What kind of libertarian wants to put government into our bedrooms and women's wombs, but he wants to take government out of the business of protecting public safety and stopping racial segregation?
1. A fake libertarian
2. A corporate shill for the rich who has duped his followers with promises of free pot and no taxes, and and end to foreign war, yet he says "the military should be the top priority of our government"
3. A shameless cheerleader for the rich, who now goes further than ever before be announcing that rich people and poor people do not exist. We are all the same. Try telling that to your landlord, your grocer or your hospital bills. Hasn't worked for me.
<object width="592" height="346" id="msnbc3cd57c" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=39998518^85112^212620&width=592&height=346" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc3cd57c" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="592" height="346" FlashVars="launch=39998518^85112^212620&width=592&height=346" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Rand Paul official campaign co-ordinator tackles, then stomps hard on neck of nonviolent satirical protestor - They knew who she was when they assaulted and battered her.
Here is Rand with Tim Profitt, the Rand Paul campaign official who's endorsement Paul had bragged about in an advertisement just one day before his assault and battery of this humorous protestor. A man who says it was ok to stomp on the neck and head of young small female nonviolent protestor, because she was trying to attract media attention and because he has "back problems". He is going to court for assault and battery, but he says "I would her to apologize to me"
In college as we all know, he and a friend tied up and blindfolded a woman without her explicit permission and tried to force her to take bong hits and pray to Aqua Buddha.
Now an official campaign co-ordinator and a group of other campaign workers have targeted a woman who has been protesting at a number of Rand Paul events as part of the humorous satire campaign "Republicorp" which uses methods very similar to street theater protesters The Yes Men, or for that matter less aggressive but similar to what's done by Daily Show correspondents 4 nights a week.
She showed up at a debate the night before last and tried to hold up a satirical sign "supporting" Rand Paul on behalf of "Republicorp" and tried to get a picture taken near him, in a crowd of supporters and opponents closely surrounding his path into the debate.
Three men identified her, and dived on her, roughly wrestled and tackled her to the ground, where one or two men held her down while another, the campaign co-ordinator Tim Profitt first put his boot on her shoulder, then after a moment while the other held her down, he gave a second stomp directly down on her head and neck, already pressed flat on the sidewalk curb.
This type of move is called a "killing move" in the fighting arts and could easily have caused her death or full body paralysis. Everyone involved is extremely lucky she was not more badly hurt. Even a moderate concussion, as we have learned from the recent wars and new science of football injuries, can have lifelong and devastating impact on the brain.
This is targeted political violence against an unarmed diminutive woman, who the thuggish campaign officials knew was a political prankster and not a threat.
Watch the video reports below and judge for yourself.
Here's victim Lauren Valle's side of the story:
"I have been at a bunch of events before, the previous debate, and the Rand Paul campaign knows me and they have expressed their distaste for my work before. What happened last night was that about five minutes before Rand Paul's car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex, who was with me. They surrounded me. There was five of them. They motioned to each other and got behind me. My partner Alex heard them say 'We are here to do crowd control we might have to take someone out.'
When Rand Paul's car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front. At that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit. The footage is after I've run all the way around the car and I'm in front of the car and that is when they took me down. One or two people twisted my arms behind my back and took me down... It was about two-to-three seconds after that that another person stomped on my head. And I lay there for 20 seconds or so and my partner Alex came and got me up and that's the point where there is the media clip of me speaking."
Here's Tim Profitt's side of the story (from Nick Wing at the Huffington Post):
"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt told WKYT. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."
While the victim, Lauren Valle, said Tuesdaythat she believed the campaign workers' violent reaction to her presence there was "premeditated," Profitt told WKYT that he thought Valle was following a strict protocol with the intent of creating controversy.
"She's a professional at what she does," Profitt said, "and I think when all the facts come out, I think people will see that she was the one that initiated the whole thing."
He then blamed the forceful downward motion of his foot on the head of Valle as a function of chronic back pain, a claim he has made before:
"I put my foot on her, and I did push her down at the very end, and I told her to stay down. I actually put my foot on her to -- I couldn't bend over because I have issues with my back," Profitt said
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://ww2.wkyt.com/global/video/videoplayer.js?rnd=167732;hostDomain=ww2.wkyt.com;playerWidth=300;playerHeight=257;isShowIcon=true;clipId=5233791;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=undefined;enableAds=false;landingPage=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.wkyt.com%252Fvideo%252F;islandingPageoverride=false;playerType=MINI_EMBEDDEDscript'></script>
Political violence is increasing from Tea Party Republican candidates, between Alaska's Joe Miller having a reporter put in handcuffs by his unlicensed and illegal off duty military staffed private security team for 25 minutes because they didn't like the questions he was asking the candidate at a town hall, the endlessly repeated violent rhetoric from their leaders, such as Sarah Palin's reckless incitement to mass political violence in her "don't retreat, reload!" mantra and Sharron Angle's oft repeated statement that if Republicans don't win the election they should resort to "2nd amendment remedies... to the Harry Reid problem" and other such thinly veiled threats of murder and assassination, to the Texas candidate who says violent overthrow of the government is "on the table... in 2010"When the leaders lead with violent words, the followers follow with violent deeds.
The tea party are for the most part, not Nazis. But when they were campaigning to come to power, this is exactly the type of violent behavior that was used to intimidate others into silence so their genocidal party could seize an unprecedented level of control.
Never again. Get out and vote!
Saturday, October 23, 2010
This is why religion is not a good tool for political attack if you want to win while taking the high road.
There are so many legitimate ways to attack Rand Paul's questionable morality that are relevant to his attempt to win public office. The policy he endorses of eliminating every function of government EXCEPT police and military would lead to a military police state, not a libertarian paradise, though apparently we would not be invading other countries, just our own, and we would be allowed to get high, and to discriminate based on race or disability in our private businesses. Big corporate criminals like BP would be allowed to despoil the land and sea, destroy the habitat and livelihoods of animals and people, but we would have no roads, schools, public science, social security, unemployment, minimum wage, child labor laws, crack would be sold in high school vending machines etcetera.
If one wants to get personal one could simply attack him for his deceptive business practices, claiming to be a board certified opthamologist while in fact he is only certified by a "board" he created with two family members and himself as the board and staff.
One could even go after him for tying up a woman, and trying to make her take bonghits and pray to Aqua Buddha. And this does just that.... but then it goes over the cliff, attacking him for not being a good enough Christian. The constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for holding office, so this is very unbecoming of his opponent.
However, Rand is still a hypocritical, dodgy, dishonest politician who would end desegregation of private businesses and let big business run hog wild. He claims to be a libertarian but he would allow police and military to completely take over our entire government.
That being said, here's the ad that starts off well, then goes wrong.
Don't let it sway you though. This country can't stand a Rand in office.
If one wants to get personal one could simply attack him for his deceptive business practices, claiming to be a board certified opthamologist while in fact he is only certified by a "board" he created with two family members and himself as the board and staff.
One could even go after him for tying up a woman, and trying to make her take bonghits and pray to Aqua Buddha. And this does just that.... but then it goes over the cliff, attacking him for not being a good enough Christian. The constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for holding office, so this is very unbecoming of his opponent.
However, Rand is still a hypocritical, dodgy, dishonest politician who would end desegregation of private businesses and let big business run hog wild. He claims to be a libertarian but he would allow police and military to completely take over our entire government.
That being said, here's the ad that starts off well, then goes wrong.
Don't let it sway you though. This country can't stand a Rand in office.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Rand opposes minimum wage, says it's "un-American" to "play the blame game" against BP's oil spill disaster, tries to evade his own words defending racial segregation
Remember this one?
Rand thinks BP should be allowed to ravage the entire gulf coast and the gulf of Mexico, and if we want to blame them for their crime, we are "un-American"
This is a classic case of corporatist fake libertarianism. What kind of liberty allows a giant foreign corporation to destroy the livelihoods of millions of Americans for generations to come? (not to mention Mexicans, Cubans, Haitians, etc.)
Alaska's fisheries still haven't recovered from Exxon's Valdez spill some 20 years later.
(which was caused by unsafe cost cutting detours ordered by the Exxon Bosses, not by the "drunk captain" of popular lore. You may be surprised to know that the captain of an oil tanker does not actually steer the giant ship by himself. In fact, he doesn't touch the wheel at all, so whether or not he is drunk has nothing to do with the ship crashing. Witnesses have long ago revealed that they saw the ship regularly taking this same unsafe detour and whistleblowers from BP have revealed that this was company policy)
He says this is a "red herring" and "40 year old legislation", but these are his own statements.
Notice that he never denies his own words, but rather denies allegations that have not been made by the interviewer, yet he interrupts the interviewer who confronts him with his own words from a Rand Paul self published letter to the editor is spouting "talking points from the democrat national committee... and Rachel Maddow"
He says this is "something they insinuate that I might believe that's not true" but these are his own words! This interview proves he is dishonest because every time he is questioned on his own on the record statements he tries to change the subject but never addresses his own reprehensible statements and positions.
He thinks that forcing racists to allow black folks to eat at their lunch counters equated to the government seize the ownership of those businesses? That all desegregated businesses are "publicly owned"?!
He says "a free society" allows businesses to "discriminate based on the color of.. skin"
Talk about your "40 year old" political attitudes.
Rand thinks BP should be allowed to ravage the entire gulf coast and the gulf of Mexico, and if we want to blame them for their crime, we are "un-American"
This is a classic case of corporatist fake libertarianism. What kind of liberty allows a giant foreign corporation to destroy the livelihoods of millions of Americans for generations to come? (not to mention Mexicans, Cubans, Haitians, etc.)
Alaska's fisheries still haven't recovered from Exxon's Valdez spill some 20 years later.
(which was caused by unsafe cost cutting detours ordered by the Exxon Bosses, not by the "drunk captain" of popular lore. You may be surprised to know that the captain of an oil tanker does not actually steer the giant ship by himself. In fact, he doesn't touch the wheel at all, so whether or not he is drunk has nothing to do with the ship crashing. Witnesses have long ago revealed that they saw the ship regularly taking this same unsafe detour and whistleblowers from BP have revealed that this was company policy)
He says this is a "red herring" and "40 year old legislation", but these are his own statements.
Notice that he never denies his own words, but rather denies allegations that have not been made by the interviewer, yet he interrupts the interviewer who confronts him with his own words from a Rand Paul self published letter to the editor is spouting "talking points from the democrat national committee... and Rachel Maddow"
He says this is "something they insinuate that I might believe that's not true" but these are his own words! This interview proves he is dishonest because every time he is questioned on his own on the record statements he tries to change the subject but never addresses his own reprehensible statements and positions.
He thinks that forcing racists to allow black folks to eat at their lunch counters equated to the government seize the ownership of those businesses? That all desegregated businesses are "publicly owned"?!
He says "a free society" allows businesses to "discriminate based on the color of.. skin"
Talk about your "40 year old" political attitudes.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The classic golden oldies are always the best: Rand says businesses should be allowed to discriminate by race or disability
This has got to be one of history's greatest examples of refusing to give a simple straight answer to a simple straight ahead question.
Let's not forget that although Rand says Rachel is bringing up ancient history that's not relevant to the election, these are issues and positions originally raised by Rand himself. Rachel didn't just pull these questions from thin air, magically knowing he wouldn't be able to give her a straight answer.
For example NPR had raised the very same question that very same day, but earlier in the morning.
So anyone who says Rachel was bringing this up is simply wrong about the facts.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
Let's not forget that although Rand says Rachel is bringing up ancient history that's not relevant to the election, these are issues and positions originally raised by Rand himself. Rachel didn't just pull these questions from thin air, magically knowing he wouldn't be able to give her a straight answer.
For example NPR had raised the very same question that very same day, but earlier in the morning.
So anyone who says Rachel was bringing this up is simply wrong about the facts.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
Rand Paul says he can't remember kidnapping but won't deny blindfolding a woman and trying to make her take bong hits and pray to Aqua Buddha
Wow. Talk about your slippery politicians, what a dodge! Just watch this and notice how he refuses to specifically deny what happened, just denies that it was a kidnapping, though at the same time saying he can't remember what really happened.
What a slippery slimy dodge. Just answer the question, Rand.
And when you're done with that, for someone who says you want to shrink the government, how about saying plainly and clearly just what you would cut and what you would keep specifically.
Why does he avoid doing this most of the time?
Because when he does answer the question, most people don't like the answer: he would cut education, social security, unemplaoyment, infrastructure, volcano monitoring, you name it he'll cut it EXCEPT if it's military or police. He'd keep those in place, bloated as they are. I ask you, what kind of libertarianism is it that views liberty as a state with police and military and nothing else. I'd call that a militarist police state, not true libertarian liberty.
What a slippery slimy dodge. Just answer the question, Rand.
And when you're done with that, for someone who says you want to shrink the government, how about saying plainly and clearly just what you would cut and what you would keep specifically.
Why does he avoid doing this most of the time?
Because when he does answer the question, most people don't like the answer: he would cut education, social security, unemplaoyment, infrastructure, volcano monitoring, you name it he'll cut it EXCEPT if it's military or police. He'd keep those in place, bloated as they are. I ask you, what kind of libertarianism is it that views liberty as a state with police and military and nothing else. I'd call that a militarist police state, not true libertarian liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)