yes. I see it. tea party members have a pattern of being dumb. that does not mean this girl got her head stomped. maybe it is just me, but when someone says 'head stomped' I usually think of Albert Hayensworth or Ed Norton. this girl was assaulted. despicably. but it wasn't a violent head stomping.
Doesn't matter, the way they see it, they are the victims and the perps are heros. It's ok to use violence to achieve their goals because they believe they have moral authority. This is how these kinds of people think...the Tea Party fanatics are no different than radical Islamic extremists when you think about it.
they are like anti-matter and matter. you just need to take them and put them in the same room. In fact, if you could separate them from the rest of humanity and let them have there own place to fight it out, let's say Australia or something, the rest of humanity could live in peace.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh-7LujU3Co?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh-7LujU3Co?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
I am now convinced you are one of the greatest trolls ever on clutchfans. Well done, you seriously had me convinced you were real.
Sorry but it is the mode of someone concerned with security to be paranoid. They have to be over-vigilant because a few seconds can mean the difference between life and death. One shot-- if you'll excuse the double entendre. These guys KNEW that she was an opponent and she chooses to rush the car so they take her down. In fact, she persisted after they re-routed her. This kind of thing is directed by information and instinct. These guys aren't robots. Perhaps all faces were familiar (even hers) but hers was the only one not to be trusted. If she acts a certain way, they are going to stop her. Do you think she would have been wrestled down if she had just stood on the curb and waived her sign? The lemonade lady, as I recall, was talking to kids through a rolled-down window in the back of a car. I don't recall that she approached anybody. Also, my standard is not for everybody to be treated as a threat: information and instinct would seem to be the guides. They knew who this lady was and she knew that they knew and she still chose to take would could naturally be taken as an aggressive move toward a political candidate. There's no time to see if the sign is just a sign or if she might have a weapon couched somewhere so they stop her, she resists and the melee ensues... much ado about nothing-- except for the boot on the back when she is down. The boot on the back was one (I say slight) move against her. No one even mentions the other tea partier who waves the guy "stomping" her off because THAT DOESN'T FIT THE DESIRED PARADIGM OF TEAPARTIERS AS JACKBOOT THUGS.
What forces were making those politicians walk that gauntlet? In that instance the pols came to the hostility rather than the hostility rushed them unexpectedly. That seems like a HUGE difference.
No but the use of the word stomp connotes some significant degree of excess or lopsided or heavy. For example, a 121-89 Rocket victory over the Lakers would be a stomping but a 98-93 victory would not be a stomping. I was simply pointing out that he "overlooked" the common modifier which communicates a significantly high or heavy degree of activity and I thought it was way ironic that it was the first (preferred) definition. Nor could I find any definition that inferred something slight associated with the word "stomp." That's why I objected to it in the first place. It's great for headlines but not necessarily accurate to what actually happened. Of course, it was her word of use, too. More potential gain for her I suppose.
There was one about the Etheridge event because I was critical of the young, apparently Republican, reporters and got flak for that, too. Sorry but there go all those arguments about my just being politically-motivated. THANKS FOR BRINGING THAT TO LIGHT...
The incident wasn't right and I don't condone it. However, I have waded through all the gross exaggerations of the "stomping" when it was nothing more than pressing a foot on the woman's shoulder. Unfortunately, she achieved what move-on.org wanted her to do and then left it up to a willing press -- the same press that virtually ignored the savage stomping of a black vendor by SEIU thugs. His crime was selling tea party t-shirts.
she used the words "stepped on" but if you watch the video, he first stepped on her and then stomped down. If you don't think that's stomping maybe get a dictionary? I don't know what to tell you bro...just seems like you are trying to excuse a bad seed and say, "oh...it's ok, he only hurt her a little, not a lot". And then try to turn this into a press issue? The video on this thread is from FOX dude. give me a break.
Rather than having someone hold her down with his foot, some really fat, smelly guy should have been recruited to sit on her until the police could arrive. Now that would have been great video -- and just :grin: .
I guess you closed your eyes on the part when he had his foot on her and then lifted it up to stomp on her and someone actually had to stop him??? Or are you just trolling to piss people off?
As I stated, I do not condone the action, but it is a little ripple in a great sea of tit for tats. The woman initiated the whole incident by attacking a candidate's car. In this case, the Rand Paul ox was gored. Had it been the Jack Conway (ox) car, I'm sure your views would be very different.
I think you are manufacturing her "attacking" his car as a means to excuse their actions. They all knew her as a protester, not a security threat. They wanted to prevent her from upstaging Ron Paul. If you want to classify what she did as an attack, I'd expect you to follow the same standard and then say the Tea Party attacked congressmen during their protests during the health care debate. But you did not. As a staunch defender of free speech, the only time I have ever criticized protests or any time when people should have been stopped are twice: 1. spitting on other people - which is assault and was done by tea partiers 2. neo-nazis walking through a black neighborhood which was clearly intended to incite violence. So instead of suggesting how I might react, I suggest you look at the inconsistencies in your reaction and how you define a liberal protester as an "attacker" but a tea bagger one as a "free loving patriot". i am not too kind on double standards.
