Rand Paul Didn't Stomp a Woman's Head, One of His People Did

Awwww, such a childish post for the esteemed grand poo bah of this forum.
But it is good to see how some things just don't change...you are a coward & run from real questions. Pssst- FYI- You know when people complain about how this forum is deteriorating? It is YOU setting the standard.

 

I guess I'm just not Liberal enough anymore.
In post 25 I gave my take on the whole situation.
I had absolutely no problem with it until she got the heel on the head.

I even mentioned the possibility of a gun being present TWICE.

I've just heard that Proffitt wants an apology from her. Don't know if it's true but I suppose she could give him one. She DID cause a problem after all.
He's out of a job and may have damaged his shoe with her head.

 

How were the members of the crowd supposed to know that she was a liberal? Perhaps she was a nutjob who had watched Taxi Driver one too many times, fell in love with Robert Deniro, and thought killing any politician would impress him. This fantasy scenario would seem even more unlikely than your "alien in the belly" if not for one minor detail. Think back, it will come to you!

You presume to judge the actions of others using information that they were not privy to at the time they were forced to decide. Ya know what that is called Peter? MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK! Besides, I would be willing to bet that a large majority of the gun related homicides in this country are committed by democrats.

 

With a statement like that he will lose his base in the election.

 

Which is exactly what these sensationalistic democrats want.

 

I'd like to think that he really did think it was wrong regardless of what his more 'out there' supporters would want him to say...probably something like "Next time we will stomp them harder!".

 

It is a non-issue, he never should have responded at all. It is the same as Obama weighing in on the ground zero mosque.

 

If the tables were turned would the Republicans not use it?

Paul Rand is in a damned if he does and damned if he doesn't situation. He can thank Mr. Proffitt for that.

 

I would say that, since the guy apparently was a Rand Paul 'campaign coordinator' (whatever that is), it would be quite proper for him to respond.

 

Only if he had access to campaign funds. If he was a volunteer, I see no reason to comment.

 

They probably would, but that in itself is not justification.

 

Personally, I see no reason not to comment.

I think the reason he probably did comment was 1. The stomper was affiliated with his campaign. Heck, the stomper's name was used in one of Rand Paul's ads as a supporter. and 2. He didn't agree with what the stomper did and wanted to make that clear.

 

You're absolutely correct Lehigh. It's not justification. It's politics.

 

Question for you is wearing a wig Illigal in the US of A? if not then what is the big deal, now to you guy's who say she deserved it how would you feel if that had been your wife or daughter? she had been taken down quite easily there was no justification for him to do what he did or do you think she might have had a gun or bomb hidden on her neck/head? He over reacted simple as that and has paid for it by loosing his job
Well done Rand Paul and yes he is a politico but that was still the right thing for him to do He can not be seen to condone any form of political violence. Also saying that supporters of President Obama might or might not have done something similar is no excuse, 2 wrongs do not make it right

 

No but it is apparently very threatening. Not sure if where fake mustaches, clown noses or even hair weaves fall on the threatening scale but, wigs?, they are at the tippy top.

 

Stepping on someone's head when they're already down and presenting no threat constitutes an assault. The lady was clearly assaulted. She should sue their asses off!

 

A little late to the conversation huh? Stuck in clown school?

 

Oh, women never wear wigs in this country. It's unheard of and I'm sure it violates the Patriot Act.

 

Yet another completely illogical distiction. What possible difference could access tocampaign funds have to do with this?