just participated!

Zachary Paul Sire said...

The incident is most indicative of the innate amount of fear that motivates the teabaggers. And their knee-jerk (or foot-stomping, in this case) reaction to fear: Violence.

And here you have Althouse justifying the violence. Not because she necessarily supports violence, but because she's embarrassed by being so wrong yesterday and is working one of her famous "Althouse pushes back" themes in order to minimize the fallout. Yawn.

MadisonMan said...

Wasn't it claimed that the police at the event initially refused to get involved?

Perhaps the police determined that the woman was no threat, "suspicious" activities notwithstanding.

Palladian said...

I mean, at some point the "wingnuts" on either side are going to finally drop all pretenses of civilization and ideals and just start shooting at each other, right? You know that if AlphaLiberal or NewHam could shoot you with impunity, they would.

Daniel said...

Any conservative/Tea Party candidate or follower should always keep in mind, there is and always will be, a double standard regarding your actions. People need to be reminded of this fact before any and all events. Every. Single. Time.

You gotta be ready when you assault someone it just won't be taken right.

Salamandyr said...

Salamandyr, so you're supporting vigilantism. As I mentioned at the tail end of the thread last night:

So if I'm at a Rand Paul rally and I yell "SHE'S GOING RIGHT FOR HIM!!" am I allowed to beat the shit out of anyone I want?


Where, exactly where, have I supported vigilantism? If that's your honest understanding of what I wrote, I question your reading comprehension.

Also, while you're at it, point to where I've said that I thought "beating" was justified in this case?

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann, you should have just said "Wow, I was really off base yesterday. I jumped to conclusions, and should not have done so.""

Absolutely not. Show me where I jumped to a conclusion. You won't be able to. I was all about saying let's look at what we actually see and judge the evidence we really have. I asked questions. The fact that the jumped-to conclusions of others turned out to fit a good part of the facts that ultimately emerged does not at all make me wrong. I stand by my approach to looking at and analyzing an unfolding situation, and I recommend that you do too. I will continue to help people question and analyze the news that is reported.

*I was absolutely right.*

In fact, you owe me an apology for YOUR lie in that very statement.

Paul Zrimsek said...

“It feels like the country’s largest public service announcement just a few days prior to the midterm elections,” said Heather Smith, president of Rock the Vote.

Thanks for the warning.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You want to see stomping? Go up to Joe Pesci and tell him to go get his shinebox.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shoutingthomas said...

So, really guys, are you going to beat off over this all day?

Have you no shame?

Don't any of you take drugs?

Are the whores all busy?

PLEASE STOP NOW!

Or, I'll get my panties in a wad that will terrify even Alpha.

jimspice said...

NYTNY said: "Althouse never said that it definititively was fake, only that there were reasons to be concerned."

"Were the guys who stopped her part of the trick? If not, why didn't she interact more with the police over her injuries? Why didn't the people in the crowd detain the thugs? Isn't this rather fishy? "

That should be enough aspersions for a week of casting. Or if you prefer your blame a little more subtle:

"It's very convenient that these bad actors were wearing labels identifying them." (emphasis added to assist in Church Lady impressions.)

Or just plain out there:

"There is no head stomp."" (emphasis all AA) I'd suggest you watch the video again, and this time, try to ignore the leg and foot, and just focus on the head and face. It very noticably snaps downward -- you can see her hair and skin shift quickly. The audio even offers the sound of her glasses hitting the pavement. With the position she was in, she's very lucky this didn't turn into a curbing incident. (Don't Google it -- very disturbing.)

Daniel said...

Where, exactly where, have I supported vigilantism?

1. Report "suspiciousness" to cops.

2. Cops refuse (rightly, as you said) to intervene.

3. Campaign workers take it on themselves to tackle and restrain person.

Vigilantism.

[Insert final dickish insult.]

Hagar said...

No, Daniel.
She was charging the candidate, and she says so. She was going to get physically next to him and hold that sign over his head and get on TV. She is quite proud of herself, since this really got off even better than she had hoped for, from her point of view.

garage mahal said...

VigilanTEA.

Palladian said...

"...you can see her hair and skin shift quickly."

She was wearing a wig.

"The audio even offers the sound of her glasses hitting the pavement."

Oh the humanity!

Ann Althouse said...

"She came there to exercise her free speech."

People reacted to her behavior, which appeared threatening. Why was she not more considerate about the disturbance she would cause in others? She chose to speak by behaving in a strange manner and getting close to a famous person that she wanted to bounce her speech off of to get attention for herself. She needs to take responsibility for the protective impulses her behavior caused.

Do you similarly excuse, say, the man who follows Madonna around and just wants to talk to her? He frightens her. She's concerned about her safety. Should she be more tolerant of his free speech?

Hoosier Daddy said...

The incident is most indicative of the innate amount of fear that motivates the teabaggers. And their knee-jerk (or foot-stomping, in this case) reaction to fear: Violence.

I could not agree more ZPS. I mean imagine what would have happened if that Moveon babe had really crossed the line and drew a Rand Paul cartoon or called on everyone to join in a Draw Rand Paul day.

Martial law might have been needed to restore order.

shoutingthomas said...

The incident is most indicative of the innate amount of fear that motivates the teabaggers. And their knee-jerk (or foot-stomping, in this case) reaction to fear: Violence.

Oh my God!

Please translate!

"... innate amount of fear... "

Let's see, the fear is "innate," so it existed from birth. Those fucking Tea Baggers were born racists!

The "amount" part I can make heads or tails out of.

Translation please!

1jpb said...

"and just start shooting at each"

I'm not sure that would be a fair and balanced fight. Presumably, one side is better armed than the other.

P.S.
I was pretty sure that your earlier declaration re meaninglessness was a sign you'd be jumping in.

Daniel said...

"She was charging the candidate...

She was going to get physically next to him"

Since we're questioning reading comprehension, I'm having trouble equating these two things.

Palladian said...

Seriously, let's just start shooting each other. More productive and less painful than another 600-comment bicker session.

Palladian said...

"I was pretty sure that your earlier declaration re meaninglessness was a sign you'd be jumping in."

I'm trying to sabotage. It's an act of mercy.

Salamandyr said...

Daniel,

You leave out the real 3. protestor charges candidate, and police are in no position to intervene...which they damn well should have been.

4. stopping someone when police are 20 feet away and can't do it isn't vigilantism by any reasonable definition of the term.

And since at no point have I defended doing anything but restraining her, your assertion is incredibly off base.

shoutingthomas said...

Seriously, let's just start shooting each other. More productive and less painful than another 600-comment bicker session.

I agree.

Better bullets than a pissing contest.

This story didn't even make the evening news last night.

A complete non-story.

Nobody cares, boys.

bagoh20 said...

Isn't there an election coming up, or a bake off, or something?

shoutingthomas said...

How can this thread be killed?

Shitmo! Calling Shitmo!

Where are you when we need you?

jimspice said...

AA said: "In fact, you owe me an apology for YOUR lie in that very statement."

If that is directed at me, Ann, you're slipping. At no point did I make a statement of fact, but simply offered advice.

And if I may offer some more, perhaps in your pointing out possible scenarios yesterday, you may have provided odds with likelyhood of certainty, and provided your basis for doing so.

Daniel said...

People reacted to her behavior, which appeared threatening.

Ann, where's your vaunted skepticism now?

Where's your demand for video evidence?

Where's your call to look at what we actually see and judge the evidence we really have?

You're full of it.

Will you sue me unless I apologize for saying that? What if I tell you how many twitter followers I have?

shoutingthomas said...

Oh, God!

They will not stop!

Daniel, I'll give you ten bucks for a vial of crack if you'll cease this shit.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

jimspice-10/27/10 10:47 AM

I never said that, you have me confused with someone else.

Pastafarian said...

Daniel, I'm not sure about the legalities here. If it's assault, why haven't they arrested these people yet?

I personally wouldn't have made the choice to perform a take-down on this person, at the point that this guy did. I didn't see enough aggression, or any evidence of a weapon, and she doesn't look like she'd be hard to control even if she were still on her feet.

But maybe this guy wanted to err on the side of caution. Still, the foot on the shoulder -- that was just odd.

But assault? I don't know.

If I recall correctly, one of the female would-be assassins of Ford was foiled by someone in the crowd that grabbed her wrist as she pulled a pistol. I don't know if we want to discourage that sort of "vigilantism", do we?

I'm pretty sure that prosecutors will give people a little extra leeway in situations like this; something to bear in mind the next time you decide to rush the stage and speak truth to power.

bagoh20 said...

"I'm having trouble equating these two things."

Let me help you by cleaning out the redundant part:

"She was charging the candidate...to get physically next to him."

jimspice said...

"She was wearing a wig."

Sorry P, the wig was gone at that point. Great observational skills. Perhaps next time you can actually watch before chiming in. Note to lawyers here: think twice before calling Paladian as a witness.

Daniel said...

After Profitt was identified as Paul's Bourbon County coordinator, he was fired by the campaign. Police issued a criminal summons for him yesterday.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomper-wants-an-apology-from-woman-he-assaulted.php?ref=fpblg

Daniel said...

Let me help you by cleaning out the redundant part:

"She was charging the candidate...to get physically next to him."


I see. Because I thought the "evidence" that she was "charging" the candidate was that she was trying to get physically next to him. There's no evidence of charging at all of course. Certainly no evidence that would clear the high bar set here.

Shanna said...

But your sudden new crop of progressive commenters don't listen to words much.

You can always tell when the word has gone out to the unwashed internet masses.

Lincolntf said...

If we can put the "boot on the neck" of BP, why not on the neck of MoveOn?

HDHouse said...

"3. The MoveOn.org woman came to the event to create an incident and caused the Ron Paul's supporters to worry about his safety, so that violent incident was prompted by the urge to defend...."

well we now know that there appears to be no upper limit on Ann's bullshit meter.

Palladian said...

"Perhaps next time you can actually watch before chiming in."

Nah. Last night it was a choice between watching activist chick smackdown or a great new gay porn video I got for my birthday. Natch, I chose the latter. Let's just say that "head stomp" took on a whole new meaning in that context.

Hagar said...

To Althouse's original query on this thread.
It is odd. Perhaps with all the buzz about the polls, the media feels the election is already over, no one has indicated what the next line to take shall be, they do not want to publicize anything that will make things even worse for the Democrats, etc.

Even here in NM, where we are about to get our very first "female" Governor, and a Tejana Mexicana at that, there is no celebration about it. Of course, Susana is a Republican, but you would think the media would show some excitement, but no.

Are they so dejected over the reaction to Obama's first two years in office, that they just want to talk about something else? Just anything?

Mary Beth said...

It wasn't fake but it was manufactured. She went there with the goal of causing a scene and was successful.

Why didn't the people around the man detain him? Perhaps the video gives a different impression of what happened than observers of the whole incident had. I would guess that either they thought she was behaving oddly and was a possible threat or they didn't think she was harmed.

1jpb said...

Palladian is frisky today.

jimspice said...

Sorry NYTNY, I was wrong. Was supposed to be LLRH.

And on another note, (not specifically to you NYTNY) see how easy that was to apologize? If I were Profitt, it would have gone something like "I'm sorry the comments here got so out of hand, and I apologize if the quote was mis-attributed, but this blog layout is so confusing, and it would have never happened if Althouse screened comments."

roesch-voltaire said...

I call bullshit on Althouse's weak tea defense of yesterday's posting in which skepticism slid into apologetic reaction. The woman was a known protestor, which is probably why the police were not concerned, and why the Paul supporters were eager to take her out. But there was plenty of other things to blog on from the ethical lapses of Joe Miller, to the sad, and sudden hospitalization of Carly Fiona to name a few.

Roger J. said...

Good Lord--this topic took what, over 500 posts yesterday? and we are revisiting? The police have all the info and can take it from here.

Rand Paul is going to win in KY and the lefties here can agonize. this incident is only an incident on a blog and NO ONE in KY gives a shit.

So Lefties--wring your hands, catch the vapours and clutch your pearls to your chest--no one gives a damn. You are going to get your ass kicked in 6 days--enjoy it.

jimspice said...

And speaking of apologies, did you hear that the stomper now wants an apology from the stompee? Classy.

Word verification: restle

Palladian said...

Ill blows the wind that Profitts nobody.

Hagar said...

Daniel, Daniel.

She says she was charging.

Jim said...

This is a reach, Ann. You do seem much more skeptical when it comes to Democrats or those who identify with them than you do with Republicans or the Me Party.

This guy was in the wrong, plain and simple. It's not Rand Paul's fault. It's not the woman's fault. It's not indicative of some larger violence by Tea Partiers either. The guy's a goon and overreacted. Stop making excuses for him and projecting your insecurities onto people who have nothing to do with this. I remember a day when you were capable of that. It's what made reading your blog so interesting.

A.W. said...

great post. i take a slightly different tack here: http://patterico.com/2010/10/27/political-violence-is-an-indictment-against-the-cause-that-motivates-it-except-when-we-do-it/

Guest blogging at patterico's.

Daniel said...

Hagar, I keep clicking she in your comment, but my browser doesn't take me anywhere.

Moose said...

I see you're not giving Alpha his own tag. Not that I blame you...

Michael said...

Just as a point of reference I commend the following video to our lefty pussies who were offended by the "head stomping" of one of their own. Compare and contrast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf2rbyor8Dk

MadisonMan said...

Ill blows the wind that Profitts nobody.

And the wind does blow today. Laundry on the line, and thinking about a kite.

Palladian said...

"I see you're not giving Alpha his own tag. Not that I blame you.."

Alpha is his own tag, one which translates as "scroll past this comment".

Palladian said...

"And the wind does blow today. Laundry on the line, and thinking about a kite."

Your laundry might become a kite.

SteveR said...

You know Alpha, you have a point and if I had the intellectual intgrity that you do, I'd quit patronizing this site.

You shouldn't subject yourself to this. Its not fair. Go away before you are offended any more.

tooclass said...

don't worry everyone. even the "stompers" were part of moveon.org - it was all a set up. remember?

Penny said...

Charles Krauthammer recently opined that the Democrats were already preparing for big losses in next weeks election by beginning to frame their talking points now. The overarching theme will be that when angry and fearful people make important decisions, they are likely to be ... WRONG!

Both Clinton and Obama made statements earlier in the week to this effect, and Krauthammer picked up on it.

Enter Tim Proffit, whose actions clearly fit that talking point. So much so, that NEITHER side can give it a rest.

Politics is loopy that way.

Pastafarian said...

When I first read the headline from yesterday's post, I expected to see some hideous, graphic video of someone getting curb-stomped and spitting out chiclets (or worse -- having their skull crushed).

This isn't a head-stomp, folks. And it appears that you wish it had been worse than it was.

This was boorish behavior. Take a chill-pill.

ricpic said...

"The audio even offers the sound of her glasses hitting the pavement."

A Potempkin moment!

Moose said...

...and I do have to second Ann overall on this. There is a rich and glorious history of violence and political campaigning in this country. Our Moveon friend (a WOMAN) got knocked down and stepped on. The guy who did it is getting charged. Move the fuck on.

I also agree with Palladian. This incident has produced a vile and odoriferous stream of diarrhea out of the ass of the blogosphere and it'd be best served taking a large dose Kaopectate to stop it.

Fen said...

And I'm STILL waiting for the Left to show what they call "stomping". What's the timestamp please?

Daniel said...

Our Moveon friend (a WOMAN) got knocked down and stepped on. The guy who did it is getting charged. Move the fuck on.

I completely agree with this. It seems, however, that the first two sentences are contested, which is why it's so hard to move on. You know, she deserved it, they were defending the honor and safety of Sir Paul, she was charging at him, she was barely touched, she was wearing a wig, yada yada yada. If we could just agree that some guys knocked her down and another stepped on her, and that at the very least the guy who stepped on her is and deserves to get charged, I'd be fine with that. I've never said one word about any other Rand Paul supporter or any Tea Party member in this discussion either.

1jpb said...

Profitt told WKYT. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

It looks like this guy agrees w/ Althouse. That librul, w/ her elitist free speech rights, is to blame.

Marshal said...

Let's apply the left's own reasoning to this issue:

since the event is statistically unlikely even discussing the matter is a sign of fearmongering, extremism, and bigotry.

Daniel said...

And I'm STILL waiting for the Left to show what they call "stomping". What's the timestamp please?

It's shown repeatedly from 0:53-1:10 here.

Fen said...

Daniel: I'm just totally disgusted by somebody who always rails about needing video evidence for any Tea Party slight-

1) I don't believe you are "disgusted". I think the Dems have their hands so stained with slime that there are exagerating the incident to finally feel "righteous" about their pathetic selves. Its the only explanation for their continual attempts to distort what happened and why it happened.

watching that video and:

-calling it fake;


We didn't do that. We said that, because of all the *numerous* times the Left has staged these kind of stunts, we would not take it at face value.

-calling assault restraint;

Everyone except ONE guy is attempting to restrain her. They even call for the police to help. And they even ward of the one guy who was stepping on her. Funny how, after claiming you champion non-violence, you can't muster a breath of praise for those men.

garage mahal said...

And speaking of apologies, did you hear that the stomper now wants an apology from the stompee? Classy.

Sort of like shooting your friend in the face and make them apologize isn't it.

shoutingthomas said...

Please, Ann, put up another post so that these dumb fucks stop beating their pudds!

Have mercy on us all!

Oh, the inhumanity!

Daniel said...

Everyone except ONE guy is attempting to restrain her.

If some random dude physically restrains me from doing something I have every right to do by dragging me down to the ground, that's assault.

That's another one debunked. If I'm slimy, it's from handing you your ass.

Palladian said...

We, ignorant of ourselves,
Beg often our own harms, which the wise pow’rs
Deny us for our good; so find we Profitt
By losing of our prayers.

shoutingthomas said...

Sort of like shooting your friend in the face and make them apologize isn't it.

Sort of like beating your dick until it blisters.

Don't you have anything better to do, garage, you dumb fuck?

You could be pulling dingleberries out of your asshole.

That would be a better use of your time.

shoutingthomas said...

Daniel, can't you shut the fuck up?

Stuff a sock in your mouth.

Cut off your index finger.

Shut the fuck up!

dogzilla said...

"head stomping"?

Kenneth Gladney, anyone?

Fen said...

Daniel: I'm just totally disgusted by somebody who always rails about needing video evidence for any Tea Party slight-

1) I don't believe you are "disgusted". I think the Dems have their hands so stained with slime that they are exagerating the incident to finally feel "righteous" about their pathetic selves. Its the only explanation for their continual attempts to distort what happened and why it happened.

2) Show me on the video *exactly* where you think see the head "stomp". Whats the timestamp on your "evidence"?

watching that video and:

-calling it fake;


We didn't do that. We said that, because of all the *numerous* times the Left has staged these kind of stunts, we would not take this one at face value.

Skeptical. We used that word over and over again, and yet still you ignore what we said. So why should we take your "outrage" seriously?

Skeptical: "used to denote any questioning attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims"

-calling assault restraint;

Everyone except ONE guy is attempting to restrain her. They even call for the police to help. And they even ward off the one guy who was stepping on her.

Funny how, after pretending you champion non-violence, you can't muster even a breath of praise for those men.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You know, she deserved it, they were defending the honor and safety of Sir Paul,

Well in fairness I'd kick her butt to if she was about to charge Paul McCartney.

Penny said...

"Ill blows the wind that Profitts nobody."

Great line, Palladian. It's au courant, clever AND true.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You know, she deserved it, they were defending the honor and safety of Sir Paul,

But seriously I agree with Daniel here. Who do they think Rand Paul character is that his honor needs defending? Mohammed?

Sheesh

Daniel said...

If I'm just commenting here, and shoutingthomas starts shouting curses at me, is it his fault for continuing to read all this, or my fault for existing and commenting? And what video evidence do we need to answer this question?

Palladian said...

"If some random dude physically restrains me from doing something I have every right to do by dragging me down to the ground..."

You tell 'em, sister! No bea-tagging goon is gonna curtail your Gaia-given right to don a wig and run at men!

A.W. said...

btw, the best indictment of all this hysteria is that actually two women were stepped/stomped on around this debate. but one was a rand supporter, attacked by an apparent conway supporter, so the left doesn't care.

Hagar said...

Daniel,

It's in the link Althouse gave yesterday. A couple of items down there was video where "she" gave her version of events. She is still somewhat out of breath and exhilarated and has not had time to think of ways to spin this incident, so she is not claiming her rights to free speech were violated or anything like that.

shoutingthomas said...

If I'm just commenting here, and shoutingthomas starts shouting curses at me, is it his fault for continuing to read all this, or my fault for existing and commenting?

It is your fault for existing.

Stop existing for a while, asshole.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sort of like shooting your friend in the face and make them apologize isn't it.

Well I probably wouldn't make you apologize but I would call you a dumbass for walking into my line of fire.

Just sayin

shoutingthomas said...

Jesus, if I had a bomb that would blow this thread up, I'd throw it right now.

You'll notice it's all men who keep gassing about nothing.

It's a male disease.

No wonder women are whipping our asses.

garage mahal said...

Well I probably wouldn't make you apologize but I would call you a dumbass for walking into my line of fire.

You've never been pheasant hunting obviously.

MadisonMan said...

Well I probably wouldn't make you apologize but I would call you a dumbass for walking into my line of fire.

It is the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger to know what is front of the muzzle. The fact that you* hunt with dumbasses who wander should only make you extra hypervigilant when aiming.

It helps if you don't drink.

(*the generic You, of course)

Palladian said...

"No wonder women are whipping our asses."

Some men might actually like that.

traditionalguy said...

Was this earth shaking event done in Kentucky? I always thought Bristol, Tennessee was where they do the best Bristol Stomp. That song by an all white group can become the new theme song at Rallies of Rand Paul supporters... only refering to the comong election results, of course.

Nals said...

Some commentators are referring to episodes where Democrats/leftists/etc. have staged events like this. What incidents have occurred iwhere it was proven that a violent attack had been staged - are these really a "regular" occurrence?

shoutingthomas said...

So, garage, have you pulled out all the dingleberries around your asshole?

You might want to get a magnifying glass and a tweezers.

Sometimes, the little ones are really hard to find.

1jpb said...

"No wonder women are whipping our asses."

Let's keep the role playing in the bedroom.

Fen said...

Daniel: If some random dude physically restrains me from doing something I have every right to do by dragging me down to the ground, that's assault.

Bullshit.

I dare you to try that on Obama's detail. Come in disguise, rush him. See what happens to you.

What we have is a Professional Protestor trained to be an Agent Provocateur. Someone who has a history of staging "incidents". Up against middle-aged volunteers who are not properly trained in the riot procedures usually used on your little MoveOn bitch.

And you are so easily duped that you buy into the narrative - because it appeals to your dishonorable habit of justifying your *own* side's history of violence by *pretending* the other side is "just as bad".

That's why the Left's "morality of equivalence" is so dangerous. Their violence is only limited by what they *imagine* the other side would do.

shoutingthomas said...

Nals! For Christ sake, don't do it.

Let this fucking thread die a death with dignity!

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Last night it was a choice between watching activist chick smackdown or a great new gay porn video I got for my birthday.

Which one?

If you ever want any screeners, I can get you some. ;)

shoutingthomas said...

Shitmo! Calling Shitmo!

SHITMO, WE NEED YOU NOW.

Nobody can shit a thread to death like Shitmo.

Where is that dumb fuck?

Daniel said...

Hagar, I looked, but I can't find it. Just the same statement over and over about what she was trying to do, and no mention of charging. If you can find the link, post it.

Fen said...

are these really a "regular" occurrence?

Yes they really are. If you want to dig through the 500 post thread below this one, several different posters each reminded the group of separate and distinct examples. That so many people could recall so many separate examples should tell you something.

Fen said...

Of course, if you are hooked into the likes of CNN and NYTs, you wouldn't hear about them.....

Alex said...

Because even in the account of the guy who stomped/stepped, the police didn't seem to think so. Don't we need video evidence of these sorts of things around here?

You libtards didn't need any video evidence that evil, racist teabaggers spit on a black Congressman, so why should we need any?

shoutingthomas said...

Please Ann,

IN THE NAME OF GOD ALMIGHTY,

I'm begging you.

Put up another fucking post so that these jerks-off have something else to beat off over.

Alex said...

Daniel - ask yourself why you assume the worst of tea partiers but the BEST intentions from left-wing activists. Ask yourself REAL hard.

MadisonMan said...

I dare you to try that on Obama's detail. Come in disguise, rush him. See what happens to you.

Senatorial Candidate != President.

MadisonMan said...

Put up another fucking post so that these jerks-off have something else to beat off over.

Make a clever digression that starts people talking. You can do it.

Alex said...

Senatorial Candidate != President.

Considering how high profile Rand Paul is, you had to assume the bitch rushing the stage had bad intentions. Frankly I'm shocked she didn't leave there broken and bloodied.

Alex said...

And please stop calling the left-wing activist cunt a "lady" or "woman". She's a cunt, nothing else.

Fen said...

Daniel: Clearly in the eye of the beholder. Next.

Back up a sec. Quit dodging and tell us what you are calling the "head stomp". What time in the clip is it?

Why do the Libtards keep dodging such a simple question?

Daniel said...

Bullshit.

I dare you to try that on Obama's detail. Come in disguise, rush him. See what happens to you.


Let me repeat. Slowly this time. With emphasis to help.

"If some random dude physically restrains me from doing something I have every right to do by dragging me down to the ground, that's assault."

See if you can figure out the difference.

Another one down. What's next?

Alex said...

Some actual facts:

RAND PAUL STOMPER FACES CHARGES. Well, good, though it doesn’t seem to live up to the “curb-stomping” claims of early blog reports: “Profitt says he had to use his foot to hold down her head, because he has a bad back. The Lexington police are now investigating Profitt for fourth-degree assault, which is a misdemeanor, not a felony. ” He says he was afraid for Rand Paul’s safety.

Misdemeanor , not assault. Is this the bes the left-wing goons can come up with? Try harder idiots.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It is the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger to know what is front of the muzzle.

Yes of course. Just like a driver should know whats in front of him/her on the road right but that doesn't explain all the road kill.

Alex said...

"If some random dude physically restrains me from doing something I have every right to do by dragging me down to the ground, that's assault."

Left-wing goon has right to rush the candidate? Maniac.

Pastafarian said...

Daniel, 1jbp, any other liberal commenters here, I have a hypothetical for you:

Suppose you're at an Obama rally, front row seats, and the Secret Service appears to be both understaffed and distracted. An obviously disguised person with a crude wig and overly baggy clothes approaches you and the stage, bulling their way through the crowd.

Something about it doesn't feel right, and the hair on the back of your neck stands on end. You're the last person between them and the stage.

What do you do?

It's not your job to defend the president, after all. Do you let them pass, and hope that it will all work out?

Or do you assault them?

I know what I'd do -- I'd assault the hell out of them. The last thing we need is to make President Dumbass into some sort of Kennedy-esque martyr. And I wouldn't worry too much about assault charges -- that's fine, write me a fucking ticket.

Now, I don't think I'd stand there with my foot on their shoulder like I'm posing with the grizzly I just shot.

But what would you do?

Daniel said...

Fen, I never called it a head stomp. I did call it a stomp. And I posted a link and time stamp above, 11:46am.

Next!

Hoosier Daddy said...

You've never been pheasant hunting obviously.

So that wandering in front of gun barrels is common in pheasant hunting?

I preferred the comfort of a duck blind myself.

Alex said...

This whole scenario is Alinskyite perfection. Engineer a fracas, and have the instigator become the so-called "victim". Alinsky would be crying tears of joy right now.

Alex said...

Daniel - holding her down is not a stomp. A stomp requires propelling the leg with tremendous force and velocity. There is not evidence of such a physical movement. FAIL.

Palladian said...

"Which one?"

It's from France, I don't remember the name except that it's from an outfit called "Citebeur" and is full of Arabs and black guys.

"If you ever want any screeners, I can get you some. ;)"

See, you do have the best job ever!

Actually I don't really like most porn, I usually find it quite boring. I only like things featuring guys who look like, if they weren't busy sucking your cock, they might beat you up for suggesting that they suck your cock.

And at the risk of sounding like that ironrails guy, I can't bear looking at naked men who shave and pluck.

Daniel said...

Really Alex? Linkless Instapundit quote?

Statement from the police here.

Alex said...

Daniel - of course they're now investigating him, the police are under political pressure from the left-wing maniacs. Alinsky is laughing!

Alex said...

Look at the left-wing hyperbole:

This episode is a PITIFUL, DISGUSTING SCAR on our democratic republic.

This is exactly the type of bull__it we've all on the Left been concerned about since the Town Brawls of August 2009.

The Tea Party is out of control.

The Republican Tea Party candidates are OUT OF CONTROL.

The Right is OUT OF CONTROL.

The media has allowed it and encouraged it with their faulty reporting.

This is a disgusting, disgraceful chapter in American History.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 3:36 PM |


Create a false-flag incident, then generate LOADS of online outrage in the hopes of swaying the so-called moderates at the last minute to vote for the evil Dhimmicrats once again.

Palladian said...

You know, I was just thinking: what this thread needs is some disingenuous, boring troll comments from "Alex"...

Daniel said...

Daniel - ask yourself why you assume the worst of tea partiers but the BEST intentions from left-wing activists. Ask yourself REAL hard.

Find one word I've written that does this. Fine one thing I've said about tea partiers. Or better, read above:

"Rand Paul comes out fine in this. Rand Paul supporters come out fine in this."

Next!

Alex said...

"Rand Paul comes out fine in this. Rand Paul supporters come out fine in this."

No he doesn't. I have NO doubts that Rand Paul just lost his Senate race due to this false-flag, Alinsky operation. I have to hand it to you guys, job well done. It shall be noted in the future, we shall send false-flag operatives against Democrat candidates. We are learning from you folks.

Fprawl said...

This happened at KET in a parking lot that is easy to control. UKPD and Lex PD were not in a preventive stance.

That said, charge both of them and let the courts sort it out. Disturbing the peace for her, 4th degree assault (his actual charge) for him.

Wearing that wig on campus is disturbing the peace.

Let the courts sort it out.

Good luck finding a jury (assault) that will have all Rand or all Conway members.

Daniel said...

Sorry Palladian, I fed him. Stupid...

garage mahal said...

Another one down. What's next?

What about a video of Ken Gladney not getting beaten? Or a grainy unintelligible cell phone video of something happening, somewhere, on the internet? Change subject and shriek of non existent organizations stealing elections before they happen? I have several non-sequiturs, misdirections, blatant lies, and falsehoods in my quiver. And when that all fails, I can just say "you did it tooooooo and we're just paying you back!" AAAALLLLIIINNNSSSKKYYY!!!!

/winger

Pastafarian said...

Still waiting for an answer on the hypothetical at 12:13.

HDHouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

Just own up to it. The guy knocked her to the ground and stomped on her head and neck. otherwise you got nothin'.

There was no stomping. Own up to your Alinsky tactics.

Daniel said...

I love the Alinsky thing. It's like the right finally did the reading, only 40 years later.

Pastafarian (I like the name), I'm passing on the hypothetical. I don't do Socratic. If you have an argument to make, make it.

Alex said...

I love the Alinsky thing. It's like the right finally did the reading, only 40 years later.

Yes we conservative, good, honest, REAL Americans are learning your evil tactics finally. Better late then never. Hopefully WE can save the country from you maniacs before it's too late.

Fprawl said...

University of Kentucky has the 3rd largest police department in Kentucky. Louisville first, Lexington 2nd, UK third. (all little jurisdictions around Cincy excepted)

Not sure why they weren't standing by the door of the candidate vehicles.

Now, how about a copycat. Someone with a Bible bobbing and weaving with Conway.

Lem said...

This kind of thing only motivates our side to make sure to vote..

Pastafarian said...

OK, here's my argument: I'd say that the lack of response to this simple hypothetical is itself a response, and speaks volumes with regard to your actual motivation here. This is just partisan gotcha crap.

By the way, the correct response to the hypothetical: You'd place this person in the famed Synova submission hold. There is no escape, and no countermove possible.

HDHouse said...

After reading 2 days of the right wing trying to justify thuggery and looking all the sillier for it i'm waiting for a defense of Hitler as the jews must have made him do it.

Just own up to it. The guy knocked her to the ground and stomped on her head and neck. otherwise you got nothin'.

digitalbrain said...

I have NO doubts that Rand Paul just lost his Senate race due to this false-flag, Alinsky operation.

Because it's completely inconceivable that Rand Paul could lose due to his being an incompetent, self-serving asshole.

Ann Althouse said...

"If that is directed at me, Ann, you're slipping. At no point did I make a statement of fact, but simply offered advice."

You stated that I should apologize in the form of saying I jumped to conclusions. If you did not mean, in saying that, that I did in fact jump to conclusions, please say so clearly and in return, I will apologize for reading what you wrote as an indirect way to say that I did in fact jump to conclusions. I don't know why you'd tell me to incorrectly say what I did. Perhaps you can explain. When you do, I will acknowledge my mistake in seeing an indirect false statement by you about me.

And to make it clear one more time: I did not jump to conclusions, and I was strongly demonstrating how NOT to jump to conclusions and encouraging others to follow my approach to thinking clearly and analytically about the evidence.

And don't worry, I'm not trying to accuse you of an actionable tort of defamation.

shoutingthomas said...

You've done it now!

I KILLED MYSELF OUT OF BOREDOM!

I am now dead because of this fucking insanely boring thread.

Now, that I'm dead, I'm think of infecting the internet with my spirit and bringing the whole fucking mess down.

Because, apparently, bring down the fucking internet is the only way to get these idiots to shut the fuck up.

Look, HenHouse, bagoh, Omega... all you fuckheads... kill yourselves.

That's what the Second Amendment is for. The right to bear arms was written into the constitution precisely so that you could blow your brains out.

I suggest a .357 magnum.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Because it's completely inconceivable that Rand Paul could lose due to his being an incompetent, self-serving asshole.

As both assumptions are wrong, that Rand Paul is going to lose...up by ten, gap is widening.

Ann Althouse said...

"After reading 2 days of the right wing trying to justify thuggery and looking all the sillier for it i'm waiting for a defense of Hitler as the jews must have made him do it."

Who capitalizes "HItler" and not "Jews"? And who uses HItler and the Jews as an analogy to his piddling little issues? You want to compare the MoveOn prankster to the Jews and the overactive restrainer to Hitler? How embarrassing and offensive.

1jpb said...

Althosue is lawyered up.

What is it that Trooper says about lawyers?

Daniel said...

OK, here's my argument: I'd say that the lack of response to this simple hypothetical is itself a response, and speaks volumes with regard to your actual motivation here. This is just partisan gotcha crap.

And I would say that your refusal to make a straightforward argument and willingness to make baseless assumptions speaks volumes with regard to your motivation. See, we can play that game however much we want. Or you can make a point. For instance, that you think those people were justified in restraining the woman because they were concerned about the threat to Rand Paul. To which I might respond, where is the evidence that she was a threat? You might provide some, and I might ask what the level of threat has to be to justify what happened, and I might suggest that this did not reach that level. And we'd be having a conversation.

edutcher said...

Well, the Lefties are trotting out the vigilante argument, which makes me wonder what they'd do if someone had a weapon pointed at their beloved Zero and no cop was in sight.

They've tried free speech, but she could have held up the sign outside, as I'm sure there were other demonstrators there.

They're using the teabaggers are all violent rap, but Profitt is only being sought for a minor misdemeanor while there are numerous incidents of serious injuries in beatings by union goons administered to Tea Partiers.

And PB&J is, as usual, making an ass of himself trying to make everybody think he's Oscar Wilde.

Just another day at Althouse.

PS They ought to read a little history and they'd know the Vigilantes in California were the responsible citizens tired of lawlessness and official corruption.

Then again, the people who brought down the Shoe Bomber, the Underwear Bomber, and who wrested control of Flight 93 from the Moslems on 9/11 were also vigilantes.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sadly No shines on a light on the violence-enabling, thug-apologizing,. victim-accusing, Ann Althouse.

If that was a Tea Partiest with their head and neck being stomped into the concrete, the hypocrite Althouse would be all in a tizzy.

But, instead, Ann Althouse makes crazy excuses, including accusing the beaten woman of being a threat to her assailant.

"Why do you make us beat you?" Ann Althouse might ask.

Gawd, the UW Law school must have terrible standards.

jsmdlawyer said...

Absolutely not. Show me where I jumped to a conclusion. You won't be able to. I was all about saying let's look at what we actually see and judge the evidence we really have. I asked questions. The fact that the jumped-to conclusions of others turned out to fit a good part of the facts that ultimately emerged does not at all make me wrong. I stand by my approach to looking at and analyzing an unfolding situation, and I recommend that you do too. I will continue to help people question and analyze the news that is reported.

Every time I think you've sunk as low as you can go, you manage to take it to new depths. You're a shameless attention whore, and you are an embarrassment as a lawyer. Even when proven wrong, you just keep on keepin' on.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that list of Supreme Court cases that benefit claimants in discrimination and other federal cases. Perhaps because it doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmm -- Althouse talking out of her ass again. Dog bites man. Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.

Daniel said...

Ann weighs in again, this time skipping first Nazi reference from traditionalguy, second Nazi reference from shoutingthomas, honing in on HDHouse.

Original Mike said...

Who capitalizes "HItler" and not "Jews"?

Well, he is Arian.

Trooper York said...

Yesterday I spent the day away from the computer. We went out to take care of some paperwork and then we walked down Court St. We went to visit several different stores to show our face to people who also shop in our store. We went to Barnes and Noble to pick up some books and I got the new Robert Parker which I read last night and it was excellent.

Then we went to the "Cooks Companion" where I buy all my kitchen gadgets and got a couple of new thingy's to cook with.

Then we went for a perfect brunch at "Sweet Melissa" where we saw one of the owners who sent over a great dessert. A piece of rum rasin cake cover in ice cream. Yummy.

Then we walked down the street visiting various stores to say hello buying this and that to repersent.

In all of that time I never thought about politics or the internet. Like the rest of America.

Trooper York said...

Man I can't spell for shit.

That's represent.

Sorry teacher.

AlphaLiberal said...

Ann Althouse:

People reacted to her behavior, which appeared threatening.

Really? how do you know that, Perfesser Winebox? Do you have video?

Or are you just another right wing parrot repeating the lies you've been fed? She said the Rand Paul goons surrounded her. So they are really angry ,and beat her, because she did not allow them to

She tried to hand something to Rand Paul and Ann Althouse says that justifies a beating!! Wow!

Oh, she had a wig on so we can stomp on her head and neck. WTF?

But, says, Ann, it wasn't a bad stomp. Hardly a stomp at all, so what's the problem?

Ann, believe me when I say you disgust me. You make excuses for violent people and you attack their victims. You make false claims to neutrality all the while you spew your hatred toward liberals and Democrats.

Ugh. I used to actually harbor some respect but you have lost that.

Trooper York said...

AlphaLiberal is the reason why most regular Americans don't pay much attention to politics until they vote.

Only the motivated will vote.

Guess who that is this time around?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 428   Newer› Newest»