Reply With Quote
So you're already familiar with the physical perimeter of the event, or you're just making idle speculation about it? Please pick a lane.
Then show what happened before she made the bee-line towards Paul, on the wrong side of the yellow rope.
I contend she was trying to elude the security that was intent on stopping her.
So you're already familiar with the physical perimeter of the event, or you're just making idle speculation about it? Please pick a lane.
Part speculation. It seems pretty clear that is what happened. By her own admission, she was trying to get to him.
True, I could be wrong, but do you really think I am? I think you agree, but just wish to play devils advocate like I do at times.
The beeline wasn't visible to me. Just the aftermath, and only part of it.
I might too, if I was wrongfully detained and harassed by ad hoc enforcers for expressing a controversial opinion at a political rally.
Wouldn't you?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-27-2010 at 02:58 AM.
(She wasn't resisting at all when that guy put his foot on her, though.)
He should have put her on IGNORE.
Wanted face time. Release the hounds!
You already admitted it was bull .
See above.
I'm totally uncertain of what you're trying to ascribe to me right now, so I'll officially take a pass on that.
Cheers, WC.
Duh...
Why do you act as if I think his actions were warranted.
(drinks blue moon belgian white)
Parenthetical. (...)
Not directed at anyone, aside.
That wasn't directed at you, WC. It was an aside.
It's sorta like a stage whisper.
(...)
You've made it clear that you aren't defending him, not accusing you of that, but my issue is that you are basically empathizing with his level of anger...outside of a senate debate. That you can understand how a situation like this occurs is the disheartening thing. There's nothing to understand, it's completely stupid and useless.
The video you posted was the first I saw, while not on that exact site, but it showed no clear attempt from the lesbian to approach Rand Paul in a threatening manner. She was identified as a political operative, they knew who she was and in an attempt to prevent Rand Paul from being caught in a "LULZ moment" - they used force and covered it up by saying she was a security threat. Horse. .
I don't buy that she got the concussion from the foot to the head either, but she could have easily sustained a sprain when she was pulling away and subsequently dropped to the pavement. She's going to need medical records, so it's not like she can lie about it now that she's in the public eye. She's going to get compensation AND those goofballs trying to protect Rand brought more negative publicity to him than anything else.
I think I understand people too well sometimes. That's why I cannot stand so many liberals. Such selfish motives at times portrayed as caring for others. Yet in the end, they want "other people's money."
Are you incapable of understanding stupidity?
Don't you see it all the time, and not try to understand why people do silly things?
I can agree that her intent is unknown. I guess the next time we should wait until after someone is shot dead.
I would agree they knew she was a whacho because of her sign, and the false nature of the idea. That doesn't mean they knew her, as a person. Can we agree with that distinction?
Maybe. Maybe not. Do we expect security to wait till a crime happens, or do we expect security to be proactive?
I have no doubt she had bruising and at least muscle strains.
Sure she can. Her records are private, unless she chooses to take them to court.
Yep. No doubt. I don't agree she should be compensated for from the campaign, unless she can show other than things appear. The man who stepped on her was a volunteer, not an employee. Her suit should be with him I think. Unless he's loaded, she wouldn't get much.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-27-2010 at 04:57 AM.
Well, one can always hope things turn out worst for the victim.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Hmm...Bald denials don't pair well with stark admissions.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-27-2010 at 05:36 AM.
I'll take "Massive generalizations about a huge group of people" for $600, Alex.
WC, I expected better of you, and I'm not sure why you suddenly bring up the economic philosophy of "every liberal" in a thread like this. You're reaching, friend, because you're trying to play the advocate and still mount a defense for a guy that even you admit is in the wrong, and you have nothing else to go on.
Which party is for privatizing the functions of government based on the belief that the private sector is always more efficient?
tbh, she is lucky that no major shoulder or spinal damage was done to her--she was at a bad angle when he pressed down on her hard. He woulda been fined $50K for that manuever in the NFL.
, just hearing about it broke Tony Romo's collarbone.
Between something privatized and something nationalized, I will contend the free market is better than socialism in most cases.
You a socialist?
How do you feel about the medical statistics of European countries where care is socialized vs. the U.S.?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions