I'm sorry, but that whole response sounds faked.
Seriously.
Pretty much every bullet point "advice" listed at the bottom, applies equally so to "the other side".
The response just does not make sense. I saw the video, this guy was caught up in the moment, did something stupid, but in the end caused no harm to her. To see this response: "Volunteer to serve in a women's abuse shelter, rape crisis center or home for abused children. Then and only then will you understand why it is our society is so repulsed by your behavior and what it leads to."
That connection just is not there, except in the mind of activists. I don't jump to the conclusion that the video is pro-women abusing propaganda. I don't see where this leads to anything described in the response.
Basically, the whole response seemed to boil down to this: if it were a male who charged Rand Paul, then there would be no "incident", no foul play.
"This type of hysterical overly exaggerated expression is nothing more than mob riot."
-There was no mob riot in the video.
"You have served to point out the severity and potential danger of this extreme movement that is enjoys protection under the umbrella of "Tea Party""
-What the fuck is that line? That rally was not an extreme movement. Show me the severity and danger caused by the Tea Party? And why is Tea Party in quotes?
This response seems to be taking the stance that this guy uses the Tea Party as an excuse to promote violence against women, which I guess I just have to say "I don't get it". Yes we can go over all the lines "One should never harm a woman, one should never lay his hands (or feet) on another..." Something's not right.
And who ends a response with "Reevaluate who it is you support for office - may I suggest you support someone such as myself who isn't willing to tell you what it is you want to hear to get your vote."
If you want to get into the whole political spin game, this person just advocated for the support of women abusers to help get elected. But of course that's not what she is trying to do. That message was never intended for this guy to read. That message was purposely intended for the voting community as a whole to read. Hence her response is nothing more than a political campaign strategy solely pandering to her base for votes in next year's election.
Sorry, Craig, but seems you fell for propaganda yet again
Last edited:
