"Don't Tread On Me, but Imma Tread on Your Head" say Rand Paul Supporters

Curbstomping a political oppentent is...


  • Total voters
    54
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really. I have always posted for my own reasons, not to necessarily please others. And I dont agree with his opinion either, as its lacking in comprehension of what I was actually posting. Something I have grown used to around here.
This was your first response on this thread:
And this makes them different than Black Panthers in Chicago how? Maybe the justice department will turn a blind eye to this too via orders from the President, eh?

Or not.

But yeah, I can see altercations breaking out as feelings this election are running really high. Arrest and charget those that break the law and carry on as needed.
Your first response was to try to find something on the other side that was "just as bad". Refresh my memory on what part of my "opinion" you don't agree with.
 
I don't post to have you on my 'side' or not. You may want to try a different line there.
I wanna go back to this line. It's a little OT to the thread, but illustrates my problem. I generally vote conservative (note: not Republican, not Democrat, not Tea Party, conservative), but the operative word is "vote".

If I can't vote for "your side" because of your rhetoric, then Republicans don't get my vote. Tea Partiers aren't remotely conservative - they couldn't exist without their government handouts. Democrats are never conservative, but that doesn't automatically equal bad. Blue Dogs can be a good choice. I'm more likely to vote 3rd party, even if it's throwing my vote away. Libertarian ftw!

If you're not posting to get anyone on your side, then let me be the first to say... you're succeeding.
 
They both rest on the same assumptions of female inferiority.
Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.

Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord.

Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a
This chivalry is misogynist idea is awesome take a date for example
1) guy doesn't pay bill therefore he is a jerk
2) guy pays bill and is therefore a misogynist

How can the guy do the right thing
1.
Kara called the Tea party white, right-wing extremists (an untrue and politically-motivated labeling) and so yes there is a comparison there to the black extremist group.

2. I love to use the two MSNBC idiots in derogatory ways the same way other people here love to use FOX, Beck and O'Reilly. When people use the same kind of terms I hear on those shows, I suspect them of watching those shows like they agree with what they say.

What reason is there for me to post on a forum where I guess 90% of the posters are on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum for me, if not to argue and make fun of MSNBC and their talking heads the way they do with FOX, Beck and O'Reilly?

You want something productive? That curbstomping was terrible, not reflective of the Tea Party at all, but will be used to further the image of the Tea Party as extremists by those who disapprove (IE democrats, liberals, progressives and the trifecta of idiocy that is Olbermann, Maddow and Shultz).

Yes politics is gang warfare now, and that started with all the anti-Bush rhetoric years ago (funny how Obama and the dems love to point out how divisive FOX is but nobody used to say a word about MSNBC). The Tea Party now are being called extremists, racists, you name it, because they represent a large part of the population that does not approve of Obama, the democrats, or really anything the government has done. The country is headed in bad direction and it's about damned time people are doing something about it, and that's voting these incumbents out of office and wanting to repeal Obamacare until a proper bill is introduced that won't stomp all over our basic freedoms.

You will always get a few bad apples in a party.
The Tea party is mostly conservative (only 70%, but background is 40%) and mostly white (79% however background is 75%)

Black Panthers
May 2, 1967: About 30 armed Black Panther members entered the California legislature to protest consideration of outlawing the right of private citizens to bear arms. There was no violence, but the spectacle is well remembered and brought the group into public light..
Police arrested all of the Panthers there

December 4, 1969: A well-remembered instance of violence was instigated by the FBI, which provided the information needed to raid the Illinois Black Panther Party head's apartment. Two members of the Black Panthers were killed by gunfire. The event is remembered partly for the disproportionate firing: evidence revealed later that the police fired up to 99 bullets, while the Panthers may have shot one. It is also remembered because information required for the break-in was obtained by an FBI infiltrator in a period when surveillance of the domestic group had been approved.

"Ultimately, the Panthers condemned black nationalism as "black racism" and became more focused on socialism without racial exclusivity. They instituted a variety of community social programs designed to alleviate poverty and improve health among communities deemed most needful of aid. It also recognized that different minority communities (those it deemed oppressed by the US government) needed to organize around their own set of issues and encouraged alliances with such organizations."

They formed in response to police brutality

MSNBC is the Left's version of Fox News, they are both infested with simpering insane buffoons

Just wondering what basic freedoms the bill takes away

PS I'm very conservative in many ways, but I think Fox New's way of dishonesty and abject lack of integrity is not the right way to do it
Well, obviously this is completely heinous and this person should be charged with numerous crimes.

However, I must quibble with the poll options. If she complained of minor injuries to her temple, or if she was able to talk or was conscious the following day she was not curbstomped. If she was actually "curbstomped" ala American History X she would either be dead or permanently disfigured and in the hospital on life support.
Real curbstomping is effectively attempted murder, if she actually was curbstomped she would have been rush to the ER
 
Sigh. No. It wasnt the Bush admin that dropped it...the case didnt come to light till after Obama had taken office.

Iam suprised Obama didnt even bother to punished the banks for there dishonest manipulation of the stockmarkets let along pursue and dig through Bush administrations dirt.

So much for Iraq WMD phase II investigation.
 
Has she paid her $75 for local law enforcement services? If not, I do not see how charges can possibly be filed.
 
That bloke Profitt was the stomping co-ordinator ? well that is different.
Unlike some liberals if it had been my daughter I would be going after both him and that idiot Paul for having people in his campaign whom he must have known believed violence toward women was part of campaigning.
Conservative values ? they are different.
 
No, you have become more bitter. You used to be amusing occasionally, now you are just full of spite.

Ah, well, I cant imagine what would cause that.....maybe you can.

This was your first response on this thread:

Your first response was to try to find something on the other side that was "just as bad". Refresh my memory on what part of my "opinion" you don't agree with.

I direct your attention to the words 'arrest and charge'. Explain to me what you think they mean.

I wanna go back to this line. It's a little OT to the thread, but illustrates my problem. I generally vote conservative (note: not Republican, not Democrat, not Tea Party, conservative), but the operative word is "vote".

If I can't vote for "your side" because of your rhetoric, then Republicans don't get my vote.

You vote how you vote. Dont blame me for it. I dont profess to be running for office.

Tea Partiers aren't remotely conservative

Seriously? I think we are done here as if this is what you think, you are so misinformed as I dont think there is any use in continuing.

Democrats are never conservative, but that doesn't automatically equal bad. Blue Dogs can be a good choice. I'm more likely to vote 3rd party, even if it's throwing my vote away. Libertarian ftw!

And that tells me all I need to know about you. kthxbye.

If you're not posting to get anyone on your side, then let me be the first to say... you're succeeding.

I am not really interested in being appealing to wanna-be libertarians. Enjoy.
 
That bloke Profitt was the stomping co-ordinator ? well that is different.
Unlike some liberals if it had been my daughter I would be going after both him and that idiot Paul for having people in his campaign whom he must have known believed violence toward women was part of campaigning.
Conservative values ? they are different.
No one has accused Profitt of common sense.

Anyway, I do not understand why they are even bothering with wasting a Judge's time over this when there is space available at Gitmo.
 
Violence for political purposes? That does sound a bit like terrorism right there.

A vote for Paul is a vote for terrorism.

Terrorism.
 
A fair point, although I would counter with the suggestion that such people are probably only held back from violence against men because of a sense of either a social obligation or fear of repercussion, and so represent an inherent risk to society at large regardless. These are people who cannot be satisfactorily dealt with simply by convincing that hitting women is un-manly.

No, they cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by any method, because sexism is implanted too deep into society for quick change; chivalry is not a satisfactory solution, but it is, for some, the best one. Again, this brings me back to the original choice I suggested: would you rather have someone who shows no-one any respect at all, or one that shows men real respect at the expense of women, and shows women pretend respect? The latter is clearly preferable, and when they hold such a stance, misogynists do not present as great a danger to society as they might otherwise.

I think that ignores the mutual hostility that sexist society breeds among men, and the constant demand for affirmations of masculinity, expressed through hostility towards both women and men. Any system which privileges one group over another encourages the emergence of privilege within any given group, which among men is often asserted by the inflicting of violence upon other men. Men are considerably more likely to commit violence against other men than they are women, and over more trivial causes, for the very reason that men are seen as capable of engaging in violence, a notion which chivalry passively endorses by marking off one particular segment of the population as off-limits.
Anyway, chivalry relies on pretty reactionary notions of gender, as demonstrated by the various comments found here about "women who act like men", and so isn't exactly fool-proof. Which isn't surprising, when you realise that "I don't hit girls" relies on an ultimately understanding of "girls" (perhaps not coincidental an explicitly infantilising term).

Well, yes, I agree; chivalry causes certain types of violence towards both sexes, but I judge that in most circumstances it prevents violence rather than encouraging it. Indeed it is complex, and indeed chivalry is not an appropriate alternative to behaving with appropriate and equivalent respect towards both sexes.

Perhaps men will behave towards each other with less respect on account of women being "off-limits", but I suspect that they would behave equally violently towards each other anyway, and that doubling the number of people who are socially able to engage in violence would merely double the amount of violence. We can't really know; it's difficult to imagine a world without sexism, least of all to imagine a world where sexism never existed.

(Also, misogyny is better understood as contempt for women, rather than necessarily being actual hatred; the latter isn't quite as nuanced, and so presents an incomplete picture of the issue.)

I agree. My point still works just as well, though, even when "hatred" is replaced by "contempt".

Well, if there's one thing that we have come to a conclusion on, it is that this a complex issue! No disagreements, there, I'm sure! :crazyeye:

Certainly not!
 
I direct your attention to the words 'arrest and charge'. Explain to me what you think they mean.

What he means is that instead of immediately condemning and making the ugliness of this particular incident the subject of your post, the first thing you did was try to equate it with something completely un-related from "the other side." Then you added "arrest and charge" as some form of afterthought, which gives the impression that you don't really care.

It's kinda off putting.
 
Moderator Action: Off topic drift. Thread deflected. Consensus reached on the 'act of curbstomping someone'. Closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom