Attack on MoveOn worker is just the latest example of right-wing violence
In the wake of the attack on a MoveOn.org worker apparently by supporters of Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, Media Matters provides a list of some of the right-wing violence and attacks on progressives that have occurred in the past year.
MoveOn worker attacked at Rand Paul rally
MoveOn.org worker reportedly received concussion from attack at event for Rand Paul. As media outlets have reported, a MoveOn.org worker who attempted to approach Paul at an October 26 rally in Lexington, Kentucky was attacked, apparently by Paul supporters. The woman was thrown to the ground and then stepped on, causing her head to be smashed into the pavement. According to MoveOn.org, the victim was diagnosed with a concussion at a local hospital.
Attack on MoveOn worker was the latest in string of violence and threats against progressives
White powder and swastikas mailed to Rep. Grijalva. On October 21, an envelope containing "a plastic bag of white powder and two pieces of paper with swastikas written on them" was reportedly mailed to Rep. Raul Grijalva's (D-AZ) campaign office. The powder was determined to be non-toxic.
Byron Williams set out to kill people at Tides Foundation and ACLU. On July 18, Byron Williams was stopped by California Highway Patrol and engaged in a shootout with law enforcement. He later said he planned to murder individuals at the Tides Foundation and ACLU and his mother said he was angry about "Congress railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." As reporter John Hamilton documented, Williams said he saw Fox News' Glenn Beck as "a schoolteacher" and that "it was the things [Beck] exposed that blew my mind." Indeed, the gunman, Byron Williams, was driven by belief in conspiracy theories that have been pushed by Beck and other members of the right-wing media.
AZ federal judge threatened, Grijalva office fired on after ruling on AZ immigration law. Politico reported in July:
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in a statement he shut down his Yuma district office after staff members discovered a bullet had shattered a window there Thursday. And authorities said U.S. Judge Susan Bolton received hundreds of threats at her downtown Phoenix court offices after issuing the injunction, according to news reports.
Phoenix man indicted for alleged murder threats against Grijalva and his aides. The Yuma Sun reported on June 14 that a Phoenix man was indicted on federal charges for "allegedly threatening to kill U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva in late April, over Grijalva's opposition to the state's new immigration law." The article added: "Prosecutors say Haynes is accused of calling Grijalva's office in Tucson twice on April 23 and threatening to 'come down there and blow the brains out' of Grijalva and his employees."
Man arrested for allegedly threatening to kill Sen. Patty Murray. Politico reported on April 6:
Charles Alan Wilson, 64, was arrested at his home in central Washington after he allegedly called Murray's office on numerous occasions over the last few weeks saying that she "had a target on her back, " and "I want to [expletive] kill you," according to court documents. The alleged phone calls stretched over almost two weeks and were said to be in relation to Murray's vote to pass health care overhaul legislation.
Wilson, who was arrested in Selah, Wash., also allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he carries a concealed firearm with a permit, and said he was "extremely angry" with the passage of health care legislation, according to the news release. If convicted, Wilson could face up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Members of right-wing militia group arrested for allegedly plotting overthrow of the U.S. government. Nine members of the "Hutaree militia" were arrested in March and charged with plotting a violent uprising against the U.S. government, a plot that was to begin with an attack on law enforcement personnel. The Southern Poverty Law Center has called the Hutaree militia as a member of the radical right-wing patriot movement.
AP: Man arrested for allegedly making threatening phone calls to Pelosi. The AP reported that in the days after the vote on the health care reform bill, "The FBI arrested a California man Wednesday for allegedly making threatening phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Threats made against Rep. Betsy Markey. A Denver television station reported that Rep. Betsy Markey's (D-CO) chief of staff "said the calls came on Saturday before the House cast its final vote on health care reform. She said in the first, the caller said to one of Markey's staff members, 'better hope I don't run into you in a dark alley with a knife, a club or a gun.' In another instance, a caller said something like 'better tell your boss that she better be careful when she comes back here to Colorado.'"
Gas line outside the house of the brother of Rep. Tom Perriello was cut. Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-VA) brother's address was erroneously posted online by a Tea Party blogger who invited activists to descend on the house. In March, a gas line outside the brother's house was cut.
Threats made against Rep. Stupak after he voted for final version of health care bill. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) was the target of threatening faxes and phone calls, including death threats. Some of the faxes included "racial epithets used in reference to President Obama," according to CBS News.
Picture of a noose faxed to Rep. Clyburn. Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), the Majority Whip, said in a March interview on CNN that his office had received a fax of a noose after he voted in favor of the health care reform bill.
Brick thrown at Democratic county headquarters in Rochester, NY. New York Daily News reported on March 22 that, after the House health care vote, a "brick, to which a piece of paper bearing the message "Extremism is defense of liberty is no vice" was attached with a rubber band" was thrown through the headquarters of the Democratic county headquarters in Rochester, New York.
Rep. Slaughter threatened with brick and "snipers." CNN reported on March 24: "Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, said her Niagara Falls district office had a brick thrown through one of its windows and a message that referred to 'snipers' was left on one of her campaign offices."
Rep. Giffords' office window shattered. CNN reported that in March, "a glass panel at the Tucson office of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, was shattered, spokesman C.J. Karamargin said. It wasn't clear how the window was shattered, but visitors have to go through a gated courtyard to enter the office, and staffers suspect someone may have shot a pellet gun at the glass, he said."
White powder mailed to Rep. Weiner with "drop dead" message. NBC News reported on March 26:
Authorities are investigating a package with white powder and an angry letter that referenced the health care legislation that was sent to Congressman Weiner's Kew Gardens office today.
The letter said the Congressman should "drop dead" and complained about the historic health care legislation passed by Congress this week.
Preliminary field tests showed the white powder was harmless.
Rep. Driehaus threatened and right-wing blogger publishes his home address. Politico reported on March 24 that a right-wing blogger had published the home address of Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) and asked protestors to show up at his house. In addition, Driehaus reportedly received death threats.
Brick thrown through window of Witchita County Democrats' offices. The Kansas City Star reported in March:
Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Ala., former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern "Sons of Liberty" to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita.
"There's glass everywhere," said Lyndsay Stauble, executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party. "A brick took out the whole floor-to-ceiling window and put a gouge in my desk."
Stauble said the brick, hurled through the window between Friday night and Saturday morning, had "some anti-Obama rhetoric" written on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe5J22JPNnU&feature=related
You didn't really ask that question did you?
They've thrown out all rational discourse of policy, for it is a fight they cannot win. It has become necessary for the conservative movement to resort to wild accusations and doomsday scenarios. The natural outcome of employing fear and anger as the core of a political movement is that you will inspire irrational behavior in the less stable, and most gullible of your supporters. This strategy of personal destruction through lies, fear, and apocalyptic language is moving into it's second and wholly unfortunate phase: people are starting to react to the daily barrage of unrepentant fear mongering.
Many in the movement simply don't care about the cost of regaining power through dishonest and dangerous means. We will see this proven conclusively throughout this thread. The ends always justify the means so long as the outcome offers a net gain in financial and political power for the party bosses. By the time this comment thread is done, I guarantee we will see the following:
- Accusations and attacks against the character of the woman who had her head stomped on, followed by Justification for her head being stomped on.
- Denials that her head was really stomped on, "it's not that bad" and "toughen up" you "weak" liberals, it's "JUST" a concussion. In other words, an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the attack.
- Justification through "Robert Byrd" defense: IE that one liberal political supporter one time was accused of violence, so therefore this and all other actions by conservatives political supporters are excused. A politically motivated "two wrongs make a right".
- The first post on this thread already gave us our dismissal by false equivalence.
- Inexplicable attacks against George Soros and other liberal persons who have no connection to the woman who was attacked, the attackers, or Rand Paul. Nor have these people made statements, purported to be experts, or became involved in this issue publicly in any way.
- Expectations that liberal posters "denounce" or "condemn" the actions of an individual or group in some completely unrelated event.
- Attacks against MMFA as being unfair or incorrect with absolutely no evidence to support the claims.
This is what you must resort to in order to defend a morally bankrupt group of people who have destroyed the integrity of the republican party.
And the fear/anger driving your cart is acceptable? What a hypocrite!
Fear and anger at your lot's psychopathis rehetoric?
Anger that you wrecked the economy and trampled on civil liberty?
Fear that you'll do it again? (Esp considering that this is waht you idiots are CAMPAIGNING on?!)
There's not hypocirsy here. The BLIND, IRRATIONAL Fear, anger and STUPIDITY of the average voter is all you lot have going for you.
-----------------------------
Pointing this out is not hypocrisy.
Get real. Democrats have ruined the economy since 2006. What were the un-employment numbers and national debt BEFORE Pelosi (SOTH) and the democrats controlling the house/senate??
ed-- Fear that you'll do it again?
See above question to answer this absurd statement.
So... By your brain-damaged "logic," the Democrats came to power, and immediately set about wrekcing the economy?
You're an idiot.
The cause of the recession - namely: the mortgage bubble collapsing - had been building up for YEARS before that. And even a RW dipstick like you should know and understand that, inconvenient a truth though it may be for you. The Dems immediately went about FIXING the problem, but the bubble had already begun to burst, and it was already too late to avert disaster. The fcat that the REPUBLICANS caused the disaster is a big part of why the Dem's WON in 2006 and won BIGGER again, in 2008. An the only reaosn they're losing now is because the media is passing nonsense like you just tried to for "analysis" instead of pointing out that:
1) The economy has been steadily improving since March of 2009, a month and a half after Obama took office.
and
2) Who REALLY caused the economic mess - that we're still climbing out of - in the first place!
You think it's the Democrats fault? I defy to you name a single thing the Democrats have actually DONE that CONTIBUTED to the failing economy.
---------------------------------------
Good luck with that.
Byron Williams, an ex-felon with a history of violent criminal behavior, (wonder why he was still out in the public, sure liberal judge let him out early0 was pulled over by California Highway Police on I-580. Williams, who was apparently intoxicated, opened fire at the officers as one approached his truck.
Members of right-wing militia group arrested for allegedly plotting overthrow of the U.S. government. - All released due to lack of evidence.
White Powder - Weiner, no one has been arrested and no proof where it came from. SO hard to blam anyone,
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) - Was later proven to come from the extreme left, not from anyone on the right.
I think MMFA should do a better job of giving us the full story, but when you get money for Sorros, I guess you are puppet for him.
Fat chance on that.
If they gave the full story, they'd have to admit that the woman in question tried to hand the candidate a package or "award" that had not been cleared through channels. I wonder what the "outrage" would be if a Republican activist tried to hand Obama an "award" without clearing it through the SS?
I would expect nothing less of my fellow Americans whether they be on the right or left to tackle a person trying to hand a candidate or the President a "package" especially in light she had a disguise on.
Yes he meant that litterally. <sigh>
She did not try to attack the candidate.
I think I understand that... anyway I would think the actual security that was present along with the police would have reacted in some way.
If mmfa will start writing ACCURATE articles instead of partison hack stuff (as they whine about Beck doing) they might develop a little respect from those other than their loyal (baaahhhh) sheeple.
Speak truth to propagandists!
According to John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund,this is the definition of a Progressive.
Progressives believe that America should be a country of boundless opportunity, where all people can better themselves through education, hard work, fair pay, and the freedom to pursue their dreams. We believe that this will be achieved only with an open and effective government that champions the common good over narrow self-interest while securing the rights and safety of its people.
Here is what he really means:
Progressives believe that America should be a country of boundless opportunity, where all people THAT ARE HERE LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY can better themselves AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL AMERICANS through education THEY DON'T PAY FOR,hard work DONE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THEMSELVES, fair pay AS DETERMINED BY ANTIQUATED AND DICTATORIAL UNIONS, and the freedom to pursue their dreams AS LONG AS WE AS PROGRESSIVES FEEL THEIR DREAMS ARE WORTHWHILE.
We believe that this will be achieved only with an open and effective government TOTALLY CONTROLLED BY US that champions the common good OF ALL PROGRESSIVES over the narrow self-interest OF THE REST OF THOSE HARD-WORKING, PATRIOTIC RIGHT-WING NUT JOB'S WHO MAKE THE COUNTRY WORK, while securing OUR rights and OUR safety and OUR PROSPERITY REGARDLESS OF THE DETRIMENTAL CONSEQUENCE'S TO its people.
----------------------------------
Well... honestly, I couldn't care less, but I'm sure SOMEONE here wouldn't you to choke of your kool-aid.
Either way, keep up the search for truth.
It's pretty clear that by any objective observer, if such exist, that the effect of this kind of rhetoric is clear.
There are nuts on both sides and this Paul issue was not handled well. But according to the media, the Jena 6 issue of a group stomping on a person's head was a "schoolyard fight"
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/10/the_case_of_the_jena_six
So when one person gets stomped on the shoulder/neck area what is that?
Also, "attacking" a ship by painting a slogan is not quite an attack. Illegal, yes--and she should be arrested and jailed for that. But reports from the scene of her beatdown do not suggest that she was threatening in any manner.
Your critique of the Byron Williams reference is weak to say the least. He still wanted to carry out a right-wing agenda. That's the point of this article.
Hutaree members arrested were ordered released instead of staying in jail for the duration of the trial, and not because of lack of evidence, but because the judge felt they weren't a danger and could be released during the trial. The trial is still going on.
Sending white powder anonymously is an act of terror, plain and simple. It's an attempt to scare (i.e. terrorize) people by faking anthrax.
I can find no story reporting that Hesch (one of the guys who threatened Stupak) is an extreme leftist. He is a retired Lt. Col., which to me suggests right, not left.
All in all, your rebuttal is full of errors, guesses, and lies, just like a lot (but not all) of the right-wing media I've seen.
Now, this incident was disgusting and despicable, but there are "extremists" on both sides of the political spectrum, so no one can legitimately condemn one side or the other for th reprehensible acts of one idiot. Remember the Tea Party incident when two SEIU members beat up a black man for selling tea party pins and T-shirts? The victim turned out to be a democracy who did not even like the tea party, but was selling pins and T-shirts to support his family. Does this mean we should condemn all SEIU members for the act of these two? Grow up dude, and start looking at the big picture!
You're essentially calling me a "zealot" because I don't believe that something posted by mari2jj would come from a republican, Right? (pun intended) Yet in the same two sentences, you question my liberal ideology and political affiliation because you don't believe something I wrote would come from a democrat! So...wouldn't that make you a "zealot" too?
Come on mary59, this is exactly the type of thing that hurts the credibility of our democratic party. Don't you see the double-standard in the conundrum you posted? Do you know how frequently this "two-faced" or "double-standard" argument is thrown in my face when discussing democratic policy and ideology with my republican friends? You are just adding validity to their argument.
How is saying that "...no one can legitimately condemn one side or the other for the reprehensible acts of one..." a statement of zealotry? Are you suggesting that it's ok to generalize all people that you disagree with as radicals simply because they hold differing views? Wouldn't doing that fall within the definition of bigotry? And isn't bigotry usually exemplified by zealots? I'll leave you with that conundrum :)
Those of us who have been here for awhile recognize mari2ji as a reasonable person. she has obviously the temperament of an Eisenhauer Republican. so the fake lib who instantly judged her is as bogus as your post.
= I've been here ten minutes, and I know Mary would hand me my azz..
It's just like their rhetoric, the republicans are crazy, as in Gomert of Texas imagining "Muslim anchor babies" from an FBI report that doesn't exist to teabagging howl at the moon VIOLENT lunacy, with Angle speaking about "second amendment remedies", to "take Harry Reid out" if she doesn't win the election.
And most of the "nuts" of the "Left"? Are nuts only by designation of Fox News.
----------------------------------------
It ain't even close: The Right are downright Fascists by comparison.
an anarchy funded by the covertly-corporate?
Wiz
---------
Fixed.
Although there is an established link between raging homophobia and homosexual arousal, as plenty of people on the right can attest to.
What?
IOKIYD...
Hit Girl from Kick-@ss
Dude, and you couldn't take the backhanded compliment?
whizzy, you are just tooo clenched-up. You need to relax and think once-in-a-while. Look, if your gonna pontificate some more...try standing up and let gravity do its job. Of course it might help if you could stick your fist in your mouth whilst you squat.
why are you hitting yourself ?
"Two days after a Jack Conway supporter viciously stomped on an injured female Rand Paul activist and Conway has still failed to condemn the incident, while the establishment media has almost universally failed to even report on it, proving that their refusal to admit that there were two identical “stomping” incidents on the same night is part of the national smear campaign against Rand Paul."
Wiz
---------
Besides, the whole point of this article is to show there is much more violence coming from the right than the left. EVEN IF we accept your asinine belief that a Conway supporter attacked a Paul supporter, that's doesn't make the article wrong. It just makes the article slightly less correct.
The fact that you two jackasses are supporting these two men who assaulted a woman . . . wow, that's sad. I'll just bet you think you're conservatives, too, huh? A clue: conservatism isn't about hatred of those who disagree with you. You aren't conservatives, you're groupies. You're also pathetic human beings if you are going to defend what happened to this woman simply because she is someone with whom you disagree.
Take your pick from the articles. she has a sprained shoulder and mild concussion. Why don't you know this?
Why do you assume that you know what the truth is with a hundred percent certainty?
Next you will probably claim that the stomp was in self-defense she had a pistol in her mouth.
It may be true. If, at some point I see any credible reports on the vicious foot-stomping, I'll comment at that time.
Sorry, I'm familiar with Alex Jones, and it's been a long time since I figured out he's not a reliable source.
The other video I saw today did show the woman entering Paul's vehicle with what appeared to be a sign. It appeared she was then innitially restrained by Paul's security and later by others in the crowd who were also carrying signs.
Didn't happen.
Where was that.....The Discovery Channel...Sept 1, 2010. How soon MMFA forgets, and how sloppy their "research" team must be.
Face it, he was a nut. Not necessarily a liberal.
Nice try!
Do not dismiss these charges by showing another violent act that was really against progressive ideas too. The violence being engaged in is horrifying and that so many candidates and pundits are calling their followers to revolution, to arms, to 2nd amendment options, to whatever, is terrifying. Do not close your eyes, please. If the violence is eventually successful, I won't be here, but you'll be left in a nation filled with people who believe they can murder and harm people because they disagree.
99% of the time I think my last comment is ridiculous, but then someone says the 2nd amendment option is on the table, or that revolution is brewing, or other such things, and let's face it, you guys are the ones armed, not us.
CNN: Lee said he then felt an "awakening," watched former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," and decided he had been doing too little to protect the environment.
CBS: He said in court he had been moved to save the planet partly by former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
USA Today: At his trial, he said he began working to save the planet after being laid off from his job in San Diego. He said he was inspired by Ishmael, a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
MSNBC: Lee said at the time that he experienced an "awakening" when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
CBS 48Hours: At the trial, he said he began working to save the planet after being laid off from his job in San Diego. He said he was inspired by "Ishmael," a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
You've exceeded my expectations .
I must ask, why was the story posted to this site? I thought this site was constructed for the following:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
I did not see any reporting of this story that tried to spin an excuse or defense for the individuals responsible. Not even on Fox news. If they had tried to defend the actions, then the writers on this site would have surely made it a highlight.
All the other headline stories point to some kind of reporting that is deemed to be conservative misinformation. This one is different. It appears they just tossed this out to see how we would respond.
Perhaps one of the authors will provide an explanation.
There are very straightforward items here, where Rush tells an outright lie, or beck gets his historical facts laughably wrong, etc. These are easy to understand.
Items like the one above are a little more subtle. It's about a mood in the country, about the long term effects of the GOP/Tea Party propaganda.
I know some Ron Paul supporters, and some of them are reasonable, but some buy into a world view as crazy as the tea baggers. From what I've seen, Rand Paul people are on a similar page.
It's a lot of paranoia, some hate, and some very simple, child-like ideas about the country. It's a lot of emotion. That's what is sold on Fox and am radio every day, and that's what we see in the men losing their nut and gang-tackling a small woman who dared to show up with a different opinion at their rally.
I've already seen people defending the men, blaming the woman, just as I've seen people absolving Glenn Beck for any responsibility regarding the gunman whose head was filled with beck's crazy theories.
It takes a lot of work to deny that these things are related.
Most of my friends are progressives, but there is one couple who listen to Fox and tell me repeatedly that they "listen to all sides" but seem to obsess over Glen Beck. they tell me now that he's trying to tone down his rhetoric and get closer to God. I find that hard to believe, when I see what he says every day as documented on here.
They will not see the connection between the violent emotionalism that Beck and others have enabled and promoted.
Regarding correlation between various acts and ideas served up in the media, it is certainly hard to deny a connection when the perpetrator explains their motivation, as is the case in a couple of the items above. However, if someone explains their motivation as linked to certain legislation or policy, I think it best to take at face value.
ONE video - that every channel aired - showed the woman being taken to the ground, wrestling on the ground, and then being stepped on her SHOULDER, not on her head.
That is ABSOLUTELY wrong for the Rand Paul supporter to have done!
However, there is also a SECOND video that shows the woman darting out of a crowd of people lined up at the curb of the street. She was holding a large sign out in front of her like a spear, and she rushed up to the open window of Mr. Paul's car as the car came to a stop at the curb. She rushed directly at the passenger window where Mr. Paul was sitting, and began jabbing the sign into the open window of the car!
A security man for Mr. Paul saw her, ran up to her, and then pulled her away from the car and down onto the ground. As he grabbed her, her wig (disguise) came off, and she struck her head against the edge of the curb as she fell.
The second video clearly shows the woman was never chased around the car, and was absolutely lying when she claimed to have been. She was also clearly shoving the sign into the car at the direction of Mr. Paul's head.
Her conduct was certainly dangerous, and would HAVE to be reacted to by any competent Secret Service agent or other law enforcement/
security officer.
I do not believe any crime was committed, as the people that were involved saw a person in disguise rushing the vehicle, attempting to jab a sign toward his head. Preventing that act is almost certain to be construed as acting to defend Mr. Paul's safety.
I would absolutely expect the President's Secret Service detail to react in the SAME manner as Mr. Paul's security officer.
I absolutely do not condone the supporter using his foot to step on her shoulder or head!
I also note that he did not stomp on her head, and rather quickly drew away when confronted by others standing nearby.
I do not believe that anyone can honestly characterize those events as a beating/stomping of an innocent political opponent. To do so is playing fast and loose with the truth, and unworthy of anyone of character.
We all would be well advised to ask why the more complete, and definitive, second video has not received very much airtime!!
Disgusting.
"Now here is my excuse and defense for what was done to this woman."
If he HAD been interested in that, he wouldn't have cropped only the FIRST paragraph out of a 3 paragraph "About Us" in trying to depict MMFA as somehow violating their mission.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
If rightwingers aren't identified as having used violence on multiple occasions, and if this isn't portrayed as the latest in a string of acts of violence (and I didn't see a SINGLE MSM news feed about the pattern MMFA documents here), then the ABSENCE of that furthers the conservative agenda!
This is not rocket science.
I bring up a valid point and you advanced me to Troll status? I suppose that is much easier than posting a thoughtful response.
Apparently this is not the first item that has been published to the site without associated research; however, it is the first that I have observed. So all that was necessary was to indicate that a precedent exists. A few other folks pointed this out in an informative manor without name-calling.
Regarding violence, there has been plenty demonstrated by individuals across the political spectrum for as long as this country has existed.
Only a couple of the acts described above included a link to conservative media. The others are examples of folks that indicated they were not happy with various political policies. Perhaps they are all linked, but I am not one for conspiracy theories. I prefer to apply some reasoning.
My expectation is that the distribution of violent acts against those associated with a particular political party will shift with the party that is in control. Time for some reading.
Versus one guy who had partially left wing views, but almost wholly insane views.
Im sorry the world doesnt work out like you want. But your party is horrificly violent, and probably evil.
And yet here you are defending what Paul's hatchetman did as acceptable. If your position is "I condemn it, but", that's the same position as "I condone it".
7 murders
6 attempted murders
1 anthrax attack
12 arsons, bombings, and property crimes
Did you know that most serial killers are conservatives?
Give over yourself HMMM
There are on the order of 10,000 murders/year in the US. I have no idea what the distribution is for the political affiliation of these killers. Regardless, I suspect a very very small percentage of these crimes are actually politically motivated.
I am not trying to marginalize the issue of politically motivated crime, just place it into perspective. There are a lot of very bad folks out there doing very bad things.
don't know how old you are but my mommy taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. is that what you're going for here? "but mommy, they did it too!".
you can see a post below about that liberal media barely saying a word...
i guess it's back to the chalkboard for you...
or saying
Don't recall him ever saying this, either:
Inform yourself. You look foolish.
He musta been mistaken!
Me, personally, I'm offended by violence from ANYONE.
The answer would be: NO
So, what's your point?
Better question is where's his point--and the answer is right on top of his head...
This violence, which was not called for, reminds me of when the SEIU people attacked the man handing out "don't tread on me" flags.
I bet that operative will think twice before trying to get a bad moment on film with a conservative candidate next time.
Phony incident, trollbait. Tell it to me again the next time someone shows up at an Obama event with an assault rifle and you sell us the horsesh!t that it's just "First Amendement Rights"--or "Second Amendment solutions", or whatever...
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/10/25/man-who-planned-to-kill-obama-and-blacks-gets-14-years-in-prison/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-bv-n%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%7C179265
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/10/25/man-who-planned-to-kill-obama-and-blacks-gets-14-years-in-prison/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-bv-n%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%7C179265
Neither did Vallee run at Paul, gutlesswarhead--she was chased by a pack of thugs as soon as she got out of her car, pushed to the ground, and then stomped. And then the d!rtbag who was the ringleader blamed her, as well as blaming the cops for not stopping him--shining example of that "personal responsibility" thingy you guys are so hot about (at least when it's your opponents). Congratulations, you win the October 26 False Equivalency Cerificate award! And hey, warcoward...
OVER THERE! GEORGE SOROS!--
*wareagle immediately hides under his bed and sucks his thumb while calling for mommy*...
Gladney, the Teabagger's hero, who claimed to have been attacked (when it was unclear what transpired before he went down), stood up for his TV spot and talked to the media.
The next day, the Teaparty's new hero, appeared in a wheelchair AND WITH HIS LAWYER.
So much for tort reform. Funny how those who rant and drool the most over injured parties suing those responsible are usually the first to lawyer up.
Man Who Planned to Kill Obama and Blacks Gets 14 Years in Prison
The White supremacist and devil worshiper who planned to go on an interstate killing spree of blacks that would culminate with the assassination of then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/10/25/man-who-planned-to-kill-obama-and-blacks-gets-14-years-in-prison/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-bv-n%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%7C179265
Notice the scope on his assault rifle. You pseudocons will try and justify anything and take responsibility for nothing. Sad and pathetic to stomp a women while she is being held down. Bunch of cowards!!
-Big Government
-three Conservative blogs
-Weekly Standard
-RedState and
-SEIU's own site
You guys are pathetic human beings.
PHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face for that. Given their gleeful justification of violence against women, I can tell these two losers probably sit in the cheapest bar they can find saying "Hey, what do you call a broad with two black eyes? A slow learner!" Then they laugh until they crap themselves.
And that was the point, wasn't it? It was a pack of teabagging blackshirts tackling and then stomping on a woman in order to intimidate those who dare to publicly challenge their fascistic ideas. Benito Mussolini would have been proud of those right wing thugs that you seem to admire so much. And you, warkitten, seem perfectly jake with acts of violence being committed against a woman... in fact, a bit gleeful... so that would make you a wingnut punk and a coward also.
Get some dignity, you Nazi clown.
Yeah, it looks bad, but I'll bet the victim is intimidated, and won't try exercising their rights again.
Help our country if these quivering, cowardly,Tea Party P**sies ever get any real influence.
Are YOU F-King crazy? THAT could have been your d*man daughter you moron!
A MAN, a REAL MAN, no matter WHAT political position he supports, does NOT grab a woman and stump on her head!
A volunteer with Rand Paul's Senate campaign has admitted to placing his shoe firmly on the face of a MoveOn.org volunteer outside a Senate debate on Monday night
Disagree with a persons political views, debate till the cows come home but a man stomping on a woman's head is NEVER EVER called for, period!
Oh no, it'll be those conservatives men who'll be thinking twice, once the police and courts finish with them.
A spokesman for the Lexington Police Department said on Tuesday afternoon that "Mr. Profitt is currently being served with a criminal summons ordering him to appear before a Fayette County District Court Judge."
And Ms. Valle also said: "I was questioned by the police for about an hour and then afterwards I did file an assault complaint... I think it's public, one of the people has been identified and he ... works for the campaign and there will be further legal action taken. I'm not sure what it is called, but the detectives are moving forward with the case."
Reminds me of the woman with a backwards letter B on her face who claimed some liberals did it.
FAKE CLAIM BOTH!
Conservatism is not about demonizing folks with whom you disagree. The fact that you choose to do so indicates that you are simply a follower, not a conservative.
Progressivism, however, IS quite frequently about
demonizing political opponents with whom you disagree.
That is the 'raison d'etre' for MMfA.
For other progressives, such as the SDS and the Weather Underground, blowing up government buildings, banks, and the homes of police officers, etc. is the action of choice.
Psst... you can come out from under your bed - those organizations are ummm defunct. Have been for what, 30+ years?
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2010.10.26.html
It seems there was a brief mention of it on Wolf Blitzer's show:
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/26/sitroom.02.html
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT
Other stories we're watching, fallout for this nasty incident outside last night's debate between Senate candidates Rand Paul and Jack Conway. You see it right here. Video of the incident shows a woman working for the liberal group MoveOn.org being assaulted. Several men are seen ripping off the woman's wig and pushing her to the ground. And one of the men, wearing a "Rand Paul for Senate" T- shirt, is seen stomping on her shoulder.
On her shoulder?? That's the exact same way FOX NEWS characterized the incident - "stomped on her shoulder"
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4388579/protester-stomped-at-kentucky-debate
CNN is Fox News for "smart people" and the recently ignorant people at MMFA.
His TOE was on her shoulder. His INSTEP was on her neck. His HEEL was on her head.
It is quite clear that anti Democratic (anti democratic as well) forces are becoming more and more hysterical in their rage and consequently the propensity for violence on their part is getting greater. This is a threat that stops only just short of armed insurrection and certainly constitutes an actual threat to the electoral process.
In an ideal world this would motivate people to resist these thugs by voting against the Republican Party en masse. It is worth stating the old adage that "people get the politicians they deserve".
He didn't at first!
The point is that a person, a human being, was denied their right to free speech and peaceable assembly via the use of unlawful physical restraint and violence.
THAT'S the issue here. You can leave your antiquated ideas of chivalry back in the dark ages where they belong!
It's interesting also that amidst all the right wing people pointing fingers at the left for their extreme violence, only one is legitimate, and that perpetrator was obviously unbalanced. The good ol' boys who were in that video (which, incidentally has been removed from youTube)were obvioulsy following the rhetoric of the corporate shills which they follow.
They are still trying to identify the guy who threw her down, the last I read.
Thank God that it seems like most of the audience there was AGAINST what those two bullies did. MOST of the audience was yelling to get the cops to stop them from assaulting that woman, and one woman even was brave enough to step in and push that unknown guy off of the poor girl.
They took down all references to that ad and the controversy that resulted after their darling, Obama, nominated General Petraeus to be the new top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan. Oops.
The only reason I would condemn attacks on MoveOn members is that such attacks obtain for them publicity, and possibly some sympathy from those who already saw them for what they are: Purely anti-American POSes, who should be simply ignored until they wither away and die on their own.
Of course, if that doesn't happen automatically, other methods should be employed to speed that process. ;)
But almost all Americans, left and right, were appalled by that MoveOn ad and, yes, when an agitator from that despicable group tries to disrupt a meeting of a group MoveOn disagrees with (BTW -- do they agree with anyone but themselves? but I digress), that person is enticing -- one might say inciting -- the response that resulted.
The smile? Because she got what she wanted: Coverage. She knew she couldn't have any serious effect on the meeting; she was there explicitly trying to provoke a scene for the cameras.
The really negative result? She succeeded.
(You want lock-step politics? Try Berkeley, CA. Lived next door. The Berkeley left is the closest thing to a lynch mob since segregation. Really. Wear a Bush button, get attacked and left for dead.)
Followed by this...
No, you aren't "on the left", you're just pretending to be on the left while on this internet web site so you can try to retain a shred of credibility when posting such tripe.
There, I did the shorter version for you, Never.
Hey - who removed my post from yesterday about this statement? I'll post it again...
It didn't take long for someone to not only justify such violence but to call for ist escalation as well.
(MMFA - what gives? Why was my post deleted? What rule did I breach?)
I thought video proof was the right wing's joy in life. You attacked cognressmen because no one had the wicked right spitting on them on video. And now you attack the left because...we have video of rightwingers stomping on a woman's head. Im sure glenn beck is proud of you, most people self-implode or require huge amoutns of LSD to be this disconnected.
1. No matter what the law may say, private, unlicensed security guards can "arrest" you, handcuff you and detain you. When asked, they do not have to name any "victim" of the alleged assault you may or may not have committed to the police, even after they accuse you of "assault".
2. A volunteer, county coordinator can appoint himself the head of security for a senate candidate and proceed to stomp on your head...even if you are a young woman who is being held down by several other self appointed security personnel. Especially if the self appointed head of security is suffering from "back pain"...of course you will have to disregard any video where he is seen to be clearly bending over.
3. Should you be a victim of physical violence at the hands of these self appointed security personnel, the right wing media, bloggers, pundits, commentators, talk show hosts, and other right wing media figures reserve the right to blame you for the entire incident for not having a license to perform political theater.
4. Having multiple men jump on and wrestle a lone women to the ground is grounds for celebration by the right wing media.
5. Any incident like those above will be used as examples in right wing excercises of false equivalency.
6. The candidate in question will be too chickensh!t to actually comment in person and will hide behind faceless spokespeople to give out bland, generalized apologies, with no apologies directly to the victim themselves.
7. Sarah Palin reserves the right to post scathing remarks about you on the social media site of her choice.
As a bonus, think about this situation, as offered by Steve Benen:
"Here's a hypothetical: if large, male union members had grabbed a young woman who worked with Tea Partiers, dragged her to the ground, and literally stepped on her head, would Rand Paul be on Fox News saying "it wasn't something that I liked," or might his response be a little stronger?"
Can you see the right wingers heads popping calling for blood?
Media Matter breakdown of what happened.
David Neiwert explains how the "gravely" injured "victim" was walking around right after the incident, then all of a sudden in a wheelchair the next day.
Of course, MMFA isn't the only place the right wing brings up the fake story of Kenneth Gladney
And no claim of fake victimhood without Breitbart getting involved
Of course the police report will shed light on the nature of the grave injuries Kenneth Gladney sustained, right?
Nope. From the police report:
And, it'll only be a matter of time before the right wing brings up Bill Rice. Remember him? He's the guy that assaulted another person, while punching the other guy, Bill's fiinger managed to land in the victims mouth and gotten off.
Pathetic. A woman gets jumped, wrestled to the ground by a bunch of men, and all the pathetic, cowardly conservatives can do is bring up a bunch of fake victims in their endless game of fase equivalency.
Why don't all you cowards take the advice of one your own and "Man Up" and just admit a bunch of men attacking a single woman is disgusting, revolting and is not something anyone should be proud of or try to excuse.
I'm going to take a wild guess, and say that it's the same two people.
Funny though, the guy you said "punched" Gladney was a black man.
Oh, what's with Obama's statement of moving the Republicans to the rear, I thought Rosa Parks took care of that.
Restrained by a men's size 12 boot! This is getting astounding.
She was already on the ground, for cripes sake. The foot was NOT being used to "restrain" her.
What a doofus that previous poster was - further evidence of the recent study that people who don't know what they're talking about, when confronted with evidence that PROVES that they're holding on to untrue beliefs, latch on even HARDER to that nonsense!
"Hey why did the security guard dirty his boots on a degenerate protester?"
"Becuase he had a bad back and couldn't reach down to choke her."
Here get the truth.
How is that almost-certainly accidental injury to an already-injured foot in a crowded area with people looking at a candidate and NOT at the feet of the person next to them comparable to a purposeful takedown of someone who was NOT behaving in a threatening manner, followed by someone stomping that person when she's already down and NOT moving to get up?
Yeah, that's right, it's NOT comparable at all!
Go away, troll. You're sick to even THINK that the two events are in the same ballpark!
Desperation sets in, when all else fails...nothing good comes from desperate acts.
Also, most of the information on these "articles" you have posted is either incorrect, a false claim, or otherwise unproven to be the actions of right supporters. Weren't there plenty of dems who were ticked off at their "reps" "yes" vote? Shows the desperate measures taken by your candidates, too.
First of all, not only is the video footage truncated, but so is the content of the report. There are several things about this incident that make it completely boring to me:
1. We have no idea why this person was there, why she was wearing a wig, why she was suddenly seized by the crowd.
2. In just about any physical altercation involving more than one person, some a--hole will always find a way to get his foot in. This is not an example of "right-wing violence," it's an example that some people are just jerks. This one happened to be caught on camera.
3. We don't know who was videotaping this. We don't know why, or if they expected to see what they saw.
4. The "violence" depicted here barely even sets askew the girl's glasses. She's smiling while it happens and she's smiling afterwards. She's fine.
5. Showcasing an empty report like this one shows careless journalism and doesn't do anything to help Media Matters or the "left" in general. In fact, I believe it hurts them because the only people it will appeal to are those who don't question the things they see. Everyone else will be wondering why there isn't more, and we will also be quite aware that groups from all walks of life are capable of stepping out of line. There are violent liberals in the world, too.
6. Conservative media, rather than addressing the actual incident, are just going to harp on the liberal media for "not telling the whole story," when what they really mean by that is "not telling you that some other person from the Paul camp had their foot stepped on earlier in the day." I'm sick of this bullsh-t tactic of avoiding defending the right by instead attacking the left. Suddenly you're not allowed to show this because you're not showing the other one, even though video footage of the aforementioned foot-stomping clearly doesn't exist. It's complete and utter crap that the these kinds of conservatives don't address their own problems but instead divert attention by pointing the finger, but I also think that jumping on a story like this one is just inviting that kind of thing.
Perhaps you should re-examine the definition of "troll."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
People like wowgirl who see this video and instantly assume that everyone involved should be thrown in prison are the reason this country has due process.
Articles like this one are fodder for the ignorance of the masses. People don't care about details, they don't hold out for truth. They don't understand that centrism is at the heart of every matter. They eat up stuff like this - the kind of garbage I would expect from Fox News - without so much as a hesitation.
I generally applaud MM for it's stance against poor journalistic practices, and I have to say that it's disappointing to see them lowering their own bar.
No exclamation points here.
I don't think the video in and of itself makes a whole lot of things obvious. Unlike most people, I desire to see more to the story before making a judgment. The problem is that most people will see this and will immediately think one of two things:
1. Paul supporters are thugs
2. Liberals are hijacking the media
And this is predominantly what I've found on sites that have hosted this footage with a nearly identical header. I'm all about holding media accountable - and since the name of this particular site is "Media Matters," I think they're probably the most worthy of criticism as far as this goes.
It's not easy being a Radical Centrist. You tend to wind up getting branded as one or the other. Even Jon Stewart can't escape the "liberal" branding that the right has given him.
Really? Cause you promptly go and type this...
No, I'd say you are quite comfortable making judgements that comport with your worldview while calling other aspects of the video and her story unclear because they do not follow your preconceived notions of this incident.
I wasn't seeing the good Rand Paul supporters who completely cancel out the guy stepping on Valle's head.
I should try to be more "centrist".
That won't work. Apparently you need to be radically centrist.
I understand that there is a little bit of irony in that seeing as how they're holding her to the ground in the first place, but there is a difference between restraining someone and actually trying to injure them.
This is not a judgement - it's an observation. It's clear that the guy who put his foot on her was out of line, but this video does nothing to show whether or not holding her down in the first place was.
There are two sides to every story. I've seen two for this one so far: One is that she was just minding her own business when she got jumped. The other is that she not only has a history of getting arrested for public stunts, but that she also ran up to the candidate's limo wearing a disguise and thrust a suspicious looking object or package into his face.
Do any of you know for sure what happened? Were you there? If not, then I'd say it's wrong for you to classify this as an example of "right wing violence" just because one of the guys involved started taking things a bit too far. I think that's a clear example that some people are just jerks, and those jerks will always find a way to escalate a situation, no matter what side of the fence they're on.
Yes, that's our "centrist" on the issue of a group of men beating up a woman, the one who doesn't make any judgments, only observations.
Ms. Valle is having a good chuckle at the idea that these nuts are wrestling her to the ground and stomping on her head.
This has to be a new low for the wingnuts.
Your creative use of the word "wingnut" nearly discourages me from addressing the following points, but I'll make them for clarity's sake:
1. The group of men were not "beating up a woman." One group of men was restraining her. A single individual went out of his way to apply force in a way that appears that he is specifically trying to injure her or cause her pain.
2. The statement "these nuts are wrestling her to the ground and stomping on her head" implies that several men were performing the act described above. Again, it was one man. And "stomping on her head" is a distortion of what actually happened. At no point did anyone's foot come in contact with her head. The one man who did put his foot on her stomped on her shoulder.
If you want to argue about the intentions behind what happened, I think you ought to be able to accurately describe exactly what happened.
At least someone here can accurately state what appears on a video we all watched!
No idea what was going through the first guy's head though. I'd like to know why he grabbed her, why he felt the need to put her on the ground. Was he worried that she was a danger to the candidate? I don't think that's for any of us to decide, only he knows for sure.
I'm a centrist insomuch as I'm not a leftist or a right-winger. I find fault on both sides of this situation.
A leftist would see this and think that the woman is completely innocent and that the men are entirely at fault, and would not be able to see any reason to justify their actions even in the slightest.
A right-winger would see this and think that the men were completely right to do what they did and that the woman deserved what she got because she was asking for it.
I see this and I want more information. I think that depending on the situation, it seems as if some of the men might have had reason in their own minds, whether right or wrong, to restrain her, and that at least one person tried to take things too far but was discouraged and disallowed from continuing to do so. I think the woman might have gotten more than she bargained for and if she was hurt, it's unfortunate, but I think it's entirely possible that she might have known ahead of time the kind of situation she was getting into and just might be taking media advantage of what ensued.
What a pathetic response to an unclear position.
No, that's a judgement. Perhaps they were concerned about appearances since the camera was there? See - you are making judgments based on your pre-conceived notions.
See you are not being honest. Who has claimed she was "minding her own business and she got jumped"? Everything I've read identifies her as a moveon.org member there to "present" the candidate with some fake award. There is question as to whether she lunged at Paul or his car. I find it odd re; the disguise, but as it appears she is known for this kind of thing and claims to have been identified by Paul supporters, I could make a case that is why she was disguised - better chance of pulling off her stunt. The footage I've seen shows her being chased around a car and her wig is already off. And the suspicious package was apparently an "Employee of the Month" sign.
You are clearly not sincere and most likely a troll.
The more and more I see the whole "troll" moniker tossed around, the more I realize that you people, whoever you are, probably aren't worth debating.
If you really have to resort to using a word that's plagued Internet discussion since the 1980s, I don't know what to tell you.
Getting back to the story...
They didn't want to see her needlessly hurt. Maybe it was out of the kindness of their hearts, maybe it was them keeping face. Maybe if the cameras weren't on them, they'd have severed her face in two. I don't know, and I'm not pretending to know. For the purposes of my argument, it doesn't matter "why," it only matters that they were trying to prevent the guy who did get out of hand from continuing to do so. I didn't say they were heroes - what I said was "to their credit." That's hardly giving them a medal, but from the responses I'm getting, you'd think I was nominating them for an award.
From everything that I've read, it sounds as if she was trying to pull a harmless prank. Conservatives are not exactly known for being calm and collected; if you really want to coax me into making a judgement now that I have read more and more on the incident, I would say that my best guess is that she probably knew that she was putting herself at a certain amount of risk by doing this.
Did these men overreact? It depends on what they thought was happening. Maybe they thought she was shoving a gun into the vehicle. Political assasinations at state level are far from unheard of. It's true that people are becoming more paranoid and that paranoia is exacerbated and even encouraged by propagandist organizations like NewsCorp, but it's not entirely without justification. We do live in an unpredictable world, and sometimes it's better to restrain someone who's making run for the open window of a limo than it is to step back and watch a candidate get shot.
And still you mind read. How do you KNOW they didn't want her hurt? I suggest they DID want to hurt her but stopped because of the presence of the camera. You continue to blame the victim and make excuses for the attackers. Had you simply stuck with the "I haven't seen enough evidence to make a judgment or conclusion either way." you would have credibility. As it is you are doing the same thing you are decrying others for doing - reaching conclusions without all the facts. And that is why I suggested you are a troll.
If a camera is on you and the camera prevents you from hurting someone, you, as a result of the camera being on you, don't want that person to be hurt.
Show me where I have put "blame" on the victim for the actions of these men? I have on reasoned what might have been going through their minds as an explanation of their actions in an attempt to show that labeling them as "violent right-wingers" is a more than likely a distortion of the truth. Unless that accusation is clearly qualified, I assert that it is wrong.
You are freaking thick! They wanted to hurt her, but did not want to be video tapped hurting her. It's not that hard. But you keep contorting n order to excuse the behaviour of those folks. Once again - you are not sincere and therfore I think a troll.
And you know what's waaayyy worse than both of those combined? You.
Better yet, How do YOU know they didn't suspect
she might be an assassin?
If she was an assassin, Paul would have been dead.
Rand Paul is not dead.
See how you just blew up your own BS ?
Even the Rand Paul supporters are smart enough to know she was harmless. Everybody but you seems to know that.
Sigh - I showed you. You posted this utter nonsense...
I have not seen anyone here or elsewhere make the claim she was minding her own business. Every story I have seen reports that she was there to try and embarass the Paul campaign by handing him her phony award. So when you type what you did, which seems quite a disingenuous take on this story, you are not being sincere. See?
At no point in the interview does she admit that she approached Paul's vehicle with any intentions other than to "get away from" the self-appointed crowd-control that she claims began to surround her. She says that she ran around the vehicle because she was being chased. She doesn't mention anything about trying to get close to the candidate.
The videos aren't entirely revealing, but they are suggestive for two reasons: every time she makes a move, she makes it in the direction of Paul.
Move 1: Towards the open window of the vehicle (described by her as stepping off the curb to get away from the crowd), as seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM
Move 2: Towards the general direction of Rand Paul after he's stepped out of the vehicle, as seen at the end of that same video.
That's how it usually is in these kinds of situations. Seeing it that way is what centrism is all about.
Even Paul is not saying that this incident is in response to left-wing violence at political events. curious you take this position for being in the supposed middle. I know, if one side does it,there must be comparable and equal attrocities committed by the other side, right? the false equivalency argument two equal and reasonable sides to everything. Lets hear from the flat earthers.
So you don't think it was a solid point about Paul being out of sight and out of danger yet a restrained women was stomped in the face because...? Remember the stompee was a valued memeber of the campaign and not just some guy who happened to be standing around doing nothing. He was familiar to the victim and vice or versa he was not just passing by. Michael Grossman also said he was assualted and called a communist and socialist and told to go back to new York and california with the rest of the scum. A seemingly familiar retort by the tea-baggers and perhaps a glimsp into their mind-set.
Read my previous posts. You'll see that I condemn the man who stomped her. It's the act of restrainment that I would question.
My point is that the man stomping her is not indicative of "right-wing violence." If it is, there is plenty of "left-wing violence" to go around as well. Here's the an example. Do a YouTube search, no doubt you'll find more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSc45QBcJo
Some people are just a$$holes, left or right. Violence is violence, and altercations happen when tensions run high.
Even using the word "violence" to describe this incident is in extreme taste. Technically, yes, it's violence, but there are more accurate ways of describing the situation that don't cause such emotionally-laden responses.
That's what they're hoping to do here by putting that liberal spin on it: evoke emotion. To make you think that the other camp is the bad guys, and you're the good ones.
I didn't say the stomping wasn't violence. What I did say was that there is a better, more accurate, and more objective way of seeing it. Think neutral.
If this is an example of "right-wing violence," then the civilians in Afghanistan trying to oust U.S. Troops by force is an example of "Islamic violence."
Do you see how calling it "Islamic violence" puts a certain spin on it? Did you see when Bill O'Reilly went on The View and said that 9-11 was the U.S. being attacked by Muslims, and that he was technically correct to say so?
It turns into "us" and "them." And the more it becomes that way, the more each side begins to reaffirm their own actions. The only thing that follows is hypocrisy.
Rage on the Right
The signs of growing radicalization are everywhere. Armed men have come to Obama speeches bearing signs suggesting that the "tree of liberty" needs to be "watered" with "the blood of tyrants." The Conservative Political Action Conference held this February was co-sponsored by groups like the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a Communist agent, and Oath Keepers, a Patriot outfit formed last year that suggests, in thinly veiled language, that the government has secret plans to declare martial law and intern patriotic Americans in concentration camps. Politicians pandering to the antigovernment right in 37 states have introduced "Tenth Amendment Resolutions," based on the constitutional provision keeping all powers not explicitly given to the federal government with the states. And, at the "A Well Regulated Militia" website, a recent discussion of how to build "clandestine safe houses" to stay clear of the federal government included a conversation about how mass murderers like Timothy McVeigh and Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph were supposedly betrayed at such houses.
Doing the Numbers
The number of hate groups in America has been going up for years, rising 54% between 2000 and 2008 and driven largely by an angry backlash against non-white immigration and, starting in the last year of that period, the economic meltdown and the climb to power of an African American president.
According to the latest annual count by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), these groups rose again slightly in 2009 — from 926 in 2008 to 932 last year — despite the demise of a key neo-Nazi group. The American National Socialist Workers Party, which had 35 chapters in 28 states, imploded shortly after the October 2008 arrest of founder Bill White for making threats against his enemies.
At the same time, the number of what the SPLC designates as "nativist extremist" groups — organizations that go beyond mere advocacy of restrictive immigration policy to actually confront or harass suspected immigrants — jumped from 173 groups in 2008 to 309 last year. Virtually all of these vigilante groups have appeared since the spring of 2005.
But the most dramatic story by far has been with the antigovernment Patriots.
The militias and the larger Patriot movement first came to Americans’ attention in the mid-1990s, when they appeared as an angry reaction to what was seen as a tyrannical government bent on crushing all dissent. Sparked most dramatically by the death of 76 Branch Davidians during a 1993 law enforcement siege in Waco, Texas, those who joined the militias also railed against the Democratic Clinton Administration and initiatives like gun control and environmental regulation. Although the Patriot movement included people formerly associated with racially based hate groups, it was above all animated by a view of the federal government as the primary enemy, along with a fondness for antigovernment conspiracy theories. By early this decade, the groups had largely disappeared from public view.
But last year, as noted in the SPLC’s August report, "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias," a dramatic resurgence in the Patriot movement and its paramilitary wing, the militias, began. Now, the latest SPLC count finds that an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) — a 244% jump.
That is cause for grave concern. Individuals associated with the Patriot movement during its 1990s heyday produced an enormous amount of violence, most dramatically the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 people dead.
Already there are signs of similar violence emanating from the radical right. Since the installation of Barack Obama, right-wing extremists have murdered six law enforcement officers. Racist skinheads and others have been arrested in alleged plots to assassinate the nation’s first black president. One man from Brockton, Mass. — who told police he had learned on white supremacist websites that a genocide was under way against whites — is charged with murdering two black people and planning to kill as many Jews as possible on the day after Obama’s inauguration. Most recently, a rash of individuals with antigovernment, survivalist or racist views have been arrested in a series of bomb cases.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/rage-on-the-right
you can see the rise in violence and hate groups and the patriot movement on the right is factual and quantified. There is no equivalent on the left at this time. The right is being fueled by lies and distortions. Death Panels,socialism,communism,taking back our country are all slogans hurled by the right and reflected in this beating. Michael Grossman reported being called a communist and socialist not by a lunatic passing by but someone there to support Paul. it came from the right and is being fueled by polticians and media of the right. To report this is not the cuase of the problem it is to educate and make aware. Pull your head out of the sand.
Really...?
Because NO ONE has ever come up with either video or audio proof of that scurrilous accusation!
You should be ashamed to repeat that, but I am certain that you aren't!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM
If you think I'm a conservative troublemaker, I suggest you read my blog.
http://www.chinagreenelvis.com
I ask you to find one right-leaning article in the history of that website. What you'll actually find are tendencies towards the left.
You've been watching Fox News too much. You've learned how to emulate their attack tactics. "Nothing the opposition does or says can ever be perceived as right, and anything they do or say you must twist to be perceived as negative."
I'm actually insulted at your accusation. If I wanted to spam a website with links to my own, I'd pretend it was a signature and post it at the end of every response.
Why do you have to prove anything? Just state your case. I'm suspicious of folks here (on either side of the spectrum) that mention their so called political leanings. The usual "I'm a liberal but.." Or "as a long time conservative..." That smacks of desperation. Ideologies don't interest me - actual informed opinions do.
I didn't attack you - I just countered your nonsense. Such as how you accuse others of making judgments without all the info. and then doing the exact same thing. That's in fact what fox does all the time and it's called projection. I guess your a big viewer then. TIVO all the shows?
Oh better call the whaaaabulance then, someone's feeling were hurt by a poster on anonymous web site/message board.
Is that - is that original? Did you make that up? Because I've never heard that one before. Man. You should copyright that, look into getting that trademarked. You could make some real money with all the comedians who will want to use it.
That's a good joke!
If you cannot see that the MoveOn agitator was standing still at the curb, then stepped forward quickly as Mr. Paul's SUV pulled up, then thrust her sign through the open window by his face...
then you are either blind, or a bigger loon than your posts make you out to be. You cannot see anyone for what they are.
I can only hope that you agree that NO candidate for public office can be allowed to be confronted by someone in a hooded jacket, wearing a wig, and carrying ANYTHING that is jabbed forward.
Sorry idiot, where did I say that didn't happen? Oh right I didn't.
a. what is shown
b. what isn't shown
c. what everyone involved was thinking
d. what should happen as a result
Look, nobody is defending the guy who stomped her. Even the people that were holding her down told him to back off. What I'm saying is you don't know why they were holding her down, and this video is far from hard evidence of "violence" coming from the "right wing."
There are other incidents in recent news - the Beck worshiper who went postal on an office building? That's right-wing violence. That's something that the pundits are indirectly responsible for. That's the kind of stuff that deserves heavy attention.
You can call me a troll all you wish, but that doesn't make it true. A troll is someone who specifically seeks to enrage people by insulting them and detracting from the topic, usually by dropping one-sentence posts designed to rile people up. What I'm doing is criticizing Media Matters for stooping to levels that it would normally find other organizations at fault for.
If I can't offer honest criticism in the hopes that it will result in an improvement in the way news is delivered and portrayed, if I can't stress that things like this should be presented with details and an objective point of view, then Media Matters doesn't deserve to exist either.
Also, and again, claiming that anyone who physically restrains another person for any reason at all is reason to be put in jail forever is the reason we don't do that without giving them a fair trial. The only downside is that reactionaries - people like you - sometimes wind up on the jury.
WTF??? They threw her on the ground, after they chased her around the car. They were not police or security of any kind. So by your goofy logic. If I see anyone I disagree with at a public event I can tackle them to the ground because in my own mind I might have a legitimate reason? Keep defending troll.
My "goofy logic" is that people react in certain ways to a situation because their instincts tell them that behavior that would normally be questionable is suddenly either necessary or appropriate. In order to know whether or not that action was justified, you have to know:
1. As many details about what happened as possible.
2. What the person saw and what they thought they saw.
3. What the person was thinking and why they responded as they did.
If all you see is a short clip of the event and one side of the story and you proceed to assume that you know the rest or worse, find it unnecessary to know in order to arrive at a conclusion, then people who are smart and wise will disregard your opinions entirely, and rightly so.
Very classy, Mr. both sides.
Every physical altercation is vulnerable to the one guy who just wants to get in that one good punch. It's not a conservative thing, it's not a liberal thing. It's a human thing.
The jerk who kicked her is not representative of "right-wing violence," nor do his actions in any way negate the rationale the other men had for restraining her, whatever it might have been.
Somehow I doubt that you're a non-partisan "observer" You are suspiciously reminiscent of mookie von fraud, another occasional poster about town and thumb downer.
Are you trying to tell me that I'm a conservative disguised as a centrist? If so, you're the one who needs good luck.
Normally my criticisms are saved for the right-wing, and honestly, I think they're more capable of holding themselves in a debate. The one time I find any fault on the left, I get called a 'troll,' a 'fake,' and now, 'suspiciously like' someone who is apparently a troublemaker. Eventually that will evolve into believing that we're exactly the same person. I've seen it happen on every forum I've frequented, but never to me.
Another age-old tactic of avoiding real debate: ad-hoc.
Do you believe this video, in and of itself, is irrefutable proof of "right-wing violence?" Is it really the "latest" in a "string of attacks?"
Do you consider Media Matters non-partisan? If not, which side do you think it leans towards?
If it leans towards the left, do you think it is entirely possible that every once in a while, they might run a story which specifically takes advantage of a grey-area situation and put a liberal spin on it?
I'm a regular visitor to this site. I wouldn't be if I didn't hate Fox News so much. I appreciate the kind of thing that they do here, which is to expose cretins like Beck and Limbaugh for their empty, ignorant rhetoric - words that get listened to and influence a great number of people in this country. In my opinion, NewsCorp in particular is *hurting* America. In fact, the only good they've done is to provide an example of how news shouldn't be.
Is it wrong to hold accountable the ones who hold them accountable? Is it wrong to expect the same standards that they themselves seem to expect?
Prove to me that you aren't mookie the zipper.
to recapitulate: no matter how much you slice & dice it, this woman was attacked by three men who behaved as boorishly and violently as they obviously thought was their right. The perpetrator of the stomping doesn't even have the decency to apologise.
I haven't claimed to be Mookie the Zipper - therefore, I don't need to prove to you that I am. You have, however, claimed that these men had no reason to restrain her. It is for this reason that I have asked you to prove it. At the very least, support the accusation with something other than your opinion.
You haven't claimed that this woman violently attacked the man's shoe, but expect you'll try that next.
You do realize, don't you, that everybody here can see through your act?
1. making an observation that is limited to the context of its source (seeing that she is clearly alive and well enough to do an interview directly following the incident, and subsequently partially retracting that observation once more information has been garnered)
2. making a clear and direct judgement about intentions, what anyone deserves, and what the whole incident was about without any extraneous sources of solid information
And if your concern is the futile attempt to expose what you perceive as "my act" versus specifically addressing the points that I've made, you're not doing a very good job of countering my arguments.
"I don't think the video in and of itself makes a whole lot of things obvious. Unlike most people, I desire to see more to the story before making a judgment. The problem is that most people will see this and will immediately think one of two things:
1. Paul supporters are thugs
2. Liberals are hijacking the media"
What I mean by "making a judgement" is "drawing a final conclusion" in regards to what happened. I also specifically say "I desire to see more to the story" before doing just that.
Saying this doesn't mean that I won't ever make any judgements about any aspect of the story whatsoever. It just means that I don't feel that this article and this video don't provide enough information for anyone to say exactly one way or the other that this is a case of "right-wing violence" or "liberal media hijacking."
That being said, it appears to to me to be a little bit of both. Watching the video leaves only questions, reading from other sources of information leads me to that conclusion.
Did you see the detention of a newsreporter by the Miller campaign for trying to ask questions? Sharon Angle taunts the media then runs and hides from them. What do all these incidents have in common they were by tea-baggers. Being partisan or biased does not negate being objective so MMFA bias does not keep it from being accurate. Do you have any examples of MMFA getting it wrong ? What does left-wing violence have to do with any of this? You are claiming something not even the Paul campaign is claiming which makes your I need more info position disingenuous. Paul has fired the person involved and disassociated iself from him and his actions,yet YOU need more information.
"...On a conference call organized by the campaign for Demoratic nominee Jack Conway today, a 60-year-old Conway supporter named Michael Grossman said he was also assaulted by a Paul supporter at the same event. Grossman — who attended the event “simply as a supporter” of Conway — was carrying a sign with Conway’s name on it. Shortly after Valle was attacked, Grossman said he “felt a heavy hand on my shoulder” and turned around to see a “thug” who “happened to be massive.” Grossman said the man tried to “thrust me to the ground” in order to get to Valle and take part in that melee. When Grossman turned around, he said the man “verbally berated” him, called him a “communist” and a “socialist,” and said “you ought to be back in California or New York with all the rest of the scum.”
In her first TV interview since the incident last night, Valle told MSBC’s Keith Olberman that the incident captured on video was actually only the very end of a lengthy altercation she had with Profitt, tea party activist Mike Pezzano, and several other Rand Paul supporters. “It was premeditated” Valle said, saying that Profitt and his compatriots knew she was a progressive activist and not any kind of “threat” to Paul.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/27/head-stomper-demands-aplog/#comments
I've read enough about what happened, seen multiple videos, read second/first-hand accounts of the events from people who claim to have been present, I've seen the interview she did with Olberman. I have plenty of information, and I have concluded that:
a. her explanation is very one-sided (as is to be expected seeing as how she is one side of it)
b. the headline of this article puts a liberal spin on an otherwise gray story
It is not a clear example of "right-wing violence," nor is it in any way related to the other incidences which are cited. I cannot address the accuracy of the characterizations of those stories, but I would not be surprised to find that reading up on them would raise at least one or two of exactly those kinds of questions.
I believe history would show that much. An interesting question to have answered would be: "Are conservatives more violent than liberals?" But instead, what I'm feeling from this is the inference: "Conservatives are becoming violent."
Is this a question of propensity for violence or one of actual violence committed by a tea-bagger against someone they disagree with. This is not an intellectual debate this is a real incident in a poltical environment of the last 18-20 months that has witnessed many acts of violence and intimidation by thoswe calling themselves tea-baggers. i'll leave the question you posed to mental health specialist who study this, meanwhile people are being assualted.
Does this make Palestinians bad people?
You don't have a point. And, honestly, if you could boil it down to statistics, the question of which side - left or right - is more violent and is responsible for more acts of violence, is a pertinent one.
If you're going to sit back and accuse one side simply of being violent, you have to acknowledge the violence that comes from your side as well.
You can't try to narrow the argument down to just being about this one case if you intend to use it as a microcosm.
I am willing to listen to the facts you have that the left in the past 18-20 months is as violent as the right has been. Both sides do it is not an argument and as far as isolating this incident MMFA places it in context of a whole slew of attacks by the right-wing how could you have missed that? You seem to be running out of arguments and cover.
This is largely, though not entirely, media spin. You're free to eat it up if you want. If it's all about loyalty and choosing sides, I'm pretty sure where you'll stand.
I'll stay here in the middle and get trampled on by both. I welcome it.
Just admit that you see things one way and nothing will change your mind? There's nothing wrong with taking sides as long as you know that you're doing it.
Now some thug is identified as a Paul supporter on MMFA. He wasn't even paid by Paul.
MMFA is just another hypocritical left wing spin machine.
They ARE providing evidence of a pattern of behavior among some rightwingers.
This guy WASN'T simply "identified" as a Paul Supporter! He WAS a Paul supporter, but he was MUCH MORE than just a Paul supporter! He was a campaign coordinator!
BTW nice use of the word doofus. It shows a completely closed minded, bigotted world view.
DellDolly in response to boulderhippy on another thread: "...doofus."
boulderhippy's outraged response: "Good job of the insult you hurled at me at the end of your spin. It appears that you are intolerant of the truth when it is inconvenient to your political beliefs. It also shows that you have no interest in civil dialog. "
It seems in his/her haste to accuse people of being hypocritical, boulderhippy enaged in blatant hypocrisy himself/herself.
Now, some of you might be wondering "why is this person spending so much time reviewing old posts from boulderhippy?" Well, I'm not. This stuck out because I remember how boulderhippy whined because I responded to his/her idiotic statement on the other thread. Here's what I said:
""Good job of the insult you hurled at me at the end of your spin"
Really?!?!? You get your hackles up over "doofus"? Really?!?!? This from a person who remains silent while his compatriots throw out accusations of nazis, traitors, sexual deviants and other incredibly offensive names? And you have the gall to get upset over "doofus"? Typical. Conservatives call their opponents every name in the books and should someone dare fire back, no matter how mildly, they go hurl back accusations of "intolerance".
Well, listen up m0therf***er, you are one thin skinned, sorry @ss, sh!t for brains, nazi loving, racist piece of stinking horse sh!t whose only job seems to be wasting oxygen that could be used by people with more than one or two normal firing synapses in their brains, you sanctimonious, self righteous a$$hole, go f**k yourself, the horse you rode in on (make sure you make a video and send it Paladino - I hear likes watching that kinda of stuff) and go sit in corner while you wallow in your mastubatory fantasies of victimhood.
M0therf**ker!!!! "
If you were a campaign coordinator and saw some crazy woman running to your candidate to do who knows what, what would you do? Let her continue or stop her. How was that campaign worker supposed to know she was trying to present Paul with a sham award to gain camera time? She could have had a gun for all he knew. If she might be hostile, why not pin her. His tactics, right or wrong, are no worse than those used by law enforcement daily.
"You've given it your best shot, you've tried numerous times to talk with the Republicans, to negotiate, to meet them halfway on every single matter before the American people. But they hate you for many reasons. It's time you break kneecaps. It's time to destroy the Republican Party. They don't deserve a seat at the table when all they want to do is score political points by being the Party of No."
what the {f}uck kinda {s{hit is this?
its liberals inciting violence. no it isnt. dumb {f}ucks. cause then it would be a double standard. if you say that this isnt inciting violence, then its ok for me to say, that the conservatives in america want to water board all you liberals into submission. ok. is that violent? its time to "water board"
please.
if you were honest with yourselves, which i know we are honest with ourselves, we're thinkers, we can see that we cant have a double standard. why dont we be the mature one and stop all dumb {f}ucking {b}ull{s}hit like whats said by the huffington post? and why not admit we we're wrong about things said? grow up, and start making it better. by having a double standard it makes things worse. can you not see that? this is a libertarian point of view. free everyone. let them work for themselves. let the children of those who cant take care of themselves, take care of those in need. people are giving, believe it or not you dont have to raise taxes. if i knew that the public roads would be fixed, id gladly pay a standard monthly fee of 30 american a month. im just saying. im not hating, i love everyone, and none of the political party's are in the right. we're all doing wrong. lets stop attacking, and agree on somethings, find the common ground and start their. do you all want to be posting on some dumb website when you get into your mid 40's? i sure dont. thats why im trying to open your eyes to true change, commonality.
http://biggovernment.com/ktaylor/2010/02/15/cnn-huffington-post-urge-violence-against-republicans/
sorry about the spelling, i dont have spell check, and i never was good at English.
but hey, im a normal american.
No, you are a normal wingnut.
When someone posts about dividing the country up so they can live in a libertarian utopia you don't think it's nutty?
Oh right - your the one who doesn't make jpremature udgements unless your making premature judgements. Nevermind.
See. I've instantly debased anything you had to say, and I did it with one simple word. Now there is no more discussion, only name-calling.
Or perhaps something more creative and accurate could be substituted for the term "wingnut." Maybe a response explaning, point for point, why his ideas would never work.
Or maybe you think it's not worth the effort. Into the wingnut box he goes. But I'm telling you, there's only one other box, and it's got the name "kook" on it.
Anyone who uses these kinds of words, I just want to instantly ignore. So yeah, I don't care if his ideas are so crazy that he deserves to be put on medication for them. Calling him a wingnut is just bad taste. It lacks flavor.
Are you serious? I love it - it's bad taste but lacks flavour - pure genius.
We are the keyboard cowboys, engaging in an armchair revolution. Who wants to make a difference when you can throw anonymous tomatoes at people you'll never meet?
if your willing to throw a tomato,
why aren't you willing to cook a potatoes for some poor kid down the street who's parents cant work.
potatoes are allot cheaper too. or at least here in LA.
instead of picking people or things to argue about, and to throw tomatoes at, why not cook for your community? and help those in need? instead of you paying the government to do it for you?
if your not willing to fight or serve for your cause, are you not lost to it? its a lost cause if no one wants to give anything up for it. or do it themselves. you want to help? help.
if you dont?
STFU.
My words should be taken quite literally.
instead of arguing all day while people suffer.
isnt that what you all fight against?
we all want to help the poor.
we all want to serve our country.
we all have the same rights.
some of us have more privileges than others, but can we say we earned the right for double standard?
we have the right for violence, just because someone else commits violence?
do we have the right, to let people buy our vote, just because the other side did the same thing?
no.
we are the ones who are right. correct?
well, if your so left, that your right, then be right. and do the right thing :)
help people instead of arguing and hurting and stomping each other.
Unless of course you are out doing those things, in which case you should just keep at it and don't waste your time trying to motivate a comment thread full of slackers.
I'm a self-proclaimed slacktivist. I'm comfortable with that.
This guy is coming in and asking why we don't all get off our keysters and go make a difference if we're going to sit here and comment about it. I see the irony. Don't you?
If you're referring to my use of the word "motivate," I mean specifically in a physical sense. I'll come in here and voice my opinion, but that's not the same thing as asking people to get up and go out and build someone a house. Or cook them potatoes. Or whatever it was he said.
So you tell this guy, trying to motivate someone in the thread, not to bother. Dude, you bloviate. You just wrote about nothing.
Killerkush, you fight that good fight buddy.
Why does that sound so much like a rapist or wife beater?
Moron.
Everyone keeps failing to separate one from the other. Why?
It starts earlier than the previous videos. When Paul's car arrives, Valle steps up to the passenger door with her sign. A couple of guys quickly get in front of her and move her back, out of frame. After a few seconds, Paul gets out of the car and begins to move through the crowd, as Valle reappears on the other side of the car, in front, with Pezzano in pursuit.
The video then turns to follow Paul and misses the brouhaha. Embedded video and Maha's take here.
At the link cited previously in this thread...
Her statements are clearly false. She is clearly seen waiting for his car (SUV), then rushing it and shoving her sign in his window.
So you accept the premise that the woman's report of the incident is different than what the video shows?
"So you accept the premise that the woman's report of the incident is different than what the video shows?"
Thus far? Only for hypothetical purposes.
Make a point, don't leave one to infer.
So just throw words into the sky and see where they fall. How constructive. Keep doing that and you're irrelevant.
Now there is no more discussion, only name-calling--chinagreenelvis
What discrepancy is there between Valle's account and the videos?
I have. She did appear to push a sign into the window of Paul's car. Out of line, just on a "personal space" level.
But Rand Paul is safely guarded by police or security at the point where the wackos attack Valle. The men who assaulted her were completely out of line.
Regarding the history of being arrested: So? Does that erase constitutional rights ?
I don't know what you;re trying to say in the next sentence. MMFA would bring the truth to light because they're a "far left organization" ? I guess that's a compliment to the "far left", whatever that means.
People don't have time to think in split-second moments, not when tensions are running high in the first place. They just act.
I assume that you're saying if you were standing next to a democratic candidate and a conservative activist rushed up to him that you or the people around you wouldn't behave in a similar manner? I'd be surprised if that were true.
You can wax philosophical about whether these actions are right or wrong, but that doesn't stop them from being the natural reaction.
You criticize MMFA for the article they cite in the NYT? They cite this and seventeen other cases of violence attributed to right-wingers. So they provide you the sources, and you contend the first one cited is not yet contextual. Fine. Healthy skepticism. The context has since been laid out more clearly:
Rawstory
Mahablog
Huffington Post
mmfa
Countdown
Valle wants to get a sign in the same media shot as Paul, the Paul-supporters have already id'd her, and try to corral her before the car arrives. She ducks them, gets to the passenger window, and the sign is backwards. If she was trying to put it in the car she could have done so right there. Instead, she turned it around (you see her hand holding the far corner to hold it, not to give it to someone) and gets pushed away. She runs around the car and again tries to get on camera with her sign near Paul, but then gets tackled, where the sign gets folded. Someone steps on her leg, someone steps on her shoulder/neck. Alex picks her up.
You propose that she was a surprise threat. Maybe, but no. They knew her, they knew what she had in her hands. They would have pointed her to the cops if she had anything suspicious. They just wanted to keep her away from Paul. Did anybody--anybody on the scene--report that threat (anthrax, bomb...) that you just dreamed up? No? Well, let's see if it happens...tick...tock...tick...
Then you ponder a surprise threat against a Dem. Of course a surprise action so close to someone is potentially dangerous, and this is not an example. This was cat and mouse.
What's a Radical Centrist?
"Radical Centrism" is something I came up because I thought it sounded nice and paradoxical. Like saying "extremely moderate." As it turns out, there really is a movement that identifies itself as such. I, however, am not a part of that movement, though I'm certain I agree with some of it's principles and philosophies.
I am not a leftist. I am not a right-winger. What else is there? I am, by default, a centrist. "Radical" isn't entirely meaningless to me, but you know what? I don't feel like I have to justify myself to you, and I certainly don't feel as if you've earned a deeper explanation.
What about the seventeen other incidents they cite?
No, what I propose is the possibility that they perceived her as a potential threat, or her actions as potentially threatening in manner and form. I do not intend to justify their actions, only to explain them in a way that is more sensible than suggesting that they're simply violent and mindless.
I think it's important to hear what they have to say - not just what she does.
The problem is that the other men in this video are also being labeled as violent. Their actions are indeed questionable, but until they go on record and present their side of the story, I maintain that restraining her in the first place may or may not have been a reasonable thing to expect from someone in their situation.
May or may not...? You're maintaining nothing.
Is holding someone to the ground violence?
Context, perception, validity. Nothing is as simple as this article would have you believe.
And your statement about context...wow, a truism.
And the NYT article would have you believe what simplicity? Let us know.
There I helped you out. now i understand what happened. MMFA should stop making stuff up.
Congratulations, you've just won the Internet. Have a cigar, and a good, thorough listening of Pink Floyd's "Us and Them."
www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/rand-paul-dismisses-head-stomping-jockeying/
www.mahablog.com/2010/10/27/nope-no-justification-for-assaulting-valle/
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/tim-profitt-rand-paul-supporter_n_774285.html
www.mediamatters.org/blog/201010260038
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39880195
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOs1YNzBk2A&feature=related
Paul walks in front of the camera from the left to the right. She comes from behind the vehicle where she is tackled. I would guess that Paul was maybe ten to fifteen feet away by that point, but the incident was right in front of the vehicle.
WOW...girl
Just watched what? You need glasses, girl.
She pushes the sign in the SUV's window, then later she rushes at Mr. Paul and gets to within 6-8 feet of him before she is stopped.
What WERE you watching?
This woman did nothing wrong. she is an activist. More power to her. The corporatists and apologists would like to keep the unwashed masses away.
Rand Paul would like to do away with social security and Medicare. He is an extremist. And an elitist.
Someone who can watch a video and accurately describe what it depicts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM
This was taken from another angle.
You can see she is first pushed away when she shoves the sign into the window where Rand Paul is sitting.
Lauren Valle then runs around the SUV to try again.
Look close at about 54 seconds you can see her run in front of the SUV before being taken down and assaulted.
After seeing the whole story now I can`t blame them for restraining her, But the stomp was over the line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOs1YNzBk2A&feature=related
She's struggling to get through the crowd, attempting to physically push people out of the way and stumbling as a result. Someone yells out "that lady there whoa" and not knowing what's happening, at least one guy tries to stop her and winds up pulling off her wig.
The fact that she's even wearing a wig seems to alarm them even more, they start calling for the police, and the one guy holds her down forcefully in what appears to be an instinctive reaction to a perceived threat.
Then the big fat jerk on the left who did nothing to stop her just has to get in his two cents. He puts his foot on her and starts to stomp. One of the other men says, "Hey, hey hey hey. None of that."
According to Olberman, that guy is facing charges and is going to court.
Again, I ask: Right-wing violence, or a gray situation made worse by a single a$$hole?
It seems that the women was not the only person who was attacked.
Michael Grossman said he was also assaulted by a Paul supporter at the same event. Grossman — who attended the event “simply as a supporter†of Conway — was carrying a sign with Conway’s name on it. Shortly after Valle was attacked, Grossman said he “felt a heavy hand on my shoulder†and turned around to see a “thug†who “happened to be massive.†Grossman said the man tried to “thrust me to the ground†in order to get to Valle and take part in that melee.
Did you read the part where Grossman said:
Grossman said the man tried to “thrust me to the ground†in order to get to Valle and take part in that melee.
You are running out of reasonable excuses.
If a black man kills a white man in Seattle, and two days later another black man kills a white man in D.C., do the two events have a clear connection to each other simply because both killers were black and both victims were white? No. You have to provide evidence that the actual events themselves had physical links to one another.
Even if you show that both killers went to the same church and the pastor of that church was a racist, you don't have substantial proof that the the two killings were evidence of a conspiracy - what you have is a strong coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Which logical fallacy?
What about the seventeen other MMFA citations?
I'm not here to address the seventeen other citations. I don't think the two are necessarily related. I don't think this is a good example of "right-wing violence." I think it's an example of high-school political antics gotten out of hand.
She didn't stumble, she was tackled. And she didn't push anyone. One person was bumped into as Valle was being tackled, but it looks like that was by Profitt.
You see "bump," I see "push." I'm willing to bet that they felt "push." Nuances hardly matter in the heat of the moment. They're really only worthy in retrospect, and in retrospect, most analysis are rendered superficial.
It's true, though, that she was headed in the candidates general direction. Coincidence?
At the minimum, the lady blatantly disguising herself so as not to be recognized as the thug she is should have a restraining order levied against her that she is not allowed to participate in any more political rallies. Also she should not be allowed within 100 feet of any politician.
Is she a thug? No, unless you consider all activists thugs. I appreciate activists on both sides.
Restraining order? Why? I agree she should have been taken down by security for charging the car but she had no intent to harm, only to question. In other words, this is a misunderstanding, not an assassination attempt. She should learn to stay away but she should not be banned.
So you take this guy's "probably because" explanation while Valle states what she was doing, something verifiable. Talk about going for the MacGuffin...
"Costume." "Disguise." Context. Perception.
How many people trying to restrain her do you think understood that it was a costume?
Without knowing that it was a costume, it's a fair assumption that it was a disguise - especially if that assumption has little or no bearing on your final judgement of the situation.
In comparison to the reactionary and emotionally-fueled responses that I've seen so far, I consider MacGuffin's post a beacon of light. A slight misinterpretation of the facts (or lack of a specific one) doesn't change that.
Darn those semantics. They get in the way of your being clear. Look up "reactionary" and try restating. You mean "reactive"?
And this point still stands:
Fine, throw the first of 18 citations out for misinterpretation. Move on to the next 17.
That guy who stomped on her? He ruined it for everyone. His actions make chasing her down and trying to restrain her completely wrong.
It's right-wing violence, all-right. And you're next.
That's a good question, and one that should be asked here. However, given such little information to go on, I don't think it's one that can be easily answered.
You seem to think a person can physically grab and "restrain" a person because they THINK that person is about to do something? I really doubt there is any legal justification for the "restraining" never mind the "foot placing" as you put it."
Well, I don't. What I do think is that in some situations, is's perfectly reasonable to expect exactly that response. It's the reason I wouldn't walk into a police station brandishing a weapon - one of them might get a little trigger happy and shoot me. Would it be right? Or is the more pertinent question "Would it be surprising?"
WOW! Just wow - you are comparing private citizens grabbing and restraining other private citizens based on the fact the person being restrained MIGHT do something to waving around a firearm in a police station? Really? Cause they aren't analogous at all. That's really the point here - private citizens do not have the same rights that the police have to grab and restrain people.
A better example would be going to a high school football pep rally wearing the opposing team's Jersey. Are you in your rights to do it? Yes. Would it be wrong for people to approach you and physically harrass and maybe even assault you? Yes. But if you're genuinely surprised when it happens, you're pretty naive.
Political stunt people don't pull these kinds of antics not knowing full well that it will probably create a media frenzy. I doubt very much that this woman wasn't in some small way trying to cause this ruckus to happen.
Does that make what happened right? No. But it does make the story less interesting. (Or more, if you ask me. But who likes convolution when you can just call it right-wing violence and spread it like wildfire?)
Perfect. Absolutely perfect.
I'll give you this out: things are certainly gray, as you point out. But we all do each other a favor when we introduce clarity. We do no favors when we introduce more gray. Zeroing in on what really happened regarding an incident like this guides future discussion and future actions that can be constructive. Clarity, Elvis.
You can't hold anyone accountable by watching a YouTube video. You can't resolve the issue of what happened by commenting on a website. I came here to criticize Media Matters - not to justify the actions of Rand Paul supporters or MoveOn employees.
No wonder you're exhausted.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you reason to call them names.
If you like to feed Confusion, that is indeed another animal. You're going to get called on it here.
@chinagreenelvis Thanks!But you should have closed your browser faster. :)
I agree with you regarding her proximity. I think she got too close to the car when it pulled up. The window was open, she could have shoved the sign in, like people claim she did, but she didn't. She screwed up, because the sign was backwards and she had to turn it around, then she got pushed away, rightly so for being so close he wouldn't be able to open the door. Then she ran around the car to get another chance to be near him on the walkway. At that point, I think they knew she could get near him and welcomed her with open arms...and closed them on her and tackled her. I think it played out like you'd expect, where they catch her again, but then she was wrestled to the ground and stomped, and that got people upset.
I was hammering Elvis for being vague, offering little or no substance to back up the [MMFA = liberal spin] equation, and refused to let go. I was in this cycle:
1. Got a point? 2. Make it. 3. Back it up. 4. Try again, you just said nothing. 5. Repeat.
Admittedly, that was exhausting.
My basis for the hammering is this: if you want to convince people to agree with you, to back you, and you've got a hidden agenda that might not be popular, you need tools other than rational argument. One of those tools is to confuse people, to inject doubt, to muddy the waters of discourse such that many don't make up their minds, and you therefore have, as we see in these elections, occasions where the crowd is very close to 50-50 for two sides of an issue when it would not be near 50-50 if positions were honestly laid out. Now your unpopular position is elevated to 50-50, and you have a chance for your measure to pass or your candidate to get elected. Elvis exemplified that tool, to inject confusion, to be unclear, to just blow smoke and get us talking in circles. So long as you can't nail down whether something was right-wing or liberal or even if it fit the definition of violent, you can't establish the string of right-wing violence. I refused to see that tactic win again.
I think MMFA knew their point would be hard to refute by outlining 18 examples rather than just one or two, because this thread would have been simple back-and-forth with two cases of left-wing violence. But 18? Didn't happen. Hardly any of that "they do it too" equivalency stuff.
Actually, I don't intend to drive Elvis away. Please, Elvis, just take a position and be clear about it and we can debate the merits. I think you can do it and you might enlighten someone.
Remember:
We can't go on together
With suspicious minds
And we can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds
Oooooh-oooooooooh...
MacGuffin. Does that mean you're a Hitchcock fan?
MOst people are going to be laughing too hard at that phrase to go any further.
CNN – 325,000 viewers
MSNBC – 427,000 viewers
CNBC – 174,000 viewers
HLN – 241,000 viewers
Did you have a point , or just a shout-out to the rest of the sheep in the Fox herd ??
My point is that whether you are liberal or conservative, Sweet Valley High, a Jet or a Raiders fanatic, there's always that one guy who just has to get his foot in and stomp on somebody. It's not a right-left thing, it's a human thing.
Many of you who comment on this board apparently do not wish to see criticism of Media Matters, and will do or say just about anything to try to stamp it out - even if it comes from a neutral source.
I've been called a troll, an impostor, insincere, and worse today. Those of you who think I'm a conservative troublemaker, I suggest you read my blog. http://www.chinagreenelvis.com - I challenge you to find anything there that even remotely resembles a conservative attitude.
The fact is, I read Media Matters almost daily and I appreciate what they do, which is holding media figures accountable for their distortions, their lies, and their dangerous rhetoric. However, it is obvious to me that they themselves are not beyond partisan spin, and I believe that if they are to be trusted to hold other organizations accountable, they too should be held accountable for times when they are guilty of playing the same game.
I'm stuffed - no more spam, thanks.
And you keep saying you are done here and then post again.
And since you're attentive enough to keep track of my comments in real time, here's one more for good measure:
Eat a dick.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Tonight's movie is "Wingnuts and Trolls," starring Sarah Palin and Rachel Maddow as two quirky but lovable hitchhikers on the road to wackiness.
And why does it keep trying to force feed me things such as spam and dick? I wonder if it's spotted dick? Doesn't matter, as I already told it, I'm full.
Thanks for trying to fight the good fight!
I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts, but I am not surprised at the reactions of most of the people here. Remember that there are none so blind as those who willfully refuse to see.
Take care, and I hope you come around again sometime.
they didn't try and approach Rand Paul, they ran up to his SUV and shoved a sign in his face
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM&feature=player_embedded
it very well could have been security staff
ONE video - that every channel aired - showed the woman being taken to the ground, wrestling on the ground, and then being stepped on her SHOULDER, not on her head.
That is ABSOLUTELY wrong for the Rand Paul supporter to have done!
However, there is also a SECOND video that shows the woman darting out of a crowd of people lined up at the curb of the street. She was holding a large sign out in front of her like a spear, and she rushed up to the open window of Mr. Paul's car as the car came to a stop at the curb. She rushed directly at the passenger window where Mr. Paul was sitting, and began jabbing the sign into the open window of the car!
A security man for Mr. Paul saw her, ran up to her, and then pulled her away from the car and down onto the ground. As he grabbed her, her wig (disguise) came off, and she struck her head against the edge of the curb as she fell.
The second video clearly shows the woman was never chased around the car, and was absolutely lying when she claimed to have been. She was also clearly shoving the sign into the car at the direction of Mr. Paul's head.
Her conduct was certainly dangerous, and would HAVE to be reacted to by any competent Secret Service agent or other law enforcement/
security officer.
I do not believe any crime was committed, as the people that were involved saw a person in disguise rushing the vehicle, attempting to jab a sign toward his head. Preventing that act is almost certain to be construed as acting to defend Mr. Paul's safety.
I would absolutely expect the President's Secret Service detail to react in the SAME manner as Mr. Paul's security officer.
I absolutely do not condone the supporter using his foot to step on her shoulder or head!
I also note that he did not stomp on her head, and rather quickly drew away when confronted by others standing nearby.
I do not believe that anyone can honestly characterize those events as a beating/stomping of an innocent political opponent. To do so is playing fast and loose with the truth, and unworthy of anyone of character.
We all would be well advised to ask why the more complete, and definitive, second video has not received very much airtime!!
If you think all candidates should be shielded, as the PResident of the United States is, from the public who might want to actually interact with them and ask them questions, I guess you'd love the idea of oligarchy. Or perhaps the divine right of kings.
She knew what she was getting into. Does she "deserve" what she got? No, not really, but you don't show up to a football pep rally wearing the other team's Jersey expecting to be welcomed with open arms.
If you think she's just the innocent subject of inexcusable act of violence, then you're just taking sides. That's your perrogative, but it doesn't mean the rest of us can't be free to analyze the nuances of the situation without you coming in and barking at us about how we're "blaming the victim."
Seeing someone stick a fork in a socket and then saying afterwards, "It's a shame that she got shocked and I wish that didn't happen, and yeah, that outlet probably deserves to be moved higher but she really shouldn't have stuck that fork in that socket" is not blaming the victim. It's being honest about all sides of the situation.
The guy who stomped her got fired from the campaign and is going to court for it. Get over it and be happy that he's getting what's coming to him. Let the rest of us worry about whether or not the media is abusing the story for other purposes.
Funny - there seem to be a lot of this on this thread.
Funny - there seem to be a lot of this on this thread.
Thanks MM and your affiliates!!
There is no justification for it whatever. People who've posted on here as apologists should be ashamed of themselves.
Instead I am celebrating how the shameless use of this unfortunate event backfired.
Just because Fox champions this kind of spin doesn't mean liberals shouldn't question it when it comes from their camp.
If you can't question the ideology you love, you don't deserve to have beliefs.
Noting that a teapartier stomped on a woman: Shameless.
Got it.
But don't use it to attack Paul Rand.
If using these shameless tactics results in a backfire, I will continue to celebrate.
Thanks again.