Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
These guys are real class acts. Surprised they didn't go ahead and tie her up and make her pray to AquaBuddha.

---

Quote:

---

Not "all" Rand Paul supporters, but all of the ones in the vicinity of the beating.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And if you watch the video, it's not just the two men stomping on her, it's her wig being pulled off by another person in the crowd, and the whole crowd stepping back to let these men do as they please to her and watch. This kinda shit doesn't happen without the sanction of the crowd. Not "all" Rand Paul supporters, but all of the ones in the vicinity of the beating.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

How many people have witnessed muggings or car jackings and done nothing to stop them. Do they sanction these actions?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

How many people have witnessed muggings or car jackings and done nothing to stop them. Do they sanction these actions?

---

Sanction, no. Enable, yes. Then bad things happen.

You're a Christian, as I recall. There's a reason Sloth is a sin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Quote:

---

Not "all" Rand Paul supporters, but all of the ones in the vicinity of the beating.

---

It looks like one person pushed one of two the assaulting her away (the person appears to step over the woman and push the man behind her away) and I heard someone in the background saying "someone get the police." 'Course, I wasn't there, but I'm assuming this is a sign that not all even in the vicinity sanctioned the violence.

How many people have witnessed muggings or car jackings and done nothing to stop them. Do they sanction these actions?

---

Quote:

---

As for the "Rand Paul Supporters Hate Women" statement and then the "did I say all of them hate women?" That's every bit as true a statement as O'Reilly's "Muslims killed us" remark.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

How many people have witnessed muggings or car jackings and done nothing to stop them. Do they sanction these actions?

---

Sanction, no. Enable, yes. Then bad things happen.

You're a Christian, as I recall. There's a reason Sloth is a sin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

How many people have witnessed muggings or car jackings and done nothing to stop them. Do they sanction these actions?

---

Sanction, no. Enable, yes. Then bad things happen.

You're a Christian, as I recall. There's a reason Sloth is a sin.

---

Very true, I'm trying not to argue with my faith though, cause it's tiresome having my beliefs targeted. I'm trying to pick those battles carefully. I was attempting to argue from a secular or legal point there, but I do agree that by doing nothing you are enabling bad things. Not the same thing as sanctioning, and not as dangerous because sanctioning promotes behavior while individual sloth or apathy merely fails to stop it. 'Course, if that happens often enough it can encourage that behavoir was well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I thought perhaps by pulling your beliefs in I could communicate the idea better, but since you mention it, it probably wasn't necessary, and did target your faith.

I wouldn't use an example, "You're a buddhist, right? x x x" in a different case. In retrospect I did single you out, perhaps in an unintentionally offensive way.

And as for the topic at hand, maybe we can't expect a politician to address an issue of violence among their supporters. If you call it out, however illogical, you can make yourself look guilty by proxy, apologizing even more so. Secondly, I doubt a public apology is the kind of behavior supporters want to see, especially if it may or may not involve their own actions. His best option - not MORALLY CORRECT option, mind you - is to sweep it under a rug and hope it's forgotten. And I'm sure Rand Paul is not the only politician on either side of the political wing to resort to that.

---

Quote:

---

I thought perhaps by pulling your beliefs in I could communicate the idea better, but since you mention it, it probably wasn't necessary, and did target your faith.

I wouldn't use an example, "You're a buddhist, right? x x x" in a different case. In retrospect I did single you out, perhaps in an unintentionally offensive way.

---

Quote:

---

For what it's worth, I think both statements were intentionally misleading or meant to provoke a response...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
How many people have witnessed muggings or car jackings and done nothing to stop them. Do they sanction these actions?

---

Quote:

---

The volunteer with Rand Paul's U.S. Senate campaign who was caught on video stepping on the head of a liberal activist and pinning her face to the concrete is also a major donor to the Kentucky Republican.

Tim Profitt gave the Paul campaign $1,900, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records. A review of FEC records also shows a woman with the same last name and same address donated at least $500.

Paul's campaign dropped Profitt as campaign coordinator in Bourbon County, in central Kentucky, and banned him from future events. But Paul's campaign has not said whether it will return the donations.

---

Quote:

---

“The Rand Paul for Senate campaign is extremely disappointed in, and condemns the actions of a supporter last night outside the KET debate. Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable, and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists — on both sides — to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Crassic.

Here, we literally have a case where ONE person did something despicable ( by any definition, there's zero excuse for what he did ) and Kwickie and the screw ball Left wingers want to cast aspirations over Ron Paul ( who was 100 % completely innocent here ) his supporters, and every single one of those who call themselves conservative, Republican, TEA party members... anyone NOT Left wing socialist Democrats.

---

Crassic, indeed.

Not sure where the hell you pulled "Ron Paul" out of (I'd say your ass, but your head's clearly in the way), but this is a discussion of RAND Paul. Try to keep up, dear. Or go shave something. ;)

"Cast aspirations"? What? Is that really the word you want? Do you mean "aspersions"?

Yeah, I don't know WHY people think tea-baggers are all dumb.

Quote:

---

All this while we have to suffer, ad nauseum, the slings and arrows and idiotic rants of how Muslim terrorists don't represent ALL Muslims. Even though no one ever claimed that, like you're doing w/ Rand Paul's supporters.

---

Show me exactly WHERE I made the claim that this represents ALL Rand Paul supporters, or retract that idiotic statement. I said, clearly, that "Rand Paul supporters hate women". And clearly, at least a few of them do. You're reading the "ALL" into a statement I never made. In other words, you're ascribing to me positions I've never stated, and don't hold. "Lying" is another word for what you're doing.

Quote:

---

The woman, an moveon dot org nut case, made a move toward the candidate which , by most accounts, was irrational and out of character. Rand was simply showing up for a debate, and she tried to shove a sign in his window.

---

This all happened AFTER she moved towards his car, AFTER he was out of the car and well away. There was no threat to him, or to anyone but the woman who was stomped to the ground after the candidate had already left the area.

Quote:

---

I saw the video. There's no excuse for what that dick head did.

---

And yet, HE is demanding an apology from HER.

Quote:

---

I hear it being reported that he stomped on her face. It was her shoulder. He more used his foot to press down, than 'stomped' or kicked the girl.

---

Look again, closer. He puts his foot on her shoulder/neck area, and then exerts a sharp downward motion that puts her head on the ground with his foot on her head.

Quote:

---

I suspect he'll get charged w/ assault, if not already. And he should. But the moveon activist did initiate the incident. She accomplished what she set out to do.

---

Sounds like you're saying all protesters should be fair game for a beat-down. Does that apply to town hall protesters, too?



The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Should, but likely won't.

Just as they pretend to be horrified at the actions of the fascist regimes they wanna turn this place into while covertly drooling over the ability and intent to commit them, so too it is with this.

They're NOT upset it was done, they're upset they got CAUGHT engaging in this type of behavior, especially since they often as not do it in the dark, in little packs to spread the responsibility so they can pretend it wasn't all their fault, and blame everyone else, like the cowards they are.

I might do nefarious things, but you don't see me pretending otherwise or trying to excuse em, cause once you fall into that ends justify the means bullshit, the means BECOME the ends.

Oh, and the very IDEA of espousing an opinion, however unpopular as "Making Trouble", is offensive to me, cause "Making Trouble" is what *I* do, not what someone simply speaking their mind to folks who don't wanna hear it do.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Town Hall 'protesters' were simply asking , as per the purpose of the meeting, their duly elected candidates to explain themselves. There was no reason for anyone fisticuffs, save for when union thugs showed up and either instigated the shoving or tried to stack the meetings, and then block entry to ACTUAL citizens.

If you claim that what I said " sounds like all protesters" deserve a beat down, then fine. You hear / see only what you want. Your post said Rand Paul 'protesters ' really hate women, when in fact, only one showed any " hate " , and for one particular woman in question. If you paid attention, the other Paul supporters, shocked at what the 1 guy was doing, told him to stop.

Wish others policed their own as well, when 1 stepped out of line.

---

Quote:

---

If you claim that what I said " sounds like all protesters" deserve a beat down, then fine.

---

Quote:

---

While you feign indignation of my use of protesters / supporters, and fuss over the use of quotations...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
YOU claim that "Muslims killed us on 9/11!" is technically true.

By YOUR standards, Christians killed us on 4/19 (look it up). That's technically true.

---

Quote:

---

Christianity invaded Iraq in 2003 is also a true statement.

---

Quote:

---

Rand Paul supporters hate women.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I guess the Liberals here never heard about this previous incident. Not surprised, because Rachel Madcow and Chris (the tingly Obama leg thrill is STILL there) Matthews didn't cover it. No, they just cover the actions by the Tea Party guy, never the criminal actions of their fellow Libs.

How 'bout showing some class and renounce the violence that was perpetrated on a Rand Paul supporter? Hmmmmm? OK? Anyone?

---

Quote:

---

And as for the topic at hand, maybe we can't expect a politician to address an issue of violence among their supporters. If you call it out, however illogical, you can make yourself look guilty by proxy, apologizing even more so. Secondly, I doubt a public apology is the kind of behavior supporters want to see, especially if it may or may not involve their own actions. His best option - not MORALLY CORRECT option, mind you - is to sweep it under a rug and hope it's forgotten. And I'm sure Rand Paul is not the only politician on either side of the political wing to resort to that.

~Me

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I guess the Liberals here never heard about this previous incident. Not surprised, because Rachel Madcow and Chris (the tingly Obama leg thrill is STILL there) Matthews didn't cover it. No, they just cover the actions by the Tea Party guy, never the criminal actions of their fellow Libs.

How 'bout showing some class and renounce the violence that was perpetrated on a Rand Paul supporter? Hmmmmm? OK? Anyone?

---

Quote:

---

And as for the topic at hand, maybe we can't expect a politician to address an issue of violence among their supporters. If you call it out, however illogical, you can make yourself look guilty by proxy, apologizing even more so. Secondly, I doubt a public apology is the kind of behavior supporters want to see, especially if it may or may not involve their own actions. His best option - not MORALLY CORRECT option, mind you - is to sweep it under a rug and hope it's forgotten. And I'm sure Rand Paul is not the only politician on either side of the political wing to resort to that.

~Me

---

Thanks for the proof.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
YOU claim that "Muslims killed us on 9/11!" is technically true.

By YOUR standards, Christians killed us on 4/19 (look it up). That's technically true.

---

The Muslims who killed Americans on 9/11 did it in the name of their religion, in the name of Allah.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Rand Paul supporters hate women.

---

Really? What about the prior incident when Conway supporters beat up and bloodied a female Rand Paul supporter? Conway has not even condemned that attack. That makes him and all his Dem supporters women haters by your standards, right?

---

Quote:

---

The Commander In Chief of the U.S. military said we were "on a crusade", and constantly talked about his religion and constantly said "God Bless America". Sounds pretty Jeebus-y to me. Soldiers with biblical verses inscribed on their riflescopes, contractors who view themselves as "holy warriors"... Sounds pretty much EXACTLY like the kind of folks who attacked us on 9/11.

---

Quote:

---

Words matter; they have meaning. If I'd intended to say that ALL Rand Paul supporters hate women, I'd have actually used the word "ALL" in my title or in my original post. That I didn't, yet you lot keep seeing it where it isn't, is rather telling. Y'all have a bad habit of seeing things that aren't there, and not seeing the things that are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's true. Although, to be fair, that's more the fault of the people choosing to report only the Rand Paul incident and not the Conway incident; the average democrat or liberal might simply not know something similar happened with their side at fault.

Kwicko, did you know about the Conway thing before Jongstraw mentioned it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Quote:

---

The Commander In Chief of the U.S. military said we were "on a crusade", and constantly talked about his religion and constantly said "God Bless America". Sounds pretty Jeebus-y to me. Soldiers with biblical verses inscribed on their riflescopes, contractors who view themselves as "holy warriors"... Sounds pretty much EXACTLY like the kind of folks who attacked us on 9/11.

---

Jesus never advocated the use of violence, quite the opposite actually. You can wave crosses all around and inscribe all manner of scripture to weapons but the fact remains that there is nothing remotely Christian about violence. Anyone associating Jesus with violence is a liar, a fool, or maybe just ignorant.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Words matter; they have meaning. If I'd intended to say that ALL Rand Paul supporters hate women, I'd have actually used the word "ALL" in my title or in my original post. That I didn't, yet you lot keep seeing it where it isn't, is rather telling. Y'all have a bad habit of seeing things that aren't there, and not seeing the things that are.

---

I think I understand what you mean, so I'll attempt to apply it. Let me know if I get it right.

Liberals are condescending tools who disregard every idea and opinion that doesn't match their delusional preconceptions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010
020403698.html

Now if I've done this correctly, you have no grounds for anger or disagreement because I haven't claimed ALL liberals are condescending tools. In fact, any disagreements would only support this argument. Am I doing it right?

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword?

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

This is the one New Testament passage which may be taken to advocate the use of a sword (or any other weapon) in self-defence. But while Jesus does indeed tell us followers to buy a sword, several features must be noted:

1. While in general it is a good principle to look at a Bible passage on its own before comparing it to the rest of the Bible, in this case the narrative continues later that night: when on of the disciples used a sword, Jesus rebuked him for doing so.

A rebuke is recorded in three of the four gospels: Matthew 26:52 ('"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'), Luke 22:51 ('But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.'), and John 18:11 ('Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"'). Mark does not record a rebuke, but does note that while one disciple used a sword, Jesus allowed himself to be arrested peacefully (implying that he disagreed with the use of force).

Some commentators cite John 18:11 to suggest that Jesus was only opposed to the use of weapons on this particular occasion, because it was God's purpose for Jesus to be arrested. But the rebuke recorded in Matthew is far more wide-ranging ('for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'), and appears to condemn, or at least very strongly discourage, all use of weapons.

2. The group comprised Jesus and the eleven remaining apostles, and possibly some others. Two swords were not enough to defend such a group. Why then did Jesus say 'That is enough'?

3. Jesus ties the use of the sword to the Scripture being fulfilled ('And he was numbered with the transgressors'). So does the use of the sword only refer to this present occasion, when Jesus was to be arrested like a criminal (transgressor)?

4. On the other hand, there was not time for them to sell their cloak and buy a sword, suggesting Jesus was looking towards the future.

5. If Jesus was telling them to have a sword handy (for self-defense) as they went into the world preaching the gospel, why then do Acts and the epistles consistently show the disciples accepting persecution peacefully? (Darrel Bock's commentary gives the following examples: Acts 4:25-31, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5).

Generally, commentators have taken one of two different approaches to this verse:

1. The first approach is to see Jesus' words as a symbolic or metaphorical. He was not really telling them to buy or use swords. He was simply using the metaphor of a sword to describe the current crisis. When the disciples took his words literally ('See, Lord, here are two swords'), Jesus simply drops the subject by saying 'That is enough'.

This approach works well except for one thing: why did Jesus need to use such a metaphor at all, given the confusion that arose from it? (Beginning later that night with the disciples, but continuing to the present day!)

2. The second approach is to see it as a reverse of the rules for mission given in Matthew 10:5-14, Mark 6:7-13 and Luke 10:1-12. (And which Jesus refers back to in Luke 22:35, above). Under those instructions, the disciples went out on mission essentially with no provisions, and trusted God for all their needs. But Jesus is now reversing those rules: they are to provide for themselves, and that includes self-defence.

The problem with this approach is its apparent contradiction with Jesus pacifist statements elsewhere, including Matthew 26:52 ('for all who draw the sword will die by the sword') later that night. Perhaps that latter statement can be taken to apply to that time only (so have a meaning like, 'if any of you disciples draw a sword, you will get yourself killed'). In any case, if this interpretation is favoured, Jesus' pacifist statements must also be taken into account, and so violent self-defense becomes appropriate only in the most desparate of situations.

3. Between these two extremes is the suggestion that swords were appropriate for this time only - that is, time of Jesus' arrest.

While this has the positive that Jesus ties the crisis to prophecies concerning his arrest ('It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.'), there are still two problems. Why does he advocate swords at this time only, and then tell his disciples not to use them? And why does he tell his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword, when there is no time to do that? Therefore I would suggest that this solution does not work.

4. Finally, there is the suggestion that Luke 22:35-38 is a tradition in favour of self-defence, and is in direct contradiction to the passages which condemn the use of violence.

I am sure many will be attracted to this view. I do not think it is necessary. The problem (in my mind) is not contradiction, but that we do not have sufficient information to decide whether given passages are metaphorical or literal, timeless or specific.

Christians who take this view still have the problem of deciding between the competing claims of Luke 22:35-38, and pacifist passages such as Matthew 26:52 and Matthew:38-48.

I think we can definitely rule out option (3), and I see no benefit in option (4). That leaves options (1) (the sword is metaphorical) and (2) (self-defence is OK). My personal opinion is that metaphorical interpretation is harder to justify and so this passage provides a limited justifcation for fighting in self-defense.

If that is so, and God does allow the use of violence in self-defence, we must note the following caveats:

1. Violent self-defence (i.e. the use of weapons in self-defense) can only be used as a last resort. There is no record of Jesus or the apostles ever resorting to it, despite extreme persecution.

2. If we are fighting attackers off, we must still continue to love them. To me, that means taking all possible means to minimise harm to all parties - as if the attacker was a member of our own family.

3. Violence must never be against a ruling authority, however much we dislike or disagree with it, because in such a situation peaceful resistance is always possible. It can only be used in the chaos of a simple violent attack on ourselves.

In light of Romans 13, which says that all authorities (even the enemy) are ordained by God, we may add two further principles if we allow war in self defence:

4. If the defence is won, there is no justification for then proceeding to attack the other country, because their government was instituted by God also.

5. If the defence is lost, then the new government must be accepted. While it may be opposed peacefully, there is no justification for a continued guerilla war against it. This goes against both Romans 13 (the accepting of governing authorities) and the principle of loving our enemy.

So yes, Luke 22:35-38 may provide some justification for fighting in self-defence. But, in light of other teaching of Jesus, it can only be used in strict self-defence, and must not be divorced from his command to love our enemies.

---