Translation:

I'm not tolerated because I don't agree with you.

I'm not picking a fight about anything, I'm merely pointing out that in typical modern fashion, something is being sensationalized in the name of votes or hits, or whatever have you. It worked, so whatever, the headline got the votes...the video, however, did not. What went down in that video was reprehensible, and those involved should be punished. But I maintain that the punishment should fit the crime. They should be punished for going too far, but they should NOT be punished for curb stomping a woman, since it never happened.

My commentary, by design, was to point out the title is disingenuous, at best. It wasn't meant to exonerate these people for what they did.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^hPOD:
In the future, if/when you give a more grown up, non condescending response to something you disagree with, maybe I'll acknowledge it and actually reply back to what you said, rather than how you said it.
>> ^Truckchase:
hPOD you're right, he was trying to be nice by blessing her with the bottom of his foot. I do it to my mom all the time. Keep talking, you make alot of sense.


The basis of your assertion demands condescension. You're picking a fight about something that is entirely unacceptable regardless of the semantics of the situation. I won't spend any more time on this, as doing so undermines my own unspoken assertion that your commentary doesn't deserve attention since it is, by design, a distraction from the point of the video.

You're taking what I said wayyyyyyy out of context. I said it was typical of sensationalized Internet media to take something and make it far worse than it actually is/was. I do not and will not consider what happened in that video to be stomping on someones head, but as proven here, that can be argued. I do, however, feel it was out of line and the people responsible should be investigated.

This is why it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people these days. You can say whatever you want, and that's that. Nothing is open for discussion or disagreement anymore.

Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Objective judgment? Possibly. It is of my judgment that they went too far in what they did to her. That said, at least I'm honest about my objective judgment and am willing to admit that's what it is. I suppose others could say they didn't go far enough in what they did to her, which would make my opinion on this a judgment call.

In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized? That's truly sad. I thought better of you, but I guess you're like the typical majority of Internet opinion makers -- if I disagree with you, you get mad at me for it. Oh well.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hPOD" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).
To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".
The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

In the future, if/when you give a more grown up, non condescending response to something you disagree with, maybe I'll acknowledge it and actually reply back to what you said, rather than how you said it.

>> ^Truckchase:

hPOD you're right, he was trying to be nice by blessing her with the bottom of his foot. I do it to my mom all the time. Keep talking, you make alot of sense.

A more accurate one?

How about 'Rand Paul supporter goes too far...', which would be more along the lines of accuracy. People will view it, and people will agree he/they went too far. There is no need to tell people someone had their head "stomped" on. Also, do note that while one or two of these supporters were morons, another clearly tells them to knock it off.

There ARE good people out there, even if they disagree with your politics.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hPOD" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">hPOD what title would you prefer?

Now you play semantics to justify your sensationalized headline.

What's happening in that video is NOT someone getting their head stomped on, once again, stop trying to make it something it's not. The worst part is, what you are attempting to do with your attention grabbing headline isn't even necessary. What happened in the video is damning enough without you making it sound worse than it was. We SEE the video. We know YOU see the video. We know that it's not a stomp. So now you try to list general definitions of what a stomp/stamp is in order to justify the headline. It would be more genuine of you to say she was held down forcibly with someones foot than to say someone stomped on her head, which is an out right fabrication.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Completely uncalled for, but not curb stomping to be sure. I was expecting a cut from American History X, glad I didn't get what I expected. In as much as the right calls Obama a socialist, this is a curb stomping. A return to sanity, unlikely.

>> ^hPOD:
Stop using the word stomp, because that's not what happened. I've watched the video, so have many others. Want to see a stomp, watch American History X...there is a difference between what's in that video and someones head/neck being stomped on about the size of the Grand Canyon.

I don't get you guys. Three men grab a woman, push her to the ground, hold her there and then stomp on her head, giving her a concussion. The Lexington Police has sent Tim Profitt a summons to appear in court so a judge can decide if criminal assault charges are warranted.
Sure, it didn't work like it did in American History X where they put the guy's teeth on concrete first. It also didn't work like in Gears of War where the victim's head explodes like a blood-filled watermelon.
So because it doesn't look like exaggerated Hollywood violence, it's not a stomp?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
In as much as the right calls Obama a socialist, this is a curb stomping. A return to sanity, unlikely.

So GeeSussFreeK, the real issue with sanity isn't that someone stomped on someone's head, it's that liberals like me called it a stomp? Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking?
>> ^hPOD:
It's hard to take you seriously when you sensationalize, and you're smarter/better than needing to resort to such extremes. The people involved were stupid, to be sure, but you're making them sound like attempted murderers, and this is disingenuous at best.
The only words I've used to characterize the content of the video is the title...
Original: Apparent Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on MoveOn Member's Head
Current: Rand Paul Co. Coordinator Stomps on MoveOn Member's Head
What's disingenuous or misleading about either? Lauren Valle is a member of MoveOn. When I didn't know whether the guy was affiliated with Rand Paul, I said so. Now that I know he's not just a supporter, but someone who's part of the campaign organization, I updated it.
I know, must be the word stomp. Dictionary.com redirects stomp to stamp, so here's the definition they give:
stamp
–verb (used with object)

1. to strike or beat with a forcible, downward thrust of the foot.
   
2. to bring (the foot) down forcibly or smartly on the ground, floor, etc.
   
3. to extinguish, crush, etc., by striking with a forcible downward thrust of the foot (fol. by out): to stamp out a fire.
   
4. to suppress or quell (a rebellion, uprising, etc.) quickly through the use of overwhelming force (usually fol. by out).
   
5. to crush or pound with or as with a pestle.
   
6. to impress with a particular mark or device, as to indicate genuineness, approval, or ownership: to stamp a document with a seal.
   

Stop using the word stomp, because that's not what happened. I've watched the video, so have many others. Want to see a stomp, watch American History X...there is a difference between what's in that video and someones head/neck being stomped on about the size of the Grand Canyon.

It's hard to take you seriously when you sensationalize, and you're smarter/better than needing to resort to such extremes. The people involved were stupid, to be sure, but you're making them sound like attempted murderers, and this is disingenuous at best.

>> ^NetRunner:

Updated title since it's no longer in doubt whether the stomper is really a Rand Paul supporter.
promote

Misleading, sensationalized headline.

That said, what happened shouldn't have and those involved should be investigated, etc. Can't discussions be had anymore without someone sensationalizing [or in this case outright lying] about something? What happened was terrible, to be sure, but to mislead people into thinking someone was curb stomped is just typical Internet journalism. Typical of Digg, Reddit and VS, apparently.

Nobody said that they were going to arrest anyone for how they vote, they said they would continue to arrest them EVEN IF the law to decriminalize passes.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 205);">NetRunner, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">dystopianfuturetoday, I'm calling you out.
On what, exactly? The title & intro are outright false -- nobody's threatening to arrest anyone for how they vote.
On legalization of marijuana, I'm in favor, so it can't be that.
I guess it's the usual thing where you think any time a Democratic politician does something other than flout the laws and Constitution in pursuit of some extreme straw-man liberal policy platform you've cooked up, you think you've scored some sort of victory over liberalism generally, and me specifically.
Guess what! I'm pro-Prop 19, but I think the DOJ has no choice but to continue to enforce the Federal laws. The executive shouldn't get to just say "we disagree with the laws, so we're not enforcing them". If the President could do that, what limits are there on his powers, exactly?
I'm thinking if Prop 19 passes, the conflict between Federal and state laws will make legalization into a front-page national debate...and I think that'd be a great thing! I'm hoping at the end of the debate we wind up with the Federal ban on marijuana is lifted.

.

There is intelligent conversation and suggestion, and then there is this. Alcohol is legal, but we don't sell it in schools. Try to use a degree of thought when making a point. While I acknowledge what you attempted to do here, by making a point in the extreme, it falls flat as we live in a society of laws and unless we ignore that, the point you attempted to make is...well, pointless. Decriminalizing drugs and allowing them to be sold in schools is apples and oranges. Infinite liberty is another way of saying total anarchy. We don't live in anarchy, so suggestions that require anarchistic society mean nothing and add nothing to the conversation. Laws exist, such as age limits on alcohol, the legalization of drugs would and could work quite the same. At least then, it's quality controlled.

It's been my experience, throughout my life before I was 21, that it was ALWAYS easier to get illegal drugs than it was to get alcohol.

This isn't a conversation about health care, so I ignored that entire part of the post -- as well as everyone else who touched on health care here. Stay on topic.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/California-Voter-Intimidation-The-Federal-Government#comment-1089059'>^blankfist</a>:<br />@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 15th, 2006" href="http://videosift.com/member/campionidelmondo"><STRONG style="COLOR: #2180e2">campionidelmondo</STRONG></A>, I agree with you 100%. That's why I dislike welfare such as universal healthcare and any other system that negates personal responsibility and replaces it with safety nets. <BR><BR>We want open borders? I do. But we must end welfare and government intervention in the health industry, because people will never want to pay for those coming into the country.<BR><BR>We want drugs to be legalized? I do. But we must stop thinking healthcare is the entire country's financial burden, otherwise people will want to tell us what we can or cannot put into your body. <BR><BR>And so on. Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 5th, 2006" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com/"><STRONG style="COLOR: #0000cd">NetRunner</STRONG></A>, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 9th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday"><STRONG style="COLOR: #000000">dystopianfuturetoday</STRONG></A>, I'm calling you out. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"><BR></em>
So, my question is this. Do you think American hospitals should turn away the dying who cannot afford to pay the doctor's bill? Because if they do not turn them away, I suffer in healthcare premiums...and I also suffer a "fat tax" from fat people. Heck, my job has banned smoking because of the "tax cut" to healthcare we receive.
I am fine with letting people die, so long as those who do not want Obamacare or Universal Healthcare admit their end goal needs to be---no universal healthcare in any shape whatsoever. Treating the near-dead who cannot afford the procedure is definitely Universal Healthcare, but the burden falls on the private sector to soak up the costs and pass it on to the consumer who can pay.
And what about Meth being legalized. Why stop there? Why not allow it to be sold in schools? Why just make it legal? We should free it up completely. Let’s allow it to be sold in schools and theaters and open prostitution—even if the whore has Aids she should be allowed to ply her trade. I am not being sarcastic here—I want your opinion on the matter of infinite liberty.
Meth is far different than any other drugs out there. I see it every day. I pay taxes on the crimes Meth-heads do to get in jail, like stealing and such… Ah, taxation…

>> ^Xax:

Uhhhh, you lost me, Penn. And lose that stupid hand camera... what were you thinking?


No offense (which really means I have ever intention of offending), but if he "lost you", then maybe you need to watch it again and pay attention to what he says. What he said was pretty clear and makes sense. Try listening to his opinions, as the show isn't about the camera work or cinematography. I hate it when people try to undermine someone on a nonsensical point while ignoring the substance at hand. Rather than judging him on the content (what he said), which you missed because apparently you were unable to keep up or understand his point, you attack the way in which it's filmed. This is a weak way to argue.

Seth said something along the lines of: The tea party people want what is against their own self interest, making them corporate puppets. He then said, what they [the tea party] want would be good for him, as in Seth's own self interests. In saying that, while saying he disagrees with the tea party movement, he's doing exactly as he claims the tea movement is doing. Despite the fact that movement would serve his own self interest, he's disagreeing with them/against them...therefore what he is for is against his own self interests.

Get it? He's doing the same thing he claims the tea party people are doing, but calling them puppets for it. If this was Back to the Future, he'd have created a paradox and destroyed the universe.

I grew up in the Commodore era -- long live the Amiga. I still have my A1200, even. Best computer I've ever owned.

Forever an original fanboy -- an Amiga fanboy.

I'll tell you how I look at all of this, and it's quite simple. Wait and see. Why? Because, the worst thing a person can do is get sucked into a trend, and this is a trend. One side will be proven right, the other wrong, in time. We've had this same debate before, however opposite, you've simply decided to forget it ever happened. Need I remind you that in the 1970's, the hype was global cooling, and that we were long overdue for an ice age, and everyone was going to die/freeze to death! That wasn't all that long ago, but I remember it well. And yes, it was a real "craze". Well, the science and evidence of that time, which was supposedly irrefutable, was proven wrong in a mere 20 years.

Now we have the endless warming debate.

Nobody can deny the temperatures have gone up over the past few decades, the evidence is there, they have. I think it's natural that we, as egotistical humans, REALLY want to take credit for being able to cause this much destruction in this short of a period of time -- the Earth has been here for billions of years -- and it only took us 100 to destroy everything. Right. I have a goose that lays golden eggs, too. The Earth was here before us, and it will be here AFTER us.

The only thing I've witnessed thus far from this debate are endless arguments (which result in nothing, ever), and mass amounts of money being made by people, with no results to date. Cars are more efficient than ever. So are factories, power plants, recycling centers, etc. Plastic bottles are thinner, more often than not they are recycled, etc. Despite these trends that have been happening for WELL over a decade now, no progress has been made, as a matter of fact, according to the "evidence", things are continuing to get worse.

Frankly, it's October 5th, in Chicago...and I'm a little cold.

I think I'm going to go run my car for a while and spill oil into Lake Michigan and find some way to emit a ton of methane into the atmosphere. If it makes it warmer, I'm all for it. I'm sick of being cold.

Seriously, though...I tend to stay out of these types of arguments (as they aren't debates, they're arguements), as neither side is actually listening to what the other side has to say. Why? Because both sides are convinced they're 100% right in EVERY facet of the debate. I have some news for both sides. Neither of you are 100% right.

I'll wait and see what happens, and in the mean time, I'll laugh at the ensuing comedy of "angreh" arguments.

As an American, it's a complete and utter WTF for me when I read about people in foreign countries (including 1st world foreign countries) killing each other at soccer games for rooting for the wrong team.

Glass houses...

Oh, and for the record, I hate college football.

That's easy to say in the most ideal of circumstances. But when it's dark, gunfire is coming from many directions, errors in judgement and mistakes happen do to instinct/reaction. Even with vast amounts of training, there is no way to know where every person you've trained with will run/duck/cover due to the nature of the beast -- you have no idea when or where enemy fire will be coming from. At that point, sadly, a lot of it's pure luck.

>> ^kymbos:

Yes, you spend more time with your comrades, but they're not supposed to be shooting you. If the largest cause of military death is now ourselves, I would have thought we would be investing a bit more heavily in 'how not to shoot our own men'.