[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

No I mean the writing on the picture ITSELF ... the one with the woman holding the gun. Where this guy is expressing his 300 "This is Sparta!!!" fantasy. That's why I called him Mike "Militia Man" Pezzano in jest.

I see. He's a little inaccurate with his recollection of Thermopylae, ain't he?

Originally Posted by OAW 

But seriously, this guy certainly appears to be part of "The government is going to take our guns away" crowd. Enough to make that the primary image on his website. Never mind the fact that NO ONE in the federal government has confiscated his precious little assault weapons or even proposed doing so. I can certainly see someone with that kind of anti-government paranoia going on getting out of pocket like he did.

To be honest, I kind of support his aims (if not his pseudo-Rambo image). I live where they've already taken our guns away, and society is getting worse by the day (possibly as a result of it).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I see. He's a little inaccurate with his recollection of Thermopylae, ain't he?

Oh most definitely. But I didn't even want to take him there!

Originally Posted by Doofy 

To be honest, I kind of support his aims (if not his pseudo-Rambo image). I live where they've already taken our guns away, and society is getting worse by the day (possibly as a result of it).

Well I'm definitely not one of these "Get rid of all the guns" types. But at the same time you don't need an assault rifle when you go out hunting Bambi. I'm fairly moderate or even right-of-center when it comes to gun control issues. Having said that, these pseudo-Rambo types as you call them seem to have some uh ... "inadequacy" issues going on or something.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well I'm definitely not one of these "Get rid of all the guns" types. But at the same time you don't need an assault rifle when you go out hunting Bambi. I'm fairly moderate or even right-of-center when it comes to gun control issues. Having said that, these pseudo-Rambo types as you call them seem to have some uh ... "inadequacy" issues going on or something.

I've found that whenever anyone gets involved in a large group (i.e. yer Ron Paul mob or yer hardcore lefties), reason leaves them and they become unthinking sheep. Sociology already has that covered. So he's probably got the "I'll be a better sheep than the other sheep in my flock" thing going on.
And you're right - it all stems from inadequacy issues... ...the need to be seen to be "uber" in their little section of society. Can't get by with their own thoughts and opinions so they appropriate and amplify the group thoughts and opinions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it turned out she had been dangerous, and the civilians did what they did, would you have taken issue?

And, if *every* civilian tackles someone they *think* might be dangerous, are you going to applaud each of them? The problem is civilians aren't trained to properly determine who is dangerous and how to deal with them appropriately without endangering others. This event is an example of exactly that: if these had been police officers, they'd have to back up their claim that the woman posed a physical danger to the politician and that they didn't tackle her and stomp on the back of her neck simply because they did want her to have her picture taken next to him with an embarrassing sign.

[ebuddy]

Meanwhile, nationwide Democratic voter fraud in the news again. LOOK!!! SHINY THING!!!

I mean, it's a good thing these Teabaggers weren't throwing tomatoes at her or hacking her email account or sending her death threats or vandalizing her property because you'd have to conclude that these are all examples of leftist tolerance. You know, the good old days when a black man passing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags at a townhall meeting was called a n_____ and attacked by SEIU thugs.

[besson3c]

Whatever, all of this talk to me is pretty much just pointless tire spinning. People doing dumb things and going too far is not the domain of the left or right. As far as Doofy goes, it's what inside that counts.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Meanwhile, nationwide Democratic voter fraud in the news again. LOOK!!! SHINY THING!!!

I mean, it's a good thing these Teabaggers weren't throwing tomatoes at her or hacking her email account or sending her death threats or vandalizing her property because you'd have to conclude that these are all examples of leftist tolerance. You know, the good old days when a black man passing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags at a townhall meeting was called a n_____ and attacked by SEIU thugs.

When in doubt, change the subject...

[KittyKat]

I've watched several before, after, and during clips. It appears she was thrown to the curb for being defiant and driven to get a picture of Paul with her sign showing. I can see that as a protective maneuver although I can't see why it took three big men to man-handle this small woman. She was on the curb and totally restrained with one guy's foot on her left leg and 'Stomper' had his foot on her left shoulder. She must have said something that ticked Stomper off, because about 2 seconds later he tromped down on her shoulder, driving his bootheel into her face. I looks like battery on Stomper's part.

[KittyKat]

I seem to never get all my thoughts spit out. I would hazard to guess that Mr.Alpha male has a low sperm count. I wonder if cable news will be following that theory up in the next day or two. Lol.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, if *every* civilian tackles someone they *think* might be dangerous, are you going to applaud each of them? The problem is civilians aren't trained to properly determine who is dangerous and how to deal with them appropriately without endangering others. This event is an example of exactly that: if these had been police officers, they'd have to back up their claim that the woman posed a physical danger to the politician and that they didn't tackle her and stomp on the back of her neck simply because they did want her to have her picture taken next to him with an embarrassing sign.

You didn't answer.

I'll answer yours though. I'd applaud the ones who made the correct determination.

As for civilians not needing to back-up their actions while police do... Ummm... What?

Police kick the shit out of innocent people all the time with zero consequences.

[subego]

Originally Posted by KittyKat 

I've watched several before

A link to this would be immensely helpful.

[Big Mac]

That could have easily been a would-be assassin, a Sara Jane Moore type. Good for the Rand supporters.

[subego]

I was thinking Squeaky Fromme, but yeah.

As I said. Had she been dangerous, these people would have been considered heroes. Probably even Lead Foot.

As an aside, why the hell did Ford pull in so much crazy?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

When in doubt, change the subject...

What is it the OP is in doubt of that we need another subject change CreepDogg? You know... just to make sure you're not a spam-bot. I explained this "subject changing" in great detail to you before and have not heard back.

Otherwise... what besson3c said.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is it the OP is in doubt of that we need another subject change CreepDogg? You know... just to make sure you're not a spam-bot. I explained this "subject changing" in great detail to you before and have not heard back.

I don't think the OP is in doubt of anything. The OP was asking questions about the 'appropriateness' of a physical confrontation at a political rally. I'm just trying to reconcile what 'Look - voter fraud!' has to do with that. 'Shiny things' indeed.

[subego]

I do have doubts about my reading of the situation, but I'm not getting an alternate reading that has evidence to support it.

The evidence I've provided is by no means conclusive, but it's, you know... actual evidence.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That could have easily been a would-be assassin, a Sara Jane Moore type. Good for the Rand supporters.

Except she wasn't, they knew who she was, and they knew her operative was to get her picture taken with the sign.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was thinking Squeaky Fromme, but yeah.

As I said. Had she been dangerous, these people would have been considered heroes. Probably even Lead Foot.

I might agree, except that they already knew who she was and what she was planning. Stompy was just looking for a reason to kick her ass.

[subego]

He didn't start it. The guy in the suit yelled, and then the other guy clipped her.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

He didn't start it. The guy in the suit yelled, and then the other guy clipped her.

And then he stomped on a subdued woman.

[subego]

Did they know who she was, or was it just two-step?

You said they already knew. Who's the "they"?

Edit: and did he/they know what she was planning, or were they/him just suspicious of her?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did they know who she was, or was it just two-step?

You said they already knew. Who's the "they"?

Stompy at least knew who she was, he admitted as much in his statement. So even if the other people were holding her down didn't know, he knew she wasn't a threat, he knew why she was there, yet he still stomped on her head.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Except she wasn't, they knew who she was, and they knew her operative was to get her picture taken with the sign.

Who knew that? How do you know it was known to the crowd what the intentions of that degenerate would be?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Stompy at least knew who she was, he admitted as much in his statement. So even if the other people were holding her down didn't know, he knew she wasn't a threat, he knew why she was there, yet he still stomped on her head.

There was a fly on her face he was trying to kill.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Who knew that? How do you know it was known to the crowd what the intentions of that degenerate would be?

The guy who stomped the fly out on her face knew, and he told the police, to which the police told him it's not their job. She's wasn't doing anything illegal, at least anything that the police thought was worthy of arresting her.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Stompy at least knew who she was, he admitted as much in his statement. So even if the other people were holding her down didn't know, he knew she wasn't a threat, he knew why she was there, yet he still stomped on her head.

Which statement?

The only statement I've seen is:

"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," Profitt said. "The policemen looked at him and said that's not our job."

Which doesn't indicate he knew who she was. Just that he was suspicious.

[OAW]

You knew it was bound to happen .....

Kentucky Democrats are replaying the high-profile scuffle involving Rand Paul supporters and a liberal activist in a TV ad released Thursday that claims the Republican Senate hopeful is "stomping on Kentucky."

The 60-second ad, called "The Rand Paul Stomp," contains video of a MoveOn.org activist being pulled to the ground and then stepped on by a Paul supporter before a debate Monday night between the Republican and Jack Conway, his Democratic opponent.

The ad's airing comes as Conway tries to make inroads with female voters. During a campaign stop Thursday, Conway called fallout from the skirmish a potential "game changer" in the vitriolic race, and accused Paul's campaign of not being forceful enough in condemning the attack.

Ky. Dems replay scuffle in ad attacking Paul

After being down by 25% in some polls in May, Jack Conway has narrowed the gap with Rand Paul to 5% among "likely voters" with a 4.5% margin of error. IOW, it's pretty much a toss up. And that was BEFORE Tim "I'll stomp a lefty b*tch" Profitt and Mike "Don't Tread On Me" Pezzano brought this rather uh, "unflattering" attention to the Rand Paul Campaign and the Tea Party crowd. We'll see if this incident results in Conway pulling out a victory ... especially as the controversy continues because video analysis shows the lady was never a threat to Mr. Paul.

Also, it seems as if Mr. Pezzano threw his partner in crime under the bus and is currently in hiding.





He said that the other guy "went too far". I suppose he thinks that the other guy should have just stopped at copping a feel while she was on the ground like he did.



You just can't make this stuff up!

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Who knew that? How do you know it was known to the crowd what the intentions of that degenerate would be?

I agree. Nobody could have known that the degenerate would stomp on the head of a restrained woman that he knew posed no physical to anybody.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

he knew posed no physical to anybody.

I'm picking on you here because you're the most recent person to say it, but by no means the only one.

Where is the evidence for this?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I don't think the OP is in doubt of anything. The OP was asking questions about the 'appropriateness' of a physical confrontation at a political rally. I'm just trying to reconcile what 'Look - voter fraud!' has to do with that. 'Shiny things' indeed.

It was added as an "in other news" citation to illustrate that there are real problems going on out there nationally as opposed to a foot slip from the shoulder to the head by one moron at a Rand Paul rally. I also didn't mean to implicate subego, but the amount of play this scene is getting in general.

I cited an example of physical confrontation at a political rally as well. It's deplorable, it happens, we move on. We just move on decidedly faster when the incident involves a bunch of violent leftists. The good news is "stompy" will be addressed, thankfully the antagonist is fine, and Conway has something to exploit in lieu of a missing platform.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I also didn't mean to implicate subego, but the amount of play this scene is getting in general.

FWIW, I didn't start the thread really so much to discuss the event as to dissect the way it's being spun.

There hasn't been much direct discussion about it, but I'm certainly drawing conclusions from the statements being made as if they're unequivocal, and the crickets on my calls to back them up.

A lot of the assumptions being bandied about here very well may be right, but that's what they are. Assumptions.

They're getting reported as fact by supposedly credible news sources (as in the OP). The story itself may be relatively insignificant, but I don't think the way it's being reported is.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which statement?

The only statement I've seen is:

"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," Profitt said. "The policemen looked at him and said that's not our job."

Which doesn't indicate he knew who she was. Just that he was suspicious.

It also indicates that the police clearly didn't believe she was a threat.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The good news is "stompy" will be addressed

William French Smith Award or Public Safety Officer Medal of Valour?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It was added as an "in other news" citation to illustrate that there are real problems going on out there nationally as opposed to a foot slip from the shoulder to the head by one moron at a Rand Paul rally. I also didn't mean to implicate subego, but the amount of play this scene is getting in general.

So basically, you created a distraction from the topic to lament that this topic is a distraction from some other topic. How meta!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

William French Smith Award or Public Safety Officer Medal of Valour?

Well... they certainly weren't trying to grope that woman. Yes OAW, even with the wig on.

She's an antagonist at a political rally. *Newsflash: you'd be no safer sporting conservative regalia among assembled leftists. I promise not to patronize the forum with pictures and links.

Yeah. right? Sooo... okay. byenow.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So basically, you created a distraction from the topic to lament that this topic is a distraction from some other topic. How meta!

Right. With reason and a degree of respect for what the thread had become. I never said it was pretty. That's why I included LOOK!!! SHINY THING!!! and

Not really meta... I mean unless that's how you regard social commentary.