The protests have begun in N.Y.!

[krisy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130428,00.html


Some of these protesters sound pretty lamo. They always say they are peaceful,but what the heck is throwing a beer can at a cop and stopping traffic?!

 

[Comrade]

Check it!

You want old school Commie Dads sending the new kids off to the protests, I got it here:



http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11187


:nine: (HEY PEEPS, I HAVE 911 POSTS!)

 

[Mr. P]

Some of these protesters sound pretty lamo.

Don't most of them?

 

[007]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130428,00.html


Some of these protesters sound pretty lamo. They always say they are peaceful,but what the heck is throwing a beer can at a cop and stopping traffic?!

Leave it to the militant frickin' radical liberals. Every damn time. I didn't hear anything about protests during the DNC. But HHOOOOOO, the REPUBLICAN'S are having a convention, so what happens, every stinking liberal in the country crawls out from underneath their rock.

DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT LIBERALS?

It sure the hell should.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Leave it to the militant frickin' radical liberals. Every damn time. I didn't hear anything about protests during the DNC. But HHOOOOOO, the REPUBLICAN'S are having a convention, so what happens, every stinking liberal in the country crawls out from underneath their rock.

DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT LIBERALS?

It sure the hell should.

It COULD be saying something about conservatives also, no?

 

[Annie]

It COULD be saying something about conservatives also, no?

Not sure what you are referring to DK. These are the GOP delegates, why are they to be treated differently than DNC? You think they don't have a right to gather safely?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Not sure what you are referring to DK. These are the GOP delegates, why are they to be treated differently than DNC? You think they don't have a right to gather safely?

of course they do.

 

[Annie]

of course they do.

So, what was with the, "It COULD be saying something about conservatives also, no?"

Sounds like they did something to deserve it.

 

[AequitasVeritas]

These demonstrators are still spouting non-factual info.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5822306/

“Bush lies. Who dies?”

How many times do we have to tell these people this accusation is false!

 

[DKSuddeth]

So, what was with the, "It COULD be saying something about conservatives also, no?"

Sounds like they did something to deserve it.

maybe they have? at least in a large groups thinking anyway.

 

[Annie]

maybe they have? at least in a large groups thinking anyway.

Other than the 'large group' hating Bush, can you say what?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Other than the 'large group' hating Bush, can you say what?

ah, you must have been thinking that I was the one saying that they deserved it. No, not I, just they, and I would have no idea what they might be thinking.

call it devils advocate I guess.

 

[Annie]

ah, you must have been thinking that I was the one saying that they deserved it. No, not I, just they, and I would have no idea what they might be thinking.

call it devils advocate I guess.

OK, that makes me feel better.

 

[007]

ah, you must have been thinking that I was the one saying that they deserved it. No, not I, just they, and I would have no idea what they might be thinking.

call it devils advocate I guess.

But, what I was getting at DK, was that "liberals" are ALWAYS the first to hit the streets and punish everyone within their shouting and rioting range. Conservatives on the other hand DON'T act like that. For the most part, conservatives are much better mannered than any liberal. And THAT should tell you something about liberals.

 

[Annie]

But, what I was getting at DK, was that "liberals" are ALWAYS the first to hit the streets and punish everyone within their shouting and rioting range. Conservatives on the other hand DON'T act like that. For the most part, conservatives are much better mannered than any liberal. And THAT should tell you something about liberals.

PaleRider, I think it also tells us something about Conservatives, we wish to be perceived as 'more adult.' At the same time, I think we are more 'nuanced' which seems to have taken the place of 'gravitas' for this election cycle.

Am I concerned about Falluja and Najaf? Damn right. Do I think we are trying to take into account Iraqi sensibilities and that is right? Yah! If it was up to me, we'd use tanks, planes, missiles, etc. But would that be the best way to go? :huh: I'm adult enough to say that.

The problem with the 'protestors' they don't 'think through' anything. Just 'feel' that 2000 was 'stolen', that 'war is wrong', 'that women have a right to their bodies' and 'gays should get married'. It's black and white for these folks.

 

[nakedemperor]

Some of these protesters sound pretty lamo. They always say they are peaceful,but what the heck is throwing a beer can at a cop and stopping traffic?!

I went to the protest today, and it was very peaceful, at the admission of the NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg, who called the protestors 'very well-behaved'. Of course there are some bad eggs, but by and large, it was well-mannered. I almost got burned when someone lit a paper dragon on fire (I don't understand the message of that at all...), and the anarchist who did the torching got arrested, but that was the only unpleasantness that I saw.

I'm not sure I understand the concept of not protesting being 'more adult'. There are a lot of angry and disenfranchised people out there, and they wanted their message heard, so they protested. I think that the fact that the RNC boasts an incumbent and the current administration and represents their policies, so many different people with many different concerns and issues show up and the administrations most high-profile gathering to voice their concerns. It wasn't really worth it for Republicans et al. to protest at the DNC because you're not actually protesting anything; you'd be protesting *potential* leaders and policies, which isn't as worthwhile or effective as protesting actual policies.

Things are pretty black and white for folks; they know they want a new president, which I think is a good reason to protest the current one. I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that protesting involves not having 'thought things through'. People have had four years to think things things through, and here is their best opportunity as private citizens to come together and voice their views en masse. I don't think it 'says anything' about conservatives that they didn't protest at the DNC. I don't think it 'says anything' about liberals that they protested here in New York. Liberalism often involes individuals protesting institutions and policies that are in place. It was once a very liberal concept to be anti-slavery, and I'm sure much protesting went on in favor of freeing the slaves. Obviously the analogy is not in terms of magnitude and importance, it just serves to show that liberalism can be a good thing. If the country were entirely conservative, very little radical change would happen. If the country were entirely liberal, it wouldn't be good for the country either. They serve to check and balance each other, and in point of fact, they need each other to balance themselves out.

Protesting is one of the fundamental benefits of having a free democracy. If what is being protested is a established institution, approved by the majority, it will not accomplish anything (it just needs to remain peaceful to be a boon). If what is being protested is truly unjust and non-beneficial, then the protest is necessary and vital. Things always will need to chance, subtly or drastically, and protest is a great way to accomplish change. So protestors and their critics both serve to achieve what makes this country great. IMHO.

 

[spillmind]

bushies don't like the 100,000+ totally plugging up downtown NY, because they are alwasy the ones spouting crap like 'remember 9/11'.... i STILL can't figure out exactly what that all means anyway... we are hell bent on world domination? we'll kill anyone who thinks of terrorizing the US? arabs beware? :huh:

we need a change for many reasons. a few of them being:

a) CHANGE will spurn new talks with allies, namely arab countries that we NEED to help out in iraq. dubya's kiss my arse foreign policy is not very condusive to outside cooperation. this seems like an incredibly far-off concept to a lot of conservatives. kerry will signify change, and give other arab nations hope that the US is not going to 'stay the course' (that is currently pointed right off a cliff)

b) NK (among others in the 'axis of evil') on the election day. if kerry is elected, talks will most certainly resume, and they know that negotiating with kerry will be a HELLUVA lot easier than with armadillo georgie. and newflash, NK HAS NUKES, and are currently the largest MISSLE THREAT, anywhere in the world.

c) what bushco has done is totally ignored our domestic well being. his admin touts a 1.5 million dollar job shortfall. job growth is vitrually nil, and the little growth there is, doesn't even keep up with the population explosion. a larger percentage of americans are uninsured today than they were 4 years ago. all the IT that we have lost to overseas, will soon see the biotech jobs go that way as well. kerry will lift bans on stem cell research, and bush will still contradict himself by standing behing jesus, while commissioning death on a daily basis. and i've yet to hear one christian explain to me if he is doing God's work or not. the 'sin' anomaly must make a lot of bushies stay up late at night wondering. (if they care)

can you imagine what it would be like for the RNC to be held in california? talk about embarassing. good thing bush knows better to not come close to our breadwinner state. kerry is going to take NY anyway, by a double digit margin.

i have faith in the silent majority deciding we can do much MUCH better than bush. it would be almost impossible to do worse than the last four years.... hm... maybe a nuclear war? yeah, that would do it.

 

[nakedemperor]

bushies don't like the 100,000+ totally plugging up downtown NY, because they are alwasy the ones spouting crap like 'remember 9/11'.... i STILL can't figure out exactly what that all means anyway... we are hell bent on world domination? we'll kill anyone who thinks of terrorizing the US? arabs beware? :huh:

Remembering 9/11 is a very good thing... it means you don't forget the danger of ignoring terrorism. It means you continue to honor the 5,000 Americans who had to give up their lives for the country to wake up to the threat of terrorism. Its not 'crap' to remember 9/11. Your post is crap. Mostly. With some points that in unembellished form I might agree with.

 

[Bern80]

To Nakedemperor:

Spillmidnds post is exactley why many conservatives think protestors havn't thought things through. there is not one grain of truth in anything he just said.

Other than the fact that he is from Texas and has a bit if "cowboy" accent I have not idea how Bush got this go-it-alone, cowboy stigma attached to him. There simply isn't any evidence to support this. It's not like Saddam Hussein and his cronies weren't given every opportunity to come clean, becasue they were given 12 of them. We finally got a President that decided enough is enough. Once we did invade we were certainly not alone. The best evidence for this may be a bit negative, but currently insurgents seem to be have the strategy of absucting people from various coalition countries and threatening them with death if their country doesn't stop helping us.

All i hear from prostestors is Bush lied about going to war with Iraq. Well if he lied so did every member of Congress cause they all had the same info.

Spillmind says Kerry will bring change through talks. Well lets take is NK example. Do you think if Kerry just talks to NK they'll just destroy there nukes or hand 'em over? Diplomacy should always come first but there does come a time when you have to wake up and smell the coffee as Bush did with Iraq and figure out that talking isn't getting us anywhere. Liberals are so afraid of making a decision that might offend or put someone at risk that they refuse to make decisions at all and end up doing more harm then good. Sometimes there aren't choices where everybody wins. Sometimes even the best option has negative consequences. These are the decisions that define leaders.
They will certainly define President Bush. For some negatively, for others positively.

The ironic thing is. For the liberals who don't like Bush I really can't understand how they can vote for Kerry. He has said himself he would have also invaded Iraq based on the evidence presented. He has about the same stance on homosexuality and gay marriage that Bush does and is anti-abortion as well.

Is economic proposals are absolutely absurd. "Hey I know how to turn the economy around. I'll raise taxes." Doing you really think business' are gonna create more jobs if they lose more profits to taxes? Don't count on it. If anything we'll have more outsoucing. This certainly won't help our deficit either. Do you actually think he wants to raise taxes so the gov't will spend less. Don't bet on that one either.

My point is there are 2 candidates to vote for Bush and Kerry(Bush Light). I'm a leaded guy myself

 

[nakedemperor]

I guess I have to disagree that there is not one grain of truth in Spillmind's post. It was brash and exagerated, but there was plenty of truth underlying his yelling.

So to respond... Bush got the 'cowboy' reputation by saying things like 'Bring 'em on" and 'Smoke 'em out' and 'We're going on a crusade'. By doing things like arriving dramatically via jetplane wearing a cock-enlarging flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier, etc. He is known for 'going it alone' and alienating other countries because he does just that. Whether his solo-acts such as the Iraq War were good ideas or arrogantly jingoistic remains to be seen. We were joined in the invasion by some mighty fine countries, but not by any of the key players needed for an invasion, regime change, and occupation. Many of the 'coalition' members who are being abducted had nothing to do with the invasion, but are merely there doing business. We need these countries to get involved, or else the 960+ dead soldiers and 100s of billions of dollars will be only the beginning. And when people say Bush 'lied' about Iraq, I don't buy it. What I do buy are the allegations that the offices of Cheney and Rumsfeld data-mined information that had previously been analyzed by the CIA which came to the conclusion that Iraq was not an imminent threat. They may have had the information, meaning the info was wrong and not the president, but it was information that was vastly exagerated and selectively viewed by the OSP of Rumself, etc. This is dishonest, but not really an overt lie...

You made some other points but I don't want this thread to get too too off-track, so I'll respond to your economic points elsewhere.

Cheers! Good post!