Todd: The attacker fondled me, too; Update: Todd confesses to making up story, say police; Update: Todd “upset” with the media for hyping the story; Update: “She hasn’t really shown any obvious remorse”
posted at 1:30 pm on October 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
She forgot to mention that to cops during the initial report, just like she forgot to mention the detail about him spotting the McCain bumper sticker on her car. It happens; victims of violent crime forget details initially.
But the nuance is mounting.
Speaking to Channel 4 Action News on Friday, [police spokesman Diane] Richard said they’re still questioning Todd because of some new developments.
“We have learned that the victim’s statement has a few inconsistencies in it and her statement has changed,” said Richard
Richard said Todd now says she isn’t sure if it was a bumper sticker on her car or a campaign button on her jacket that angered the attacker. Richard said Todd added new details to the attack, saying at one point she lost consciousness.
“She also indicated she was sexually assaulted as well. She indicated that when he had her on the ground he put his hand up her blouse and started fondling her. But other than that, she says she doesn’t remember anything else. So we’re adding a sexual assault to this as well,” Richard said.
They gave her a polygraph but haven’t released the results. Here’s a photo of the ATM station; cops say the camera doesn’t show anything, but that might be because the attack happened out of frame. No word on whether it at least shows her using the machine to place her at the scene.

People who work at nearby businesses claim they didn’t hear anything. I assumed from the first reports that the ATM was enclosed in the foyer of a bank (the way mine is) but this appears to be open onto the street, so passersby would have a clear view.
She also says, contra Ace’s theory, that the guy was sitting on her chest when he carved the “B,” not standing over her upside down:
Ms. Todd told police during at least five hours of questioning last night that her attacker said to her, “You are going to be a Barack supporter.” She told police the man then sat on her chest, pinning both her hands down with his knees and used what she believed was a dull knife with a roughly 5-inch blade to carve the B.
Ms. Todd then went to a friend’s house in the 5100 block of Cypress Street, about a mile away, where she reported the incident to police about 45 minutes later. She declined medical treatment at that time.
Like Ace says, maybe she took the photo herself in the mirror. If the latter, that would make the “B” facing the right way on her left cheek, which would be the likeliest place for a right-handed assailant to cut her (assuming, probability-wise, that he is right-handed). Exit question one: Why not release the details of the polygraph? If she passed it, it’s mighty irresponsible to suppress that information while whispering to the press about “inconsistencies” in her story. Exit question two: If other businesses were open nearby, why didn’t she go in and ask for immediate help?
Update: The boss’s skepticism was justified: Police tell KDKA it’s a hoax. Disgraceful.
Police sources tell KDKA that a campaign worker has now confessed to making up a story that a mugger attacked her and cut the letter “B” in her face after seeing her McCain bumper sticker…
Investigators did say that they received photos from the ATM machine and “the photographs were verified as not being the victim making the transaction.”
This afternoon, a Pittsburgh police commander told KDKA Investigator Marty Griffin that Todd confessed to making up the story.
The commander added that Todd will face charges; but police have not commented on what those charges will be.
Update (Ed): The College Republicans will have some explaining to do here. And let’s remember that even if the story had been true, it still didn’t say anything about Obama and the people who support him.
Update: Fox News VP John Moody set up the left’s talking points for them perfectly last night: “If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.”
Update: No word yet about the black eye, but the “B” is her own doing, unsurprisingly.
A McCain-Palin campaign volunteer who claimed she was robbed and cut by a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama has confessed to making up the story, police sources told the Tribune-Review.
Ashley Todd, 20, of College Station, Texas, is expected to be charged with filing a false police report and may face additional charges, investigators said. She told detectives she etched a backward letter “B” onto her right cheek and then manufactured a story about being attacked at a Bloomfield ATM by a black man who was enranged by her John McCain bumper sticker.
Detectives are continuing to question Todd at police headquarters. They are expected to release additional information later this afternoon.
If it’s her right cheek, then the photo wasn’t taken in a mirror and she really did etch it backwards, like the moron that she is.
Update: Here’s one possible explanation for how she got the black eye: She may not really have a black eye. Quote: “The photo also shows Todd with a black eye. Salon showed it to Jennifer Province, an emergency room nurse, who says she believes the black eye was faked. The color of it is wrong, Province said, and there’s less swelling than typically seen.”
How does one “fake” a black eye, exactly? Did she actually put make up around her eye and expect the cops to be fooled?
Update: KDKA updates to say that cops believe the “injuries” were self-inflicted. Whether that’s a reference to the “B” or to something more, like her giving herself a black eye, I don’t know yet.
Update: Surprise — she told cops she’s had mental health problems in the past.
Update: I’ve received the following statement from Ethan Eilon, executive director of the College Republicans:
“When Ms. Todd initially contacted us claiming to have been attacked our first reaction was obviously to be concerned for her safety. We are as upset as anyone to learn of her deceit, Ashley must take full responsibility for her actions.” – Ashley Barbera, Communications Director
“We have terminated her effective today. Obviously, we had know idea she was making this story up.” – Ethan Eilon
Update: She simply must be joking.
“She just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth,” Bryant said. “She was upset with the media for blowing this into a political firestorm.”
She told Detectives J.R. Smith and Scott Evans varying stories about how she ended up with two black eyes and a backward letter “B” etched onto her right cheek late Wednesday. She said she remembers being in her car, driving around the city, and seeing the letter on her cheek when she looked into the rearview mirror. She said she immediately thought of Barack Obama when she saw the “B,” Bryant said.
“She said she doesn’t remember doing it but knows it must have been her who did it,” Bryant said.
Update: Inflaming race relations, sandbagging the candidate she claims to support, sending the cops on a wild goose chase — and no remorse, of course.
“She hasn’t really shown any obvious remorse,” Kraus said. “She’s certainly surprised that it snowballed to where it is today.”
“It’s been a huge waste of time and man hours,” said Bryant, adding that police had been working on the story since it broke Thursday…
A woman named Liz who answered the door at the residence where Todd arrived after her purported attack told FOXNews.com that her roommate is friends with Todd, and he told Liz not to discuss any details about the incident. A Ford Taurus with a Texas license plate and a McCain-Palin sticker was parked outside.
Fox notes that she’s staying with a “male friend” in the area. I’m still wondering about that black eye.
Update: KDKA has perp-walk video. I looked closely to try to see if her eye’s still black, which would at least prove that it’s a real injury, but I can’t tell for sure. If it is, it’s healed an awful lot already.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7
Well, there IS always THAT. And you’re right.
I know of several instances wherein attacks occured and the police were not contacted, if only because it was easier to “let it go away” afterward and not undergo the ridicule afterward.
S on October 24, 2008 at 6:19 PM
S:
I don’t think this girl hurts McCain anymore than she would have hurt Obama. Neither McCain or Obama are responsible for what crazy people do.
The most depressing thing is that the atmosphere surrounding the election is such that a story like this sounded plausible.
I still think that all the skepticism up front was a double edged sword. The truth would have come out any way, it was not necessary for all sorts of people from pundits to commenters to pile on here. I think that when people make a claim like this they should get the benefit of the doubt until we know for sure. Not everyone is a liar.
Terrye on October 24, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Wow ! ! Fast detective work. . . Do ya think the Duke
lacross team could have been this lucky. ? ?
Texyank on October 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Hmmm…thanks for posting those links (I’d have never found them myself; you’re industrious).
A lot of the “fevah” surrounding the Ron Paul campaign was/is by people involved in promoting the (Alex Jones) “9/11 was an inside job – conspiracy” people, FUNDED BY SOROS (including Jones).
So, they’re not actually Republicans nor certainly not Conservatives in any sense that the rest of us would recognize.
S on October 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Right you are, Terrye…
I was surprised by the immediate negativity on the story, but not about the “heat” or violence involved (merited media attention if it was true — the “face carving” thing, had it been an actual assault by someone else, would have been hideous and extreme, to state the obvious).
What I WAS surprised about (naive, me) was that there was so much negative criticism so immediately ABOUT the “possibility” that the attacker was “Black.”
I mean, it became an issue of racial attacking in reverse (by protectors of said, possible attacker) upon the lady (obviously, not Black) (+ Obama, Black, etc.).
I DO question all this racial crud and racist-attack-dog effort. Calling everyone not voting for Obama “racist” and crud, is my point.
There are deluded people everywhere, anywhere, affiliated with everything, every issue, every candidate, etc.
But the story, you’re right, should have been allowed to work its way through the crime-threshing process without all the usery involved.
I felt impartial up until today when I awoke and read the first report was false. Then I just felt that the lady involved was troubled and needs help.
Blaming Drudge, Malkin, this site, whomever, for REPORTING the story as it developed is making the finger-pointers look more terrible than they are, also (not you, but the Left is doing so).
S on October 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM
MSNBC is reporting that the McCain communications director in PA was the one who pimped the story to Drudge.
Grain of salt, take one.
SnarkVader on October 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM
MEANWHILE…ACORN’s fraud, Obama’s lies, Obama’s absent documentation (medical records, academic records, personal history, birth circumstance, family preposterousnous…) remains “do-able” by the Left. Certainly the media is working feverishly to ignore all of that.
S on October 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM
As always in these situations, the truth does come out. As Terrye said, there’s no conspiracy here, just a foolish act carried out by a troubled young woman, nor will this woman’s act determine this election. Far more important and influential factors will determine the outcome of this election on November 4.
Having said that, if something like this were to happen again, would I react the same way I did when I first heard of this. Yes, most probably I would. I want to treat someone who claims to have been victimized by violence with compassion–to see that they get the help they need. I’ll leave it to the professionals to take it from there.
However, the news that this woman’s claims were false do not invalidate my assertions of last night: the left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign have fostered an atmosphere of fraud, innuendo, fear, intimidation and not only the threat of, but the actual implementation of violence to achieve their results–to win this election at any cost. The media, the Obama campaign, and the Democratic Party have shown to me that they tacitly and implicitly approve of these actions through their failure to strongly condemn these acts as well as their failure to control their party apparatchiks. Incidents such as the attack on that woman marching in a McCain rally in New York City, the vandalism of Senator Coleman’s garage, the shooting of windows and vandalism of McCain campaign offices immediately comes to mind. The words of Democratic Party spokesmen such as James Carville who threaten the possibility of rioting and civil unrest should Barack Obama be defeated is nothing more than an effort to usurp the electoral process through the threat of violence–an act on a par with Mussolini’s March on Rome. Similar threats of riot and unrest by others echo this growing willingness by the Democratic Party to use violence to achieve its political ambitions. This must stop.
We are standing on the edge of a very dark and deep abyss and I fear that it will not take much more than a slight nudge to push us over. Please, let us pull back from that edge before it is too late.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM
How is contacting the media “pimping” anything?
I guess that’s the Obama standard, though, “pimping” is what other people do while, meanwhile, Obama’s lying doesn’t count.
S on October 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
S,
It isn’t fair to make a blanket statement to the effect that Paul supporters are not Republicans or Conservatives. Its just that some (not all) of them mangle reality due to their psychological needs. Paul himself, while holding some good positions, and his supporters deny the violent nature of Islam.
Like many people Paul thinks the only solution to terrorism is expensive foreign wars “over there” and because that is so repugnant to his paleolibertarian sensibilities he recoils from the issue entirely, insisting there is no threat. I’d call this reaction a psychological defence mechanism. Of course Bush and many of his supporters also deny the violent nature of Islam but for other reasons.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Well said, Matt. My sentiments, exactly.
S on October 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM
The use of the word pimped is mine, not MSNBC’s.
SnarkVader on October 24, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Not sure where you’re getting your media, but in my neck of the woods – I can’t find a mainstream station not talking about it.
I just logged onto AOL … and in giant letters: McCain supporter hoax, etc etc. Sorry, just checked. The exact wording, still up: “McCain Volunteer Lied about Attack.”
Drudge may have been the first (so what else is new), but I now see it on CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, all three local Nashville stations, and on AOL.
If that ain’t “the mainstream media running with it,” I’m not sure what is.
Professor Blather on October 24, 2008 at 6:44 PM
In the spirit of vigorous discourse I ask you to present me with one instance wherein I flip “my lid.” I offer sober, sometimes harsh criticisms as I see fit. You don’t like it for whatever reason. But you rarely, if ever, respond directly to my main point. You take some tangential bent that suits your ire towards me.
Furthermore, are you telling me that you don’t, can’t or have never flipped your lid over some issue that you find interesting or otherwise pressing. You’re septic in thought; your filter is broken; the fish are dead.
I can probably come up with an instance of me going off. But that doesn’t prove your point. Rather it proves that I, like every other blog commenter online, enjoys the cathartic release of an occasional rant. That’s the point, isn’t?
***
So let me get this straight. You think about me so much that you are no burning illicit images of me into your mind’s eye? Cute, but creepy.
As far as you watching the specific posts to which I reply, you’ll go blind. I’ve been busy lately and don’t need the typing practice so much anymore, so you have to sit and stew — waiting until that next post in which you will be graced with my caustic, searing wit and prophetic wisdom.
You are dismissed. Next class meets next post, prick.
The Race Card on October 24, 2008 at 6:45 PM
gosh, it just gets better and better … Nov 5th can’t come fast enough. It would appear that Mr Obama bought some of that teflon that Ron Reagan latched onto.
Monkei on October 24, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Yes, inciting fear of black males is different and you know it. They are a minority which has been historically discriminated against, this is part of what makes this crime so heinous. Imagine being black in America and having to deal with this bullsh*t.
crr6 on October 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Son of an Obama!!
I apologize to Michelle for flipping out on her.
- The Cat
MirCat on October 24, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Yet large-scale black-on-white crime is a very real phenomenon, at least according to the FBI’s statistics. Liberals such as yourself will never be able to defend traditional America because the cause of righting historical wrongs is so much more important to you. You shouldn’t worry though, black-on-white will continue to receive scant media attention thus preserving the black-as-victim zeitgeist that you wish to promote.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Stupid (bleep), she’s basically screwing us all over because she had to receive a few minutes of fame. If she had half the honor I believed she had she would’ve apologized and gone away quietly. instead this will be a black eye (no pun intended) that the media will constantly remind us of for a year plus and as an excuse for every Obamanut that does attack a Republican or burns one of their signs or vandalizes their property.
Defector01 on October 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Read: White America.
Nonfactor on October 24, 2008 at 7:15 PM
What ever happened to kids like you getting out of the house. Try playing D&D with some friends. Oh, never mind.
Laura in Maryland on October 24, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Read: Real America.
crr6 on October 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM
No. If I had meant to say white America thats what I would have said. Black people have lived in America for 400 years or thereabouts but then being able to deconstruct code words like “socialist” (which apparently really means “black”) is a liberal specialty.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I’m not even sure what that means. I’ll have to ask Nonfactor to desconstruct it for me. You guys are on a roll.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Boo-farking-hoo. Cry me a river.
ManlyRash on October 24, 2008 at 7:27 PM
You’ve never been too quick on the uptake.
crr6 on October 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM
crr6,
Let me school for a moment you on liberal talking points: No one can ever imagine what its like to be black. Being discriminated against is something that no white person could ever conceive of. It would be arrogant to even try.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 7:31 PM
In post-modernist, multiculturalist speak, they’re saying that we in flyover country are “…bitter clingers hanging on to our guns and religion with no appreciation of the other.” or words to that effect, I can’t remember the last bit of Obama’s little slam against those of us who do uphold traditional values such as honor, duty, patriotism, and faith–the sort of values that crr6 and nonfactor snicker at when they’re sipping their lattes or taking their bong hits.
The sad truth though of this election is that the Obama campaign has so polarized us through its overplaying of the race card that I honestly think racial relations in this country will be set back about forty years.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 7:31 PM
As a white middle-aged mom who leads a gang of dangerous felons committing heinous crimes, fyew, what a relief that another demographic is taking the heat for my posse’s work.
Laura in Maryland on October 24, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Have you been drinking?
crr6 on October 24, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Matt:
Anyone who thinks that we in flyover country have a monopoly on bitterness or racism or whatever, need to look at some of the crime statistics from urban coastal cities. For a bunch of enlightened and sophisticated folks they sure do have a tendency to kill, maim, beat, rape and rob each other. I realize that we rednecks are thought to be backward, but those cities scare me a lot more than the hills and hollers of southern Indiana.
Terrye on October 24, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Considering all the “reverse” discrimination that is whined about on here, I suppose it would be idealistic to expect empathy for real discrimination.
crr6 on October 24, 2008 at 7:40 PM
There is no such thing as “reverse” discrimination or “reverse” racism. There is only discrimination and racism. That you use such a term betrays a worldview that discrimination is a phenomenon that affects only certain exclusive groups in society.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Tell me about it, Terrye. Give me small town folk and rural folk any day, any time. As I child, I was so close to the woods that I could almost literally walk out my back door and there I was. I remember stargazing at night and seeing nothing but stars and the Milky Way. The last time I saw the Milky Way was a few years ago when the storms knocked out all our power–the light pollution has gotten so bad. I’ve also lived in big cities: New York, Washington D.C. Given a choice, I’ll stay in small towns and the country with my fellow bitter clingers. I’ll leave the big cities to the crr6’s and nonfactors–they can have ‘em.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 7:48 PM
You seen aengus, the concept of the abstract rational individual is anathema to the post-modernists and the multiculturalists. They embrace the concept of the “social individual” which is where you get all these notions of identity politics and groups from. The notion of the abstract individual carries with it some ugly notions for the multi-cultis: individual inalienable rights, right to private property, and universal values–as in the end, that is exactly what individual inalienable rights are–universal.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Aengus, btw, I’m not really aiming at you here–I’m actually aiming these barbs at our little libbie trolls… :)
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Right you are.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Matt:
The woods come almost to my back door. One evening I stepped out on my deck and sitting there on a gum tree limb was a baby owl. We just looked at each other and then he hooted and his mamma hooted and off he went. He was silver in the moonlight, so pretty.
I live about 2 miles from a town of 4500 people. This is small town America out here.
Terrye on October 24, 2008 at 7:56 PM
No problem :)
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 7:56 PM
I bet the relation between how good the “folk” are in different parts of America corresponds directly to how few minorities live there. I bet you’re the type of person who would deride some cityfolk for thinking they’re better than people like you, but when you go ahead and do it it’s just the truth, right?
Nonfactor on October 24, 2008 at 7:57 PM
You must live in a world where the Bill of Rights afforded the same rights to all people and where the Civil Rights Movements of the 1900s didn’t need to happen. Guess what? That world doesn’t exist.
Nonfactor on October 24, 2008 at 7:59 PM
You kill me, nonfactor–by the way, a very apt handle if I do say so myself, and I do. You’ve got a touch for the non-sequitor and the logical fallacy…nice try though…when you’re ready to play with the big boys, just come on back…
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 8:03 PM
So what, this is still a major case of race-baiting. If a black woman who supported Obama had carved an ‘M’ into her face to scare black people about whites skin heads and into voting for Obama, it would be just as offensive.
Why does that ‘fact’ matter when considering the presidential candidates? Does Obama plan to let black criminals out of prison early?
bayam on October 24, 2008 at 8:04 PM
These comments were addressed to Matt but I would like to give my own response.
Its often said that in the South that race relations are better than the Northeast because everyone is used to living together and getting on as opposed to the de-facto segregation of ghettoised housing projects and invisible border lines in places like New York and Boston.
However I live in a city myself and find it far preferable to a rural, country existence. I’ve found the enthusiasm for Governor Palin very underwhelming. That a lot of conservatives don’t appreciate the urban and urbane America is saddening and I think betrays a cultural short-sightedness.
Nonfactor’s implication that wisened rural folk consider themselves superior to people who live in cities is what crr6 would call “reverse” snobbery. I would call it presumptuousness on the part of country folk–though the David Brooks types encourage it with their pretentious articles.
Unfortunately liberals and conservatives have seemingly lined up behind a rural/urban division which has made these kinds of arguments more frequent.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Set up strawmen much? The Bill of Rights actually does afford the same rights to all people. The Thirteenth Amendment legally removed the blight of slavery, reinforcing the Bill of Rights and then the Fifteenth Amendment declared that rights were not to be denied on the basis of race. The Nineteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to women. All working under the umbrella of the Bill of Rights which in turn draws its inspiration from the concept of the rational individual with its universal values of individual not collective liberty. Regrettably, it took the civil rights movement to begin to make those individual universal values real for all. But, the foundation was already laid in the concept of the individual as an abstract entity. The notion of the collective leads inexorably to one thing: tyranny.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 8:11 PM
bayam,
I never said that this ‘fact’ had any relation to the presidential candidates. I was responding to a very specific comment by crr6 not the immediate topic.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:12 PM
city=city person
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:13 PM
I knew there was something about you that screamed “un-American.”
Nonfactor on October 24, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Here’s a picture of Ashley Todd with Ron Paul. FWIW.
capitalist piglet on October 24, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Oh, there are most definitely elements of the city I enjoy. I’m a fancier of the ballet, I practically lived in the Smithsonian and Dumbarton Oaks, I loved Radio City Music Hall, the New York Public Library was to die for, and the variety of restaurants, night spots and pubs…just great. Twenty–twenty-five years ago, I would most definitely have preferred living in the city. Now, though, at this stage in my life, I prefer the relative peace and quiet of the countryside.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Yep.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Its good that you have experienced both atmospheres. For me the countryside is somewhere to go for a break from the hubbub of urban life. I just couldn’t imagine living there permanently.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:19 PM
You seem like someone who likes to pretend they know something about political theory, if you aren’t being pretentious, I apologize, it just seems like you are. What you’re criticizing is called Republicanism, what you’re hailing is called Classical Liberalism. The founding fathers promoted both within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; I suggest you look it up Aristotelian Republicanism and it’s influences on the founding fathers.
You claim that you are against the concept of the “social individual,” which I guess is code for the philosophy of social individualism. Without social individualism the Civil Rights Movements of the 1900s (women, labor, civil rights, etc.) wouldn’t have formed. The Bill of Rights was definitely not a perfect piece of legislation. It was highly discriminatory, and to pretend like it’s sacrosanct is to ignore the struggles of the people who fought to change the Constitution for the better.
Nonfactor on October 24, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Ashley Todd is a Paulistinian. Hello? Tap tap tap…is this thing on? Did someone post this information already?
capitalist piglet on October 24, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Okay. Ashley was photographed standing next to Ron Paul. Therefore what?
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:30 PM
@aengus – I wasn’t “making a blanket statement (about ALL Paul supporters).
I was just stating the truth about SOME Paul supporters, that they’re (also) engaged in the “911 was an inside job – Conspiracy” circle (websites, webrings, same sponsors, meetups, meetup groups) and affiliated with Alex Jones.
All of that, by the way, affiliated with Soros funding (he funds Jones and the conspiracy groups, at least in part).
I’ve tried interacting with SOME Paul supporters to no avail. Everything written is inevitably misunderstood, maligned, suspected and then attacked on a personal, irrational level.
SOME Paul affiliated. I think that my experience is, also, pretty well the same shared by many others.
S on October 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Some of her own website postings were promoting Paul.
Someone here posted links to that earlier site content, which I believe she later removed (or someone did) but it remains available in the cached copies that someone here provided a link to.
In other words, the “B lady” was/is a Paul promoter, whatever they’re called at this point now that Paul’s campaign is at a standstill.
S on October 24, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Oh, I see. You all already knew this. Some Ron Paul supporters seem to be, to put it kindly, slightly unusual. Apparently Ashley Todd falls into that category.
capitalist piglet on October 24, 2008 at 8:36 PM
I know what you’re saying.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill: “The greatest argument against libertarianism is libertarians.”
Still, they have some good arguments and positions.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:37 PM
What?!?
That’s more of that Paul-fringe stuff I was trying to be polite about. Bush declaring that Islam is a peaceful religion was his attempt to bestow some respect on practicing Muslims, in my view, but Bush, of all people, doesn’t go around in denial about terrorism as it is characterised by “Muslim extremists.”
Nor does much of anyone else except, maybe, Farrakhan and others of his sort (including many supporting Obama, by the way).
S on October 24, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Sorry, I’m not going to rise at your initial bait. I’m not going to recite my credentials to you, but I warrant they’re probably a good bit higher than yours. Actually, I am very much a classical liberal and yes, I am fully aware of the role Aristotelian Republicanism played with our Founding Fathers. You are correct, I am opposed to the concept of the “social individual” it is an outgrowth of Rousseau’s political theory, most notably the concept of the General Will, and the French Revolution. I feel that this concept has been a pernicious one that has led to a multitude of ills including fascism, Nazism, and Communism as it is also a contributory factor to aggressive nationalism. I disagree with your contention that civil rights would not have been attained without the concept of the social individual. Instead, I postulate that it would have been attained anyway and with much less heartache and bloodshed as the eventual embrasure of the universal concept of the rational individual would have brought about these changes.
Actually, the Bill of Rights was not discriminatory. To the contrary, it was written in such a manner as to be applied universally. There is even strong evidence now to support the notion that Jefferson intended for both minorities and women to enjoy equal rights: to whit, a clause struck from the Declaration of Independence at the insistence of Southern states in which the King was condemned for the (paraphrase) transfer and enslavement of MEN. Note the deliberate use of the word MEN–Jefferson included Africans in the category of all men deserving of freedom. Also, remember, women were taken as slaves as well, so it is logical to assume that Jefferson included women also as deserving of equal treatment.
And yes, the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct as these are inalienable rights–they stem from natural law–they are not given, nor do they come from being part of a “collective” identity. And herein we have our fundamental, unbridgeable difference–for you, the concept of the abstract individual is anathema as that means that you have to accept the notion of individual inalienable rights and for me, the concept of the “collective” is unacceptable as that means the subordination of the individual to the group whole.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 8:39 PM
A Paulbot? Well that explains a lot.
Terrye on October 24, 2008 at 8:39 PM
No I was not aware of it (the photograph?). I’m not a Paul supporter, though he has some good positions. I just don’t think the media (including the right-wing blogosphere) ever gave him a fair shake. So saying that someone has been in proximity to Paul or supported him does not cause me to reflexively dismiss that person.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Taking the story as it’s developed as to “the B lady,” however, tends to “dismiss that person.”
Which is all many here are referring to…the full picture.
S on October 24, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Well, aengus, I wouldn’t reflexively dismiss someone based solely on that, either – but this woman just faked an assault and robbery, and at least temporarily mutilated her own face. Putting those things together, I would say she’s unusual, at a minimum.
She was photographed not just with him, but apparently as part of his campaign – wearing an “Ags for Ron Paul” t-shirt. It appears to have been more than a casual interest on her part.
capitalist piglet on October 24, 2008 at 8:46 PM
bayam:
Race baiting. That is all Democrats do.
People can not even state a simple fact without a self serving lecture from you people.
Terrye on October 24, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Bush is in denial about the violent nature of Islam, a worldview which has subtly deranged his foreign policy. What is the point of trying to establish democracy in Islamic countries? Islam is itself a political system in competition with democracy and the latter has no hope of prevailing anywhere in the Middle East.
The “Sharia” clause in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions was an inevitable outcome of this policy. Bush says that Islamic terrorists attack civillisation because they “hate our freedoms” and the left says its because they’ve been treated unfairly by the West. All non-Islam explanations of Islamic terrorism are untrue and render victory unlikely.
Ronald Reagan understood Communism which is why his foreign policy was successful. The only thing Bush understands is multiculturalism (read his speech upon accepting the Republican nomination in 2000) and spreading democracy the world over (read his SOTU addresses from 2001-2008).
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Yes obviously she is already disturbed/mentally ill ands we wouldn’t be discussing this.
What then does the Paul association add to the case?
Objectively, nothing.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 8:50 PM
I think of her more as a very foolish and troubled young woman who did a very stupid thing and will have to live with the consequences of her action for the rest of her life. I made my share of mistakes at twenty, but…nothing like this. She has to suffer the consequences of her action, but, to me, what is worse is that this has taken attention away from far more important issues.
Matt Helm on October 24, 2008 at 8:51 PM
I think you’re being a little bit obtuse, aengus. Ron Paul supporters, during the primaries, did not strike many of us as the most stable individuals.
Maybe she’s still a Ron Paul supporter. Who’s to say?
capitalist piglet on October 24, 2008 at 8:55 PM
I’m not trying to be obtuse. As one of my posts to S indicates I’m well aware that lots of libertarians are nutty.
Yes but it hasn’t been established that this somehow makes her worse than if she were not a Paul supporter.
Take this comment from S…
The full picture. Scary stuff. Meanwhile no one has established how Ms. Todd’s support of Paul has sinister or larger implications.
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Irony of the century: Nonfactor just got a look at himself in the mirror, and didn’t like it much.
That is truly pricelessly funny.
Professor Blather on October 24, 2008 at 9:13 PM
aengus:
I don’t think Bush is in denial about Islam at all. I think he is simply facing the reality that there are a billion or more Muslims in the world and we can not make enemies of them all.
Terrye on October 24, 2008 at 9:21 PM
The reality is that a billion Muslims are our enemy whether we like it or not. It is not in Bush’s power to make the worlds Muslims our friends or our enemies–their religious doctrine of enmity has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, to do with US foreign policy. Bush ought to recognise the reality of the situation and respond accordingly to protect the West from Islamisation (tackling mass immigration would be a start).
aengus on October 24, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Yeah I’m sure he’s gonna get right on that any day now…
Grayson on October 24, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Woo doggies as jed would say – you, Unseen, and Madison Conservative sure got that wrong. Put away the guns (for MC it is those camouflage calculators shaped like a Mac 10), find a different race angle to get all irate about, and wait for the next raw news to send you into hysterics.
Bradky on October 24, 2008 at 10:51 PM
I think the sad part is that she is what everyone loves to make fun of. She wears glasses, is over weight, is sort of a political geek, gets lost driving around, is always so bubbly, it just makes us sick. Well, I will say that in many ways, she is normal. She does a lot of things that is for the good of others, volunteering, spends a lot of time at it, and still manages to get good grades.
Dont we all just hate them type? And now we all can make fun of her and ridicule her, oh what fun, just like high school all over again.
WoosterOh on October 24, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Still sulking over DC versus Heller? Just have an extra drink at your next Brady meeting.
MadisonConservative on October 25, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Put down the crack pipe and go back to your adding machine.
Bradky on October 25, 2008 at 12:49 AM
I’m still mystified as to your calculator fetish. Projection, I’m guessing.
MadisonConservative on October 25, 2008 at 1:22 AM
You have to realize that it isn’t ridicule. Our justice system was created by people who were criminals, wanted men. It favors the accused and I won’t make any apologies for that.
DFCtomm on October 25, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Not sure if anyone has seen the obviousness of this yet, but…
My kitty says:
Et tu Brute on October 25, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Ditto.
johnnyU on October 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM
No problem for McCain.
This nutter joins a long list of black nutters who perpetrated white on black hoaxes
If anyone beats this drum, FOX can run some real juicy tapes about past college instructors et al playing the game. Since there are more hoaxes on the left, starting with Tawana Brawley, it would be a bad diversion
Matter of fact, it might be good to keep it all alive, since flaunting this obnoxious race stuff in the last two weeks stokes race fears
It doesn’t matter how they discuss race, the word ‘race’ and ‘discrimination’ repeated too often triggers a defense reaction. It works on blacks and it works on whites who have been called racist until they are sick of the word.
entagor on October 25, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Why does this get mentioned as a hoax but the reports of “Kill Him, Kill Him” are not corrected?
Mister Mets on October 25, 2008 at 1:52 PM
A white women makes a fake allegation of being attacked by a black man and she is arrested immediately, and rightfully so. A black women makes a fake allegation of being raped by four white lacross players from Duke University and she is not arrested; indeed, she gets to write a book about it and receive a large advance from the publisher. Am I missing something? Wasn’t the Duke case more egregious given that four boys were publically maligned with a sham prosecution? In the Todd case, no one was falsely accused, yet she was publically arrested.
RedSoxNation on October 25, 2008 at 3:42 PM
OK – this is pretty funny:
I actually hadn’t heard this part before (the friend called police, not Todd):
Y-not on October 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7