Comments on: RNC

By: paws4thot

paws4thot — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:44:46 +0000

Ok, there actually are people who make Firsters look intelligent out there. Will someone please stop watering them?

By: BoredomCorner

BoredomCorner — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:35:54 +0000

What “our”? You certainly aren’t speaking for me, and those of us who actually want our liberties to stay intact.

By: ryszard

ryszard — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:17:05 +0000

CF: One of the best points I’ve seen made here yet.

By: ema

ema — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:46:39 +0000

Ha! I have to remember that one.

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:45:16 +0000

I lol’d

By: Charlie Foxtrot

Charlie Foxtrot — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:43:04 +0000

True, but in my opinion (heaven forbid) we always have some form of local society, therefore, some type of government. Even the drugged out Somali technicals answer to some individual warlord, it’s just that the near-anarchy is enough to demonstrate the impact of no government.

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:41:23 +0000

I am DeathWyrmNexus and I approve this statement.

By: St. Paulite

St. Paulite — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:31:05 +0000

The funny part is, it says “POLICIA”. This is clearly NOT from the actual RNC.

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:30:46 +0000

Actually I think Somalia is a full anarchist society as they haven’t had government since 91 from what CNN reports.

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:16:56 +0000

“Don’t let the door hit you… when you’re stupid!”

Space Ghost, anyone?!

By: ryszard

ryszard — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:46:21 +0000

A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged.

A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested.

By: PiMan

PiMan — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:14:14 +0000

Evil is a perspective.
.
You need to check the definitions of fascism and democracy I think.
You still live in a democracy because your leaders can be voted out and new people can be voted in. As long as you still have the right to vote, you are still in a democracy.

By: herb

herb — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:27:05 +0000

No. He’s a troll.

I witnessed a number of protests in Denver. Even did a little marching with the Liberal/Progressive Anti-War peeps.

So people understand: very few protesters at the DNC were Repubs; mosts were liberals and progressive independents displeased with the actions of the Dem party.

By: herb

herb — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:21:43 +0000

Depending on the strength of your convictions, I suppose. It’s drawing the line between on what is wise and what is (in your eyes) cowardice.

By: herb

herb — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:17:28 +0000

For the 10K protesters, the arrested 800+ with the RNC.

I don’t know the total number of DNC protesters, but arrests were around 150.

By: herb

herb — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:11:31 +0000

You’re right. The Tea Party was the willing destruction of private property, as currently defined as “terrorism” by the DHS. Interestingly enough, the Tea Party was set off by the Tea Act which removed the taxes levied on larger importers of the fine leaf, with particular note to the East India Tea Co. None of the mom-and-pop teahouses could compete with the now duty-free EITC leaf.

By: herb

herb — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:05:53 +0000

I haven’t the time to thoroughly find and document sources — this doesn’t mean you automatically win; this means I’m too busy and ought not be procrastinating this much — but police are allowed to search without a warrant if they can verify a probable cause of imminent danger. I can’t recall the full and proper wording at this moment. (Again, this is not an assumed win for you). They were allowed to do what they did; it is the manner in which they carried these raids out that was a bit unsettling.

I didn’t realize St. Paul was so close to Baghdad.

I’ve no postulations on the bags of urine and feces (though that seems far-fetched, especially for a nonviolent organization). Guns? Aren’t they protected by the 2nd Amendment? And *gasp!* you mean to say that residents in the northern MidWest would have pipes and chains in their homes? Shocking!

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:45:20 +0000

Holy crap, the cops did act with incredible restraint while the criminals were spitting, berating, and throwing shit at them. On many occasions, they sat back and waited while even protests without a permit were going on. The fact that they gave numerous dispersal warnings indicates some restraint. Towards the end of the week, I think they tended to move in more quickly because things really got out of hand and IndyMedia sent more and more people there to “express solidarity”. More accurately, “win the battle” or “take the bridge”.

By: Charlie Foxtrot

Charlie Foxtrot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:01:34 +0000

same here. I do think that we should default to the police and their on-the-scene judgement, but they do need to address why they clearly arrested accredited journalists, I do remember CHI 68.

By: eddiepscetti

eddiepscetti — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:52:24 +0000

Since I wasn’t physically there I can’t actually say for sure. But, out of 10,000 protestors they arrested 200 or so, so I’m guessing they tried to get the ones they thought were causing the problem.

By: blah blah black sheep

blah blah black sheep — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:52:06 +0000

And if you vote for McCain you’re voting for mandatory abortion clinic bombings!

By: Charlie Foxtrot

Charlie Foxtrot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:42:38 +0000

true, but that is the crux of the issue…were the people that the police arrested in fact the one’s destroying the property…in most cases, in this event, no. Therefore, the police did not protect the rights of the innocent, they in fact denied those they were sworn to protect the basic trappings of liberty.

By: eddiepscetti

eddiepscetti — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:41:22 +0000

I don’t disagree, but to turn to the destuction of property sure doesn’t make the people representing the Democracts look very democratic.

By: eddiepscetti

eddiepscetti — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:39:11 +0000

I disagree. When people are destroying property the police have every right to step in and stop them. My rights stop at your nose, true?

By: eddiepscetti

eddiepscetti — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:37:01 +0000

Completely different circumstances. It amazes me that you’re trying to equate the two. Go back and reread your history.

By: Jane St.Clair

Jane St.Clair — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:32:35 +0000

That doesn’t follow that if you support Obama you also support riots in the street, nor does it follow that because some people (who may or may not have supported Obama) have rioted that Obama himself supports riots and that he will instill a rioting policy if he is elected. You know full well that you are being an ass and you are dong it to serve your own political viewpoints. I liked you better for the few brief weeks when you actually argued reasonably instead off throwing out paranoid one liners.

By: Charlie Foxtrot

Charlie Foxtrot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:56:18 +0000

Nice response! And while facts are necessary, sometimes, exactness is a distraction. It’s a choice between having a conversation and being the grown-up teacher’s pet who has to be the one to answer every question — sometime’s the 80% solution, on time is good enough.

By: ck

ck — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:51:44 +0000

Neither. Duh, anarchists?

By: lol

lol — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:47:22 +0000

Did you not understand my point?

By: PiMan

PiMan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:45:06 +0000

For the people who can’t be bothered Googling:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

The adaptation of the quote I prefer is “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
It sounds even more profound when said by Leonard Nimoy.

By: Charlie Foxtrot

Charlie Foxtrot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:35:35 +0000

Check with Ben Franklin on your safety statement, I think he understood the concepts of peaceful and not peaceful protest, liberty vs security, etc. Now, don’t jump down my throat, I’m not justifying the violence initiated in St. Paul, but I am questioning the police response. Their job is to protect the peaceful protesters as much as anyone else. Just because some idiot committs a crime in an area where I am protesting, does not give the police the right to arrest me. We have police, because we expect them to act with restraint in confusing situations.

By: DUH!

DUH! — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:26:49 +0000

This picture wasn’t taken in St. Paul. The other one was. Anyone who lives in the area recognized the downtown. lol

By: DUH!

DUH! — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:24:54 +0000

ha. just because the Democrats don’t seem to HAVE a stance. DNC had republicans protesting, the RNC had democrats protesting. Go figure which was more violent. Hmm…

By: Charlie Foxtrot

Charlie Foxtrot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:24:20 +0000

I know, I truly wasn’t trying to jump down your throat (objects in the mirror are closer than they appear), so if I did, I apoligize. The whole current trendy concept, as I said, “coffee shop” anarchy, bothers the hell out of me. Anyone who believes that anarchy is a good idea has no clue as to what the world would be like. Additionally, the current state of “controlled” political protest in the name of safety from terrorism is exactly what Franklin meant when he said that those who give up liberty for security will find that the have neither liberty or security (or words to that effect for you googlers out there). Also, I would caution us to remember history, Chi 68 was very much in the minds of the St. Paul police, as well as the instigators.

By: PiMan

PiMan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:20:10 +0000

Terribly right.
… and terribly left too.
You’re one of the ones I haven’t been able to pick what side you are on
because your opinions most definitely don’t follow party lines perfectly, which would make you polar opposite to EP.

By: lol

lol — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:13:15 +0000

People are angrier at Republicans and their actions and stances than at Democrats and theirs.

By: PiMan

PiMan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:07:23 +0000

I never said that anarchism was a practical option. I was just explaining the point.

By: Charlie Foxtrot

Charlie Foxtrot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:46:55 +0000

Are you kidding. That’s romantic anarchy, AKA living in fantasy-land. The disassembly of government = violence, why do you think that any society has some form of governemnt? That’s the problem with coffee-shop anarchists, they have no idea what life is like without governemnt — check Somalia (close to anarchy) or Haiti (ineffective government). The point of this convention’s violence is that some planned violence for a specific purpose, to incite the police to overreact (that is hao terrorism works, by the way, in this case non-lethal political violence). Then when the police overereact and arrest non-violent, legimate protesters and try to suppress media coverage, they play right into the perpetrator’s playbook. St. Paul reacted to the ghosts of Chicago 68 using the exact same justifications. The difference today is the news outlets care more about entertainment than news.

By: cartoon messiah

cartoon messiah — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:52:02 +0000

Boston Tea Party, anyone?

By: cartoon messiah

cartoon messiah — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:50:53 +0000

You’re right, and the demonstrators in Tianamen Square in China surely knew that the Chinese government would react harshly to cries for democracy. They deserved what they got for being so stupid as to demand their rights!
It has all been done before: Spartacus, John Ball, Bastille, Garibaldi, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc. etc.
“Give me liberty, or give me death” – good thing folks like you weren’t around in 1776, or the US would still be a British colony.
My favorite bumper sticker: The labor movement – from the people who brought you the weekend. Puts it all in perspective.

By: ema

ema — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:20:08 +0000

I remember that one, still don’t know who that guy was!

By: Lolnathan

Lolnathan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:18:10 +0000

Oh good catch though, btw. I don’t think most of us even give the pics more than a brief glance, and only see the caption. Sometimes they’ll even have people labelled wrongly. One guy who clearly WASNT Dick Cheney, labelled as Dick Cheney, was the most epic failure I can remember.

By: MegaBob

MegaBob — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:12:48 +0000

And to think I thought you a lefty too ! My Bad!

By: Lolnathan

Lolnathan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:07:26 +0000

And the hardcore liberal types i.e. the jellybeans and seths think I am one step away from Evil Pundit. So Im either doing something terribly wrong, or terribly right.

By: Lolnathan

Lolnathan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:05:42 +0000

Doesn’t really change the essence of the discussion. Idiot WIN!

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:34:40 +0000

The term “media” is so muddied these days. Anyone with a camera calls themself a member of the media. The cops don’t have to sort out who’s legitimate and who’s just there to start problems. I’m sure the next tactic will be for all of the criminals to carry cameras and fake credentials. If you paid attention to Indy Media at all during the protests, you would have seen that they were telling people where skirmishes were happening and told them to go there. In fact, they were reveling in the destruction and disruption. These are not media. These are members of the “cause”.

By: ema

ema — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:34:34 +0000

I think the consensus here is if you find yourself in the vicinitiy of a riot and the police ask you to do something, you should do it, even if you are the King of Spain. Complain later.

By: ryszard

ryszard — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:24:00 +0000

WIN!! Ah, yo amo el smell de pepper spray en el morningo!

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:21:43 +0000

A protest that had ended according to the permit. People got arrested because they were asked to disperse from the area and wouldn’t leave. If they stuck around and protested after the permit expired, they took the risk of getting arrested, even if they were peaceful and just got swept up in the crowd.

By: ryszard

ryszard — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:20:51 +0000

As I think Eddie said above, I thought you were a hard-core leftie too. But the more you write the better I like you. I still think we’re on the opposite side of many issues, but I still think I like you.