By the way, it doesn't mention this in the article, but the guy that stomped on that lady's face is a County Coordinator for the Rand Paul campaign. He's not some random nutjob that happened to be at the rally, but has been working for Paul for a while. In fact, a Rand Paul newspaper ad even touted his endorsement as he's apparently a fairly well known Central Kentucky Republican.
@Wabbit:
oh so this is about that whole voting thing.
I totally agree with them on that subject. If you think both candidates are dickheads then whats the fucking point.
Because it's rarely true that both candidates are equally bad?
Can any sane person objectively stand back at the point, look at the last decade, and say that Al Gore would have run the United States in the exact same manner as George Bush?
Can anybody say that John McCain and Sarah Palin would have done the same as Obama has?
The notion that each side in an argument are automatically just as bad as the other because they're in opposition is just stupid. It doesn't matter if it's coming from Trey and Matt or Jon Stewart; it's an idiotic stance that helps feed into the asinine notion that every single issue must have two equally correct sides even when one of them is ludicrously moronic and therefore invalid.
Oh, hey, some people think that vaccines are bad. It doesn't matter that actual science doesn't agree with them and that preventing kids from vaccines could cause massive disease outbreaks, they're entitled to their baseless, dumbass position. Let's give them airtime to explain their imbecilic position because every idea has a grain of truth and not giving them a chance to spew their nonsense is somehow biased.
Hey, Rachel Maddow said something that was a little over the top on her show yesterday. That one line must make her the liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck. The fact that Beck spends hours a week claiming things that are absolutely insane while Maddow just made an off-the-cuff nutty remark doesn't matter, because it's just the same!
and besides why do you have to pick a side? Isn't their whole point that there's people in this side, and people on that side and it's perfectly fine being in the middle.
Because there are a lot of political issues that actually do boil down to two sides and the "middle" is at best wishy-washy nonsense designed not of offend people or moral cowardice at worst.
Even then, it's pretty rich for two guys to claim that they are in the political middle when you look back on their body of work. For God's sake, they made a feature length cheerleading session for the Iraq War disguised as a Thunderbirds parody with the climactic speech being nothing more than a vulgar recitation of every Neo-Con argument in favor of invading Iraq out there at the time. When you make actual propaganda for one side, then you lose pretty much any right to claiming that you're impartial.