Brazen Trump supporter taunts protester after smashing his camera

[Ender]

RJ, Rand is no longer in the race. In case you didn't know.

It's YOU that doesn't seem to know- why did you bring him up?

[LibertyEagle]

That's utter bull$#@!.

MY complaint on this thread is not that the man got his camera destroyed but that the members of this forum don't care- unless it's THEIR candidate's supporter that is blighted.

"Who cares about this silly guy and his camera, 'cause, well just LOOK at what the Bernie/Hillary/Cruz/Rand supporters are doing! Anyone against Trump is just looking for silly BS items to make our political god look bad!"

I am personally not for any current candidate- but you Trumpsters are the most self-righteous baloney pushers of the year.

So much for peace and liberty in the land of the free.

No one that I know agrees with this guy's actions. Tell me something; did you scream as loud about the people who blocked, stopped, or hit Trump supporters who were trying to attend a rally? If not, why not?

It's YOU that doesn't seem to know- why did you bring him up?

I was pretty clear. To show the hypocrisy being wailed in this thread.

[acptulsa]

Yes, indeed. Because Gary Johnson wants to start wars in the Middle East for a "libertarian" reason.

I opposed the Iraq War. I supported going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11, but opposed – and continue to oppose – our failed attempt at Afghan nation building. And I opposed our involvement in overthrowing the government in Libya.

The list goes on and on. Our ill-advised attempts to shape the outcomes of civil wars and replace bad guys with slightly less bad guys have not only failed, but have created vacuums that are today being filled by the politics of Sharia.

The cost of those interventions has been tremendous, with too many of our young men and women of the military killed and wounded…and trillions of dollars spent ineffectively.

Libertarians believe freedom and opportunity require limited government. Government costs too much because it does too much – and a government that does too much erodes liberty. But one responsibility of government is clear: To protect us from those who would do us harm and who would take away our fundamental freedoms. We believe liberty is the true American value, and that our government has a solemn obligation to preserve it.

We cannot dance around the fact that destroying human liberty and doing us harm are what Sharia law dictates. Whether it be mass murder in Paris, downing a Russian airliner in the Sinai, gunning down innocents in a Kenyan shopping mall, beheading Christians, or flying airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, ISIS and other like-minded Shariaists are engaged in a decades-long campaign to eradicate freedom and replace it with a Sharia political system that is antithetical to everything for which America stands.

In World War II, too many, including the U.S., stood by for too long as Hitler’s Nazi fascism spread across Europe, with horrendous consequences. Sharia and its ISIS fanatics are today’s Nazi fascism.

Let’s be clear. Stopping ISIS and Sharia have nothing to do with religious freedom or the rights of Muslims – here or abroad. It has everything to do with protecting people who are free or wish to be free from murderous fanatics who will stop at nothing to establish a global caliphate under which no one would be free.

Dealing with this threat is the most American thing we can do.

Putting tens of thousands of American troops on the ground in Iraq or, especially, Syria, won’t work. We have learned that the hard way. Those realities, however, do not mean that we do nothing.

First, even barbarians and fanatics need money. ISIS is collecting an estimated $1 million per day in profits from oil sales. That buys a lot of terror. Reducing or stopping that flow of money will do more to stop ISIS than bombing a training camp here or there, and the United States – along with our allies – must get serious about turning off the ISIS oil spigot. While ISIS is receiving support from sympathic individuals and organizations in the region, even the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are taking concrete steps to cut off ISIS’s daily oil windfall. The U.S. must do the same. The finances and transactions of ISIS and their brethren must be disrupted.

ISIS’s recruitment and attacks are being executed largely via cyberspace. There will be no invasion that can be repelled with missiles or warships. Rather, they will enlist, plan, finance and coordinate with believers who are already here to conduct their murderous campaign. Paris was just the latest example. We must deploy our formidable technological might to join the battle in cyberspace – and win.

And while invasions and doomed-to-fail attempts at imposing Western democratic values on unwilling peoples will not work, reviving and supporting strategic partnerships with those who are fighting ISIS in Syria and elsewhere just makes sense. The U.S. must assume a stronger, more committed role to galvanize and lead an alliance based on those partnerships that will first contain and ultimately neuter ISIS.

Fighting and defeating ISIS wherever they are is not “intervention”. It is stopping violent jihadists whose stated objectives are to kill Americans, wipe Israel off the map and destroy the very freedoms – including religious ones – upon which our nation is founded. It is protecting us from those who would and are doing us harm.”

http://ouramericainitiative.tumblr.c...s-nazi-fascism

I was pretty clear. To show the hypocrisy being wailed in this thread.

And to add to it, of course.

[Ender]

No one that I know agrees with this guy's actions. Tell me something; did you scream as loud about the people who blocked, stopped, or hit Trump supporters who were trying to attend a rally? If not, why not?



I was pretty clear. To show the hypocrisy being wailed in this thread.

You mean the rally that Trump deliberately overloaded to cause confrontation? Yes- and the Trump supporters that beat up up a guy being taken out of a rally? Yes.

(Mod edit), you would be condemning the responses on this post instead of justifying them by the actions of a Rand supporter. And then calling out people who respond to you by saying that Rand isn't in the race- when YOU brought him into the post.

[LibertyEagle]

And to add to it, of course.

Hardly. Don't even tell me that you don't remember when it was his turn to be on the FOX roundtable in, I think it was 2012 and be grilled as a presidential candidate and talked about who he would attack in the Middle East. His hypocrisy was pointed out at the time and he looked like he wanted to go hide under the table. The video of it was posted on this very site more than once. lol

[LibertyEagle]

You mean the rally that Trump deliberately overloaded to cause confrontation? Yes- and the Trump supporters that beat up up a guy being taken out of a rally? Yes.

Oh, so people physically blocking the highway and jumping on cars is ok with you?

(mod edit), you would be condemning the responses on this post instead of justifying them by the actions of a Rand supporter.

I didn't justify it. What I did was shine the spotlight on the sheer hypocrisy in this thread.

And then calling out people who respond to you by saying that Rand isn't in the race- when YOU brought him into the post.

Perhaps you didn't read the quote I was responding to, that was listed in the very post that you are taking issue with. Go back and read it.

[Bryan]

Lets keep things civil, no need to make this personal.

Also, I understand that not all site members are going to exhibit posts that are in line with the site Mission 100% of the time but it's a logical fallacy to assign a problem across the entire site, as in "this site has sunk". I see such statements as collectivist.

Thanks.

[RJ Liberty]

RJ, Rand is no longer in the race. In case you didn't know.

I'm well aware. The reason Rand Paul's name came up is because you posted a video showing Rand Paul supporters attacking a woman. But it's a false equivalency: Rand Paul does not support violence. Trump does, and he's on video saying he'll pay the bills for his supporters' violence. He is encouraging violence, and supporting violence.

[LibertyEagle]

I found it. AcpTulsa was right; it wasn't the Middle East that Johnson wanted to attack. It was Kony in Africa. For "humanitarian reasons", don't ya know.

Video and transcript at the link. The video is priceless.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/

[acptulsa]

Hardly. Don't even tell me that you don't remember when it was his turn to be on the FOX roundtable in, I think it was 2012 and be grilled as a presidential candidate and talked about who he would attack in the Middle East. His hypocrisy was pointed out at the time and he looked like he wanted to go hide under the table. The video of it was posted on this very site more than once. lol

What on Earth are you talking about, and why do you not dig it up if you want us to consider it?

This?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nterventionist

I see a bunch of Fox journalists hollering 'gotcha', and I see a video cut off before he can even go into detail about whether Congress authorized this use of force and whether stopping a genocide is different from fighting someone who just wants to sell oil for something besides petrodollars.

Do I agree with him on this? I don't think so, but given that he was either never given a chance to explain himself or he explained himself too well and that's why the maker of this youtube cut him off, I can't be sure. Got a vid of the rest of that interview?

I admit that it isn't very advantageous that Johnson looks uncomfortable while he's trying to put his arguments together. I've admitted that he isn't terribly charismatic. But I still say that's better than someone who avoids that by speaking a lot and saying nothing at all.

I see by the link you found that he was interrupted before he could expound on due process and the role of Congress in deciding these things. In any case, it's better than 'conquer the Middle East and take their oil.'

[Bryan]

I found it. AcpTulsa was right; it wasn't the Middle East that Johnson wanted to attack. It was Kony in Africa. lol

Video and transcript at the link. The video is priceless.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/

Gary Johnson has shown he is far from perfect, but I'm not sure what he has to do with this thread.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm well aware. The reason Rand Paul's name came up is because you posted a video showing Rand Paul supporters attacking a woman. But it's a false equivalency: Rand Paul does not support violence. Trump does, and he's on video saying he'll pay the bills for his supporters' violence. He is encouraging violence, and supporting violence.

I don't like it if he did. But, it's not a deal killer for me. Opinions may vary.

[LibertyEagle]

Gary Johnson has shown he is far from perfect, but I'm not sure what he has to do with this thread.

This made it relevant, Bryan; taken together with the rah rah Johnson posts/threads on this forum, make it obvious what is being referred to.

No one is the epitome of perfection.

So, you're advocating we sit on our hands and wait to see which advocate of violence and theft the voters choose? Who do you think we are? We are going to spend the summer showing them they have another choice besides electing one of two advocates of violence and theft.

Whether you want us to or not.

I see a bunch of Fox journalists hollering 'gotcha', and I see a video cut off ...

The video was not cutoff in the link that I supplied.

[silverhandorder]

I'm well aware. The reason Rand Paul's name came up is because you posted a video showing Rand Paul supporters attacking a woman. But it's a false equivalency: Rand Paul does not support violence. Trump does, and he's on video saying he'll pay the bills for his supporters' violence. He is encouraging violence, and supporting violence.

So?

They were saying the same things about Ron and Rand and they were doing nothing close to what Trump does or his supporters. Either someone cried wolf too many times or Trump is getting Ron treatment.

[Bryan]

I didn't justify it. What I did was shine the spotlight on the sheer hypocrisy in this thread.

The argument being presented is that Trump has in some way encouraged violence and not spoken out against it. That Rand situation was very different. While I agree the OP could have stated a stronger case up front I don't think the argument is anywhere near hypocritical.

While blame for bad behavior falls on those who engage in it, good leadership sets the expectations. Perhaps Trump has some area for improvement here.

[LibertyEagle]

The argument being presented is that Trump has in some way encouraged violence and not spoken out against it. That Rand situation was very different. While I agree the OP could have stated a stronger case up front I don't think the argument is anywhere near hypocritical.

While blame for bad behavior falls on those who engage in it, good leadership sets the expectations. Perhaps Trump has some area for improvement here.

Actually, Bryan, that was NOT the OP at all. It was about a supporter and Trump was nowhere around. That fell on its face, so the OP tried a different approach in a subsequent post.

And yes, it is hypocritical to be having a tantrum over what a Trump supporter did, when a Rand supporter stepped on someone's head. Therefore, people shouldn't be standing all high and mighty smearing all Trump supporters carte blanche, nor the candidate, for something a supporter did. It has been rampant on here. If you won't stop it, two can play that game.

[hells_unicorn]

Well, so much for the NAP and the Golden Rule.

Breaking my heart and smdh at what this forum has sunk to.

-neg rep to you, H_U. I thought you were better than that.

Golden Rule? Have you even read the bible in your life? This entire stupid thread in all its back-biting glory is a testament to habitual violation of the 9th commandment, by an admitted former and possibly current Clinton supporter. I'm of a mind to accuse you of rectal-cranial immersion with a stupid post like this one.

Oh and right back at you with the neg-rep my hippie friend, and kindly spare me the stupid "kool-aid" bromide you fed me on your PM, I'm not voting in this election, as I've stated DOZENS of times. Me mocking an unwashed ne'er-do-well being such a big deal next to all of the violent crap perpetuated by all these Bern victims who's candidate everyone respects for being "principled" should clue you in on how far this forum has sunk,

[hells_unicorn]

Really.

So this stuff is OK because of what someone else might do?

So much for individual freedom and rights, eh?

(Mod edit), if what the guy did was okay, I would not have put in the point about compensation. (mod edit)

[Bryan]

Actually, Bryan, that was NOT the OP at all. It was about a supporter and Trump was nowhere around. That fell on its face, so the OP tried a different approach in a subsequent post.

I understand, I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that his follow up was part of his main point. It should have been more clear however.

And yes, it is hypocritical to be having a tantrum over what a Trump supporter did, when a Rand supporter stepped on someone's head.

Again, there is an argument against that based on the candidates.

Therefore, people shouldn't be standing all high and mighty smearing all Trump supporters carte blanche, nor the candidate, for something a supporter did. It has been rampant on here. If you won't stop it, two can play that game.

Smearing all Trump supporters because of this is illogical, I agree.

[LibertyEagle]

Again, there is an argument against that based on the candidates.

So, it's ok for the Rand supporter to step on the woman's head, because he supported Rand? Is that the argument you are making?

[Ender]

(Mod edit), if what the guy did was okay, I would not have put in the point about compensation. (mod edit)

You mean this?

Originally Posted by hells_unicorn
More than what some left-winger, feeling the Bern trust-fund baby who grows a dirty beard to compensate for a lack of manhood probably paid for it.

On a serious note, compensate the cry-baby for his lost $20 (assuming his parents didn't buy it for him, then just give it to them) and move on. This is a misdemeanor at best, and trying to make some goofy statement about Trump supporters misbehaving reflecting some sort of cultural phenomenon while Bernie's clowns are set to destroy the entire city of Philadelphia if they don't get their way is bordering on going full retard, in my opinion.

How sweet.

[Bryan]

So, it's ok for the Rand supporter to step on the woman's head, because he supported Rand? Is that the argument you are making?

No, of couse not. The argument is how a candidate expresses views on violence, how they step up to condone issues and the like. Didn't Rand's campaign issue a denunciation of this act?

This is very different than Trumps statement about paying for legal fees. Making such statements to a large crowd of people you don't know is problematic at best.

Still, I don't see this as some major issue.

[LibertyEagle]

Still, I don't see this as some major issue.

I don't either. Yet, the OP runs around here starting a plethora of threads, daily, on this level or worse; filled with innuendo and downright lies. Then the gang joins in to insult anyone who is voting for Trump.

[Bryan]

I don't either. Yet, the OP runs around here starting a plethora of threads, daily, on this level or worse; filled with innuendo and downright lies.

They are mostly all just news stories, some mean more to some than others. The media always had articles that are problematic. Members can choose to repond to media issues or not.

Then the gang joins in to insult anyone who is voting for Trump.

I understand there are some collectivist issues, we've had them here since 2007. They should be logically called out as collectivist. We're open ideas for a better site protocol.

[LibertyEagle]

They are mostly all just news stories, some mean more to some than others. The media always had articles that are problematic. Members can choose to repond to media issues or not.

I understand there are some collectivist issues, we've had them here since 2007. They should be logically called out as collectivist. We're open ideas for a better site protocol.

Here's the problem, Bryan. You have told long-time members they should not post pro-stories about Trump; yet, you seemingly have given the Trump-haters carte blanche to post away and fill the threads with little insulting pictures, mischaracterizations and half-truths. And don't tell me to flag them; I have, many.

You sent Trump through your new evaluation system, yet, you seemingly have opted Johnson out of that system. Why is that? Is it because he has an "L" after his name?

[acptulsa]

They should be logically called out as collectivist.

But, of course, they're likely to be collectively called out as collectivist. Which is as hypocritical as calling out those supporting a candidate who was once tempted to support an intervention against a genocide, when their candidate wants to conquer countries for their oil. Or any number of other situations where people want us to tie ourselves in knots over gray areas in our principles--and think that's going to get us to support candidates with no principles at all.

So Donald Trump should be given a pass for inciting his mobs to violence because one time a few libertarians (on their own initiative and without Official Sanction) threw snowballs at Hannity. Well then.

Here's the problem, Bryan. You have told long-time members they should not post pro-stories about Trump; yet, you seemingly have given the Trump-haters carte blanche to post away and fill the threads with little insulting pictures, mischaracterizations and half-truths. And don't tell me to flag them; I have, many.

You sent Trump through your new evaluation system, yet, you seemingly have opted Johnson out of that system. Why is that? Is it because he has an "L" after his name?

This is not breitbart.com. I suggested you add a poll to your earlier thread to see if anyone else feels the need to further vet Johnson. You have not. Is that because you know what the answer will be, and you know the response will remove your excuse for making noise?

You have the thread. Make your poll. Let's see if anyone feels the need for further vetting of Johnson.

[LibertyEagle]

But, of course, they're likely to be collectively called out as collectivist. Which is as hypocritical as calling out those supporting a candidate who was once tempted to support an intervention against a genocide, when their candidate wants to conquer countries for their oil. Or any number of other situations where people want us to tie ourselves in knots over gray areas in our principles--and think that's going to get us to support candidates with no principles at all.

So Donald Trump should be given a pass for inciting his mobs to violence because one time a few libertarians (on their own initiative and without Official Sanction) threw snowballs at Hannity. Well then.

This is not breitbart.com. I suggested you add a poll to your earlier thread to see if anyone else feels the need to further vet Johnson. You have not. Is that because you know what the answer will be, and you know the response will remove your excuse for making noise?

You must need glasses. I was having a conversation with Bryan.

You have the thread. Make your poll. Let's see if anyone feels the need for further vetting of Johnson.

Apparently, they do.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6220485

NOTE: And by the way, no one mentioned the snowball incident; it was the Rand supporter stomping on a woman's head. Nice try though.

[acptulsa]

You must need glasses. I was having a conversation with Bryan.

You must need glasses. According to Bryan, you were hijacking this thread.

Apparently, they do.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6220485

All three of you.

[LibertyEagle]

You must need glasses. According to Bryan, you were hijacking this thread.

What are YOU doing, Tulsa?

All three of you.

What are you so scared of?

[acptulsa]

What are YOU doing, Tulsa?

Trying to reason with a brick wall.