Gay Pride Event Turns Violent, Religious Protestor Attacked

[fearthereaperx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzS-QuSttfs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVCW6h4LzCE

SEATTLE -- A protester holding a sign reading "Repent or Else" was attacked by a group of people following a loud argument during Pridefest Sunday, according to the Seattle Police Department.

Bicycle officers heard a loud debate between two groups of people near Fourth Avenue North and Broad Street but continued on their way.

According to video shot by a witness, after officers leave the crowd continues to yell at and shove two religious protesters, one of whom is holding a sign that reads "Repent or Else" and "Jesus Saves from Sin."

At one point, the video shows a 36-year-old Marysville man taking off his shirt and threatening the sign-holding protester. The man eventually starts leaving, saying, "Cops are coming; let's roll."

After a group of women try unsuccessfully to steal the protester's sign, a group of men grab onto it and pull him to the ground while the crowd applauds. That's when the video shows the 36-year-old run back toward the fight and punch the sign-holder in the back of the head multiple times.

[DamianTV]

The guy has the right to protest, sure, but maybe a bit of self control by keeping his mouth shut to begin with could have done wonders. Now me? I probably would have interpreted his statements as a THREAT because that is what he was doing. Hmm, I wonder why he got his ass beat? It wasnt because he was protesting, it was because he took it upon himself to not leave other people alone. At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

oh look, the people wanting tolerance being intolerant

[talkingpointes]

The guy has the right to protest, sure, but maybe a bit of self control by keeping his mouth shut to begin with could have done wonders. Now me? I probably would have interpreted his statements as a THREAT because that is what he was doing. Hmm, I wonder why he got his ass beat? It wasnt because he was protesting, it was because he took it upon himself to not leave other people alone. At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.

Words or not, they can take a dick -- why not a joke?

[Sola_Fide]

Expect this to happen all of the time now. Because homosexuality is the new civil right backed by the politically correct establishment, the same kind of social pressure that exists against racists today will now be shown to people who merely have a principled religious stand against homosexual behavior.

[brushfire]

Never knew gays were so intolerant of others... Irrrrony.

[Origanalist]

They take their political correctness VERY seriously in Seattle. :rolleyes: God I hate that place.

[Qdog]

To be honest, I find the bible thumping gay-haters more irritating than the men who choose to have anal intercourse with each other.

We all knew all along that for the vast majority of the gays that were pushing for equality, and free speech etc. they actually don't give 2 shits about either.

This was clearly apparent when back during the election, I tried having serious conversations with gay friends of mine who were staunchly pro-Obama. I introduced to them the idea that Obama actually hasn't done anything for the "gay community" other than half-hearted lip service, and then contrasted him to a candidate like Gary Johnson, who was actually much more "pro-gay" but did so from a standpoint of wanting to get the government out of marriage.

In the end, I was lead to the conclusion that none of my gay friends wanted "equality", what they really wanted a seat on the government gravy train.

[leverguy]

At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.

At the rate we're going, its more likely to be the protesters...

[MelissaWV]

If it were any other group there'd be people flocking to call this all staged lol

Newsflash: there are total assholes on every side of things, and they are usually the loudest and most visible.

[Antischism]

Very predictable replies in this thread. Never miss an opportunity to bash homosexuality or make snide remarks!

If it were an anti-choice protest and pro-choice people were doing what these Bible-thumpers were doing, you'd see a different reaction here.

[LibertyEagle]

The guy has the right to protest, sure, but maybe a bit of self control by keeping his mouth shut to begin with could have done wonders. Now me? I probably would have interpreted his statements as a THREAT because that is what he was doing. Hmm, I wonder why he got his ass beat? It wasnt because he was protesting, it was because he took it upon himself to not leave other people alone. At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.

I think you missed who it was who was beat. It wasn't gays.

But, why don't you think about what you said and apply it to those who are protesting the FED, or any number of things. Would it be alright for them to be beat up if they didn't keep their mouths shut?

[KEEF]

So not a joke here, but if the straight protester gets his ass beat by the homosexual, could the homosexual get charged for a hate crime?

[MelissaWV]

So not a joke here, but if the straight protester gets his ass beat by the homosexual, could the homosexual get charged for a hate crime?

Probably not, because that's one of the fundamental injustices of "hate crime" legislation.

[LibertyEagle]

Very predictable replies in this thread. Never miss an opportunity to bash homosexuality or make snide remarks!

If it were an anti-choice protest and pro-choice people were doing what these Bible-thumpers were doing, you'd see a different reaction here.

Are you unable to look at this particular incident objectively and denounce the people who aggressed against the protestors?

This incident has nothing to do with the pro-life vs pro-death issue.

[KEEF]

Probably not, because that's one of the fundamental injustices of "hate crime" legislation.

If I were a prosecutor, I would be all about that just to show the hypocrisy in that legislation.

[MelissaWV]

If I were a prosecutor, I would be all about that just to show the hypocrisy in that legislation.

Sadly, district attorneys don't like to court controversy unless they think it will garner popularity or label them a trailblazer. This will only get them painted as anti-minority (be it sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, or anything else that benefits from hate crimes legislation).

[supermario21]

Watching a bunch of gay protestors try and fight a guy is hilarious lol. Those outfits :D

[Christian Liberty]

To be honest, I find the bible thumping gay-haters more irritating than the men who choose to have anal intercourse with each other.

We all knew all along that for the vast majority of the gays that were pushing for equality, and free speech etc. they actually don't give 2 shits about either.

This was clearly apparent when back during the election, I tried having serious conversations with gay friends of mine who were staunchly pro-Obama. I introduced to them the idea that Obama actually hasn't done anything for the "gay community" other than half-hearted lip service, and then contrasted him to a candidate like Gary Johnson, who was actually much more "pro-gay" but did so from a standpoint of wanting to get the government out of marriage.

In the end, I was lead to the conclusion that none of my gay friends wanted "equality", what they really wanted a seat on the government gravy train.

When did Gary Johnson ever support getting the govt. out of marriage?

As for this whole thing, I don't really care who you find annoying. The gay people committed aggression against the Christian in this case. They should be flogged for assault, or otherwise have to pay restitution to the man (His choice.)

Very predictable replies in this thread. Never miss an opportunity to bash homosexuality or make snide remarks!

If it were an anti-choice protest and pro-choice people were doing what these Bible-thumpers were doing, you'd see a different reaction here.

I don't care about homosexuality, at least not enough so to make it affect my opinion here. I find homosexuality, and indeed, "pro-choice" protesting to be disgusting, but even still, beating the crap out of someone for free speech is assault, regardless.

Are you unable to look at this particular incident objectively and denounce the people who aggressed against the protestors?

This incident has nothing to do with the pro-life vs pro-death issue.

This.

[Paulistinian]

I was at Seattle Pride and I saw that asshole with the sign. He was standing at the entrance telling everyone they were going to Hell. Most people were quite nice to him, offering him flowers and hugs. A lesbian woman got close to him, smiling and talking softly and kindly, and you could tell the religious protestor was sick to his stomach. His body language showed how uncomfortable he was that he was standing so close to a lesbian. She hugged him. There were 150,000 people at Seattle Pride, and there was only that one single protestor.

[Nobexliberty]

They should punish assault by flogging because it will decrease the numbers of assaults.

[KEEF]

Sadly, district attorneys don't like to court controversy unless they think it will garner popularity or label them a trailblazer. This will only get them painted as anti-minority (be it sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, or anything else that benefits from hate crimes legislation).
...and this is why I know I would never had made a good lawyer and glad I chose the profession that I am in.

[Qdog]

When did Gary Johnson ever support getting the govt. out of marriage?


From Gary Johnson Wikipedia Page:
"Johnson says that "government doesn't belong in the bedroom."[33][33] He believes that the government should not regulate marriage at all.[48] He believes the government "should not impose its values upon marriage" but instead "should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#LGBTQ_issues

[TaftFan]

They should punish assault by flogging because it will decrease the numbers of assaults.

I was just thinking a small whip would have been good to keep those people from jumping at him.

Knowing it was a gay parade though they might enjoy it,

[BamaAla]

Regardless of his sexual preference, fatty is a coward. Nothing says "fighting for a cause" like a sucker punch.

[TaftFan]

Regardless of his sexual preference, fatty is a coward. Nothing says "fighting for a cause" like a sucker punch.

He wasn't there to fight, he was there to show off his big belly obviously.

[Nobexliberty]

I was just thinking a small whip would have been good to keep those people from jumping at him.

Knowing it was a gay parade though they might enjoy it, The problem is that people see temporary pain as cruel and being locked up as normal. But flogging does not cost 50 000$ so big daddy won't do it.


Regardless of his sexual preference, fatty is a coward. Nothing says "fighting for a cause" like a sucker punch. Brains and not honor brings victory!

[susano]

The guy has the right to protest, sure, but maybe a bit of self control by keeping his mouth shut to begin with could have done wonders. Now me? I probably would have interpreted his statements as a THREAT because that is what he was doing. Hmm, I wonder why he got his ass beat? It wasnt because he was protesting, it was because he took it upon himself to not leave other people alone. At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.


hahaha!

Wut?

[susano]

Very predictable replies in this thread. Never miss an opportunity to bash homosexuality or make snide remarks!

If it were an anti-choice protest and pro-choice people were doing what these Bible-thumpers were doing, you'd see a different reaction here.

You really think that the posters here would support pro lifers assaulting anyone?

[Origanalist]

Very predictable replies in this thread. Never miss an opportunity to bash homosexuality or make snide remarks!

If it were an anti-choice protest and pro-choice people were doing what these Bible-thumpers were doing, you'd see a different reaction here.

Anti-choice people? Oh, you mean pro-life.

[Nobexliberty]

People who murder innocent babys too make their life easier is a cold-blooded murderer and the only the reason they should not get the death penelty is because I do not trust the justice system.

[Christian Liberty]

They should punish assault by flogging because it will decrease the numbers of assaults.

I'd agree with this, although I think the victim should be allowed to accept monetary compensation instead if he wants. I'd say it should be up to victim.

I was just thinking a small whip would have been good to keep those people from jumping at him.

Knowing it was a gay parade though they might enjoy it,
:lol:

The problem is that people see temporary pain as cruel and being locked up as normal. But flogging does not cost 50 000$ so big daddy won't do it

Indeed: being locked in a cage like an animal is "Cruel", temporary pain is not. The conditioning here is awful.


Anti-choice people? Oh, you mean pro-life.

How did I miss this? Especially considering I'm pro-life myself...

[RP Supporter]

Gay pride is so stupid. Yet another opportunity for the powers that be to divide and conquer. "Congrats, you'll soon have full marriage right. All hail the benevolent state that made it possible! But remember never to vote for one of those conservatives, or they'll take all your rights away!"

"Also, ignore the whole spying scandal. Look over here! Rainbow flags! The President made a three minute video saying it gets better!"

That said, the protesters were sort of dumb as well. It would be like me going to an NAACP rally holding up a sign that says "Affirmative action sucks." All it does is kick the hornet's nest.

[PaulConventionWV]

The guy has the right to protest, sure, but maybe a bit of self control by keeping his mouth shut to begin with could have done wonders. Now me? I probably would have interpreted his statements as a THREAT because that is what he was doing. Hmm, I wonder why he got his ass beat? It wasnt because he was protesting, it was because he took it upon himself to not leave other people alone. At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.

Wow, it amazes me how you managed to turn the victim here into the perpetrator. You accuse the man practicing free speech of threatening the people who actually did the assaulting, and somehow that makes it ok. Tell me, who was the aggressor here? Who was violent?

[dillo]

Wow, it amazes me how you managed to turn the victim here into the perpetrator. You accuse the man practicing free speech of threatening the people who actually did the assaulting, and somehow that makes it ok. Tell me, who was the aggressor here? Who was violent?


If the Westboro Baptists protested a family member or friends funeral would you not be enticed to physically assault them?

I am willing to protect their right to free speech, but if you play with fire dont cry when you get burned

[Nobexliberty]

If the Westboro Baptists protested a family member or friends funeral would you not be enticed to physically assault them?

I am willing to protect their right to free speech, but if you play with fire dont cry when you get burned As long as the law is on the "attacked person" side then I understand why.

[angelatc]

If the Westboro Baptists protested a family member or friends funeral would you not be enticed to physically assault them?

I am willing to protect their right to free speech, but if you play with fire dont cry when you get burned

that's insane on a couple of levels, especially coming from this forum.

[The Free Hornet]

If the Westboro Baptists protested a family member or friends funeral would you not be enticed to physically assault them?

There might be some magic combination of words to turn me per-emptively violent. If I knew what they were, it would behoove me to inoculate against that possibility. Identifying that these words exist to hack your principles, and not doing anything about it is rather sad.

It's like you're engaged in self-hypnosis and training yourself to freak out upon hearing the trigger phrase. Worse yet, you are documenting premeditation in the unlikely event your trigger phrase is encountered. You have no excuse to freak if the Westboro folk offend you.

[Antischism]

Are you unable to look at this particular incident objectively and denounce the people who aggressed against the protestors?

This incident has nothing to do with the pro-life vs pro-death issue.

I could, but then I wouldn't be able to make the astute observation that some people here play favorites all the time and aren't very consistent. It'd be nice to get some sort of consistency if we're going to have threads like these.

[tod evans]

I don't understand zealots who want to inject themselves in this sort of display any more than I understand ***** trumpeting their sexuality.

As far as I'm concerned they're all a bunch of attention whores.

[Don Lapre]

The only appropriate take to this video is to say that the attackers were 100% wrong.

The message the victims were relaying is entirely irrelevant.

They were violated, period.

[rprprs]

He wasn't there to fight, he was there to show off his big belly obviously.

I don't care one iota about his sexual preferences or his big belly. But, if that video is in any way indicative of his general posture and demeanor, that dude is looking for a fight everywhere he goes.

There are far too many individuals just like him. Punks and bullies itchin' for a fight. They enable wars.

[WM_in_MO]

I don't care one iota about his sexual preferences or his big belly. But, if that video is in any way indicative of his general posture and demeanor, that dude is looking for a fight everywhere he goes.

There are far too many individuals just like him. Punks and bullies itchin' for a fight. They enable wars.
Buckshot cures that sickness

[pcosmar]

I don't understand zealots who want to inject themselves in this sort of display any more than I understand ***** trumpeting their sexuality.

As far as I'm concerned they're all a bunch of attention whores.

http://www.tubingoenlinea.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/bingo-300x291.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

Neither do I understand why that Christian would waste his time in such a place. Nonetheless, though, it is clear that he is the victim.

[PaulConventionWV]

If the Westboro Baptists protested a family member or friends funeral would you not be enticed to physically assault them?

I am willing to protect their right to free speech, but if you play with fire dont cry when you get burned

Are you seriously comparing picketing a funeral to protesting a gay pride rally? Wow....

[tod evans]

There are some places interlopers don't belong.

This idea of using force of law in order to promote blatant stupidity is infuriating.

Two of my favorite examples phrased by my grandmother were;

A niqquer at a clan meeting.

A whore in church.

Neither one really belongs but in todays "it's all good" society certain people feel empowered by the state to interject their beliefs or opinions where they are't welcome.

Stupidity....

[Rocco]

The vast majority of people who show up to counter WBC protests are not family or friends of the deceased. To compare ANY regular protest to attending the funeral of a family member or friend is apples to oranges.

That being said, for everyone who does not know the victim that goes to counter protest the WBC, this analogy applies rather well. If I were one of those people, I would unequivocally feel no inclination to assault them. In fact, if I saw somebody else assaulting them in this fashion I have zero doubt in my mind I would come to their defense. To feel the urge to attack somebody because you cannot tolerate their thoughts without being violent is the mark of a weak minded simpleton.


If the Westboro Baptists protested a family member or friends funeral would you not be enticed to physically assault them?

I am willing to protect their right to free speech, but if you play with fire dont cry when you get burned

[MelissaWV]

You really think that the posters here would support pro lifers assaulting anyone?

That depends whether they are assaulting cops?

If so, you'll always find a smattering of applause...

[Rocco]

Assaulting somebody who is physically manhandling an innocent person and assaulting somebody who is trying to speak a message you disagree with are VERY different.


That depends whether they are assaulting cops?

If so, you'll always find a smattering of applause...

[Paulistinian]

You all glossed over my post here... I was actually there. I watched that guy for a good amount of time. He stood right at the entrance to the Seattle Center, on a ledge so he was above the passerbys. He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah. There were approx. 150,000 people who attended this event, they ALL had to walk passed this asshole to enter the Seattle Center to get to the main stages, the fair foods, the shops and everything else (Pride Fest was pretty much just like any other county fair, only gay themed and people wore less clothes). I saw some people having debates with him, no shouting or anything. I saw a lesbian woman with a kind smile on her face walk over to him, I think she showed him she wore a cross, to identify that she too believed in Jesus. He was visually uncomfortable, sickened even, that she was standing so close to him. She talked calmly with him and eventually even hugged him (though he obviously hated that). Most people were walking by the guy and telling him that they love him.... but no, there's no 3 minute YouTube videos of that.

As an actual attendee of Seattle Pride Fest, I have to say, that guy was there looking for a fight. Hoping to piss someone off enough that they would fight him. Now that isn't very "Christian", is it? Didn't Jesus say something about "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek"?

I love free speech, but with free speech requires a little bit of common sense... It is legal to walk around Harlem shouting "I HATE ******S!" or to walk around Downtown LA shouting "MEXICANS GO BACK TO MEXICO" just as it is legal to stand at the entrance of Gay Pride Fest in Seattle shouting about how "GOD HATES ******S". Does that mean it's a smart idea? The guy was looking for a fight and eventually he found one.

By the way, there was a (very mild) police presence around the Seattle Center that day, but there were several cops posted up at the entrance there to protect that asshole and his friend. I spent the whole day at Pride and I felt that, more than the Gay movement, it embodied a sense of freedom. It could have been called "everyone does whatever they feel like" day. I saw a lot of love, happy faces, friendly people, it was a very nice event-- save for that one asshole and his friend standing at the entrance telling everyone how awful they are. Also, he was not the only person representing Christians there-- the Episcopal church had a tent set up and showed that not all Christians are filled with hate the way that asshole in the video is.

PS- I am a Christian. I am also not gay.


edit--- It's funny that in this forum, on a thread about free speech, "N I G G E R" and the "F A G G O T" are censored.

[MelissaWV]

As an actual attendee of Seattle Pride Fest, I have to say, that guy was there looking for a fight. Hoping to piss someone off enough that they would fight him.

And someone obliged him.

If this guy wanted to be such an asshole, I would have likely done what the lesbian you described did, and just hang around near him and engage him in polite, intelligent conversation. It challenges his notions. I would not have hugged him as that's just cruel and invading his space. I might have gotten enough people to encircle him and just sat around talking and such. I don't think the fact he was being a jerk and saying things and looking for a fight is really reason to go and give him exactly what he wanted.

[Ender]

You all glossed over my post here... I was actually there. I watched that guy for a good amount of time. He stood right at the entrance to the Seattle Center, on a ledge so he was above the passerbys. He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah. There were approx. 150,000 people who attended this event, they ALL had to walk passed this asshole to enter the Seattle Center to get to the main stages, the fair foods, the shops and everything else (Pride Fest was pretty much just like any other county fair, only gay themed and people wore less clothes). I saw some people having debates with him, no shouting or anything. I saw a lesbian woman with a kind smile on her face walk over to him, I think she showed him she wore a cross, to identify that she too believed in Jesus. He was visually uncomfortable, sickened even, that she was standing so close to him. She talked calmly with him and eventually even hugged him (though he obviously hated that). Most people were walking by the guy and telling him that they love him.... but no, there's no 3 minute YouTube videos of that.

As an actual attendee of Seattle Pride Fest, I have to say, that guy was there looking for a fight. Hoping to piss someone off enough that they would fight him. Now that isn't very "Christian", is it? Didn't Jesus say something about "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek"?

I love free speech, but with free speech requires a little bit of common sense... It is legal to walk around Harlem shouting "I HATE ******S!" or to walk around Downtown LA shouting "MEXICANS GO BACK TO MEXICO" just as it is legal to stand at the entrance of Gay Pride Fest in Seattle shouting about how "GOD HATES ******S". Does that mean it's a smart idea? The guy was looking for a fight and eventually he found one.

By the way, there was a (very mild) police presence around the Seattle Center that day, but there were several cops posted up at the entrance there to protect that asshole and his friend. I spent the whole day at Pride and I felt that, more than the Gay movement, it embodied a sense of freedom. It could have been called "everyone does whatever they feel like" day. I saw a lot of love, happy faces, friendly people, it was a very nice event-- save for that one asshole and his friend standing at the entrance telling everyone how awful they are. Also, he was not the only person representing Christians there-- the Episcopal church had a tent set up and showed that not all Christians are filled with hate the way that asshole in the video is.

PS- I am a Christian. I am also not gay.


edit--- It's funny that in this forum, on a thread about free speech, "N I G G E R" and the "F A G G O T" are censored.

Thank you.

Jesus also said:


Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

I have little patience with those that go to an event simply to harass and belittle others. If you don't believe in their actions then be as the Episcopal Church and have a tent to teach others. But to call out names means you are looking for a fight.

He got what he wanted.

[Brian4Liberty]

Regardless of his sexual preference, fatty is a coward. Nothing says "fighting for a cause" like a sucker punch.


I don't care one iota about his sexual preferences or his big belly. But, if that video is in any way indicative of his general posture and demeanor, that dude is looking for a fight everywhere he goes.

There are far too many individuals just like him. Punks and bullies itchin' for a fight. They enable wars.

Butterball would go down with a single punch.

[Brian4Liberty]

You all glossed over my post here... I was actually there. I watched that guy for a good amount of time. He stood right at the entrance to the Seattle Center, on a ledge so he was above the passerbys. He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah. ...

Every concert I have attended for years has had those people standing at the entrance, so everyone has to pass them. Never seen anyone attack them. Most laugh at them.

[Paulistinian]

Every concert I have attended for years has had those people standing at the entrance, so everyone has to pass them. Never seen anyone attack them. Most laugh at them.
This wasn't any random concert... this was an all-day celebration of the culture of homosexuality, the demise of DADT and DOMA, as well as a chance for everyone who spends 364 days a year most often afraid to be themselves to finally just be loud and gay and be happy about who they are. The Space Needle was flying a Washington State marriage equality flag. This wasn't any concert, it was a festival filled with gays and straights who support their goals. I'd say standing at the entrance to a random concert waving your hate sign and telling everyone how horrible they are is a bit different than doing the same standing at the entrance of an all-day gay festival... Fact of the matter is, the guy was an asshole, his heart filled with hate and he wanted to verbally abuse people and obviously was hoping someone would eventually snap.

[Brian4Liberty]

Expect this to happen all of the time now. Because homosexuality is the new civil right backed by the politically correct establishment, the same kind of social pressure that exists against racists today will now be shown to people who merely have a principled religious stand against homosexual behavior.

This is the relevant point. The hate-filled left, best espoused on MSNBC, now feel that they have an advantage. They feel that the majority is on their side. They are propagandized, angry and agitated. They are the ones who are filled with hate, who now feel it is their duty to physically attack people. They are now the "norm", and the outsiders need to be eliminated. It isn't just about religion or homosexuality. Yes, we will see more of this.

[Brian4Liberty]

Never knew gays were so intolerant of others... Irrrrony.

Just to be clear, fat boy and his wife didn't seem to be gay. As a matter of fact, they left an infant in a stroller while they both attacked "hell-fire" boy.

[Brian4Liberty]

This wasn't any random concert... this was an all-day celebration of the culture of homosexuality, the demise of DADT and DOMA, as well as a chance for everyone who spends 364 days a year most often afraid to be themselves to finally just be loud and gay and be happy about who they are. The Space Needle was flying a Washington State marriage equality flag. This wasn't any concert, it was a festival filled with gays and straights who support their goals. I'd say standing at the entrance to a random concert waving your hate sign and telling everyone how horrible they are is a bit different than doing the same standing at the entrance of an all-day gay festival... Fact of the matter is, the guy was an asshole, his heart filled with hate and he wanted to verbally abuse people and obviously was hoping someone would eventually snap.

Yep. He was an asshole. He was guilty of improper thought. On top of that, he had the gall to speak his rudeness.

As far as being so much different than a regular concert, it looked like he was using the exact same sign that is used at any other concert.

Edit: And the sign said nothing about homosexuality. Nada.

[Paulistinian]

Yep. He was an asshole. He was guilty of improper thought. On top of that, he had the gall to speak his rudeness.

As far as being so much different than a regular concert, it looked like he was using the exact same sign that is used at any other concert.

Edit: And the sign said nothing about homosexuality. Nada.

Maybe you missed the part about how I was actually there, not just watching a YouTube video a week later.

[Brian4Liberty]

Maybe you missed the part about how I was actually there, not just watching a YouTube video a week later.

Yeah, what more are we missing?

You said this:


He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah.

Was there more that this person was saying?

[Origanalist]

This wasn't any random concert... this was an all-day celebration of the culture of homosexuality, the demise of DADT and DOMA, as well as a chance for everyone who spends 364 days a year most often afraid to be themselves to finally just be loud and gay and be happy about who they are. The Space Needle was flying a Washington State marriage equality flag. This wasn't any concert, it was a festival filled with gays and straights who support their goals. I'd say standing at the entrance to a random concert waving your hate sign and telling everyone how horrible they are is a bit different than doing the same standing at the entrance of an all-day gay festival... Fact of the matter is, the guy was an asshole, his heart filled with hate and he wanted to verbally abuse people and obviously was hoping someone would eventually snap.

Afraid? Really? In Seattle? C'mon........

[tod evans]

Ya' know if there's a bunch of us old grizzled bikers having a gathering down by the river and some ****, or zealot decides to infringe on our space the women and children would run 'em off before any of us got upset.

It's really a matter of being polite and staying out of other peoples business.

[shane77m]

oh look, the people wanting tolerance being intolerant

Exactly.

[Don Lapre]

You all glossed over my post here... I was actually there. I watched that guy for a good amount of time. He stood right at the entrance to the Seattle Center, on a ledge so he was above the passerbys. He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah. There were approx. 150,000 people who attended this event, they ALL had to walk passed this asshole to enter the Seattle Center to get to the main stages, the fair foods, the shops and everything else (Pride Fest was pretty much just like any other county fair, only gay themed and people wore less clothes). I saw some people having debates with him, no shouting or anything. I saw a lesbian woman with a kind smile on her face walk over to him, I think she showed him she wore a cross, to identify that she too believed in Jesus. He was visually uncomfortable, sickened even, that she was standing so close to him. She talked calmly with him and eventually even hugged him (though he obviously hated that). Most people were walking by the guy and telling him that they love him.... but no, there's no 3 minute YouTube videos of that.

As an actual attendee of Seattle Pride Fest, I have to say, that guy was there looking for a fight. Hoping to piss someone off enough that they would fight him. Now that isn't very "Christian", is it? Didn't Jesus say something about "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek"?

I love free speech, but with free speech requires a little bit of common sense... It is legal to walk around Harlem shouting "I HATE ******S!" or to walk around Downtown LA shouting "MEXICANS GO BACK TO MEXICO" just as it is legal to stand at the entrance of Gay Pride Fest in Seattle shouting about how "GOD HATES ******S". Does that mean it's a smart idea? The guy was looking for a fight and eventually he found one.

By the way, there was a (very mild) police presence around the Seattle Center that day, but there were several cops posted up at the entrance there to protect that asshole and his friend. I spent the whole day at Pride and I felt that, more than the Gay movement, it embodied a sense of freedom. It could have been called "everyone does whatever they feel like" day. I saw a lot of love, happy faces, friendly people, it was a very nice event-- save for that one asshole and his friend standing at the entrance telling everyone how awful they are. Also, he was not the only person representing Christians there-- the Episcopal church had a tent set up and showed that not all Christians are filled with hate the way that asshole in the video is.

PS- I am a Christian. I am also not gay.


edit--- It's funny that in this forum, on a thread about free speech, "N I G G E R" and the "F A G G O T" are censored.

That is funny, isn't it?


About your post...

You can't stop random public assholes from being random public assholes.

As long as they don't injure someone -- or cause a public danger, they are free to be assholes.


The appropriate response is to say to self, "Wow, that guy's an asshole," and walk on your way.

[tod evans]

That is funny, isn't it?


About your post...

You can't stop random public assholes from being random public assholes.

As long as they don't injure someone -- or cause a public danger, they are free to be assholes.


The appropriate response is to say to self, "Wow, that guy's an asshole," and walk on your way.


Actually you can stop random assholes from being assholes in your presence.

You've just gotta have the balls to do it.

Expecting government to do it for you is what you're addressing.

[PSYOP]

DIVIDE & CONQUER

[Nobexliberty]

DIVIDE & CONQUER I came, I saw, I tyranted. (is tyranted a word?)

[Origanalist]

I came, I saw, I tyranted. (is tyranted a word?)

It is now.

[PaulConventionWV]

There are some places interlopers don't belong.

This idea of using force of law in order to promote blatant stupidity is infuriating.

Two of my favorite examples phrased by my grandmother were;

A niqquer at a clan meeting.

A whore in church.

Neither one really belongs but in todays "it's all good" society certain people feel empowered by the state to interject their beliefs or opinions where they are't welcome.

Stupidity....

How are they using force of law? Is it force of law when someone is exercising their right? Well, that would assume your rights come from government, that they must be codified into law before they can be recognized. No force of law is even involved in this situation and it is really separating the liberty-lovers from the pretenders like you and the others who have come here in support of the aggressors. How can you even handle that kind of cognitive dissonance?

The fact that they didn't belong there and probably shouldn't have been there is irrelevant.

[Nobexliberty]

It is now.Ego iustus excogitari verbum:)

[PaulConventionWV]

You all glossed over my post here... I was actually there. I watched that guy for a good amount of time. He stood right at the entrance to the Seattle Center, on a ledge so he was above the passerbys. He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah. There were approx. 150,000 people who attended this event, they ALL had to walk passed this asshole to enter the Seattle Center to get to the main stages, the fair foods, the shops and everything else (Pride Fest was pretty much just like any other county fair, only gay themed and people wore less clothes). I saw some people having debates with him, no shouting or anything. I saw a lesbian woman with a kind smile on her face walk over to him, I think she showed him she wore a cross, to identify that she too believed in Jesus. He was visually uncomfortable, sickened even, that she was standing so close to him. She talked calmly with him and eventually even hugged him (though he obviously hated that). Most people were walking by the guy and telling him that they love him.... but no, there's no 3 minute YouTube videos of that.

As an actual attendee of Seattle Pride Fest, I have to say, that guy was there looking for a fight. Hoping to piss someone off enough that they would fight him. Now that isn't very "Christian", is it? Didn't Jesus say something about "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek"?

I love free speech, but with free speech requires a little bit of common sense... It is legal to walk around Harlem shouting "I HATE ******S!" or to walk around Downtown LA shouting "MEXICANS GO BACK TO MEXICO" just as it is legal to stand at the entrance of Gay Pride Fest in Seattle shouting about how "GOD HATES ******S". Does that mean it's a smart idea? The guy was looking for a fight and eventually he found one.

By the way, there was a (very mild) police presence around the Seattle Center that day, but there were several cops posted up at the entrance there to protect that asshole and his friend. I spent the whole day at Pride and I felt that, more than the Gay movement, it embodied a sense of freedom. It could have been called "everyone does whatever they feel like" day. I saw a lot of love, happy faces, friendly people, it was a very nice event-- save for that one asshole and his friend standing at the entrance telling everyone how awful they are. Also, he was not the only person representing Christians there-- the Episcopal church had a tent set up and showed that not all Christians are filled with hate the way that asshole in the video is.

PS- I am a Christian. I am also not gay.


edit--- It's funny that in this forum, on a thread about free speech, "N I G G E R" and the "F A G G O T" are censored.

This is insane. The guy did not fight at all. He was attacked and did not fight back. The only thing he ever did in that video was try to avoid them. I don't care if you were there or not, speaking offensive words does not make it okay to attack assholes because "they are looking for a fight". That can justify just about anything. "Bitch was asking for it."

You make me sick trying to defend the attackers. Do you even realize the idiocy and hypocrisy of coming on a liberty forum and telling us peaceful people who got attacked were just asking for it? That's the same thing as defending the rapist because the girl was asking for it or the murderer because "that guy was SUCH an asshole!"

There is NO place for defending the aggressors and then trying to play it off like it was some exception to the rule because you wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about gays and their advocates. "It was such a loving, happy place." Why does this even matter? Some guy gets attacked and everyone jumps to the defense of the gay pride party talking all kinds of shit about the guy who was protesting.

[PaulConventionWV]

Thank you.

Jesus also said:



I have little patience with those that go to an event simply to harass and belittle others. If you don't believe in their actions then be as the Episcopal Church and have a tent to teach others. But to call out names means you are looking for a fight.

He got what he wanted.

The guy didn't even fight back. What does that indicate to you? To me it indicates that he wasn't "looking for a fight". He was running away from the for God's sake! You all have gone insane if you are using this line as a way to defend the actions of REAL asshole, the guy who was walking around with his shirt off acting tough and physically assaulting the guy with the sign. That's the REAL asshole here. Any of you gay pride supporters care to point out how THAT guy was itching for a fight?

[PaulConventionWV]

This wasn't any random concert... this was an all-day celebration of the culture of homosexuality, the demise of DADT and DOMA, as well as a chance for everyone who spends 364 days a year most often afraid to be themselves to finally just be loud and gay and be happy about who they are. The Space Needle was flying a Washington State marriage equality flag. This wasn't any concert, it was a festival filled with gays and straights who support their goals. I'd say standing at the entrance to a random concert waving your hate sign and telling everyone how horrible they are is a bit different than doing the same standing at the entrance of an all-day gay festival... Fact of the matter is, the guy was an asshole, his heart filled with hate and he wanted to verbally abuse people and obviously was hoping someone would eventually snap.

It just never stops with you people defending the actions of some bald-headed shirtless idiot who attacked a guy with a sign because "his heart was filled with hate". How do you justify coming to his defense? I bet you wouldn't be saying this if it was at some other kind of rally but because you love gays so much, you had to come to their defense. Typical. Nobody ever truly supports liberty when it comes down to it. They like to see their fellow man suffer when he says something they don't agree with.

[PaulConventionWV]

Just to be clear, fat boy and his wife didn't seem to be gay. As a matter of fact, they left an infant in a stroller while they both attacked "hell-fire" boy.

They sound like wonderful parents. The kind you just love to defend for attacking people who disagree with your views.

[PaulConventionWV]

Maybe you missed the part about how I was actually there, not just watching a YouTube video a week later.

Maybe you missed the part about how nobody cares because it's irrelevant to what we all saw happen.

[Origanalist]

Ego iustus excogitari verbum:)

Qui potens est imaginationem.

(I had to cheat :D)

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually you can stop random assholes from being assholes in your presence.

You've just gotta have the balls to do it.

Expecting government to do it for you is what you're addressing.

Actually that has nothing to do with it. Nobody invoked the power of the state here. The problem is that somebody attacked someone else, violating the Non Agression Principle. "Having the balls to do it" sounds a lot like "forget about free speech. If someone's being an asshole in public, you are well within your rights to beat ther ass!" Does that really sound like a liberty philosophy to you?

[angelatc]

Maybe you missed the part about how I was actually there, not just watching a YouTube video a week later.

and maybe you don't understand we believe in free speech, not assault.

[angelatc]

This is the relevant point. The hate-filled left, best espoused on MSNBC, now feel that they have an advantage. They feel that the majority is on their side. They are propagandized, angry and agitated. They are the ones who are filled with hate, who now feel it is their duty to physically attack people. They are now the "norm", and the outsiders need to be eliminated. It isn't just about religion or homosexuality. Yes, we will see more of this.


Yep, it is always the left who resorts to violence to control people. That's why i consider the non-aggression principle to be naive. Unless we get behind people who are willing to be loud and inflammatory, we won't win.

Not that we should be getting behind the Bible guy. But those are the type of people (not gay-haters...just loud and obnoxious) who will lead any revolution, if there is to be one.

As for the parade / celebration itself....pride itself is also a sin. I have no use for it in general.

[tod evans]

Actually that has nothing to do with it. Nobody invoked the power of the state here. The problem is that somebody attacked someone else, violating the Non Agression Principle. "Having the balls to do it" sounds a lot like "forget about free speech. If someone's being an asshole in public, you are well within your rights to beat ther ass!" Does that really sound like a liberty philosophy to you?

It is you'll be polite around my family and I, or you will be put in your place.

Speak about that bucko!

Liberty and freedom is every bit as much about being free to stand up for yourself and your family.

I will not put up with assholes, feel free to do so if it makes you feel better.

[tod evans]

How are they using force of law? Is it force of law when someone is exercising their right? Well, that would assume your rights come from government, that they must be codified into law before they can be recognized. No force of law is even involved in this situation and it is really separating the liberty-lovers from the pretenders like you and the others who have come here in support of the aggressors. How can you even handle that kind of cognitive dissonance?

The fact that they didn't belong there and probably shouldn't have been there is irrelevant.

Oh goody!

I missed this one reading backwards in the thread..

Once again, if you can't behave in a manner that suits the environment then you don't friggin' belong.

It's a matter of respect.

Learn it on your own or be taught by those who don't tolerate stupid behavior.

I happen to be one of those who will put you in your place if you misbehave.

And I could care less about your NAP, it's not a philosophy I abide by.

[tod evans]

Maybe somebody can help me understand this idea that it's acceptable to behave however you like wherever you like because someone wants to label their behavior as "freedom" or claim freedom of expression?

When exactly did manners and respect take a backseat?

If a couple of ***** set up camp outside a revival and yelled at the attendees then they'd deserve an ass whuppin' too.

It's pitiful to read folks making excuses for those who can't behave like decent humans.



I find it really ironic that an ol' hillbilly/biker dude is advocating for sane and civil behavior...

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The guy didn't even fight back. What does that indicate to you? To me it indicates that he wasn't "looking for a fight". He was running away from the for God's sake! You all have gone insane if you are using this line as a way to defend the actions of REAL asshole, the guy who was walking around with his shirt off acting tough and physically assaulting the guy with the sign. That's the REAL asshole here. Any of you gay pride supporters care to point out how THAT guy was itching for a fight?that guy wasn't gay, he was a ******. :D

[MelissaWV]

Maybe somebody can help me understand this idea that it's acceptable to behave however you like wherever you like because someone wants to label their behavior as "freedom" or claim freedom of expression?

When exactly did manners and respect take a backseat?

If a couple of ***** set up camp outside a revival and yelled at the attendees then they'd deserve an ass whuppin' too.

It's pitiful to read folks making excuses for those who can't behave like decent humans.



I find it really ironic that an ol' hillbilly/biker dude is advocating for sane and civil behavior...

Manners, tact, and respect are apparently outdated :(

Having said that, I tend to view those people as one would view children throwing a tantrum. You can either spank them, take them away from the situation (ie drag them out of the store where they are pitching a fit about wanting a new toy), ignore them, assert your authority, bribe them into changing their behavior, or any number of other things. Ignoring them works quite well.

If someone's yelling, I would still maintain that taking it past yelling in retaliation is a bit off-kilter. That's just me, though.

[tod evans]

Manners, tact, and respect are apparently outdated :(

Having said that, I tend to view those people as one would view children throwing a tantrum. You can either spank them, take them away from the situation (ie drag them out of the store where they are pitching a fit about wanting a new toy), ignore them, assert your authority, bribe them into changing their behavior, or any number of other things. Ignoring them works quite well.

If someone's yelling, I would still maintain that taking it past yelling in retaliation is a bit off-kilter. That's just me, though.

If I'm walking down the street and some dude is lipping off I'll generally leave him alone.

Now if the same fellow lips off to, or about, a member of my family, I won't let it go.

All behaviors are situation specific as far as what's acceptable or not and it really gives me cause for concern that some folks can't get their head around an interloper deserving an ass-whipping...:o

[angelatc]

Manners, tact, and respect are apparently outdated :(
.

Rude behavior is always present in civilized society. That is why the art called Manners is as much about how to behave when confronted by a boor as it is about not being a boor.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is you'll be polite around my family and I, or you will be put in your place.

Speak about that bucko!

Liberty and freedom is every bit as much about being free to stand up for yourself and your family.

I will not put up with assholes, feel free to do so if it makes you feel better.

So you attack people for telling you they disagree with the way you live your life? That has never been a libertarian position. Only if you are attacked first should you defend yourself, but you never initiate the violence because you don't like what someone is saying. All this tough talk about not putting up with assholes may sound good to you, but it is not a principled position, so you can just forget about that now.

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh goody!

I missed this one reading backwards in the thread..

Once again, if you can't behave in a manner that suits the environment then you don't friggin' belong.

It's a matter of respect.

Learn it on your own or be taught by those who don't tolerate stupid behavior.

I happen to be one of those who will put you in your place if you misbehave.

And I could care less about your NAP, it's not a philosophy I abide by.

Just answer me one friggin' question: Do you believe someone would be morally justified in attacking someone for saying things you don't like to hear? If the answer is yes, then you should probably reevaluate your views on liberty.

[jmdrake]

The guy has the right to protest, sure, but maybe a bit of self control by keeping his mouth shut to begin with could have done wonders. Now me? I probably would have interpreted his statements as a THREAT because that is what he was doing. Hmm, I wonder why he got his ass beat? It wasnt because he was protesting, it was because he took it upon himself to not leave other people alone. At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.

Ummmmm....how can you threaten someone with a sign about hell? It's not like the Christian can call down hell fire on anyone.

[PaulConventionWV]

Maybe somebody can help me understand this idea that it's acceptable to behave however you like wherever you like because someone wants to label their behavior as "freedom" or claim freedom of expression?

When exactly did manners and respect take a backseat?

If a couple of ***** set up camp outside a revival and yelled at the attendees then they'd deserve an ass whuppin' too.

It's pitiful to read folks making excuses for those who can't behave like decent humans.



I find it really ironic that an ol' hillbilly/biker dude is advocating for sane and civil behavior...

Just because someone lacks manners and respect, doesn't mean you have the authority to beat them up. You can't go around beating people who don't suit your definition of manners and respect. That's why we have the non-aggression principle, so nobody can just go around defining for themselves who does and does not deserve to get beaten up like you apparently believe.

[torchbearer]

I wonder why gay people hate christians?
I bet they just hate them for their freedoms. yeh, thats it. where's my remote- i'm missing fox news.

[PaulConventionWV]

If I'm walking down the street and some dude is lipping off I'll generally leave him alone.

Now if the same fellow lips off to, or about, a member of my family, I won't let it go.

All behaviors are situation specific as far as what's acceptable or not and it really gives me cause for concern that some folks can't get their head around an interloper deserving an ass-whipping...:o

Despite what you say, I bet you wouldn't be nearly as sympathetic if some supposed Christians beat up a gay person at a Christian rally. Maybe it's me, but I don't think you would be defending them on here nearly as ardently as you are now.

[torchbearer]

Despite what you say, I bet you wouldn't be nearly as sympathetic if some supposed Christians beat up a gay person at a Christian rally. Maybe it's me, but I don't think you would be defending them on here nearly as ardently as you are now.

yeah, lets forget the whole Christians(in general-not all) want to use government violence to enforce their beliefs on others.
and go to showing people reacting to that legacy of intolerance, with their own intolerance.
I'm intolerant of authoritarians also. i guess i'm a hypocrite.

[PaulConventionWV]

I wonder why gay people hate christians?
I bet they just hate them for their freedoms. yeh, thats it. where's my remote- i'm missing fox news.

I'm not sure if that was said ironically, but it's actually quite true in this case. The people in the video hated the Christian for his freedoms just like the government hates its citizens for their freedoms.

[PaulConventionWV]

yeah, lets forget the whole Christians(in general-not all) want to use government violence to enforce their beliefs on others.
and go to showing people reacting to that legacy of intolerance, with their own intolerance.
I'm intolerant of authoritarians also. i guess i'm a hypocrite.

No, you don't even get to say Christians "in general" want to do that. That's a collectivized notion that simply doesn't reflect reality. You don't know what the percentage of Christians who want to do that is. You just hear about neocons and you think most Christians are like that. They're not. You don't get to call "Christians" one thing or another because not all people who claim to be Christians really are. You're just collectivizing the lot and then applying a bogus rule that you don't actually know to be true. You're saying it because that's the kind of Christian you think of when you think of Christians. It doesn't mean that most or even a lot of Christians think that way.

[torchbearer]

No, you don't even get to say Christians "in general" want to do that. That's a collectivized notion that simply doesn't reflect reality. You don't know what the percentage of Christians who want to do that is. You just hear about neocons and you think most Christians are like that. They're not. You don't get to call "Christians" one thing or another because not all people who claim to be Christians really are. You're just collectivizing the lot and then applying a bogus rule that you don't actually know to be true. You're saying it because that's the kind of Christian you think of when you think of Christians. It doesn't mean that most or even a lot of Christians think that way.


really, who are the groups behind the banning of gay marriage?
who are the groups behind the war on drugs?
who are the groups that would fight tooth and nail to keep prostitution in the black market?

[torchbearer]

I'm not sure if that was said ironically, but it's actually quite true in this case. The people in the video hated the Christian for his freedoms just like the government hates its citizens for their freedoms.


you hit someone in the face, a couple years ago.
then one day- that guy comes back and nails you in the face while you were holding a sign.
you are the type of person who would then act like a victim, and pretend the attack had something to do with your speech- and nothing to do with punching the guy sometime in the past.

that logic doesn't work here.
there are a series of events that led up to the hate, and it wasn't because of your freedoms- it was because you advocated the use of force to prevent others from engaging in life activities you didn't agree with for religious reasons.

[PaulConventionWV]

really, who are the groups behind the banning of gay marriage?
who are the groups behind the war on drugs?
who are the groups that would fight tooth and nail to keep prostitution in the black market?

You're collectivizing the lot again. Just because Christians do it, it doesn't mean it is a Christian thing to do. Stop getting the two mixed up.

[PaulConventionWV]

you hit someone in the face, a couple years ago.
then one day- that guy comes back and nails you in the face while you were holding a sign.
you are the type of person who would then act like a victim, and pretend the attack had something to do with your speech- and nothing to do with punching the guy sometime in the past.

This has nothing to do with what happened in the video. I am willing to bet a large amount of money that those two people had never met in their life. So this can't be about him punching the guy in the face because it's obviously a reaction to his sign.


that logic doesn't work here.
there are a series of events that led up to the hate, and it wasn't because of your freedoms- it was because you advocated the use of force to prevent others from engaging in life activities you didn't agree with for religious reasons.

You're collectivizing again. Just because I may or may not identify as a Christian, it doesn't mean you get to tell me what I believe. If the person punches the guy in the face because "Christians in genral" want to force gays to do one thing or another, then he's just as guilty as collectivizing. The guy wasn't advocating any force. He was simply telling people what his beliefs were.

[PaulConventionWV]

This thread is really bringing out the hypocrites in this so-called "liberty movement". It makes me distrust even the most ardent supporters who then turn around and collectivize groups they don't like and advocate violence against them.

[Brian4Liberty]

If I'm walking down the street and some dude is lipping off I'll generally leave him alone.

Now if the same fellow lips off to, or about, a member of my family, I won't let it go.

All behaviors are situation specific as far as what's acceptable or not and it really gives me cause for concern that some folks can't get their head around an interloper deserving an ass-whipping...:o

Giving an ass-whipping has been pretty settled as far as the law goes for quite a long time. Blind Justice says that the aggressor is always wrong. Of course that's all "on paper", and your mileage will vary in reality.

But one problem is that "giving ass-whippings" as a solution to those who may offend you and your family is totally subjective.

In one instance, a guy with a sign, yelling "you all are going to hell" deserves an ass-whipping. In another case, two semi-nude gay men kissing each other in front of your children means they deserve an ass-whipping. (In the eyes of the aggressor.)

Almost by definition, any "protester" is in opposition to another group that has planned an event. Are all protesters deserving of an ass-whipping, because they are trying to rain on someone else's parade?

[torchbearer]

This thread is really bringing out the hypocrites in this so-called "liberty movement". It makes me distrust even the most ardent supporters who then turn around and collectivize groups they don't like and advocate violence against them.

or how some people refuse to see the motives behind the anger.
you prescribe it, they hate you for your freedoms.
that's laughable.
they are angry because Christians have hated them for theirs.
sorry, there is nothing noble about your religion. just as screwed up as the Islamist.

[jmdrake]

you hit someone in the face, a couple years ago.
then one day- that guy comes back and nails you in the face while you were holding a sign.
you are the type of person who would then act like a victim, and pretend the attack had something to do with your speech- and nothing to do with punching the guy sometime in the past.

that logic doesn't work here.
there are a series of events that led up to the hate, and it wasn't because of your freedoms- it was because you advocated the use of force to prevent others from engaging in life activities you didn't agree with for religious reasons.

So following your logic, some random Ron Paul supporter punches someone and years later the victim sees you wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt and punches you and so it's all good.

[torchbearer]

So following your logic, some random Ron Paul supporter punches someone and years later the victim sees you wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt and punches you and so it's all good.


no its not all good. someone punched me.
but i'm not going to act like the other person did it because they hate my freedoms.
they were attacked by a ron paul supporter. those guys must be assholes.

[Brian4Liberty]

So following your logic, some random Ron Paul supporter punches someone and years later the victim sees you wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt and punches you and so it's all good.

It is very possible that someone will be attacked for wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt. Could be MSNBC viewers who believe you are a racist. Could be a neo-con brainwashed Fox viewer who thinks you are a "traitor".

I actually had an older white couple come up to me and tell me I had a "lot of balls" for wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt several years ago (at a non-political event). You could imagine that something like that could escalate into "someone needing an ass-kicking". Instead, they were better informed after a long discussion, and today, they may be saying to each other "remember that Ron Paul guy warned us that Rubio was a phony, he was right!" ;)

[Origanalist]

or how some people refuse to see the motives behind the anger.
you prescribe it, they hate you for your freedoms.
that's laughable.
they are angry because Christians have hated them for theirs.
sorry, there is nothing noble about your religion. just as screwed up as the Islamist.

Right, because they are treated just as badly here as in the Islamic countries

[tod evans]

Just because someone lacks manners and respect, doesn't mean you have the authority to beat them up. You can't go around beating people who don't suit your definition of manners and respect. That's why we have the non-aggression principle, so nobody can just go around defining for themselves who does and does not deserve to get beaten up like you apparently believe.

Look dude,

If you're cool with obnoxious folks infringing on your parties or family gatherings then that's your problem.

I am not cut from that cloth, I'm not a libertarian nor do I believe in your NAP.

In fact I find people who will tolerate that type of behavior weak and lacking respect for their families as well as themselves.

The insinuation later that if ***** were out of line at a Christian function I wouldn't behave in the same manner is unfounded, wrong and completely off base. In fact you're far more likely to find my family and I at Christian gatherings than **** gatherings.

From my perspective it appears as though you are looking for excuses to not behave like a man.

Treat others as you'd like to be treated.....I expect to have my ass beat if I act out, whereas you appear to want a pass to act out.

[jmdrake]

You have a strange definition of acting like a man. The majority of gays, who just ignored the guys with the sign, were much bigger men than tubo. Same for the lesbian that gave sign guy a hug. If you're at a Ron Paul rally and some neocon or straight up socialist is on public property holding up an anti Ron Paul sign, please do us all a favor and don't follow your definition of acting like a man.


Look dude,

If you're cool with obnoxious folks infringing on your parties or family gatherings then that's your problem.

I am not cut from that cloth, I'm not a libertarian nor do I believe in your NAP.

In fact I find people who will tolerate that type of behavior weak and lacking respect for their families as well as themselves.

The insinuation later that if ***** were out of line at a Christian function I wouldn't behave in the same manner is unfounded, wrong and completely off base. In fact you're far more likely to find my family and I at Christian gatherings than **** gatherings.

From my perspective it appears as though you are looking for excuses to not behave like a man.

Treat others as you'd like to be treated.....I expect to have my ass beat if I act out, whereas you appear to want a pass to act out.

[tod evans]

Just answer me one friggin' question: Do you believe someone would be morally justified in attacking someone for saying things you don't like to hear? If the answer is yes, then you should probably reevaluate your views on liberty.

Liberty in my eyes consists of protecting my family from people who act in ways I find unacceptable.

Read this next part slowly;

I will not take my family to gatherings that I know to be unacceptable any more than I will permit unwanted people to act unacceptably at my gatherings.

It's a matter of respect, I respect others beliefs enough to not infringe if I disagree, and I insist on the same respect.


So I'm going to qualify your question;


" Do you believe someone would be morally justified in attacking someone for saying things you don't like to hear?[edit] At a gathering they were not invited to and are in fact unwelcome at.

Yes, absolutely!

"Attacking" is justified to the point the unwarranted/unacceptable behavior ceases. If one punch in the mouth stops the behavior then any further beating is wrong.

[jmdrake]

So I take it you're all for police restricting protests of the RNC to "free speech zones" then? Can't have people acting in a way someone hosting an event might find "unacceptable" even if that person is on private property. Or maybe you're just for the RNC sending out teams of thugs to harass and beat up people who are peacefully protesting on public property?


Liberty in my eyes consists of protecting my family from people who act in ways I find unacceptable.

Read this next part slowly;

I will not take my family to gatherings that I know to be unacceptable any more than I will permit unwanted people to act unacceptably at my gatherings.

It's a matter of respect, I respect others beliefs enough to not infringe if I disagree, and I insist on the same respect.


So I'm going to qualify your question;



Yes, absolutely!

"Attacking" is justified to the point the unwarranted/unacceptable behavior ceases. If one punch in the mouth stops the behavior then any further beating is wrong.

[tod evans]

You have a strange definition of acting like a man. The majority of gays, who just ignored the guys with the sign, were much bigger men than tubo. Same for the lesbian that gave sign guy a hug. If you're at a Ron Paul rally and some neocon or straight up socialist is on public property holding up an anti Ron Paul sign, please do us all a favor and don't follow your definition of acting like a man.

I haven't even watched the video.

I'm arguing on principle.

[edit]

If some guy's holding a sign he's not doing anything I'd find offensive.

Now if that guy were yelling at full volume that my wife and child were going to hell, I'd take issue.

And even then location would play into the decision. If I was in the wrong place it's not the psychos fault, but if the psycho comes to my event it's a different story.

[tod evans]

So I take it you're all for police restricting protests of the RNC to "free speech zones" then? Can't have people acting in a way someone hosting an event might find "unacceptable" even if that person is on private property. Or maybe you're just for the RNC sending out teams of thugs to harass and beat up people who are peacefully protesting on public property?

Cops, no.

Hired "thugs" at a private gathering, absolutely! If those attending/holding the gathering are not capable of keeping order at their gathering.

[PaulConventionWV]

or how some people refuse to see the motives behind the anger.
you prescribe it, they hate you for your freedoms.
that's laughable.
they are angry because Christians have hated them for theirs.
sorry, there is nothing noble about your religion. just as screwed up as the Islamist.

Why in the hell do you keep on collectivizing Christians and then advocating violence against them? Do you seriously think that's ok? Do you???

[PaulConventionWV]

no its not all good. someone punched me.
but i'm not going to act like the other person did it because they hate my freedoms.
they were attacked by a ron paul supporter. those guys must be assholes.

Retaliation is a stupid thing anyway, especially for something that old (2 years). You should only be violent if your health or safety or the health or safety of someone else is in danger, not if you see someone who hit you a couple years ago, unless they try to do it again.

[PaulConventionWV]

Look dude,

If you're cool with obnoxious folks infringing on your parties or family gatherings then that's your problem.

I am not cut from that cloth, I'm not a libertarian nor do I believe in your NAP.

In fact I find people who will tolerate that type of behavior weak and lacking respect for their families as well as themselves.

The insinuation later that if ***** were out of line at a Christian function I wouldn't behave in the same manner is unfounded, wrong and completely off base. In fact you're far more likely to find my family and I at Christian gatherings than **** gatherings.

From my perspective it appears as though you are looking for excuses to not behave like a man.

Treat others as you'd like to be treated.....I expect to have my ass beat if I act out, whereas you appear to want a pass to act out.

What's obnoxious is that you act like we have the same definition of obnoxious. If you are going to beat obnoxious people up, then you must think it's okay for a white supremacist to beat people up for "being obnoxious". I'll let you figure out what "being obnoxious" might entail for them.

I'm sick of the "real man" argument. That's an American joke. The real man apparently sits at home and watches football drinking beer whilst treating his wife poorly. He's also probably on welfare. Yeah, that's a real man. Anyone who doesn't fit that description is "looking for an ass-whippin".

Your definition of "acting out" is where the problem lies. There are so many definitions, it's absurd, and you apparently think people should be able to use their own discretion to justify going around beating people up who did nothing to them. Does that mean all protestors are "acting out" to you and deserve to be beaten? I happen to believe that wasn't a good thing to do either, but you don't see me beating people up because they disagree with me. That's all this was, a disagreement, and you think violence over a difference in beliefs is completely justified. I could just as easily beat someone up for telling me "I think you're wrong" and by your standards that would be completely acceptable.

[PaulConventionWV]

Liberty in my eyes consists of protecting my family from people who act in ways I find unacceptable.

Read this next part slowly;

I will not take my family to gatherings that I know to be unacceptable any more than I will permit unwanted people to act unacceptably at my gatherings.

It's a matter of respect, I respect others beliefs enough to not infringe if I disagree, and I insist on the same respect.


So I'm going to qualify your question;



Yes, absolutely!

"Attacking" is justified to the point the unwarranted/unacceptable behavior ceases. If one punch in the mouth stops the behavior then any further beating is wrong.

"...people who act in ways I find unacceptable"... unbelievable. So you're the only one who gets to decide what's unacceptable? What if someone else has a different definition of social norms and what's "acceptable" to them?

Also, I hate to break this to you, but you're not "protecting your family" if they weren't in danger in the first place.

With or without your qualifications, the question is basically the same. You believe it's okay to beat people up for saying things you don't like to hear. That's not manly. To me, that's the mark of a coward who can't tolerate a difference of opinion. If you think the lardass that beat that guy with the sign up is a "real man", then you are the one who's a coward for lacking self-control.

[PaulConventionWV]

I haven't even watched the video.

I'm arguing on principle.

[edit]

If some guy's holding a sign he's not doing anything I'd find offensive.

Now if that guy were yelling at full volume that my wife and child were going to hell, I'd take issue.

And even then location would play into the decision. If I was in the wrong place it's not the psychos fault, but if the psycho comes to my event it's a different story.

Your principle is still wrong because it justifies almost every kind of aggression as long as the person did it because they found the other person's behavior "unacceptable". The guys weren't just holding signs either, they were preaching.

FFS, just go watch the video.

[torchbearer]

dap and dance.
doesnt change the facts.

[PaulConventionWV]

dap and dance.
doesnt change the facts.

And just what are the facts? Is it a fact that all Christians are bigots? It's not just what the facts are, it's how you interpret them.

[tod evans]

What's obnoxious is that you act like we have the same definition of obnoxious. If you are going to beat obnoxious people up, then you must think it's okay for a white supremacist to beat people up for "being obnoxious". I'll let you figure out what "being obnoxious" might entail for them.

I'm sick of the "real man" argument. That's an American joke. The real man apparently sits at home and watches football drinking beer whilst treating his wife poorly. He's also probably on welfare. Yeah, that's a real man. Anyone who doesn't fit that description is "looking for an ass-whippin".

Your definition of "acting out" is where the problem lies. There are so many definitions, it's absurd, and you apparently think people should be able to use their own discretion to justify going around beating people up who did nothing to them. Does that mean all protestors are "acting out" to you and deserve to be beaten? I happen to believe that wasn't a good thing to do either, but you don't see me beating people up because they disagree with me. That's all this was, a disagreement, and you think violence over a difference in beliefs is completely justified. I could just as easily beat someone up for telling me "I think you're wrong" and by your standards that would be completely acceptable.

See, this is exactly the kind of lippin' that'd get ya' tossed right out of my house with a bloody nose.

Respect, learn it or be taught, just as I said earlier in the thread.

Now were we at your house and you chose to insult me as your guest, I'd still bloody your nose only I'd leave and not return.

[tod evans]

"...people who act in ways I find unacceptable"... unbelievable. So you're the only one who gets to decide what's unacceptable? What if someone else has a different definition of social norms and what's "acceptable" to them?

Also, I hate to break this to you, but you're not "protecting your family" if they weren't in danger in the first place.

With or without your qualifications, the question is basically the same. You believe it's okay to beat people up for saying things you don't like to hear. That's not manly. To me, that's the mark of a coward who can't tolerate a difference of opinion. If you think the lardass that beat that guy with the sign up is a "real man", then you are the one who's a coward for lacking self-control.

Here again, using the term "coward" on an internet board after advocating that it's permissible for people to insult you or your family is just a tad off....

[tod evans]

Your principle is still wrong because it justifies almost every kind of aggression as long as the person did it because they found the other person's behavior "unacceptable". The guys weren't just holding signs either, they were preaching.

FFS, just go watch the video.


I have no intention of watching the video, it's not something I want to watch.

If the Christians infringed on the ***** party and were yelling at or insulting the ***** then the Christians were wrong.

Plain-n-simple.

Common sense and decency is a two way street, either learn it on your own or eventually life will teach it to you.

[PaulConventionWV]

See, this is exactly the kind of lippin' that'd get ya' tossed right out of my house with a bloody nose.

Respect, learn it or be taught, just as I said earlier in the thread.

Now were we at your house and you chose to insult me as your guest, I'd still bloody your nose only I'd leave and not return.

More chest-thumping, no response to the actual principle. If you think it's okay for you to beat people up for being disrespectful, then you must think it's okay for others to beat people up for being "disrespectful according to their own standards.

You have shown yourself to be a coward by telling me you'd be fine with beating me up simply for arguing with you.

[PaulConventionWV]

Here again, using the term "coward" on an internet board after advocating that it's permissible for people to insult you or your family is just a tad off....

I don't see how. Being on an internet message board has nothing to do with whether someone's a coward or not... it's how they act in public. In my opinion, someone who goes around beating people up just for saying something you don't like is more cowardly than having the self-control to ignore that person. Because reacting to them, you're giving their words legitimacy.

[PaulConventionWV]

I have no intention of watching the video, it's not something I want to watch.

If the Christians infringed on the ***** party and were yelling at or insulting the ***** then the Christians were wrong.

Plain-n-simple.

Common sense and decency is a two way street, either learn it on your own or eventually life will teach it to you.

This is just an excuse to be a hot-headed brute who wants to beat people up for saying things you don't like.

[tod evans]

This is just an excuse to be a hot-headed brute who wants to beat people up for saying things you don't like.

No it's not.

I haven't struck anyone.

I choose not to watch the video for the same reason I would choose not to attend such a gathering as a participant or protester.

Have you ever fought for your honor? I seriously doubt it.

Spouting ideology without real world experience to back it up is a childs game.

Live in your fantasy world as long as you can, reality will come knocking sooner or later.

[tod evans]

More chest-thumping, no response to the actual principle. If you think it's okay for you to beat people up for being disrespectful, then you must think it's okay for others to beat people up for being "disrespectful according to their own standards.

You have shown yourself to be a coward by telling me you'd be fine with beating me up simply for arguing with you.

Arguing and being impolite are two separate and not mutually exclusive endeavors.

Do you interact with humans or just computers?

[tod evans]

I don't see how. Being on an internet message board has nothing to do with whether someone's a coward or not... it's how they act in public. In my opinion, someone who goes around beating people up just for saying something you don't like is more cowardly than having the self-control to ignore that person. Because reacting to them, you're giving their words legitimacy.

Once again you've missed the point.

I do not put myself or my family in situations that require punching people.

If someone infringes on our well being by being loud and insulting or behaves in other inappropriate manners then it is they who have crossed the line.

If you believe it is your right to come to my family picnic and scream insults at family members I can assure you you will leave.

Insisting on the same common sense and decency you extend to others is not being a hot headed brute no matter how you try and twist it.

[Don Lapre]

Tod, what you somehow don't grasp is that the man who you say deserves an ass-beating has the VERY SAME right to do what he is doing as anyone else in attendance there has to do what they are doing there.

You are no better or worse than him, and by virtue of saying you would fight him ---> you are an arrogant thug.


Nice job outing yourself.

[tod evans]

Tod, what you somehow don't grasp is that the man who you say deserves an ass-beating has the VERY SAME right to do what he is doing as anyone else in attendance there has to do what they are doing there.

You are no better or worse than him, and by virtue of saying you would fight him ---> you are an arrogant thug.


Nice job outing yourself.

Well there ya' have it!

I certainly feel a lesser man for your opinion..:rolleyes:

[Wooden Indian]

Stone the christian. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

If it were a gay or athiest attacked for holding a sign and protesting at a christian rally, I wonder if some people would maintain their same support for the attackers. Things that make you say, hmmm....

[tod evans]

Stone the christian. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

If it were a gay or athiest attacked for holding a sign and protesting at a christian rally, I wonder if some people would maintain their same support for the attackers. Things that make you say, hmmm....


I've done that through this whole thread...:o

Simple respect of other folks goes a long way.

To me the tell tale example is the nutjobs and even cops behave themselves at bike rallies...

The scooter tramps keep to themselves and so do the others, there's mutual respect or mutual loathing, the end result is the same.

[jmdrake]

Cops, no.

Hired "thugs" at a private gathering, absolutely! If those attending/holding the gathering are not capable of keeping order at their gathering.

Except the disorderly people were not at the private gathering. They were outside the gathering on public property. So the hired thugs were keeping "order" in the public space on the way to the gathering. You really believe the RNC should have the right to beat up Ron Paul supporters that were protesting in a public park across the street? Seriously? Cause that's F'd up.

http://www.justsaypictures.com/images/you-can-t-be-serious-1coy.jpg

[tod evans]

Except the disorderly people were not at the private gathering. They were outside the gathering on public property. So the hired thugs were keeping "order" in the public space on the way to the gathering. You really believe the RNC should have the right to beat up Ron Paul supporters that were protesting in a public park across the street? Seriously? Cause that's F'd up.


Once again it's a matter of both behavior and location.

If the Ron Paul supporters were loudly insulting my wife and child I would stop the insults.

Twisting it around to where "thugs" beat peaceful protesters is dishonest.

I wouldn't advocate for peaceful protesters to be beaten at a political rally, but I absolutely support teaching manners and respect with fists if required at such gatherings as the funeral for the young lad in Ok. (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/doomsday/westboro-baptist-church-threatens-protest-oklahoma-tornado-victims-funerals-then)

It doesn't have to be one or the other, and I will not hire out enforcement of good behavior, a smart mouth to me is just as offensive as poor behavior, this idea that it's okay to scream and yell insults at peaceful folks because you disagree with them doesn't work for me. I don't behave like that, I won't knowingly put myself or my family in a situation where screaming/yelling offensive people are, nor will I tolerate that type of behavior at a gathering where I am in control.

Please don't try and twist zealots screaming at ***** into being analogous with Ron Paul supporters having bones broken for calmly pointing out fraud.

Were it ***** screaming insults at zealots at their gathering, I would stand with the zealots.

[Rocco]

The only people I saw screaming insults in peoples faces were the pro gay protesters. Comparing what these people did to the protesting of a 9 year olds funeral is insane.


Once again it's a matter of both behavior and location.

If the Ron Paul supporters were loudly insulting my wife and child I would stop the insults.

Twisting it around to where "thugs" beat peaceful protesters is dishonest.

I wouldn't advocate for peaceful protesters to be beaten at a political rally, but I absolutely support teaching manners and respect with fists if required at such gatherings as the funeral for the young lad in Ok. (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/doomsday/westboro-baptist-church-threatens-protest-oklahoma-tornado-victims-funerals-then)

It doesn't have to be one or the other, and I will not hire out enforcement of good behavior, a smart mouth to me is just as offensive as poor behavior, this idea that it's okay to scream and yell insults at peaceful folks because you disagree with them doesn't work for me. I don't behave like that, I won't knowingly put myself or my family in a situation where screaming/yelling offensive people are, nor will I tolerate that type of behavior at a gathering where I am in control.

Please don't try and twist zealots screaming at ***** into being analogous with Ron Paul supporters having bones broken for calmly pointing out fraud.

Were it ***** screaming insults at zealots at their gathering, I would stand with the zealots.

[tod evans]

The only people I saw screaming insults in peoples faces were the pro gay protesters. Comparing what these people did to the protesting of a 9 year olds funeral is insane.

So you're saying it was the ***** doing the screaming and yelling not the zealots?

In the first page of comments I read it was vice-versa;


The guy has the right to protest, sure, but maybe a bit of self control by keeping his mouth shut to begin with could have done wonders. Now me? I probably would have interpreted his statements as a THREAT because that is what he was doing. Hmm, I wonder why he got his ass beat? It wasnt because he was protesting, it was because he took it upon himself to not leave other people alone. At the rate we are going, it wouldnt suprise me if the Jews of this generation end up being the Gays.

As I stated earlier I haven't watched the video and I won't, so which is it...

Were the zealots screaming insults at the ***** and that caused escalation?

Or did the ***** attack peaceful zealots who were quietly protesting?

[Rocco]

The video shows the pro gay protesters instigating 100%. The poster you quote either has knowledge that extends beyond the video or didn't watch the video and is just talking, not sure which.

[tod evans]

The video shows the pro gay protesters instigating 100%.

If that's the case then I'd back the zealots.

Having been around intercity zealots in the 80's my experience would lead me to question if they were peacefully carrying signs without hurling insults and curses of damnation..

Personally I have no use for either group and there's a 99.9% chance that I'd never be placed in that situation.

[Paulistinian]

The video shows the pro gay protesters instigating 100%. The poster you quote either has knowledge that extends beyond the video or didn't watch the video and is just talking, not sure which.

The guy was there with his sign all day long. I walked by and even stood there watching him several times. I never saw one person yell at him, but I saw him yelling plenty. The video shows 5 minutes of a 12 hour event.

[PaulConventionWV]

Arguing and being impolite are two separate and not mutually exclusive endeavors.

Do you interact with humans or just computers?

They are also subjective, are they not? Who decides what is impolite? Is it only for you to decide, or do others get to apply their definitions as well, ones you might not agree with? If you say you are the only one who gets to decide, then you have arbitrarily appointed yourself to a position where you get to decide who is guilty of violence and who is guilty of "defending their honor". If others can decide as well, then you must accept the fact that they, too, can beat you or anyone else up with no consequences because they deemed their reasons appropriate. Do you understand that?

[PaulConventionWV]

So you're saying it was the ***** doing the screaming and yelling not the zealots?

In the first page of comments I read it was vice-versa;



As I stated earlier I haven't watched the video and I won't, so which is it...

Were the zealots screaming insults at the ***** and that caused escalation?

Or did the ***** attack peaceful zealots who were quietly protesting?

For God's sake, why not watch the freaking video? The zealots were there protesting the rally and the ***** were screaming at them and beating them up. It's as simple as that, unless of course you want to watch it and find out for yourself.

[tod evans]

They are also subjective, are they not? Who decides what is impolite? Is it only for you to decide, or do others get to apply their definitions as well, ones you might not agree with? If you say you are the only one who gets to decide, then you have arbitrarily appointed yourself to a position where you get to decide who is guilty of violence and who is guilty of "defending their honor". If others can decide as well, then you must accept the fact that they, too, can beat you or anyone else up with no consequences because they deemed their reasons appropriate. Do you understand that?

Of course I understand, and if I behave in a manner that others find offensive and I insist on behaving in that manner after being asked to stop then I deserve to have my ass beat.

This idea that you can lip off to whomever you choose and feel no repercussions is silly.

If you believe it is your "right" to walk into a private gathering and insult people then have a go at it but don't come whining when you get put in your place.

[tod evans]

The guy was there with his sign all day long. I walked by and even stood there watching him several times. I never saw one person yell at him, but I saw him yelling plenty. The video shows 5 minutes of a 12 hour event.

Hmmm,

Whodda thunk.

[PaulConventionWV]

Of course I understand, and if I behave in a manner that others find offensive and I insist on behaving in that manner after being asked to stop then I deserve to have my ass beat.

This idea that you can lip off to whomever you choose and feel no repercussions is silly.

If you believe it is your "right" to walk into a private gathering and insult people then have a go at it but don't come whining when you get put in your place.

This doesn't just have to do with private gatherings either. If some racist is walking on the street and sees a black man who "gives him a funny look", then according to your logic, he's well within his rights to beat the black man up. If you support your own principles in some places, you must support them in all places and by all people.

[tod evans]

This doesn't just have to do with private gatherings either. If some racist is walking on the street and sees a black man who "gives him a funny look", then according to your logic, he's well within his rights to beat the black man up. If you support your own principles in some places, you must support them in all places and by all people.

You seem to have a problem understanding polite behavior, twisting and manipulating circumstances in hypotheticals.

Get off your whiny ass and go insult someone and see how well it works out for you.

Hell go insult a ****, then you can feel really bad when you get your ass handed to you....Or go insult a Christian, or farmer or biker, maybe a housewife........I don't know anyone who'll put up with someone hurling insults at them..

[Ender]

For God's sake, why not watch the freaking video? The zealots were there protesting the rally and the ***** were screaming at them and beating them up. It's as simple as that, unless of course you want to watch it and find out for yourself.


Originally Posted by Paulistinian
The guy was there with his sign all day long. I walked by and even stood there watching him several times. I never saw one person yell at him, but I saw him yelling plenty. The video shows 5 minutes of a 12 hour event.

Reading is your friend.

[Brian4Liberty]

The only people I saw screaming insults in peoples faces were the pro gay protesters. Comparing what these people did to the protesting of a 9 year olds funeral is insane.


The video shows the pro gay protesters instigating 100%. The poster you quote either has knowledge that extends beyond the video or didn't watch the video and is just talking, not sure which.

Agree. That's what I saw in the video.


The guy was there with his sign all day long. I walked by and even stood there watching him several times. I never saw one person yell at him, but I saw him yelling plenty. The video shows 5 minutes of a 12 hour event.

You said he was shouting Bible verses and other Biblical references. His sign was obviously the exact same one that he takes to all concerts. No mention of gays at all.


He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah.

Was he throwing personal insults at individuals, and insulting people's families and children?


For God's sake, why not watch the freaking video? The zealots were there protesting the rally and the ***** were screaming at them and beating them up. It's as simple as that, unless of course you want to watch it and find out for yourself.

Correction: the people loudly engaging in shouting and violence against the "street hell-fire preachers" were straight.

[jmdrake]

Once again it's a matter of both behavior and location.

If the Ron Paul supporters were loudly insulting my wife and child I would stop the insults.

Twisting it around to where "thugs" beat peaceful protesters is dishonest.


How so? Because that's what happened in the video. And even the extra commentator by the poster who claims to have been there doesn't change that fact. The protester was in the park. He was not at the event. Those who didn't like what he was doing didn't have to go by him. And the person doing the attack apparently wasn't even gay. This isn't a case of someone standing up for his "wife and kids." So if anyone is being dishonest here....it's not me.



I wouldn't advocate for peaceful protesters to be beaten at a political rally, but I absolutely support teaching manners and respect with fists if required at such gatherings as the funeral for the young lad in Ok. (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/doomsday/westboro-baptist-church-threatens-protest-oklahoma-tornado-victims-funerals-then)


Except this wasn't a funeral being protested by Westboro Baptist and the sign didn't say "God hates ****" or "Thank God for more dead soldiers." The sign didn't even address homosexuality at all. Maybe tubbo was a porn addict? If you have to radically change the scenario to something that didn't happen to prove your point...you don't have a point.



It doesn't have to be one or the other, and I will not hire out enforcement of good behavior, a smart mouth to me is just as offensive as poor behavior, this idea that it's okay to scream and yell insults at peaceful folks because you disagree with them doesn't work for me. I don't behave like that, I won't knowingly put myself or my family in a situation where screaming/yelling offensive people are, nor will I tolerate that type of behavior at a gathering where I am in control.


Except this person was not at the gathering! Quit being dishonest about what happened. The gathering was in the convention center. He was outside the center in a public park.



Please don't try and twist zealots screaming at ***** into being analogous with Ron Paul supporters having bones broken for calmly pointing out fraud.


Some Ron Paul supporters have been known to scream at times. Or have you never heard the shouts of "End the Fed! End the Fed!" But your intollerance is showing. It's not that they were protesting that bothers you so much as that you don't approve their message. First amendment rights only for those who agree with you.


Were it ***** screaming insults at zealots at their gathering, I would stand with the zealots.

And maybe you would end up grounding and pounding someone who was packing like George Zimmerman. Would that be worth it to you?

[jmdrake]

So you're saying it was the ***** doing the screaming and yelling not the zealots?

In the first page of comments I read it was vice-versa;



As I stated earlier I haven't watched the video and I won't, so which is it...


Then you really should shut up because you're making an ass of yourself. I called DamianTV out on his ridiculous characterization of the video on page one and he never responded. There was no threat by the "zealot" in the video. His sign on one side called out various sins (idolatry, drunkeness, etc) and the back said "Repent or Else" with a sign showing hell fire. There's no way anyone with half a brain could interpret that as a threat. For one thing it never even mentioned homosexuality. For another no Christian believes that he has the power to put anyone in hell. If I said "Repent or an earthquake will destroy your house" that isn't a threat unless I actually believe I can cause earthquakes....and then it still isn't a true threat because I can't cause earthquakes.

Really /thread. If you can't bother to take five minutes to find out the facts of what you are debating and instead base your argument on someone else's hearsay then this discussion really isn't worth having.

[shane77m]

It would be unwise to go around trying to beat people up in Alabama. Unfortunately though, you can't legally carry at protests.

http://www.usacarry.com/alabama_stand_your_ground_castle_doctrine_law.html


Alabama Stand Your Ground – Castle Doctrine Laws

Alabama is a Castle Doctrine state and has a Stand Your Ground law. Below is the exact Alabama law.

Section 13A-3-23
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.
(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, §1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, §1.)

[dannno]

I was at Seattle Pride and I saw that asshole with the sign. He was standing at the entrance telling everyone they were going to Hell. Most people were quite nice to him, offering him flowers and hugs. A lesbian woman got close to him, smiling and talking softly and kindly, and you could tell the religious protestor was sick to his stomach. His body language showed how uncomfortable he was that he was standing so close to a lesbian. She hugged him. There were 150,000 people at Seattle Pride, and there was only that one single protestor.

You know it is really amazing how collectivist the anti-gay people are being in this thread. They don't take into account that probably less than the top 10% of those who are gay and interested in pride events attended and of those, 99.9% of the gay people at this event did not participate in any sort of violence.

I've been watching a lot of older movies lately. You know what? People used to answer back to some shit talking with a punch in the mouth a lot more often than they do now. Does that make it right? No. But guess what? If you go around doing enough shit talking you are eventually going to get punched in the mouth. Now, if you are of the opinion that being gay is just about the absolute worst thing a human can do and it is completely bringing down society, then I can sort of understand why you might be defending this guy's position. I just find THAT position so ridiculous myself that I can't justify why anybody would want to do what this guy was doing. I certainly defend his right to go around and piss people off, I just don't see why anybody would do that.

[jmdrake]

You know it is really amazing how collectivist the anti-gay people are being in this thread. They don't take into account that probably less than the top 10% of those who are gay and interested in pride events attended and of those, 99.9% of the gay people at this event did not participate in any sort of violence.

I've been watching a lot of older movies lately. You know what? People used to answer back to some shit talking with a punch in the mouth a lot more often than they do now. Does that make it right? No. But guess what? If you go around doing enough shit talking you are eventually going to get punched in the mouth. Now, if you are of the opinion that being gay is just about the absolute worst thing a human can do and it is completely bringing down society, then I can sort of understand why you might be defending this guy's position. I just find THAT position so ridiculous myself that I can't justify why anybody would want to do what this guy was doing. I certainly defend his right to go around and piss people off, I just don't see why anybody would do that.

Gee Dannno, it's funny to see you being a collectivist while accusing others of being collectivists. :rolleyes: It's also funny to see you in one thread defending the right of someone to "punch someone in the mouth" because that person is carrying a sign that says nothing about homosexuals and threatens no one, and in another thread you're defending someone shooting someone that was punching him in the face. The "zealot" with the sign could have claimed he was fearing for his life. One person attacked him and he was on the ground and another really fat person jumped him and started punching him in the back of the head. Using your "logic" in other threads he was well with in his rights to shoot both of his assailants George Zimmerman style. Way to be consistent Dannno!

[dannno]

Just to be clear, fat boy and his wife didn't seem to be gay. As a matter of fact, they left an infant in a stroller while they both attacked "hell-fire" boy.

Hahahahhaha.. Thanks for clarifying. The anti-gay clamor around here is absolute insane sometimes, isn't it?

[jmdrake]

Hahahahhaha.. Thanks for clarifying. The anti-gay clamor around here is absolute insane sometimes, isn't it?

No more insane than your own clamor.

[dannno]

Gee Dannno, it's funny to see you being a collectivist while accusing others of being collectivists. :rolleyes: It's also funny to see you in one thread defending the right of someone to "punch someone in the mouth" because that person is carrying a sign that says nothing about homosexuals and threatens no one, and in another thread you're defending someone shooting someone that was punching him in the face. The "zealot" with the sign could have claimed he was fearing for his life. One person attacked him and he was on the ground and another really fat person jumped him and started punching him in the back of the head. Using your "logic" in other threads he was well with in his rights to shoot both of his assailants George Zimmerman style. Way to be consistent Dannno!


I didn't defend anybody punching anybody in the mouth, those are words you put into my mouth. In fact, I specifically said that just because the guy was looking for a fight doesn't mean that it is 'right' to go give him one. My point was, this guy was literally asking for somebody to come up and punch him in the mouth and that is exactly what happened. I guarantee if it was YOU there with signs protesting gay people, you would not have been beat up because I'm convinced you wouldn't have done it with the same bad attitude.

[dannno]

No more insane than your own clamor.

What are you talking about?? This thread is completely filled with anti-gay people talking about how bad gay people are for beating up pastors.. Then we find out the guy was straight all along, and there were hundreds of thousands of gay people who didn't lay a finger on this guy even though he was asking to get beat up. This thread is the epitome of anti-gay fail.. and I don't mean anti-gay as in people who think that being gay is simply a sin, I'm talking about people who have hatred in their heart for gay people. These are people who are not even acting like Christians, not sure why you are defending them.

[dannno]

It's also funny to see you in one thread defending the right of someone to "punch someone in the mouth" because that person is carrying a sign that says nothing about homosexuals and threatens no one

Can you please AT LEAST read the quote I was responding to which was a person who was at the event and said that the pastor was in fact shit talking these gay people entire time and it had nothing to do with the sign?

[jmdrake]

What are you talking about?? This thread is completely filled with anti-gay people talking about how bad gay people are for beating up pastors.. Then we find out the guy was straight all along, and there were hundreds of thousands of gay people who didn't lay a finger on this guy even though he was asking to get beat up. This thread is the epitome of anti-gay fail.. and I don't mean anti-gay as in people who think that being gay is simply a sin, I'm talking about people who have hatred in their heart for gay people. These are people who are not even acting like Christians, not sure why you are defending them.

Sherlock, some of us knew the person was straight from page one. It's your own stupid prejudice that's blinded you from seeing that and only seeing this as "antigay people attacking *****." You need to grow up and realize you're the one that's been had by your own preconceived notions. People weren't attacking tubbo for being gay. They were attacking him for violating NAP. And your making this into a "Christians are being antigay" issue is just showing your own hypocrisy. Hey, maybe if Trayvon Martin had been gay or standing up for gays you'd have a different argument in those threads?

[jmdrake]

Can you please AT LEAST read the quote I was responding to which was a person who was at the event and said that the pastor was in fact shit talking these gay people entire time and it had nothing to do with the sign?

So if George Zimmerman was "talking shit" to Trayvon Martin then he deserved to be beat up? Consistency Dannno. That's what you're lacking. Consistency. And that person never defined "shit talking" other than reading passages out of the Old Testament. And the person with the sign wasn't at the event. He was in a park. But that doesn't matter to you does it? Freedom is all relative. It only means something as long as you aren't bothering the wrong group.

[Brian4Liberty]

Can you please AT LEAST read the quote I was responding to which was a person who was at the event and said that the pastor was in fact shit talking these gay people entire time and it had nothing to do with the sign?

Actually, the eyewitness said that the "Pastor" (very disputable title) was quoting Old Testament verses and some variation of the classic "repent sinners or ye shall go to hell." I have asked him twice in this thread if there was any more to it than that, and there has been no response.

Does that qualify as "shit talking"?


You said he was shouting Bible verses and other Biblical references. His sign was obviously the exact same one that he takes to all concerts. No mention of gays at all.


He stood there shouting quotes from the Old Testament and telling everyone they were going to Hell and blah blah blahbidy blah.

Was he throwing personal insults at individuals, and insulting people's families and children?

[jmdrake]

I didn't defend anybody punching anybody in the mouth, those are words you put into my mouth. In fact, I specifically said that just because the guy was looking for a fight doesn't mean that it is 'right' to go give him one. My point was, this guy was literally asking for somebody to come up and punch him in the mouth and that is exactly what happened. I guarantee if it was YOU there with signs protesting gay people, you would not have been beat up because I'm convinced you wouldn't have done it with the same bad attitude.

Dannno, this is where I take offense at you.

Now, if you are of the opinion that being gay is just about the absolute worst thing a human can do and it is completely bringing down society, then I can sort of understand why you might be defending this guy's position.

So you really think that the only way someone can defend the position of someone who is carrying a sign in a public park is to think that being gay is the absolute worst thing a human can do? Really? To quote Trayvon Martin's girlfriend "that's retarded sir."

Edit: And has "Brian4Liberty" has pointed out again, even the person you are referring to has given no indication that the person with the sign did anything beyond quoting the Bible. Yes some people find some parts of the Bible offensive. And? I wouldn't do a gay protest period because that isn't my thing. But I could see myself at a protest saying something more offensive than what has so far been described in this thread.

[dannno]

People weren't attacking tubbo for being gay. They were attacking him for violating NAP. And your making this into a "Christians are being antigay" issue is just showing your own hypocrisy.

No, you're wrong, go to the first 1-3 pages, there were several people who were attacking him and saying that gay people are lesser individuals with fewer morals and that is why the pastor got attacked, because gay people are bad people.

[dannno]

What if a flamboyant gay dude went to a Christian even with over a hundred thousand Christians and sat at the entrance and started talking about how great homosexuality is, how great butt sex feels and how Christians are ignorant creationists who don't believe in science?

Eventually, somebody is probably going to go up to that guy and sock him. Should I use that person's action to reflect on Christianity as a whole? Because I feel like the whole first portion of this thread was an attempt to use this one individual's actions to reflect on gay people as a whole.

[jmdrake]

No, you're wrong, go to the first 1-3 pages, there were several people who were attacking him and saying that gay people are lesser individuals with fewer morals and that is why the pastor got attacked, because gay people are bad people.

Again your collectivism:

Now, if you are of the opinion that being gay is just about the absolute worst thing a human can do and it is completely bringing down society, then I can sort of understand why you might be defending this guy's position.

Several people != everyone. And those people in those first 1 - 3 pages didn't specifically say the person doing the attack was gay.

[jmdrake]

What if a flamboyant gay dude went to a Christian even with over a hundred thousand Christians and sat at the entrance and started talking about how great homosexuality is, how great butt sex feels and how Christians are ignorant creationists who don't believe in science?

Eventually, somebody is probably going to go up to that guy and sock him. Should I use that person's action to reflect on Christianity as a whole? Because I feel like the whole first portion of this thread was an attempt to use this one individual's actions to reflect on gay people as a whole.

I'm sure Christians would quickly disavow the actions of said Christian and I would question the Christian walk of anyone who said otherwise. If this person was at the entrance he was likely on private property or property that had been reserved for a private event. Hopefully someone would ask him to leave and have him escorted out if he refused. And if he went to a public park and held up a sign there isn't a Christian I know that would defend someone going over to the part and trying to take his sign and then physically assaulting him. That's the other part of this that you are ignoring. None of the worst stuff that has been alleged was actually happening by the time of the video.

[Wooden Indian]

As a Christian, I find it hypocritical to shout condemnation at others. I will proudly offer my beliefs to those who seek them, but this type of hateful publicity stunt is not the spreading of the gospel as mentioned in Mark and Mathew. In fact, it's warned against by Christ himself.

So, I do not defend the guy's actions... BUT I do take issue with the pot-bellied "tough guy" attacking him over his words. People are so offended over words. Guess the "Sticks and Stones" saying isn't tought by parents any longer.

As per usual with this type of event, there was no inoccent... just 2 or more morons colliding into each other.

Just another day in Merica.

[tod evans]

Some Ron Paul supporters have been known to scream at times. Or have you never heard the shouts of "End the Fed! End the Fed!" But your intollerance is showing. It's not that they were protesting that bothers you so much as that you don't approve their message. First amendment rights only for those who agree with you.



Is an "End the Fed!" chant analogous to a wild eyed psycho screaming at a woman and child that they're going to hell?

The simple fact of the matter is I do not abide by your NAP.

I don't condemn you or anyone else who does, nor do I ridicule you for your desire to practice behavior you find acceptable.

Whether or not curses were screamed at the person you refer to as "Tubo" neither of us know.

I assume that this person "Tubo" didn't just have a psychotic break and decide to wail on the "Preacher", sane people don't behave in that manner, then again sane people wouldn't curse strangers either.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not going to watch the video, I've also said if somebody curses my wife or child in public I will shut them up.

You and others choose to characterize this behavior as unwarranted/insane or unethical, I simply disagree.

There's no philosophical argument, interjecting rambunctious Ron Paul supporters, Christians/*****/racists or whomever that is going to convince me that if I determine I need to punch a stranger in the mouth for his language that I should instead hang my head and walk away, or worse engage in an argument with a person who needs to be taught that harsh words have consequences.

I have morals and ethics, they may not dovetail with yours but they're mine and they've stood the test of time in many situations.

Finally please do not suppose to tell me that it is the message instead of the behavior that I take offense to, again, you are wrong.

[jmdrake]

A) You have not watched the video

B) Nobody has claimed anyone was cursed at

C) I could care less if you don't abide "my NAP". I only hope for your sake that if you go off half cocked like you are ignorantly doing in this thread that the person you go up against isn't packing like George Zimmerman.

/thread.


Is an "End the Fed!" chant analogous to a wild eyed psycho screaming at a woman and child that they're going to hell?

The simple fact of the matter is I do not abide by your NAP.

I don't condemn you or anyone else who does, nor do I ridicule you for your desire to practice behavior you find acceptable.

Whether or not curses were screamed at the person you refer to as "Tubo" neither of us know.

I assume that this person "Tubo" didn't just have a psychotic break and decide to wail on the "Preacher", sane people don't behave in that manner, then again sane people wouldn't curse strangers either.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not going to watch the video, I've also said if somebody curses my wife or child in public I will shut them up.

You and others choose to characterize this behavior as unwarranted/insane or unethical, I simply disagree.

There's no philosophical argument, interjecting rambunctious Ron Paul supporters, Christians/*****/racists or whomever that is going to convince me that if I determine I need to punch a stranger in the mouth for his language that I should instead hang my head and walk away, or worse engage in an argument with a person who needs to be taught that harsh words have consequences.

I have morals and ethics, they may not dovetail with yours but they're mine and they've stood the test of time in many situations.

Finally please do not suppose to tell me that it is the message instead of the behavior that I take offense to, again, you are wrong.

[Athan]

Everyone remember. NONE of these people are Ron Paul supporters. Sympathy is not necessary.

[Acala]

I assume that this person "Tubo" didn't just have a psychotic break and decide to wail on the "Preacher", sane people don't behave in that manner,

Maybe. But drunk, hateful people do and I think the attacker was both, based on the video.


I've said repeatedly that I'm not going to watch the video, I've also said if somebody curses my wife or child in public I will shut them up.

Just remember, if you are the first one to resort to violence, the other person is legally justified in most states using such force as is necessary to stop you, incuding shooting you. So if you decide to punch someone to shut them up and they plug you, too bad for you and your family. And if they miss you and kill someone else, you very well may be facing a murder charge. While YOU may not support the NAP, the criminal law generally does.

[Don Lapre]

Just remember, if you are the first one to resort to violence, the other person is legally justified in most states using such force as is necessary to stop you, incuding shooting you.

We can hope.

[Acala]

One other point with respect to punching people because you don't like what they say. If you are carrying a gun (if not, why not?) and you go around punching people because they mouthed off, you are courting some serious trouble. I can't even imagine the scenario where that works out well for you.

And really, when you get right down to it, isn't it a little silly to get your undies in a bunch because you don't like the way some ape is modulating the little puffs of air that come out of his pie hole?

[tod evans]

One other point with respect to punching people because you don't like what they say. If you are carrying a gun (if not, why not?) and you go around punching people because they mouthed off, you are courting some serious trouble. I can't even imagine the scenario where that works out well for you.

And really, when you get right down to it, isn't it a little silly to get your undies in a bunch because you don't like the way some ape is modulating the little puffs of air that come out of his pie hole?

Here's where I think many here haven't read what I've typed..

First off There's slim to no chance that I'd have my family or myself in an environment as described in the OP so there would be no need for punching anyone.

Second, I don't live in an area, or travel, where it's necessary to even consider arming yourself for the purpose of self defense unless you're scared of deer or an occasional black bear.

If somebody is behaving in a manner that would warrant punching them in the mouth it's very likely I'd be late to the show, folks here-about are generally polite and respect one another and if somebody gets to acting out it never last for more than a couple seconds before they have several folks intervening, often with punches.

The mere idea of living in close proximity to groups of people that you'd find it necessary to carry arms around is repugnant to me and everyone I know. Which leads me to draw the conclusion that the majority of people responding in this thread live in urban areas and view this type of behavior as somewhat 'normal'...

I am perfectly comfortable taking my family to motorcycle rallies, floating down rivers or camping anywhere within driving distance and never feel the need to bear arms.

There must be some alternate reality where many live, either that or the cities are way worse that I imagined.

Read what I've written, not once did I defend the actions described in the OP, instead I've stated how I behave in my environment. I'm a peaceful man and although I'll not hesitate to strike another for insulting friend or family the idea of pumping another full of lead due to a fistfight is abhorrent.

I'm glad to live in the backwoods, after reading many of the posts in this thread, ya'll please stay put, I will too.

[PaulConventionWV]

You seem to have a problem understanding polite behavior, twisting and manipulating circumstances in hypotheticals.

Get off your whiny ass and go insult someone and see how well it works out for you.

Hell go insult a ****, then you can feel really bad when you get your ass handed to you....Or go insult a Christian, or farmer or biker, maybe a housewife........I don't know anyone who'll put up with someone hurling insults at them..

Tod, I'm not making up hypotheticals. This shit actually happens. Believe it or not, there are different kinds of people in this world who don't fit your definition of polite,if they met you, what you considered polite might be considered disrespectful to them. I'm not digging through my imagination. If you consider reading the Bible insulting, then you've already shown that your definition of impolite breaks from a lot of people in this country. So don't be surprised if you get YOUR ass beat for just being who you are, and you should have no problem with it because you would do the same, just with different standards for what's impolite.

People all over the world are way different and define a wide variety of things as offensive, so don't act like you're never going to find yourself in a situation where you might get your ass beat because someone was offended for reading something. Being "asked to stop" has nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure the guy in the video was not "asked to stop". Tubbo was looking for a fight way more than the sign-guy was, and it was going to happen because he made it happen. He is the aggressor. Maybe you've heard the saying, "Your right to swing your fists stops at my nose". According to you, however, all someone has to do is find your swinging of fists offensive and they have every right to initiate violence against you.

Now tell me, how bad should this beating be? Should the person be brought to within an inch of their life, just bloodied and bruised, or given several hard slaps to the face? Since you are judge, jury, and punishment personnel, you probably should have already thought this through. It's a matter of principle, and yours is in no way consistent.

[tod evans]

Tod, I'm not making up hypotheticals. This shit actually happens. Believe it or not, there are different kinds of people in this world who don't fit your definition of polite,if they met you, what you considered polite might be considered disrespectful to them. I'm not digging through my imagination. If you consider reading the Bible insulting, then you've already shown that your definition of impolite breaks from a lot of people in this country. So don't be surprised if you get YOUR ass beat for just being who you are, and you should have no problem with it because you would do the same, just with different standards for what's impolite.

How in the world did you manage to equate reading the bible with impolite and then correlate that to me?

For Petes sake! :mad:

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't defend anybody punching anybody in the mouth, those are words you put into my mouth. In fact, I specifically said that just because the guy was looking for a fight doesn't mean that it is 'right' to go give him one. My point was, this guy was literally asking for somebody to come up and punch him in the mouth and that is exactly what happened. I guarantee if it was YOU there with signs protesting gay people, you would not have been beat up because I'm convinced you wouldn't have done it with the same bad attitude.

When you're talking about 'attitudes' justifying aggression, you know you've left RPF and entered the world of a hypocrite.

[dinosaur]

How in the world did you manage to equate reading the bible with impolite and then correlate that to me?

For Petes sake! :mad:

That's what I got from what you said. What you see as a "wild eyed" curse might just be mild-mannered political speech to someone else. Mentioning the word hell doesn't make something a curse. Whoever this guy is, this issue is obviously important to him, enough so that he feels the need to take to the streets and protest. It isn't up to the rest of us to judge the validity of his protest. He thinks it is important. Protest isn't polite in nature.

[PaulConventionWV]

What if a flamboyant gay dude went to a Christian even with over a hundred thousand Christians and sat at the entrance and started talking about how great homosexuality is, how great butt sex feels and how Christians are ignorant creationists who don't believe in science?

Eventually, somebody is probably going to go up to that guy and sock him. Should I use that person's action to reflect on Christianity as a whole? Because I feel like the whole first portion of this thread was an attempt to use this one individual's actions to reflect on gay people as a whole.

That right there is what you call a hypothetical. "Somebody would probably..." doesn't exactly qualify as a watertight argument.

[tod evans]

That's what I got from what you said. What you see as a "wild eyed" curse might just be mild-mannered political speech to someone else. Mentioning the word hell doesn't make something a curse. Whoever this guy is, this issue is obviously important to him, enough so that he feels the need to take to the streets and protest. It isn't up to the rest of us to judge the validity of his protest. He thinks it is important. Protest isn't polite in nature.

In my mind (I won't watch the video) I picture a specific street "preacher" in the 80's, downtown Chicago, wild-eyed, spraying spittle while informing passersby to a one, that they've been damned to hell. In your face, hot fetid breath in your nostrils...

To this day, if a person of that ilk curses my wife or child by damning them to hell you can bet I will do as I've said.

Once again though, I will not intentionally put either myself or my family in that situation...

'If' the fellow referred to as 'Tubo' experienced the type of street "preacher" I described then I fully understand his reaction...But....If he was drunk and just being an ass then I don't......

I didn't read mention of his actions being fueled by alcohol until this page...I wasn't there, the one poster who was has stated the "preacher" was more akin to what I've described seeing in the 80's.

[PaulConventionWV]

Is an "End the Fed!" chant analogous to a wild eyed psycho screaming at a woman and child that they're going to hell?

The simple fact of the matter is I do not abide by your NAP.

I don't condemn you or anyone else who does, nor do I ridicule you for your desire to practice behavior you find acceptable.

Whether or not curses were screamed at the person you refer to as "Tubo" neither of us know.

I assume that this person "Tubo" didn't just have a psychotic break and decide to wail on the "Preacher", sane people don't behave in that manner, then again sane people wouldn't curse strangers either.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not going to watch the video, I've also said if somebody curses my wife or child in public I will shut them up.

You and others choose to characterize this behavior as unwarranted/insane or unethical, I simply disagree.

There's no philosophical argument, interjecting rambunctious Ron Paul supporters, Christians/*****/racists or whomever that is going to convince me that if I determine I need to punch a stranger in the mouth for his language that I should instead hang my head and walk away, or worse engage in an argument with a person who needs to be taught that harsh words have consequences.

I have morals and ethics, they may not dovetail with yours but they're mine and they've stood the test of time in many situations.

Finally please do not suppose to tell me that it is the message instead of the behavior that I take offense to, again, you are wrong.

Oh, now you're using the word "curse" to characterize what he was doing, and you still haven't even watched the video. "Cursing" someone is wishing something on them. You can't just assume that the Christians who were simply warning gays of something that might happen to them were also wishing that thing upon them. For Christians, almost unanimously, telling someone about hell is like watching them drive toward a cliff and warning them about the existence of the cliff. Every manner of hyperbole has been used in this thread to make the sign-carrying and verse-yelling seem worse than it actually was, but in the end, there's no justification for attacking that person. We should all agree on that, and I think it's just sad and despicable that we don't. Like I said, this thread is really bringing out the hypocrites among us who are too busy finding faults in the guy preaching rather than focusing on the fact that he was attacked without cause.

I have said multiple times in this thread that I don't think what preacher-man was doing was a good idea, and I wouldn't do it myself, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't defend his right to speak his mind. Some of you apparently think defending someone's right to say things that you find offensive have all kinds of caveats and are justifying violence against those people because, well, you just hate them so much...

Hey, I don't like the guy either, but I don't despise him simply for speaking his mind. Being an asshole doesn't mean you should expect to get beaten because that's not how civilization survives. Civilization means being civilized and realizing that being impolite and offensive can mean different things to different people, so the best rule is to not initiate violence unless violence is initiated against you first.

[Acala]

Second, I don't live in an area, or travel, where it's necessary to even consider arming yourself for the purpose of self defense unless you're scared of deer or an occasional black bear.

.

Carrying a gun isn't about fear. It is about liberty and self-reliance. It is about discipline, self-restraint and a higher level of responsibility for your actions. It is about staying calm, sober, aware, and polite to an extreme. It's about NOT thinking it is somehow your right to police other people's mouths or attitudes. It is about being too deadly to have the luxury of being so trivial as to care what people say.

Brawling is for drunks and fools.

Can you imagine Ron Paul punching people in the face for something they said?

[tod evans]

Can you imagine Ron Paul punching people in the face for something they said?

Actually I could if he believed his wife or child was being insulted or scared by the behavior of a stranger on the street.

What I can't fathom him doing is pulling out a gun and shooting the stranger.

[dinosaur]

In my mind (I won't watch the video) I picture a specific street "preacher" in the 80's, downtown Chicago, wild-eyed, spraying spittle while informing passersby to a one, that they've been damned to hell. In your face, hot fetid breath in your nostrils...

To this day, if a person of that ilk curses my wife or child by damning them to hell you can bet I will do as I've said.

Once again though, I will not intentionally put either myself or my family in that situation...

'If' the fellow referred to as 'Tubo' experienced the type of street "preacher" I described then I fully understand his reaction...But....If he was drunk and just being an ass then I don't......

I didn't read mention of his actions being fueled by alcohol until this page...I wasn't there, the one poster who was has stated the "preacher" was more akin to what I've described seeing in the 80's.

Yeah, there is a lot of stuff I wouldn't want my future kids to hear either, but I do want them to be free to dissent and to have the right to say things that might offend others.

[Acala]

What I can't fathom him doing is pulling out a gun and shooting the stranger.

Of course nobody here has advocated such a thing. And no responsible person would do such a thing. A cool and sober man would use a gun ONLY to defend against an attack already in progress. The only advocate here for being the first to use violence is you.

[PaulConventionWV]

Here's where I think many here haven't read what I've typed..

First off There's slim to no chance that I'd have my family or myself in an environment as described in the OP so there would be no need for punching anyone.

If we're talking about principle, then that's irrelevant.


Second, I don't live in an area, or travel, where it's necessary to even consider arming yourself for the purpose of self defense unless you're scared of deer or an occasional black bear.

If we're talking about principle here, it's irrelevant. I don't care what you do because you can't reasonably expect everyone to behave as you do, and there is nothing morally wrong with visiting places or packing heat.


If somebody is behaving in a manner that would warrant punching them in the mouth it's very likely I'd be late to the show, folks here-about are generally polite and respect one another and if somebody gets to acting out it never last for more than a couple seconds before they have several folks intervening, often with punches.

It still doesn't make it right. We're talking about the principle here, right?


The mere idea of living in close proximity to groups of people that you'd find it necessary to carry arms around is repugnant to me and everyone I know. Which leads me to draw the conclusion that the majority of people responding in this thread live in urban areas and view this type of behavior as somewhat 'normal'...

Cities are a natural development of human civilization. Not everyone could be a hermit, even if they wanted to. We're talking about the principle, not the logistics of living in populated areas. I don't even understand why you find this relevant to the discussion, honestly. It's just a fact of life. If you go around punching people for offending you, you could very well get shot. You should expect it, just like you seem to think people should expect retaliation for being an asshole. What's the difference? If people should expect retaliation for expressing their freedom of speech, then they should expect retaliation when they go around punching people for speaking in a certain way.


I am perfectly comfortable taking my family to motorcycle rallies, floating down rivers or camping anywhere within driving distance and never feel the need to bear arms.

So? How is this relevant? You're just getting farther and farther off track of the discussion. We're not talking about you, specifically here. Do you comprehend that fact?


There must be some alternate reality where many live, either that or the cities are way worse that I imagined.

It happens. It doesn't matter how often, but it does happen. If we're really talking about the principle, then even that shouldn't matter, but suffice it to say that it happens, and that's enough.


Read what I've written, not once did I defend the actions described in the OP, instead I've stated how I behave in my environment. I'm a peaceful man and although I'll not hesitate to strike another for insulting friend or family the idea of pumping another full of lead due to a fistfight is abhorrent.

I don't see why. If someone is beating you, you don't know how long it's going to last or what kind of damage they plan on doing to you. That's why these types of shootings happen all the time. The person fears for their life in a very real and legitimate way. Also, you haven't clarified what kind of sentence an asshole should receive. Is it acceptable, O judge, to beat them within inches of their life, just bloody them up real bad, or maybe several hard slaps across the face? Which is it, great arbiter?


I'm glad to live in the backwoods, after reading many of the posts in this thread, ya'll please stay put, I will too.

I live in a very small town of 1,000 people. Even if I were to never go to a city in my life, I am still aware of the kinds of interactions that occur and why. Trying to figure out how to cooperate with others isn't a city-folk thing. It's been going on since the beginning of civilization. That's why we have principles. We are trying to figure out the best way to live with each other while minimizing the risk and also not violating anyone else's rights like we wouldn't want others to violate ours. If I want to speak loudly and say things that are offensive in a public park, I'll be damned if any government is going to stop me, and the same applies for individuals who just don't like what I'm saying. To me, they're just as bad as the government because if they chose to violate my right to free speech, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between being beaten by them and being beaten by a police officer.

[PaulConventionWV]

How in the world did you manage to equate reading the bible with impolite and then correlate that to me?

For Petes sake! :mad:

First of all, you're using the word "correlate" wrong. It's not making you sound smart.

Secondly, that's what the guy in the video was doing, and you apparently seem to think he deserved an ass-whooping, so it logically follows that you think reading the Bible is insulting and impolite.

[PaulConventionWV]

In my mind (I won't watch the video) I picture a specific street "preacher" in the 80's, downtown Chicago, wild-eyed, spraying spittle while informing passersby to a one, that they've been damned to hell. In your face, hot fetid breath in your nostrils...

To this day, if a person of that ilk curses my wife or child by damning them to hell you can bet I will do as I've said.

Once again though, I will not intentionally put either myself or my family in that situation...

'If' the fellow referred to as 'Tubo' experienced the type of street "preacher" I described then I fully understand his reaction...But....If he was drunk and just being an ass then I don't......

I didn't read mention of his actions being fueled by alcohol until this page...I wasn't there, the one poster who was has stated the "preacher" was more akin to what I've described seeing in the 80's.

The fact that you even have to mention such irrelevant things like "wild-eyed" and "spraying spittle" just shows how out-of-touch with the argument you are.

Now first of all, no human being actually has the power to damn you to hell, so it's not a threat. You can just forget that. Secondly, I don't know any Christian who would actually curse a person to hell. Rather, they would warn people about it, not actually wish it on them. Believe it or not, that's probably at the heart of what the likes of Westboro Baptist Church is doing (and I'm definitely not saying that's right). Either way, it's certainly not what the guy in the video is doing.

I'm curious, though, why is it that you refuse to watch the video? What is your problem with videos?

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually I could if he believed his wife or child was being insulted or scared by the behavior of a stranger on the street.

What I can't fathom him doing is pulling out a gun and shooting the stranger.

We apparently have different views of Ron Paul them. I cannot imagine Ron Paul initiating aggression for speaking, and I don't think he would.

He HAS said a person has the right to defend themselves, and shooting someone who is beating you is justfied as self-defense.

[tod evans]

We apparently have different views of Ron Paul them. I cannot imagine Ron Paul initiating aggression for speaking, and I don't think he would.

He HAS said a person has the right to defend themselves, and shooting someone who is beating you is justfied as self-defense.

So is punching the person scaring your family and it's far less permanent.

I've got to wonder how many here have actually had their hands inside a human who's been shot, smelled the bile and gastric juice and listened to the rattling gasps of pain....

Shooting someone to me isn't reactionary.

A fist fight has never been cause for me to contemplate shooting someone...What a sad and pathetic response to getting an ass whipping.

I very well could have missed where Ron Paul advocates shooting people who are punching you maybe you could hep me out with that? Or could this be yet another twisting of what you think you heard?

[PaulConventionWV]

So is punching the person scaring your family and it's far less permanent.

I've got to wonder how many here have actually had their hands inside a human who's been shot, smelled the bile and gastric juice and listened to the rattling gasps of pain....

Shooting someone to me isn't reactionary.

A fist fight has never been cause for me to contemplate shooting someone...What a sad and pathetic response to getting an ass whipping.

I very well could have missed where Ron Paul advocates shooting people who are punching you maybe you could hep me out with that? Or could this be yet another twisting of what you think you heard?

No, punching someone for talking is NOT self-defense. Do you know what self-defense is?

[amy31416]

So is punching the person scaring your family and it's far less permanent.

I've got to wonder how many here have actually had their hands inside a human who's been shot, smelled the bile and gastric juice and listened to the rattling gasps of pain....

Shooting someone to me isn't reactionary.

A fist fight has never been cause for me to contemplate shooting someone...What a sad and pathetic response to getting an ass whipping.

I very well could have missed where Ron Paul advocates shooting people who are punching you maybe you could hep me out with that? Or could this be yet another twisting of what you think you heard?

In regards to "ass whippings," etc. When a person "threatened" me at an expo dad took me to, my father simply stepped between me and the offending fellow and intimidated the living piss out of him, verbally and physically. Of course, he had a pretty intimidating air about him, and this was a place filled with nerdy engineers--many of them foreign who weren't nearly as familiar with the taboo in the US of hitting on a 12-year old girl.

It works. It gets the message across, you don't mess up your knuckles, and you won't be facing charges for being the aggressor.

If it causes the other person to attack you or your family--have at it.

[angelatc]

In regards to "ass whippings," etc. When a person "threatened" me at an expo dad took me to, my father simply stepped between me and the offending fellow and intimidated the living piss out of him, verbally and physically. Of course, he had a pretty intimidating air about him, and this was a place filled with nerdy engineers--many of them foreign who weren't nearly as familiar with the taboo in the US of hitting on a 12-year old girl.

It works. It gets the message across, you don't mess up your knuckles, and you won't be facing charges for being the aggressor.

If it causes the other person to attack you or your family--have at it.

Ha! We took the kids to see jimmy buffet, and the parking lot was full of drunken tailgaters, as it should be. My younger son(11) was walking a few yards ahead and to the right of us, when some big drunk guy wandered into his path and handed him a beer, saying "You need to have your first drink!" Without missing a beat, and in one fluid motion, my husband swerved over, handed the beer back and said "Already taken care of - thanks!"

The guys face was funny. when he saw dh approaching, he had an "uh oh" look, then after he got the beer back, he seemed really confused about what had just transpired.

As was my son - lol!

[tod evans]

No, punching someone for talking is NOT self-defense. Do you know what self-defense is?

Yup, I do know what self defense is.

Now try answering the question you were asked if you can fit it into your agenda;



I very well could have missed where Ron Paul advocates shooting people who are punching you maybe you could hep me out with that?

[tod evans]

In regards to "ass whippings," etc. When a person "threatened" me at an expo dad took me to, my father simply stepped between me and the offending fellow and intimidated the living piss out of him, verbally and physically. Of course, he had a pretty intimidating air about him, and this was a place filled with nerdy engineers--many of them foreign who weren't nearly as familiar with the taboo in the US of hitting on a 12-year old girl.

It works. It gets the message across, you don't mess up your knuckles, and you won't be facing charges for being the aggressor.

If it causes the other person to attack you or your family--have at it.

Definitely preferable to punching someone!

Your father sounds like he has common sense.

[tod evans]

Ha! We took the kids to see jimmy buffet, and the parking lot was full of drunken tailgaters, as it should be. My younger son(11) was walking a few yards ahead and to the right of us, when some big drunk guy wandered into his path and handed him a beer, saying "You need to have your first drink!" Without missing a beat, and in one fluid motion, my husband swerved over, handed the beer back and said "Already taken care of - thanks!"

The guys face was funny. when he saw dh approaching, he had an "uh oh" look, then after he got the beer back, he seemed really confused about what had just transpired.

As was my son - lol!


Sounds like a very logical approach to a harmless situation....

Can't rep ya', sorry:o

[Acala]

A fist fight has never been cause for me to contemplate shooting someone...What a sad and pathetic response to getting an ass whipping.


It is no surprise that someone who thinks it is okay to violently attack people for hurting his feelings also thinks that it is inappropriate for his victims to defend themselves effectively. But when you initiate violence, you don't get to make rules about how you victim responds. If you punch the wrong person and get shot, it's YOUR fault.

[tod evans]

It is no surprise that someone who thinks it is okay to violently attack people for hurting his feelings also thinks that it is inappropriate for his victims to defend themselves effectively. But when you initiate violence, you don't get to make rules about how you victim responds. If you punch the wrong person and get shot, it's YOUR fault.

Okay Ace, there's never once been mention of punching for hurt feelings until you twisted shit around again.

Screaming/yelling and cursing, threats of damnation, causing fear in the wife or child have been mentioned as cause to shut up an idiot.

Keep trying to misrepresent what I've typed....

[amy31416]

It is no surprise that someone who thinks it is okay to violently attack people for hurting his feelings also thinks that it is inappropriate for his victims to defend themselves effectively. But when you initiate violence, you don't get to make rules about how you victim responds. If you punch the wrong person and get shot, it's YOUR fault.


Okay Ace, there's never once been mention of punching for hurt feelings until you twisted shit around again.

Screaming/yelling and cursing, threats of damnation, causing fear in the wife or child have been mentioned as cause to shut up an idiot.

Keep trying to misrepresent what I've typed....

Both of you cut it out and hug, the two of you are in my top 10 list here on the forum.

[Ender]

Both of you cut it out and hug, the two of you are in my top 10 list here on the forum.

:cool:

[Acala]

Okay Ace, there's never once been mention of punching for hurt feelings until you twisted shit around again.

Screaming/yelling and cursing, threats of damnation, causing fear in the wife or child have been mentioned as cause to shut up an idiot.

Keep trying to misrepresent what I've typed....

Deleted

[Acala]

Both of you cut it out and hug, the two of you are in my top 10 list here on the forum.

I'm done. Hugs for everyone.

[tod evans]

I'm done. Hugs for everyone.

O-tay, me too...

[PaulConventionWV]

Yup, I do know what self defense is.

Now try answering the question you were asked if you can fit it into your agenda;

Well, punching someone for talking is not defense at all. It's offense. So just admit you got that wrong.

And as for the quote, I'm not going to dig it up, just like you won't watch the video. Frankly, I regard it as common knowledge around these parts that Ron Paul supports REAL self-defense, not the fake kind that you advocate. That's one of the central tenets of liberty and the NAP. If someone attacks you first, you have the right to respond with deadly force. If some thug jumps me in the middle of the night for my wallet, you're damn right I'll shoot him if I can, or at least try to scare him away.

[PaulConventionWV]

Okay Ace, there's never once been mention of punching for hurt feelings until you twisted shit around again.

Screaming/yelling and cursing, threats of damnation, causing fear in the wife or child have been mentioned as cause to shut up an idiot.

Keep trying to misrepresent what I've typed....

What do you call it? It's not a threat, so what is it? Why are you attacking them? Let's see how you can see how you can say "they hurt someone's feelings" in so many words.

The video contained no cursing, and telling someone they are going to hell cannot possibly be called a threat. Before that could be considered a threat, it would have to be realistic for that person to single-handedly send you to hell.

[MelissaWV]

I like how everyone had been done with this for hours, hugged, and went their separate ways... and then it was resurrected.

[Origanalist]

I like how everyone had been done with this for hours, hugged, and went their separate ways... and then it was resurrected.

It's not over, until I say it's over.

[angelatc]

Apparently it's over when AMY says it's over.

[PaulConventionWV]

I like how everyone had been done with this for hours, hugged, and went their separate ways... and then it was resurrected.

You're not exactly helping. I got here late and didn't see the hugs and shit.

[Origanalist]

I like how everyone had been done with this for hours, hugged, and went their separate ways... and then it was resurrected.

Never let a good pissing match, err, debate go to waste.

[PaulConventionWV]

I like how everyone had been done with this for hours, hugged, and went their separate ways... and then it was resurrected.

A neg rep just for replying? I was catching up on the last page. I'm not "too stupid to see the post right above mine." I just hadn't gotten there yet. And just for that, you get this thread bumped again. Congrats, asshole.

[Athan]

So is punching the person scaring your family and it's far less permanent.

I've got to wonder how many here have actually had their hands inside a human who's been shot, smelled the bile and gastric juice and listened to the rattling gasps of pain....

Shooting someone to me isn't reactionary.

A fist fight has never been cause for me to contemplate shooting someone...What a sad and pathetic response to getting an ass whipping.

I very well could have missed where Ron Paul advocates shooting people who are punching you maybe you could hep me out with that? Or could this be yet another twisting of what you think you heard?

Don't worry about it brah. Violence happens. Peace happens. Whining happens.
We Ron Paulers don't attack our own. But man will we wine at the state of affairs to each other like its going out of style. Just handle your business and holla if you need back up.