1st amendment rights only apply to tea party patriots. Plus they are the only ones allowed to bring guns to protests.
hahahaha! Shove it in his face!!!??? What drugs are you on? She ran to his car and held it up to the window, then flipped it around when she realized it was backwards. You are acting like she attacked him with it. I watched the video several times. I know that Hannity, Limbaugh and others have been trying to act like she did something threatening, but I didn't believe anyone would actually fall for it who saw the video. I'll remember your in favor of wasting tax money on frivolous police actions against people who don't pose a threat.
Tried but never did and any intention for violence, which would be a requisite to determine assault, is complete speculation. On the other hand there is clear evidence of assault from the Paul supporter shoving her on the ground and then deliberately stepping on her while she is in a prone position not attempting to fight back.
Even if I did agree with you that she wasn't shoving the sign in his face (which I don't), the first amendment doesn't give a person the right to cram a big sign in a stranger's window.
Yes she must of been doing something legal and fine. That's why showed up in a wig and hoodie; because she had good intentions.
Yes it does in a public setting. Why do you think advertisers are free to put windshield advertisements on parked cars.
Watching the wingnuts try and tap dance their way through this minefield of a thread is probably one of the highest forms of comedy the internet has ever known. Good show boys, good show.
Atleast I don't justify violence toward women. FAKE EDIT: don't get upset and go justify some more actions on somebody - this is the internet. REAL EDIT: I'm a guy so I don't have to worry.
There is a difference though between intentions and what is the law which you are confusing. As I said in my first post in this thread I agree this was a stupid political stunt and one of the things that is debasing politics but it is legal. On the other hand stomping on a prone person when they are not trying to fight back is assault.
Entertaining maybe but I personally find it disturbing the lack of understanding regarding differentiating things between the exercise of rights and assault. If the argument was about the tact of what this woman did I would totally agree with Giddyup but when it comes down to justifying the actions of Rand Paul supporters or accusing the woman of an assault that is where I have a problem.
For the sake of argument, let's say she did something atrocious and was very threatening to all around her. Let's stipulate she was extremely dangerous... like the bunny in The Holy Grail. The fact is, she was down on the ground, obviously in control of the guy who was on top of her, and this other guy comes by and stomps her. When another guy says "No, no, no," stomper guy lifts up, but in order to save face, points to the girl on the ground and yells "stay down!" As if she had a choice. So, with the threat obviously contained, why was it necessary for this guy to stomp on her? Why? Because he's an insecure dick.
You say it is legal because you assume her intention is to show him a sign and not to shove it through his car window in his face. This assumption is dumb since she is wearing a hoodie and wig to hide her identity. Obviously her intention was not something has drab as trying to show a sign.
Hmm... has there been any "don't tread on me" jokes yet? This seems like a perfect thread for them...
Yes Because obviously the real issue is this girl who had the audacity to try and engage a public servant instead of jack booted goons (were they wearing brown shirts?) who shoved a woman to the ground and stomped on her head. Let's get our priorities straight folks!
Wearing a hoodie or a wig isn't illegal and she didn't shove it through the car window and even if she did putting a sign in someone's face isn't illegal. Again you are mixing intentions, which I will agree she did not mean well to Paul, with what is legal. A lot of people have bad intentions. When I watch the Utah Jazz I have very bad intentions towards them but that isn't a crime.
He's not a public servant yet and I doubt he ever will be... if he follows his ideology, he'll be a self-aggrandizing tool of corporatists... definitely not a public servant.
