LN ... you are my BGP buddy and I am almost always on the same page with you ... but the actions by the guy who put his foot on the lady are indefensible. It wasn't overly violent by any stretch but it is indefensible.

 

Agreed - indefensible. But there will be a lawyer - court-appointed or not - who will defend him. And rightly so.

 

I just wouldn't want to be that particular counselor.

Am I incorrect in thinking that someone else was already holding her to the ground? If so, is the heel to the shoulder/neck/head in any way necessary?

The undercurrent of "she got what she deserved" is very disturbing to me.

 

You are twisting things I think when you assert that people are saying or implying that she got what she deserved. I'll say it again in case you missed it the last time I posted it: what the guy did was wrong. Then again, people that go looking for trouble and find it, don't have clean hands themselves. Do people interrupting Obama speeches not disturb you? Does the wacko preacher protesting a military funerals not disturb you? Is that not free speech? It sure it. But having the right of free speech does not always make it appropriate to exercise that right. This country's civility had gone to hades in a hand basket; the dirty pool played in politics disgusts me; the failure of people to condemn it only makes it worse.

 

What I find interesting is the fact that a lot of Rand supporters have stated what the Rand supporter did was wrong, and I haven't seen one Conway supporter state that if the lady staged this, she was wrong. That is very disturbing to me.

LN ... you are my BGP buddy and I am almost always on the same page with you ... but the actions by the guy who put his foot on the lady are indefensible. It wasn't overly violent by any stretch but it is indefensible.

 

I'm missing my attempt to defend him. Did I not say what he did was wrong? How did I attempt to defend him? Was it the statement that people that go looking for trouble often find it and that they are at fault when they do find it? Perhaps you view that as defending him. I don't. What the guy did was wrong. However, if she staged this stunt, she bears some responsibility.

For me it really boils down to this: Two people were so riled up and emotional over a political campaign that their reaction to an opposing opinion was violence. I think that should be appalling to everyone. While there have been several instances of this type of thing, it makes it more visceral when it happens in your state over an election you’ve been following.

 

At the end of the day, the easiest way to not make the state look like it’s full of uncivilized, violent people is to not react with violence. That really couldn’t be a lower threshold.

 

I don't disagree with any of this post.

You are twisting things I think when you assert that people are saying or implying that she got what she deserved. I'll say it again in case you missed it the last time I posted it: what the guy did was wrong. Then again, people that go looking for trouble and find it, don't have clean hands themselves. Do people interrupting Obama speeches not disturb you? Does the wacko preacher protesting a military funerals not disturb you? Is that not free speech? It sure it. But having the right of free speech does not always make it appropriate to exercise that right. This country's civility had gone to hades in a hand basket; the dirty pool played in politics disgusts me; the failure of people to condemn it only makes it worse.

 

What I find interesting is the fact that a lot of Rand supporters have stated what the Rand supporter did was wrong, and I haven't seen one Conway supporter state that if the lady staged this, she was wrong. That is very disturbing to me.

 

"isn't this exactly the type of reaction that the MoveOn.org operative, WHO DOESN'T EVEN LIVE IN KENTUCKY, was trying to elicit?"

 

"that's the reactions I'm sure the MoveOn.org activist was trying to get."

 

"people that go looking for trouble often find it. And it's their fault when they do find it, in my opinion."

 

 

I'm not sure how to interpret these quotes any other way. What I am reading - between the lines, perhaps - is that this woman did what she did for the express purpose of getting her head mashed into the floor, ergo, getting her head mashed into the floor is what she deserved.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the woman either wanted or deserved the response she got.

 

Regarding the free speech examples you cite - yes, they are disturbing. But to even remotely imply that violent reaction to them is acceptable - perhaps even inevitable - much more so.

Am I incorrect in thinking that someone else was already holding her to the ground? If so, is the heel to the shoulder/neck/head in any way necessary?

 

Actually if you look closely, to me it looks as if the other guy has let her loose before the perpetrator pushes her with his foot (then again, I may need my glasses adjusted). But even if my eyes are correct, there was no need for him to step on her at all. She wasn't attempting to get up. Actually there was no need to push her to the ground to begin with. Folks I'm continuing to state that what the guy did was wrong. Is there any possibility that any one out there could think that it's possible that the lady may have staged this stunt to get the achieved result and that for her to have done so is wrong? Any one?

You are twisting things I think when you assert that people are saying or implying that she got what she deserved. I'll say it again in case you missed it the last time I posted it: what the guy did was wrong. Then again, people that go looking for trouble and find it, don't have clean hands themselves. Do people interrupting Obama speeches not disturb you? Does the wacko preacher protesting a military funerals not disturb you? Is that not free speech? It sure it. But having the right of free speech does not always make it appropriate to exercise that right. This country's civility had gone to hades in a hand basket; the dirty pool played in politics disgusts me; the failure of people to condemn it only makes it worse.

 

What I find interesting is the fact that a lot of Rand supporters have stated what the Rand supporter did was wrong, and I haven't seen one Conway supporter state that if the lady staged this, she was wrong. That is very disturbing to me.

 

LN, I'm the first to agree that just because you have the freedom of speech doesn't mean that you should exercise that right at any time that you please, in any place that you please.

 

However, in this instance she was already on the ground, held there by someone else when this guy used his foot on her shoulder or neck or head. Was this guy doing what he did to contain her or express malice towards her?

 

As to your contention that the whole situation might have been staged, I again can't imagine a situation in which this woman set out go entice a man to use his foot on her head/shoulder/neck to make Paul supporters look bad. Thankfully, what I assume is another Paul supporter (though I guess he could have been a Conway plant) say, "No, no, no! Come on!" when the guy started using his foot. I'm glad that gentleman realized that it was wrong.

You are twisting things I think when you assert that people are saying or implying that she got what she deserved. I'll say it again in case you missed it the last time I posted it: what the guy did was wrong. Then again, people that go looking for trouble and find it, don't have clean hands themselves. Do people interrupting Obama speeches not disturb you? Does the wacko preacher protesting a military funerals not disturb you? Is that not free speech? It sure it. But having the right of free speech does not always make it appropriate to exercise that right. This country's civility had gone to hades in a hand basket; the dirty pool played in politics disgusts me; the failure of people to condemn it only makes it worse.

 

What I find interesting is the fact that a lot of Rand supporters have stated what the Rand supporter did was wrong, and I haven't seen one Conway supporter state that if the lady staged this, she was wrong. That is very disturbing to me.

 

She didn't stage getting pushed and pinned to the ground, LN. She staged giving him a fake award. How is that "wrong"? It's not an assault, or a physical attack. Maybe she ticked the guy off, but when did that justify a physical reaction?

 

You're disturbed that someone would stage a fake award presentation? Why? You say the country's civility has gone to Hades in a hand basket, but in the next breath imply that because the lady was uncivil, she deserves the reaction she got. You don't state it implicitly. But you qualify the man's actions by insisting that she staged the event.

 

In the end, you don't have sympathy for her predicament because she "brought it on herself" is what your statements say to me. Isn't that as uncivil as you illustrate in other examples?

Agreed, but you think she could not bear any responsibility under any circumstances? We'll respectfully disagree. If a woman supporter of that wacko preacher that protests at military funerals showed up at the funeral of your son and got in the face of your husband going into the funeral service and he pushed her to the ground while the police were summoned, your husband might be wrong, but could you honestly look me in the face and say the woman beared no responsibility?

 

In either case (this example or the actual incident), the woman may be wrong for what she does, but I am 100% responsible for how I react to any situation.

She didn't stage getting pushed and pinned to the ground, LN. She staged giving him a fake award. How is that "wrong"? It's not an assault, or a physical attack. Maybe she ticked the guy off, but when did that justify a physical reaction?

 

You're disturbed that someone would stage a fake award presentation? Why? You say the country's civility has gone to Hades in a hand basket, but in the next breath imply that because the lady was uncivil, she deserves the reaction she got. You don't state it implicitly. But you qualify the man's actions by insisting that she staged the event.

 

In the end, you don't have sympathy for her predicament because she "brought it on herself" is what your statements say to me. Isn't that as uncivil as you illustrate in other examples?

 

I do no such thing as qualifying the man's actions by insisting she staged the event. If I felt that was the case, I wouldn't have said the man was wrong for stepping on her. You are as guilty as others that are attempting to twist words and reading into my words what ever you want. If you haven't learned by now, I clearly state what I feel and think. I don't imply what I think; I state what I think. And I think the man was wrong.

 

By the way, neither you nor I can tell from the video what she was going to do. You are assuming that she was merely going to stage a fake award presentation, and you may very well be right. But neither you nor I know what she was going to do.

 

I have never said or intended to imply that since the lady was uncivil, she deserved to be stepped on. Find it and I'll retract it. I said that when people go looking for trouble and they find it, they are at fault. If she staged this stunt, she is at fault. That in no way means that the trouble she found is excused or the guy wasn't wrong in stepping on her.

I do no such thing as qualifying the man's actions by insisting she staged the event. If I felt that was the case, I wouldn't have said the man was wrong for stepping on her. You are as guilty as others that are attempting to twist words and reading into my words what ever you want. If you haven't learned by now, I clearly state what I feel and think. I don't imply what I think; I state what I think. And I think the man was wrong.

 

By the way, neither you nor I can tell from the video what she was going to do. You are assuming that she was merely going to stage a fake award presentation, and you may very well be right. But neither you nor I know what she was going to do.

 

I have never said or intended to imply that since the lady was uncivil, she deserved to be stepped on. Find it and I'll retract it. I said that when people go looking for trouble and they find it, they are at fault. If she staged this stunt, she is at fault. That in no way means that the trouble she found is excused or the guy wasn't wrong in stepping on her.

 

But, LN, what did she do? You can't tell anything at all in the video and I haven't ready anything anywhere else.

I do no such thing as qualifying the man's actions by insisting she staged the event. If I felt that was the case, I wouldn't have said the man was wrong for stepping on her. You are as guilty as others that are attempting to twist words and reading into my words what ever you want. If you haven't learned by now, I clearly state what I feel and think. I don't imply what I think; I state what I think. And I think the man was wrong.

 

By the way, neither you nor I can tell from the video what she was going to do. You are assuming that she was merely going to stage a fake award presentation, and you may very well be right. But neither you nor I know what she was going to do.

 

I have never said or intended to imply that since the lady was uncivil, she deserved to be stepped on. Find it and I'll retract it. I said that when people go looking for trouble and they find it, they are at fault. If she staged this stunt, she is at fault. That in no way means that the trouble she found is excused or the guy wasn't wrong in stepping on her.

 

Right there, LN. That's where you and I diverge. We both think the man was wrong. But you (clearly) state she went looking for trouble and she's at fault. I'm not sure how else I should take that. What you seem to be clearly stating is that if she staged the stunt, she's at fault. But what I'm not clear about is whether you feel that by simply showing up to present Paul the fake award is staging the stunt, or that you feel she staged the physical altercation.

I do no such thing as qualifying the man's actions by insisting she staged the event. If I felt that was the case, I wouldn't have said the man was wrong for stepping on her. You are as guilty as others that are attempting to twist words and reading into my words what ever you want. If you haven't learned by now, I clearly state what I feel and think. I don't imply what I think; I state what I think. And I think the man was wrong.

 

By the way, neither you nor I can tell from the video what she was going to do. You are assuming that she was merely going to stage a fake award presentation, and you may very well be right. But neither you nor I know what she was going to do.

 

I have never said or intended to imply that since the lady was uncivil, she deserved to be stepped on. Find it and I'll retract it. I said that when people go looking for trouble and they find it, they are at fault. If she staged this stunt, she is at fault. That in no way means that the trouble she found is excused or the guy wasn't wrong in stepping on her.

 

I have a very strong feeling that I you or I put on a bushy beard and went to an Obama rally to try to present him with the Karl Marx Man of the Year Award we would find out just how true this is.

I have a very strong feeling that I you or I put on a bushy beard and went to an Obama rally to try to present him with the Karl Marx Man of the Year Award we would find out just how true this is.

 

And it would be as wrong if someone attacked you as it was for this man to attack her. Physical violence is NEVER warranted unless your life is threatened.