Rand Paul supporter tries to 'curb' a Moveon.org member

[BeAChooser]

Find me evidence that Profitt was at the event working security.

Find me evidence that Profitt was on the candidate-side of the cordonned off area during the incident.

... snip ...

Find me evidence that the police stood by and purposely let Profitt subdue Valle.

Here's another video whose content you can ignore, jk. It's the complete video clip from which the shorter OP videoclip was taken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-48vvBAJEI4

You claim there are no police visible in the videos. WRONG.

Right after Rand Paul exits the car, at 0:04 in the video, he walks in front of a police officer who has his back to Rand Paul and is facing the crowd.

Then one second later Rand Paul walks in front of a second police officer. This one is facing Rand Paul and thus facing the direction from which Valle is now coming towards Rand Paul from behind him. At 0:06 you can even see that the officer's face is turned in the precise direction where Valle at that moment is trying to get around the security staff. How could that policeman have not seen the altercation taking place with Valle? Unless you are suggesting that police officer was just plain incompetent?

At 0:07 a man enters the foreground and can be heard pointing out Valle to someone. Then starts the piece of footage seen in the OP link. We see Valle still struggling to move towards where Rand Paul is, despite the best efforts of several men to detain her. At no time does Profitt wrestle Valle to the ground. That is clearly done by the other man. And at 0:17, you can see and hear Profitt (and others) yell "get the cops" and "get the police". That's not the sort of thing someone who was there just to beat up women, like you claimed, would have done.

At 0:37, we again see Rand Paul. He's greeting the crowd on the right side of the walk facing the building, the side of the walkway that Valle was originally on before she rushed the open window of the car. Now that the crowd is on the other side of yellow tape. Meaning that those on Rand Paul's side were allowed to be there, separate from the crowd of *random* onlookers. Meaning that Profitt was not a random onlooker. In fact, he was Rand Paul's Bourbon County coordinator, which means he probably had more than a little involvement in arranging security.

Next we see Rand Paul enter the building, then the camera pans around to the other side of the walkway, opposite from where Rand Paul had been shaking hands with the crowd. And again we see more yellow tape.

So you go ahead, jk, and continue to pretend there were no efforts to keep the crowd back from Rand Paul. No tape. No security guards. No police. I'll just and laugh at your transparent spin in order to defend the actions of what is clearly a paid, extreme leftist maniac who wasn't at the event to engage in legitimate protest but to create a scene and disruption.

 

[leftysergeant]

Meaning that Profitt was not a random onlooker. In fact, he was Rand Paul's Bourbon County coordinator, which means he probably had more than a little involvement in arranging security.

Yup. Paul had a ham-fisted, cowardly little stormtrooper running his security detail. Givng a jerk like that power just shows that you are not up to the job of overseeing any part of national security.

So you go ahead, jk, and continue to pretend there were no efforts to keep the crowd back from Rand Paul. No tape. No security guards. No police. I'll just and laugh at your transparent spin in order to defend the actions of what is clearly a paid, extreme leftist maniac who wasn't at the event to engage in legitimate protest but to create a scene and disruption.

THe police were only there to deal with people who were actually dangerous. The Paultard thug was there to intimidate anyone who disrupted Paul's paly.

He is surropunded by deliusional cowards and wussies and dimwits. The only response they know is to intimidate and hurt people who disagre with them.

 

[jj-158]

It's hard to say at this point. The news media is hunting down every incident now. It could be this is the usual amount but it's getting more attention.

In which case, your claim that 'There's much more here than some isolated incident of bullying' is not based on evidence, merely your unsubstantiated and very biased opinion.

Yet historically, we can look back and see times when this kind of thing grew to dangerous levels. The McCarthy Era (right wing paranoia),

That depends on your viewpoint. At that time, the Russian Reds were the enemy.

the Civil Rights movement (a necessary but violent struggle) ,

That depends on your viewpoint. When is violence necessary?

the Vietnam War protests (the one time the left side of the isle was getting more violent though I do believe the government killed more people than any protest groups did),

That may be so. However, if you want to point to casualties, you cannot point to that many - if any - casualties caused by any member of the Tea Party.

The Aryan Nations skinhead random racial violence and murder (more isolated),

In which case, you cannot use that example.

and, internationally, of course, more deadly national movements developed, some under not so different circumstances.

Of course. However, it is up to you to demonstrate that the Tea Party is inherently violent, to a degree that it is comparable with those groups.

At some point those dangerous movements that were developing insidiously became serious problems. Many many more no doubt, never amounted to more than the news media creating the commodity they sell.

Are the Tea Partyers suggesting anything violent in their political platform? Are they not trying themselves to squash the violence?

What worries me in this case is how many nut job candidates are serious contenders in the coming election. That translates to a lot of nut job followers.

Again, compared to what?

You have to quantify, if you want to demonstrate that the Tea Party is something to be afraid of. If you cannot, then you are just as much a scare mongerer as what you accuse the Tea Party of being.

 

[BeAChooser]

You have to quantify, if you want to demonstrate that the Tea Party is something to be afraid of. If you cannot, then you are just as much a scare mongerer as what you accuse the Tea Party of being.

Crickets.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You have to quantify, if you want to demonstrate that the Tea Party is something to be afraid of. If you cannot, then you are just as much a scare mongerer as what you accuse the Tea Party of being.

I made a series of quantifications that support SG's assertions and provided context for the actions at the Rand Paul rally. The mods however removed them as being somehow off-topic. Which is why I now mostly just lurk on this thread. Why post context if it just going to be removed?

GB

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In which case, your claim that 'There's much more here than some isolated incident of bullying' is not based on evidence, merely your unsubstantiated and very biased opinion.

That depends on your viewpoint. At that time, the Russian Reds were the enemy.

That depends on your viewpoint. When is violence necessary?

That may be so. However, if you want to point to casualties, you cannot point to that many - if any - casualties caused by any member of the Tea Party.

In which case, you cannot use that example.

Of course. However, it is up to you to demonstrate that the Tea Party is inherently violent, to a degree that it is comparable with those groups.

Are the Tea Partyers suggesting anything violent in their political platform? Are they not trying themselves to squash the violence?

Again, compared to what?

You have to quantify, if you want to demonstrate that the Tea Party is something to be afraid of. If you cannot, then you are just as much a scare mongerer as what you accuse the Tea Party of being.

Instead of all this why don't you just say why you don't think there is an increase in political violence at the moment?

You don't know if my opinion is "very biased". Are you an open carry right winger who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with you is "very biased"? Think it's OK to step on a woman expressing free speech if the woman doesn't support your candidate? Plan to exert your "second amendment rights" if the majority votes against your political preferences?

I have no clue what your political view is as I don't recall enough of your posts. But I don't understand this rather argumentative reply to mine. It suggests any implication the TeaParty includes people who think it is OK to step on someone has offended you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I made a series of quantifications that support SG's assertions and provided context for the actions at the Rand Paul rally. The mods however removed them as being somehow off-topic. Which is why I now mostly just lurk on this thread. Why post context if it just going to be removed?

GB

Well, the thought was appreciated.

 

[jj-158]

Instead of all this why don't you just say why you don't think there is an increase in political violence at the moment?

You are not right if I cannot prove you wrong. Besides, the onus is on you, as you well know.

You don't know if my opinion is "very biased".

Yes, I do, because you make no secret of you being very biased.

Are you an open carry right winger who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with you is "very biased"?

It is not my views that are being discussed here. But nice attempt of painting me as a villain.

Think it's OK to step on a woman expressing free speech if the woman doesn't support your candidate?

I have said nothing about the situation.

Plan to exert your "second amendment rights" if the majority votes against your political preferences?

I have said nothing about the situation.

I have no clue what your political view is as I don't recall enough of your posts.

And yet, your bias forces you to immediately think of me as someone who is a violent right-winger, merely because I dare ask you to back up your claim with evidence.

But I don't understand this rather argumentative reply to mine. It suggests any implication the TeaParty includes people who think it is OK to step on someone has offended you.

No, it does not. It merely suggest that you talk, but have nothing to back it up with. When questioned, it becomes the other guy's fault.

Clearly, your argumentation is qualitatively no different than those rabid opponents you rally against. If we should be watchful of anyone's political argumentation, it should be yours.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are not right if I cannot prove you wrong. Besides, the onus is on you, as you well know.
Yes, I do, because you make no secret of you being very biased.
It is not my views that are being discussed here. But nice attempt of painting me as a villain.
I have said nothing about the situation.
I have said nothing about the situation.

I said, "it appears", I described why the appearance might be wrong, and ended with "time will tell".

The "bias" appears to me, to be you having a biased view of me that affected your interpretation of what I said.

I ask you those, "are you a right winger", questions to discern just what bias you might have that caused you to reply defensively to my post. You will note they are questions, not declarations.

And yet, your bias forces you to immediately think of me as someone who is a violent right-winger, merely because I dare ask you to back up your claim with evidence.

No, my bias immediately made me question why you read "might be" as "is". As for the "violent right winger" vs "unable to see the violence of other right wingers", I have made no comment on this, only asking you if you were either.

No, it does not. It merely suggest that you talk, but have nothing to back it up with. When questioned, it becomes the other guy's fault.
Clearly, your argumentation is qualitatively no different than those rabid opponents you rally against. If we should be watchful of anyone's political argumentation, it should be yours.

You would have a point except for the fact you read my post which said "might be, time will tell" as "is". That suggests it is your bias that is operating here.

 

[applecorped]

Looks like Rand will win.

 

[leftysergeant]

Crickets.

The question has already ben answered. The teatards are useful idiots who would be a great help to a reovlutionary force, even one that any decent huma being wopuld want to see wiped off the face of the earth.

 

[leftysergeant]

Here's another video whose content you can ignore, jk. It's the complete video clip from which the shorter OP videoclip was taken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-48vvBAJEI4

Yup. Priftt gave her an extra bit of oomph and slid his foot down from her shoulder to her head. Looks to me like he intended to inflict pain. The thug is dirty. End of story.

You claim there are no police visible in the videos. WRONG.

Meh. Cops act when there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed. Only one I see there doing anything worthy of arrest is that big mouth-breathing bubba stepping on a woman like he meant to hurt her.

Sorry,, snivelling ill becomes you.

Right after Rand Paul exits the car, at 0:04 in the video, he walks in front of a police officer who has his back to Rand Paul and is facing the crowd.

How could that policeman have not seen the altercation taking place with Valle? Unless you are suggesting that police officer was just plain incompetent?

Did he cite, arrest, detain, restrain or otherwise indicate to that big gorilla Profitt that he was wrong? That is the only indication we have of his competency. If he took adversive actions toward Profitt, he is good to go.

 

[johnny karate]

Here's another video whose content you can ignore, jk. It's the complete video clip from which the shorter OP videoclip was taken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-48vvBAJEI4

You claim there are no police visible in the videos. WRONG.

During the incident, BAC. The police are not visible during video of the incident. This is what I claimed.

While Valle is being stomped by Profitt and his accomplice, you cannot see the police, and therefore your speculation about what the police are doing at that time is completely unsubstantiated.

How could that policeman have not seen the altercation taking place with Valle? Unless you are suggesting that police officer was just plain incompetent?

While Valle is being stomped by Profitt and his accomplice, you cannot see the police, and therefore your speculation about what the police are doing at that time is completely unsubstantiated.

And at 0:17, you can see and hear Profitt (and others) yell "get the cops" and "get the police". That's not the sort of thing someone who was there just to beat up women, like you claimed, would have done.

And yet Profitt was subsequently charged with assault. So perhaps his calling for the police wasn't so much part of the brillant strategy of a security professional, but rather the continued stupidity of a man who doesn't have the common sense and self-control enough to not assault defenseless women.

At 0:37, we again see Rand Paul. He's greeting the crowd on the right side of the walk facing the building, the side of the walkway that Valle was originally on before she rushed the open window of the car. Now that the crowd is on the other side of yellow tape. Meaning that those on Rand Paul's side were allowed to be there, separate from the crowd of *random* onlookers. Meaning that Profitt was not a random onlooker. In fact, he was Rand Paul's Bourbon County coordinator, which means he probably had more than a little involvement in arranging security.

Next we see Rand Paul enter the building, then the camera pans around to the other side of the walkway, opposite from where Rand Paul had been shaking hands with the crowd. And again we see more yellow tape.

There's a cut in the video at 0:33 so you cannot connect anything that happens after the point with what happened before. What we do know is that while Valle was being assaulted by Profitt and his accomplice, they are surrounded by a crowd of people holding Rand Paul signs.

Now perhaps they are also security professionals as you've baselessly speculated Profitt to be, and they wear jeans and sweatshirts and carry those Rand Paul signs as part of their uniforms.

So you go ahead, jk, and continue to pretend there were no efforts to keep the crowd back from Rand Paul. No tape. No security guards. No police.

I never made any of those claims.

I'll just and laugh at your transparent spin in order to defend the actions of what is clearly a paid, extreme leftist maniac who wasn't at the event to engage in legitimate protest but to create a scene and disruption.

Speaking of things you've manufactured out of whole cloth, how's that evidence coming for your claim that Profitt was at the event working security?

Still don't have anything?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[jj-158]

I said, "it appears", I described why the appearance might be wrong, and ended with "time will tell".

It is clear that you are already convinced that your claim is true.

The "bias" appears to me, to be you having a biased view of me that affected your interpretation of what I said.

I ask you those, "are you a right winger", questions to discern just what bias you might have that caused you to reply defensively to my post. You will note they are questions, not declarations.

How is that relevant, other than to try and paint me as a bad guy? How can that possibly bring any light to whether or not you are right?

No, my bias immediately made me question why you read "might be" as "is". As for the "violent right winger" vs "unable to see the violence of other right wingers", I have made no comment on this, only asking you if you were either.

If it was your intention to inquire about my position on political violence, you should have left out the political direction, and simply asked if I was unable to see the violence at all, regardless of it coming from right-wingers or left-wingers.

Your bias is clearly shining through.

You would have a point except for the fact you read my post which said "might be, time will tell" as "is". That suggests it is your bias that is operating here.

Nonsense.

I have said nothing about my own position on this issue. All I did was point out the weakness of your position. Your response was to attack me, and others before me, who also did the same as I did.

Weak position, weak argumentation. Fail all over.

 

[Patejdl]

Amazing discussion over a dumb redneck stepping on a tom-boy.

No one even mentioned here the fact, that she does not resemble a woman at all (except her boobs covered by a lot of clothing). What kind of forum is this? Forum for people with bad eye-sight and deep political bias? Probably...

Meh. Cops act when there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed.

I'll give you an advice.... don't work the night-shifts

 

[johnny karate]

No one even mentioned here the fact, that she does not resemble a woman at all (except her boobs covered by a lot of clothing). What kind of forum is this? Forum for people with bad eye-sight and deep political bias? Probably...

Actually BAC mentioned it earlier in the thread as part his theory that when Profitt assaulted a defenseless woman, he actually didn't know she was a woman.

But I soundly refuted that theory here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is clear that you are already convinced that your claim is true.

You should apply for the MDC then if you think can read minds.

I mean really, dude, what is your problem?

 

[jj-158]

You should apply for the MDC then if you think can read minds.

I mean really, dude, what is your problem?

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

 

[leftysergeant]

Amazing discussion over a dumb redneck stepping on a tom-boy.

This is not a matter to be taken lightly, and the "tom-boy" crack is reflective of an attitude on your part that is dismissive of women who do not fit you idea of what is fit and proper. From there your argument slides toward the latrine pit.

No one even mentioned here the fact, that she does not resemble a woman at all (except her boobs covered by a lot of clothing).

The Paultards recognized her and tried to have the cops haul her away. No plea of ignorance is acceptable. (At least not on this case.)

What kind of forum is this? Forum for people with bad eye-sight and deep political bias? Probably...

It's supposed to be for people who examine and interpret evidence to reach some clarity of thought.

Please do stay current with the thread.

I'll give you an advice.... don't work the night-shifts

I have worked a lot of night shifts, from fire fighting to night baking to janitor to night clerk, even to private security and law enforcement training.

Profitt is a sorry sack of crap with no professional training or bearing.

Ot manliness.

Face it, Peofitt is a loser and the people have elected a dim wit who surrounds himself with losers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

You misstated my position admitting you just believe it is something different than I posted and you think pointing that out to you is a personal attack?