Worst Tea Party EVER.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

I'm not taking up her side, but she wasn't waving a MoveOn banner and/or voicing her own valid agenda, she was waving a Rand Paul banner while being disruptive and wearing a disguise reminiscent of what is associated with Tea Party. Political agent provocateur trolling 101. I just thought MoveOn would be above that sort of thing.

She wanted to get a picture with Paul, and if she was wearing the wig just for a disguise, her partner was there and known to them as well so either she really did wear wigs just for the sake of fashion, or she was an idiot when it comes to disguises. And considering their reaction to her presence, she really should have been wearing a better disguise. I think the tea baggers have more than proved themselves to be brutes, after all, and she's only a small little person.

Srsly?

Srsly. Red hoodies are a dime a dozen. Do you assume everyone wearing purple supports LGBT rights?

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Saya

She wanted to get a picture with Paul, and if she was wearing the wig just for a disguise, her partner was there and known to them as well so either she really did wear wigs just for the sake of fashion, or she was an idiot when it comes to disguises. And considering their reaction to her presence, she really should have been wearing a better disguise. I think the tea baggers have more than proved themselves to be brutes, after all, and she's only a small little person.

She was part of a large group bussed in by the opposition to be disruptive buffoons and got knocked down when she escalated from simply shouting disruptions like the rest of her crew to physically pushing past security to grab the candidate. It wasn't her 'presence' that caused the problem, it was her shoving her way to bumrush Rand Paul. Props to her for getting the sympathetic photo-op, but it's still kind of dirty politics of a nature that I thought was below MoveOn.

Originally Posted by Saya

Srsly. Red hoodies are a dime a dozen. Do you assume everyone wearing purple supports LGBT rights?

I think if they show up at a LGBT demonstration wearing purple and rainbows while waving LGBT rights signs but then does whatever they can to undermine the message of the rally, harass the speakers, and cause problems, it's dirty pool.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

She was part of a large group bussed in by the opposition to be disruptive buffoons and got knocked down when she escalated from simply shouting disruptions like the rest of her crew to physically pushing past security to grab the candidate. It wasn't her 'presence' that caused the problem, it was her shoving her way to bumrush Rand Paul. Props to her for getting the sympathetic photo-op, but it's still kind of dirty politics of a nature that I thought was below MoveOn.

They knew who she was and he blames police for not arresting her earlier when they kept bitching and moaning about her being there. She was then surrounded by five men, shoved down and curve stomped when she tried to get near the security line. Security didn't touch her, the tea baggers did.

I think if they show up at a LGBT demonstration wearing purple and rainbows while waving LGBT rights signs but then does whatever they can to undermine the message of the rally, harass the speakers, and cause problems, it's dirty pool.

I don't think taking a picture is harassment. Nor would it warrant a beating, or be relevant to the beating. You can clutch your pearls and claim that by wearing red she was mocking Sarah Palin and therefore got what was coming to her, but the fact remains that it is completely irrelevant and purely your own speculation.

[Versus]

Maybe she owed someone money?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

She was part of a large group bussed in by the opposition to be disruptive buffoons and got knocked down when she escalated from simply shouting disruptions like the rest of her crew to physically pushing past security to grab the candidate. It wasn't her 'presence' that caused the problem, it was her shoving her way to bumrush Rand Paul. Props to her for getting the sympathetic photo-op, but it's still kind of dirty politics of a nature that I thought was below MoveOn.

And that is different from every other political rally how? Every where you have a public event, you have a group with a counter event. This is nothing new and would by no means be considered 'dirty politics'. It's called freedom of assembly.

I think if they show up at a LGBT demonstration wearing purple and rainbows while waving LGBT rights signs but then does whatever they can to undermine the message of the rally, harass the speakers, and cause problems, it's dirty pool.

She wasn't undermining the rally by any means. I would say she was involved in a publicity stunt, but sure, it was a harmless stunt and did not illicit the agro response which was caught on film.

Are you suggesting that a harmless publicity stunt should be met with force such as jack-boot thugs jumping on the heads of small girls?

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

I don't really feel sorry for her (and the guy who stomped on her is a complete jackass). Undoubtedly, her group is thrilled with the incident. Had she been left alone, no one would have cared. This incident will undoubtedly be used against the opposition, something which was surely her intention from the beginning.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Saya

They knew who she was and he blames police for not arresting her earlier when they kept bitching and moaning about her being there. She was then surrounded by five men, shoved down and curve stomped when she tried to get near the security line. Security didn't touch her, the tea baggers did.

I don't think taking a picture is harassment. Nor would it warrant a beating, or be relevant to the beating. You can clutch your pearls and claim that by wearing red she was mocking Sarah Palin and therefore got what was coming to her, but the fact remains that it is completely irrelevant and purely your own speculation.

Why was she wearing a wig and waving a sign for a candidate she actually doesn't support? It was a disguise. It's not just a matter of wearing red. It's a matter of being a troll, which is fine in and of itself and didn't get her pals restrained. This is undignified political behavior that I thought MoveOn would be above. It's not unheard of, but I had respected them more than this media stunt would justify.

Also, I know I can't expect to be able to run up and grab political candidates as part of my protected right to assembly. I can assemble, but that's something entirely different. They didn't just pick her out of the group of protesters for looking small and decide to beat her up. It's clear from the unedited video, she bulled through and rushed the candidate and got restrained. This would happen to anyone who tried to do what she did. The only difference is that the one guy stepped on her in a totally inappropriate fashion. I'm not debating that, only the presentation of her martyrish innocence in successfully provoking the incident.

She wasn't bleeding or hospitalized. I've seen people actually get curbstomped and that really wasn't it. It usually involves losing a great deal of teeth. I don't even like Rand Paul or what he stands for, but that situation just smells of too much partisan bullshit.

[Despanan]

I think we just got proof positive that Deadman gets special treatment around here because Gothic.net agrees with him politically.

Good to know I was right.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

I don't really feel sorry for her (and the guy who stomped on her is a complete jackass). Undoubtedly, her group is thrilled with the incident. Had she been left alone, no one would have cared. This incident will undoubtedly be used against the opposition, something which was surely her intention from the beginning.

Aethling, stop being a dick. I thought you were a benevolent, loving Christian. Oh wait... oxymoron. Carry on, dude.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I think we just got proof positive that Deadman gets special treatment around here because Gothic.net agrees with him politically.

Good to know I was right.

I think my position is against being a duplicitous disruptive jerk and then playing the innocent victim card. If I were getting my opinions from Prison Planet, I think they might come over a bit more far fetched.

To me, it's not that different from when the Southern Conservatives pretended to be unaffiliated local citizens to protest the recount and put GWB in office instead of Gore.

My view is not partisan, it's just reasonable objectivism.

[Alan]

Objectivity, please. And although I acknowledge that she almost certainly was there to be antagonistic, it is pretty stupid to say that any conflict is therefore valid.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

I think my position is against being a duplicitous disruptive jerk and then playing the innocent victim card. If I were getting my opinions from Prison Planet, I think they might come over a bit more far fetched.

To me, it's not that different from when the Southern Conservatives pretended to be unaffiliated local citizens to protest the recount and put GWB in office instead of Gore.

My view is not partisan, it's just reasonable objectivism.

I'd say assuming that she was conspiring to be attacked in order to cause public opinion to turn against the Tea-Party is a pretty Prison-planety idea.

Also: Do you mean objectivism in the Randian sense?

Because if not you should've said objectivity.

they aren't the same thing.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'd say assuming that she was conspiring to be attacked in order to cause public opinion to turn against the Tea-Party is a pretty Prison-planety idea.

Also: Do you mean objectivism in the Randian sense?

Because if not you should've said objectivity.

they aren't the same thing.

I can see how the terminology might be confusing if scrutinized to a potentially unreasonable degree and barring a deeper philosophical discussion about the semantics of having an objective point of view, lets just say I watched the whole video and in my opinion, any disruptive protester wearing a disguise and pushing their way past a candidates handlers to get right up on the candidate would have been restrained in some manor. This is my objective point of view. It has nothing to do with me being somehow Right in opposition to your Left, it has to do with me being right in opposition to your wrong.

The standard practice of dressing agent provocateurs up as 'anarchists' with the intention of having them incite bad behavior in the group they duplicitous proclaim to represent is also dirty pool. Again, this isn't right vs. left, it's honest vs. fraudulent.

It was her clear goal to be disruptive, as she was bussed in by the opposition along with a group of disruptive protesters. This is factually indisputable. It was her clear goal to be duplicitous, as she was wearing a disguise. This too is factually indisputable. She was not curb stomped as that actually means something which did not happen to her. She should press charges if she feels she was assaulted, maybe she would win on that point, but that doesn't make her actions innocent or appropriate.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

I think my position is against being a duplicitous disruptive jerk and then playing the innocent victim card.

She still is a victim. At what point do you think physical force is acceptable? By your own words you are saying quite clearly you support the use of physical force against someone who is engaged in a peaceful means of protest.

She did not raise the bar to the point where physical force should have been used. The question is not did she engage in a publicity stunt that used a bit of deception, she did, obviously, as we all agree on.

What the issue is that should be addressed is the use of physical force that was used against her.

It reminds me of the riot police beating non-violent civil rights protestors in the 1960s, but in this case it isn't the government as much as it is a bunch of right-wing nut jobs who have decided to take the law into their own hands.


On a side note -

Do you have a normal account on here? I ask for two reasons. First, as site admin is it not a bad policy to engage in political discussions using the site admin account? It could be considered a bit overwhelming for new members if they are easily intimidated. Who is going to tell the site admin they have nut job ideas knowing they could be banned from the site. It would level the playing field if you posted as a normal user and did not appear to be using your title as a possible deterrent, not saying you are but can you not see that some may take it that way?

Second, as the site admin of a Gothic website, you seem to be leaning a bit to the right. That is just because of the limited number of posts we have seen so far from you. Again, using your site admin account could give the impression to others that Gothic.Net is owned and operated by the right-wing, which is probably not the image one would want to show to the world, for many reasons, the least of which would be that people in say the LGBT community, minorities, and other members or potential members may feel discriminated against if they think the site is run by persons who support that sort of view point.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Second, as the site admin of a Gothic website, you seem to be leaning a bit to the right. That is just because of the limited number of posts we have seen so far from you. Again, using your site admin account could give the impression to others that Gothic.Net is owned and operated by the right-wing, which is probably not the image one would want to show to the world, for many reasons, the least of which would be that people in say the LGBT community, minorities, and other members or potential members may feel discriminated against if they think the site is run by persons who support that sort of view point.

That is an absurd leap, or at best painting with ridiculously broad strokes. I don't think this is a Left/Right debate at it's core. I don't think there is anything I've ever said as some sort of admin or otherwise that would in any reasonable way go against LGBT community or minority members and being accused of being some sort of hateful bigot for simply pointing out that this particular situation smells of a low end media stunt not befitting the otherwise respectable impression I had of the organizations involved is just too much of a stretch.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Just because they are paranoid rednecks doesn't mean that they should be shrugged off like nothing, these guys are not the only of their mindset, they are not an isolated few. It may be hard for some of you to believe it but in some areas people like that are fucking common place, most of the time they just don't have a small hippy to stomp on so you don't hear much about them.

... I know, I live in the non-Denver part of Colorado... they are common place out here... even young people.. its creepy...

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

That is an absurd leap, or at best painting with ridiculously broad strokes. I don't think this is a Left/Right debate at it's core. I don't think there is anything I've ever said as some sort of admin or otherwise that would in any reasonable way go against LGBT community or minority members and being accused of being some sort of hateful bigot for simply pointing out that this particular situation smells of a low end media stunt not befitting the otherwise respectable impression I had of the organizations involved is just too much of a stretch.

I didn't say you did, just that you could. That being said, the issue of when violence upon a peaceful protester should be authorised is still up for discussion.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I didn't say you did, just that you could. That being said, the issue of when violence upon a peaceful protester should be authorised is still up for discussion.

I don't think what she did qualifies as peaceful. 'Assembly' doesn't cover physically bulling past a candidates handlers to grab the candidate. Not for the Right or for the Left.

[JCC]

Rand Paul just won the seat.

[Saya]

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Saya

Honestly they really need to have some tea at those parties, they dont have to drink it, but even the Boston tea party had tea at it.

[CptSternn]

Hah! They are all screwed anyhow.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/08/...armarks-pledg/

Paul was elected on the teabaggers ticket - his whole campaign was about reducing spending and taxes.

First day after he is elected he gives an interview to the Wall Street Journal and says...

'I will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork'

When asked about his libertarian views and how they conflict with what he has now said, he responds...

'I'm not that crazy'

Thats right, he now says hes not really a libertarian, supports the republicans, and will fight for pork for his state. To hell with cutting the deficit and government spending.

Should everyone have seen this coming?

[KontanKarite]

God damn it, if the teabaggers fall in line with the republicans, then we'll know the republicans are just a bunch of loudmouths whose bark is worse than their bite. If the teabaggers go back to being sane, the republicans WILL look deceptive and dishonest.