I'm glad you agree her gender is irrelevant. But so is size. A security risk is a security risk because a short, 100 pound person can just as easily be carrying a weapon as a 300 pound NFL center.
And putting her on the ground rather than grabbing her arms and holding them behind her back would be a defense against her drawing and firing a weapon The thugs were untrained dirtbags and dimbulbs and I hope that the next woman on who they lay hands bobettizes them with a steel-toed boot.
My concern is this is a national movement. It's political, it's national and it is feeding off itself. The actors in this drama share fear stories via the Net and the news media is gladly selling stories about it. There's much more here than some isolated incident of bullying.
This current trend is associated with a national political movement. I'm not saying we are on some unavoidable slide into Nazism. Nothing even close. But at what point should we say this political movement is on that insidious path of self righteousness that gives people the perceived license to physically attack others?
From my point of view, there are a number of people in this TeaParty that are inciting this kind of response. They are imagining their freedom and the country are threatened and it's OK to use violent means to respond.
Godwin be damned, you have a good reason to be so concerned.
Some of the hot heads in the teabagger camp have very real ties to white nationalism,, and they are a threat to democracy as we know it.
The white nationalists will never have the numbers they need to do anything, and well they know it. But that does not mean that they will have to fight alone, should they ever decide to step off into the fray. Their strategy was laid out years ago - create or subvert movements and groups with an emotionally-charged aggenda who will, when the fiighting starts, fight on your side, or at least not against your side, thinking that they are fighting on their OWN side.
Just looking at the Gadsden flags that show up around teabagger gatherings make my skin crawl.
Note to self: Remember to get some more .38 spl at the next W.A.C. show.
You have absolutely no proof of that. In fact, the videos show just the opposite. ... that up to the point she was brought to the ground, she was still struggling against their efforts to control her. And even after she was down, she clearly was still trying to get up.
It's laughable to hear you and the pundits in the leftwing media raising the spector of Hitler and brown shirts, just because a paid, crazed, leftwing, environmental agitator, who assaulted a senatorial candidate, gets subdued by forcing her to the ground and because one of those present puts a foot on her shoulder and gives her a small push with that foot.
But at least you have the guts to use the words Hitler and Nazi. Pundits(?) like Chris Matthews are trying to say the same thing without mentioning Hitler or Nazis … by linking this event to Germany in the 1930s in a dark fashion. All and all you folks are looking sillier and sillier, and quite desperate. LOL!
The way I hear it someone had noticed her in the crowd and they had contacted the police already. Do you think it was business as usual that she was put on the ground or is it possible that they thought she was up to something bad.
I am wondering if you could buy the excuse that they thought maybe she had a gun. I guess you are right women with wig disguises can't have guns.
That first interview he did on Fox was lame
Yes he would have been much smarter to not wait and find out all of the fact.
Does the Dept of Agriculture ring a bell?
Disclaimer: This does not mean I feel all people with views disagreeing with Rand Paul should be stomped. If I believed that my head would have to be stomped also.
Well... about the part I hi-lited in your post. That's the reason I said I can't buy any excuse from those guys. It was because they knew who she was & knew what she was there for. Like you said, someone tried to tell the Cops she was gonna try to be a nuisance to Paul, but the Cops didn't think it warranted their help at the time. She was in Kentucky for a couple weeks doing her & moveon.org's satirical 'Republicorp' promotion. At least that's what she said. I don't have a reason not believe her when she says she was getting noticed by Paul's supporters for the 'Republicorp' thing she was doing around Kentucky.
Now, if nobody knew who she was, didn't know she was an activist or anything, and thought she was trying to get close to Paul to maybe position herself to fire a shot, then yeah, restrain her and run to get the police. However, she claims she was identified & surrounded before Paul got out of the vehicle. Then when he got out of the vehicle she stepped off the curb and tried to get around the guys who surrounded her and it was from that point that the video started and we saw what happened from there.
So, that's why I think the guys went too far. They knew who she was & why she was there. They had her on the ground, pinned, and she was no longer near Paul and I felt even that was too much for a girl her size. If you want to see her talk about it, here's a clip from Obermann's show from the 26th.
You can skip to 3:16 to see her explain what I'm talking about & at 4:23 is where she says that the guys who restrained her knew who she was & what she was up to.
About Rand Paul's interview on Fox, yes, it was very lame. He didn't say what I felt he should of said. I think he should of said something to the effect of 'Men shouldn't physically handle women like what we saw in the tape and especially not shove a foot onto her shoulder near her head'.
I think there were enough facts available at that time for him to conclude that a statement like that would of not come back to bite him.
This isn't comparable to the Sherrod case. There wasn't any splicing of video. The Dept. of Agriculture comparison if off, IMO. Paul tried to marginalize this situation by saying that "both sides" need to remain civil. He said there was a problem with crowd control. I just want to know why he couldn't of condemned the over physical handling of the woman and condemned Mr. Proffit for introducing his foot to her body.
Instead we get Rand Paul dodging the actual reason this is news...a woman was put on the ground, excessively IMO & had her shoulder purposely stepped on.
Also... I don't think you endorse head stomping and don't think anyone else would of thought that either.
And I do think it's testament to this forum & the people who post here that a heated subject such as this one can still be rationally discussed, for the most part. If anyone wants to see some crazy comments about this, glance at the youtube comments on the Olbermann video above. Yikes.
Noone is really disagreeing with that. But some seem to be disagreeing with the notion that she was a threat when she shoved her sign in the car and later ran around the front of the car towards the candidate's location. What do you think about that, bookitty?
Open your eyes. You could see her hands at all times. How the hell is she going to draw a weapon. The dirtbag and his people knew who she was before hand and they couldn't just stand in front of her and block her?
Teatards are idiots and cowards. They don't know how to handle an annoying twit without smacking her around in the manner of a redneck whose wife just told him she wouldn't go get him another beer.
I hope none of the turds that shoved her to the ground have children. We don't need sociopaths like them teaching a boy how to relate to women.
It's laughable to hear you and the pundits in the leftwing media raising the spector of Hitler and brown shirts, just because a paid, crazed, leftwing, environmental agitator, who assaulted a senatorial candidate, gets subdued by forcing her to the ground and because one of those present puts a foot on her shoulder and gives her a small push with that foot.
Stop that. Only a sissy and a bully thinks that she was dangerous. They knew who she was. They had, on that basis, no reason to think that she was potentially violent.
Unless of course, the person feeling so threatenred by her was a mouth-breathing retard, which, given the way they handled her, is entirely likely.
Remember, this is NOT the first time that teatards have stomped on an opponent who couldn't effectively fight back and then cried about being victims.
But at least you have the guts to use the words Hitler and Nazi. Pundits(?) like Chris Matthews are trying to say the same thing without mentioning Hitler or Nazis … by linking this event to Germany in the 1930s in a dark fashion. All and all you folks are looking sillier and sillier, and quite desperate. LOL!
And the blustering little boys who follow slime like Rand Paul look more and more like Sturmabteilung goons every day. We have teatards offering to take up arms if one of their dirtbags doesn't win. America can't afford these thugs.
It's laughable to hear you and the pundits in the leftwing media raising the spector of Hitler and brown shirts, just because a paid, crazed, leftwing, environmental agitator, who assaulted a senatorial candidate, gets subdued by forcing her to the ground and because one of those present puts a foot on her shoulder and gives her a small push with that foot.
But at least you have the guts to use the words Hitler and Nazi. Pundits(?) like Chris Matthews are trying to say the same thing without mentioning Hitler or Nazis … by linking this event to Germany in the 1930s in a dark fashion. All and all you folks are looking sillier and sillier, and quite desperate. LOL!
1. The Nazi references are inflammatory embellishments that I feel further nothing only anger and irritation.
2. She is a well known activist
3. She did not ASSAULT him. She may have gotten in his face with a sign, but that hardly qualifies, as far as I am concerned, as an ASSAULT.
4. It was not a small or gentle shove with the foot. If you watch the video, you can see her upper torso bend SIGNIFICANTLY, and her head hits off the concrete on the rebound movement. It was not a HEAD STOMP or CURB STOMP, but it was much more then a "small shove".
You know there is an aspect of this event that needs highlighting. And that is the involvement of MoveOn.org, who hired Valle just three weeks ago in order to disrupt the event in a dramatic (and, frankly, dangerous) fashion.
MoveOn.org seems desperate to downplay their association. Go to their website. I don't see Valle even mentioned … perhaps because she failed in her assigned mission of getting a picture with Rand Paul and the RepuliCorp sign with which they could embarrass Rand Paul in commercials. Or perhaps it's that they, like me, know that Valle really won't be seen as a hero by most Americans. Or perhaps it's that they don't want the light of truth to shine of MoveOn.org and it's history.
How many of you remember how MoveOn.org came into being? Recall that it was formed during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, to defend Clinton from the allegations against him. In short, it was formed to defend a liar (and worse). They wanted the country to just "Move On". In my opinion, what MoveOn.org has become is an even darker perversion of that. It's now a major funding vehicle for the most far left wing of the democratic party.
Now in it's RepubliCorp campaign, MoveOn complains about the connections between republicans and corporations. Of course they fail to mention that democrats have just as many connections, just different ones. But the real story here is MoveOn's willingness to defend and hire people that are liars, criminals and EXTREME radicals (at least that is the way I think most American's would see them if all the facts were common knowledge). The real story is MoveOn's attempt to disrupt the democratic election process with cheap political stunts using far left paid agitators rather than engage in honest debate of issues. The real story is that Obama has a radical organization like MoveOn.org in his twitter account. The real story should be MoveOn.org's recent attack on TARGET with a completely phony accusation. So not only does MoveOn.org hire liars, it itself engages in lies. I do indeed hope this incident goes to trial so the connections of Valle to MoveOn.org can be explored under oath.
1. You have not provided any proof that moveon.org hired her 3 weeks ago for the PURPOSE OF DISRUPTING THIS PARTICULAR EVENT IN DRAMATIC FASHION.
2. Ummm...There is a commercial running after 10PM in the area that plays what they did to her on the video OVER and OVER...so someone is using it.
3. The Tea Republican Party has done little to hide the fact that they are the puppets of corporate America. She was simply making satire out of it. Clinton - a liar, yes...a Corporate WHORE...perhaps...who knows, but I know the Tea Republican Party is nothing more then human bodies representing corporate interests at this point.
I think you are wrong. What she did in shoving that sign into a moving car, and in pushing and shoving security during her attempt to approach Rand Paul the second time, is assault. Consider the fact that not too long ago, the left was up in arms because a tea party protestor supposedly (it was never proven) spit on a democratic congressman. I could link you hundreds of leftist blogs and websites that called that assault and called for that person's arrest. Even the congressman called it assault and he returned to the scene with a policeman and the intention of finding and charging the person he claimed (again unproven) spit on him. Of course, he wasn't able to identify the person even though photos show that person was standing right in front of him and the policeman.
Now, of course, every state is different. In Kentucky where this occurred, one apparently has to actually injure or intentionally attempt to injure someone for it to be called "assault" (http://www.getmemylawyer.com/louisville_assault_terroristic_threatening_menacing_abuse.htm ). But Kentucky law does say "A person is guilty of menacing when he intentionally places another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury." Valle's actions qualify. Also, Kentucky law says "A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person." Again, Valle's actions arguably meet that definition. Now neither of those are felonies, but they are crimes punishable by fine and incarceration.
On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith interviewed MoveOn.org protestor Lauran Valle … snip …
SMITH: Alright. Let's talk a little bit about the origin of all of this. You are a political activist, you were hired by MoveOn.org, were you not?
VALLE: Yes, I've been in Kentucky for the past two weeks working on a project called 'Republicore,' which is a satirical conglomeration between the Republican Party and corporate America. So we're pointing out the impact that corporate spending has been having.
SMITH: So you were there with a wig on and a sign and hoping to what? Get in camera range or get close to Rand Paul in some way?
VALLE: Yeah, I wanted Rand to see my sign. I had an 'employee of the month' award from Republicore, and I was dressed as a Republicore executive.
And by the way, let me again point out that she lied in that interview when she claimed "I was simply there to hold a sign." She lied when she said "I had no – no bad intentions, only wanted to be there, like everyone else, with a sign." She was very clearly there for more than that reason. And actually said so in other interviews when admitted she wanted to get a picture of Rand Paul holding the sign. Her recklessly shoving the sign into the open car window is also proof that she was there to do more than simpley "hold a sign". She a liar and those who defend her should know they are defending a liar. But then that's nothing new for democrats.
Earlier, one of you claimed Lauren Valle is not a terrorist. I already mentioned her arrest by the New Orleans Joint Terrorism Taskforce. But there is a stronger connection between her and terrorism.
In April 2008 she was involved (arrested) in a protest at Citibank's headquarters that was part of a RainForest Action Network campaign. For those who don't know, the RainForest Action Network (RAN) is a VERY radical anti-capitalist, anti-corporate coalition of environmental groups that has connections to all sorts of very extreme leftists. The group is so radical that it doesn't want banks to lend ANY money to oil, mining and timber companies. It is against hydroelectric power and bio-technology. You should think about the sort of world such people want to create, folks. No oil. No mining. No logging. No electricity. No medicines. No Capitalism. How many people do you think the world will support under those groundrules? Do you honestly think you will be one of the lucky ones that survive? You are a fool if you do.
Look at the leadership of RAN. Communist Van Jones was a board member of RAN. Communist Jodie Evans is a current board member. Mike Roselle, who co-founded the organization, also founded the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Well, ELF along with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is ranked the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat by the FBI (or at least it was until recently). According to the FBI, they've engaged in hundreds of criminal acts and caused tens of millions of dollars in damage over the years. I wouldn't be surprised to find ELF and ALF members on Valle's speed dial list.
And this is the sort of organization that Valle worked for … the cause she supports. And MoveOn.org had no problem hiring Valle with this sort of organization in her resume. And apparently some posters here at JREF have no problem defending her, even with that sort of background. I guess the ends justify the means. Right, folks?
BAC: Read what you said, and what I asked...I did not deny that they hired her. I did not deny that they hired her 3 weeks ago. Where is your proof that they hired her TO DISRUPT IN DRAMATIC FASHION THE RAND PAUL EVENT WHERE SHE WAS ASSAULTED?
Defending a liar? Perhaps, although I think her comments were more misleading then outright lies. She was there to protest, and to get a picture of herself next to RP with the Republicorp sign. Only from your perspective, would these intentions be "bad".
oh, and if we are going to criticize about people defending liars...Bush...Cheney...Rumsfeld...the list goes on. REP supporters have spent the last how many years defending AN ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION of LIARS.
The DEMs are not free of Corporate Influence at all. Bring on your evidence of who is more in bed with them. If you think the Tea Republican Party will be any different then the now defunct Republican Party, you are mistaken.
And this is the sort of organization that Valle worked for … the cause she supports. And MoveOn.org had no problem hiring Valle with this sort of organization in her resume. And apparently some posters here at JREF have no problem defending her, even with that sort of background. I guess the ends justify the means. Right, folks?
It's also a riot listening to you spin and spin and spin, rather than simply acknowledge that Valle herself identified the people wearing those Rand Paul tshirts (like Profitt was) as being there to provide "crowd control". She then said when Rand Paul's car approached, "they" "started grabbing me" and she ran around the car with "them" "in pursuit". When she gets around to the front of the car, she says "that is when" "they" "took me down". Clearly, all those "they"s and "them"s referred to the same group she earlier identified as being there for "crowd control", i.e., security. You just need to learn to read English.
You quoted Valle imparting hearsay. Relaying that someone else overheard a non-specific third party claim to be crowd control is not evidence that any one specific person actually was crowd control.
Show me where the Rand Paul camp confirms Profitt was at the event working security.
A volunteer yes, but you haven't provided anything to substantiate he had no "official" or "specific" capacity. Volunteers can still be assigned duties, jk. Including "crowd control".
The fact that police were in the area is mentioned in various news articles. In fact, one account states that someone pointed out Valle to policemen before the scuffle, expressing concern about her, but they didn't do anything. So they were clearly in the immediate area and probably had eyes on her even if they had decided not to detain her earlier. And other accounts clearly indicate that police showed up immediately after she was subdued.
As for the tape, you are simply wrong. Take another look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yiLeud-sxrM at about 1:13 - 1:20 minutes and you will see that people were clearly standing behind yellow tape. There definitely were efforts to keep the crowd back and the red suited wacko tried to circumvent those efforts.
That's not video of the incident. Go to the OP. Watch the video embeded in the link. Tell me where the cordoned off section is visible and where Profitt is in relation to it.
False. I quoted Valle herself indicating those people were there for "crowd control". Now you stated as fact that they had not role in that. Well, prove it. Their actions certainly seem to be in line with controlling the crowd.
You quoted Valle imparting hearsay. Relaying that someone else overheard a non-specific third party claim to be crowd control is not evidence that any one specific person actually was crowd control.
Show me where the Rand Paul camp confirms Profitt was at the event working security.
There you go lying again. Tim Profitt didn't wrestle the woman to the ground. Someone else did that. He only helped hold the woman down with his foot once she was down.
Again, you are wrong. Tim Profitt didn't wrestle the woman to the ground. The video clearly shows someone else did that.
Gee, do you think that repeating that three times is going to change the fact that Time Profitt didn't wrestle anyone to the ground?
The video in the OP demonstrates otherwise. It clearly shows both Profitt and his accomplice wrestling with Valle, and then Valle being taken to the ground. Just because Profitt didn't go down as well, doesn't mean he didn't take part.
Relaying that someone else overheard a non-specific third party claim to be crowd control is not evidence that any one specific person actually was crowd control.
Show me where the Rand Paul camp confirms Profitt was at the event working security.
So are you claiming she lied about her purpose in attending the event in her interview with CBS? That she wasn't there on RepubliCorp business?
Or are you suggesting that MoveOn.org hired a unstable wacko like her and then turned her loose to do whatever she wanted in their name? Perhaps that's another charge I should add to my post about MoveOn.org, which is the bigger story here.
LOL! First it was "is". Now democrats want us to parse the difference between "misleading" and "outright lies". Sorry, but stating she was only there to "hold up a sign" is clearly false given what we saw her do. That's an outright lie in my book. Only democrats would call that "misleading" at this point.
Oh. Is that what she was doing when she shoved the sign into the car? Was she going to follow it in, so she could be seen sitting next to Rand Paul as the picture was snapped?
She was there to mock the teatard. She was not going to punch him out. The teatards knew that. They could see that she was there to display a sign mocking the teatard.
They were just pissed off that they had lost control of the message.
You keep saying that people are defending Lauren Valle. They are not. They are condemning her attacker. Big difference.
The phrase "They said they were here to do crowd control." is hearsay. It is impossible to know if it was actually uttered, if it was used as euphemism, or if it referred to hired security guards.
But first they had to stop her. What liberals need to learn is once you start down this road, don't expect the other side to carefully measure out the response. People are fallable. The events happen too quickly for much thought to take place. We all do the best we can in such circumstance. So if a trouble maker gets roughed up a little more than you would like, C'est la vie.
My granddad used to use the phrase "My country - love it or leave." I think it's applicable here. My country, America, has a constitution that is one of the most incredible political documents ever penned. It blows the Magna Carta out of the water.
The First Amendment, in part, protects the rights of American citizens to free speech and peaceful assembly. It's such an important part of my freedoms as an American that I am willing to let those scumbags at the Westboro Baptist church be protected under it.
What you are suggesting is that the gathering of a specific political party is no place for anyone with a dissenting view. Instead of working towards a solution that welcomes and supports people with other opinions in the grand old American tradition, you condone violence against them.
If you don't like the laws set in The Constitution of my country, I suggest you start looking elsewhere. Maybe France, c'est la vie?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
