OMG... DON'T YOU ALL SEE IT?!?!?!?! THERE WAS A HOODIE, A WIG AND A SIGN. THEY ALL FELL OFF AND REVEALED: 1. A HEAD OF HAIR 2. ANOTHER SIGN! OMG SHE WAS ASSAULTING HIM!!! PUT HER BUTT IN JAIL!!!
FY. I'm not scared of signs but I am tired of your talking down your nose to me all the time. The sign could be a weapon. It could contain a weapon of some sort. It could be a distraction used to get close to Paul for whatever purpose. Personally I don't think she intended to do any harm but in those two seconds that she rushed the car, those guys are likely going to intervene in her plan.
My wife and daughters love me incredibly so. So much, in fact, that I don't give a **** what you think about me. I know about your real life, you know.
Just when I think this thread can't get any better. Actually, I'll go with judoka: it's a disturbing thread. I'm honestly a little bit surprised. I guess this discussion helps delineate the exact grade of a particular slippery slope for a society. When you rationalize tackling and stepping on a prone woman, what can't you rationalize next?
they love you now, but who knows what would happen if they were raped or attacked. based on your responses here, i'd be surprised if they still did. and in my real life, i've never rationalized the stomping of a defenseless woman, so i'm already a better person than you.
I haven't seen anyone rationalize head-stomping. I said the guy (and the chick) should be in jail. I think you are seeing what you want to see.
the Rand campaign didn't rationalize it. The people standing next to Stomperboy didn't rationalize it. This is giddy's own quixotian quest!
I think security should step in front of someone who did that to prevent them from getting too close to the client. And/or remove the client away from the person. Given that the people knew the woman, and threatened her before this even happened, I don't think they were trying to prevent what they perceived as a threat.
yeah, you're right and i've been wrong for doing that. i'm just so completely dumbfounded that anyone, much less someone with a wife and daughters, would view this situation like the way he does.
Exactly. I applaud the Rand campaign for apologizing and firing the guy. They should have returned the donations from him as well, but they didn't. I will say it isn't just giddy's quest. I've heard Hannity try and rationalize it also.
It's point scorin' time! <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lg4eKO38nyc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lg4eKO38nyc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
We all agree that should shouldn't have been stompled/stepped on. What we disagree on here is whether the girl was committing a "political stunt" or "assault"(to some degree). The laws of Kentucky will determine what rights these men had in grabbing her and holding her against her will.
They did do this the first time she charged (this is the time with the sign and car). They then released her and she charged again when Rand Paul got out of the car. Security restrained her and some knuckle got to violent when doing so. Restraining (but not stomping) her was the correct thing to do since this was her second time and more attempts seems probable.
Agreed. my personal opinion is that anyone who gravitates towards Rand (or his ideas) should be restrained, pitied, and considered an overall threat to sanity and society at large -- but that may be taking things too far.
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, B-Bob, that's a dumb question... skip that.
