The Black Panthers yer talking about didn't assault anyone... And it happened under Bush, and the reason the Bush administration dropped it was lack of evidence imo.
Sigh. No. It wasnt the Bush admin that dropped it...the case didnt come to light till after Obama had taken office.
Wow, you've hit a new low in my book. How should women act, Mobby?
Why do you hate equality?
um...kay
Neutral? You defended what happened to her by accusing her of overstepping her womanly bounds.
No I didnt, and you directly misrepresent my opinion here. What part of 'arrest and charge' do you not comprehend?
She wants to act like a man she should expect to be treated like a man. Like I said, a new low.
Except that apparently women themselves have been fighting for that to occur for many decades now. I guess you think they should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen then?
You confused them by calling them the Black Panthers, these 2 guys are the "New" Black Panthers.
How many 'Black Panther' parties are in existance today? One. These guys. The original Black Panthers disbanded back in the 70s. So, I was technically correct in calling them Black Panthers, but not descriptive enough to distinguish them from the original Black Panthers, who were frankly far more violent in their actions.
The guys who tackled her knew who she was and why she was there. But I'm sure that stomp on a woman lying in the fetal position sure made Rand safe.
Seriously....two buttheads do something stupid, and its the candidates fault? God forbid we maintain that standard for everyone.
MobBoss, I've been reading this forum for quite a while & these 2 posts illustrate why, IMO, you should take a step back from your platform & consider what you really stand for.
What part of 'arrest and charge' do you not grasp?
I agree with many of your stances, but your rhetoric is just... just... despicable. Despicable. At times.
Luckily, I don't post to make you happy.
There is no way to justify stomping on somebody. And yet you automatically, in your first post in the thread, deflect to something unrelated. You automatically try to equate to "something bad the other side did."
And I also point out that both should be 'arrested and charged'. What part of that do you not get?
amadeus's response is the correct response, IMO.
Darn it. I don't guess I get an A then.
This act should be condemned from all sides. Curb-stomping someone is wrong.
I agree. That not clear enough for you? People who do it should be arrested and charged. Do you think so too?
Right. Left. Moderate. Curb-stomping someone is wrong. You first response was to try to find a something remotely similar on the opposite side. Why? To justify the curb-stomping?
Nope.
I think not, but why else do you seek a remotely associable act, no matter how much you must stretch?
Because the tone of this particular thread is political, not reprehensive of the act in particular. Its purpose is to associate the act with Rand Paul.
And really, if you dont see that then I cant help you.
Again, I agree with a lot of what you espouse in this forum, but you do your credibility a disservice from not condemning a curb-stomping.
Arrest and charge. Do you know what it means?
This act was wrong. Condemn it.
I did.
Otherwise I am... squeamish? to be on your side. I can't agree with anyone that would attempt to justify this.
/oh well.
And I feel like this is not an isolated incident. I'm quite conservative, but I can't be on the side of someone who would excuse something like this. It's like being conservative but seeing what the neo-cons did. I can't be on their side.
I don't post to have you on my 'side' or not. You may want to try a different line there.