The protests have begun in N.Y.!

[Annie]

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.

OK child. You are "quoting" Krisy about a beer can, but trying a backdoor address to my points.

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.

They are angry: WHY? What the F are they upset about? Iraq? Abortion? 2000? The US in general? What is there point(s)?

I almost got burned when someone lit a paper dragon on fire (I don't understand the message of that at all...)

Ok, you don't understand them any better, but you are defending them???

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.

You DO realize Wade, that this IS disingenuous? There was the Swiftboat issue, there was the tax issue, there was the funding for WOT issue, but Republicans allowed the convention to go on, without much disruption.

Liberalism often involes individuals protesting institutions and policies that are in place.

Actually 'liberalism' in the traditional sense involved getting their message out through peaceful means, unless that didn't work, then they would take it to the next level. Perhaps you should meet google?

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

What a lame closing. I think, feel, fundamental, anything approved by the majority. You need to do some homework.

 

[Annie]

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:

Spilly, are you against the opposition having a convention? You don't think the Democrats can allow a different point of view? Actually, it may be the same, have you checked with Kerry today? He says he's in a 'fighting mood' and he's killed innocents before, his own admission, see his book.

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)

Which Arab countries? Those like 'Palestine?' which doesn't exist? Or do you mean Syria? Make nice? What the F do you mean? Perhaps, France? They are not yet a majority Muslim.

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.

NK will not be any more agreeable to Kerry, than Iran has been with the European Triumphant, with Iran.

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.

Well, you certainly went for the 'throw everything you got for a close! Check this out regarding outsourcing: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/001292.html

You are hopeless, but fun.

 

[Bonnie]

Actually I say let the wackos and skanky anarchists protest and let the media show just which candidate they are supporting. I can't think of better advertising for the Bush campaign

 

[nakedemperor]

All those quotes attributed to Wade were mine... wha happened?

I quoted Krisy to point out that there was a general conception of violence and misbehavior that just wasn't true...

And what the F are they angry about? Are you SERIOUS? They're angry about Iraq? YES. The surplus that's gone? YES. The record deficit? YES. The point is they're angry for valid reasons.

In terms of the dragon, (and speaking of backdoor addresses), I didn't understand what that SPECIFIC float meant (the signs burned up before I saw them). Its like trying to interprate a political cartoon without any of the text. But that was a very sneaky way of saying that I didn't understand ANY of their reasons. Child.

In response to your retort that there were reasons to protest the DNC but nobody did because they're more adult than liberals: the "tax" issue, IS, JUST LIKE I SAID, *potential* legislation. "Let's go protest what the democrats might do to us IF they get elected!" Right. Have fun getting support for that. The swiftboats? What are you going to PROTEST? You're going to protest someone RUNNING for president? Did the SBVT ads even air before the DNC? I don't know that. And if you're implying that any of this issues come CLOSE to being ANYWHERE NEAR the importance (and hence, protestability) of a war in which almost 1000 americans have died already, that's just plain crazy.

Your definition of liberalism and 'taking it to the next level' lacks any meaning or substance. Please explain, if you can.

 

[Annie]

All those quotes attributed to Wade were mine... wha happened?

I quoted Krisy to point out that there was a general conception of violence and misbehavior that just wasn't true...

And what the F are they angry about? Are you SERIOUS? They're angry about Iraq? YES. The surplus that's gone? YES. The record deficit? YES. The point is they're angry for valid reasons.

In terms of the dragon, (and speaking of backdoor addresses), I didn't understand what that SPECIFIC float meant (the signs burned up before I saw them). Its like trying to interprate a political cartoon without any of the text. But that was a very sneaky way of saying that I didn't understand ANY of their reasons. Child.

In response to your retort that there were reasons to protest the DNC but nobody did because they're more adult than liberals: the "tax" issue, IS, JUST LIKE I SAID, *potential* legislation. "Let's go protest what the democrats might do to us IF they get elected!" Right. Have fun getting support for that. The swiftboats? What are you going to PROTEST? You're going to protest someone RUNNING for president? Did the SBVT ads even air before the DNC? I don't know that. And if you're implying that any of this issues come CLOSE to being ANYWHERE NEAR the importance (and hence, protestability) of a war in which almost 1000 americans have died already, that's just plain crazy.

Your definition of liberalism and 'taking it to the next level' lacks any meaning or substance. Please explain, if you can.

Dang, you are so correct! I apologize and will edit to correct as soon as I read all of what you have to say.

 

[freeandfun1]

The signs of the protesters say it all about their intellect:

A snippin of what I saw on the news today during the coverage:

"Fuck Bush, Show us your tits"

"No Draft" (never has been discussed)

"Bush is a killer"

"Muslims are for Kerry" (true, 10 out of 10 terrorists prefer Kerry)

"Islam is for Kerry" (ditto)

And of course, there were LOTS of UN flags.

I wonder what the real agenda of the protesters are?

There were many more LAME signs that just show the ignorance of the left.

 

[Annie]

All those quotes attributed to Wade were mine... wha happened?

I quoted Krisy to point out that there was a general conception of violence and misbehavior that just wasn't true...

And what the F are they angry about? Are you SERIOUS? They're angry about Iraq? YES. The surplus that's gone? YES. The record deficit? YES. The point is they're angry for valid reasons.

In terms of the dragon, (and speaking of backdoor addresses), I didn't understand what that SPECIFIC float meant (the signs burned up before I saw them). Its like trying to interprate a political cartoon without any of the text. But that was a very sneaky way of saying that I didn't understand ANY of their reasons. Child.

In response to your retort that there were reasons to protest the DNC but nobody did because they're more adult than liberals: the "tax" issue, IS, JUST LIKE I SAID, *potential* legislation. "Let's go protest what the democrats might do to us IF they get elected!" Right. Have fun getting support for that. The swiftboats? What are you going to PROTEST? You're going to protest someone RUNNING for president? Did the SBVT ads even air before the DNC? I don't know that. And if you're implying that any of this issues come CLOSE to being ANYWHERE NEAR the importance (and hence, protestability) of a war in which almost 1000 americans have died already, that's just plain crazy.

Your definition of liberalism and 'taking it to the next level' lacks any meaning or substance. Please explain, if you can.

First off, for anyone that missed my earlier post, I want to apologize to crediting Wade for Naked Emperor's post. I have edited my own faulty post, to correct my mistake. I beg Naked Emperor's forgiveness on that point.

With that said...

You're going to protest someone RUNNING for president? Did the SBVT ads even air before the DNC?

I don't think so. Those involved have known for 35 years what they believe and have issues with, IT WAS KERRY'S CHOICE to make his Vietnam service the focus of his campaign.

And if you're implying that any of this issues come CLOSE to being ANYWHERE NEAR the importance (and hence, protestability) of a war in which almost 1000 americans have died already, that's just plain crazy.

Yeah, I am saying that the defense of the United States of Americas is more important than the war in Iraq. We've already had over 3k people killed here by terrorism, just this weekend we had arrests for two that wanted to destroy a subway in New York. The FBI and CIA, along with others have stopped countless attempts on our land. I don't trust Kerry or his patron nation, France to protect us.

 

[nakedemperor]

No problem Kathianne! To err is human.

So if the Swiftboat ads didn't air before the DNC, how could anyone have protested on the basis of allegations that weren't yet made?? I'm not arguing the validity of attacking Kerry's war record. He brought it up. Go nuts. :usa:

And second: "I am saying the defense of the USA is more important than the war in Iraq." Dude, the war in Iraq was pre-emptive war to defend the USA. The war in Iraq IS the war on terror, as it was sold to us. I don't blame you for forgetting it though, considering we didn't find any terrorist connections or their purported weapons.

 

[Annie]

No problem Kathianne! To err is human.

So if the Swiftboat ads didn't air before the DNC, how could anyone have protested on the basis of allegations that weren't yet made?? I'm not arguing the validity of attacking Kerry's war record. He brought it up. Go nuts. :usa:

And second: "I am saying the defense of the USA is more important than the war in Iraq." Dude, the war in Iraq was pre-emptive war to defend the USA. The war in Iraq IS the war on terror, as it was sold to us. I don't blame you for forgetting it though, considering we didn't find any terrorist connections or their purported weapons.

Thanks for the pardon. For some reason, after reading the above, I'm confused. Ok, I think I hear you, it was the convention that brought out the Swiftads. Can't fault you or them that.

Dude, I gues our difference is that I do think that Saddam had aided and abbeted terrorists, not just Hamas and Hizzbollah, which have recently been connected with the attempts in NY and NJ, but including al Queda. I think our current standards of proof of collaboration are too high. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

 

[007]

By doing things like arriving dramatically via jetplane wearing a cock-enlarging flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier, etc.

Can't you say anything without making your sick, faggot, jokes? Get the dick out of your ass long enough to write on the board for Christ sake.

Frankly, I'm inclined to go along with Bonnie. Let the country get a good look at all the radical, nonrepresentative of America's people, militant far left zealots, of which n.y.c. is FULL of. Although we all realize it's legal to protest, liberals are protest happy. They'll protest if there's nothing to protest about. It's rediculous.

 

[Avatar4321]

"No Draft" (never has been discussed)

Actually the draft has been discussed....most by Democrats. In fact, one of the advocates of the draft, Senator Biden, is rumored to be on Kerry's list for possible secretary of state or some other major place in the administration.

Have any of you read Kerry's agenda? he says he is going to send 75000 more troops to Iraq. Yet the Democrats have been arguing that our army is spread thin and that we cant move our troops out of germany and other useless places to be in. Where do you think Kerry will get the troops? He sure wont pull them out of his butt.

I think the Democrats want to have a draft. That way they may be able to produce some legitimacy to their protests against war. I think they are betting on the majority of americans not to be up to the call if it came. Quite frankly i think they are betting wrong.

 

[Annie]

Since most of the RNC delegates are closer to the American electorate, what the Protestors do is of little merit.Something is dredfully wrong, when this is the case, as the Democratic Party has held this ground for many years.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716

More Than 100,000 Protest Bush in NYC

13 minutes ago

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

NEW YORK - More than 100,000 demonstrators marched past a heavily fortified Republican convention hall on Sunday, chanting denunciations of the administration and the war in Iraq (news - web sites) as delegates flocked to the city to nominate President Bush (news - web sites) for four more years in the White House.

 

[spillmind]

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.

your post is crap. mostly? um... ok, dude.

my point is, these people with all this remember 9/11 stuff as justification for any kind of mess we are in are ridiculous. somehow that happening justifies their positions, and re-inforces their patriotism. it's cool, but i think it goes too far most of the time.

there is not one grain of truth in anything he just said.

and you'll find yourself the ONLY one saying that. start with the first sentence that i wrote:

'bushies don't like the 100,000+' unless you are living in an alternate universe, how are you going to say this is a LIE? damned propaganda pushers. i'd swear, some bushies just think that the largest convention protest EVER is just another liberal media plot! i swear, sometimes, it amazes me.

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?

back up there, buckaroo. it *will* mean that there is new leadership, and a possible agreement has a much better chance of occuring, considering the past four years of 'relations' with NK, for example.

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

i am going to have to do this each time i post to keep me going. the reason we enjoyed the boom in the 90s was because~!

reagan raised taxes.

shrub sr. raised taxes (after he said he wouldn't).

clinton raised taxes.

you don't have to be an economist to realise that putting the country into the black is going to be good times for the citizenss. let me guess, another LIBERAL PLOT TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, RIGHT? sheesh.

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...

um... where did i say 'bush lied' about iraq? you could have been referring to someone else? posters on this board has successfully spun the massive intel failure off on a secondary ally, whom our troops outnumber their committment by a large margin. bush loves to talk about how great the war in iraq is going, like today: 'a catastrophic success'.
i wish this was all some bad dream. i wish that this current president had not gone about spending our young lives and 100 billion+ and counting dollars on this 'war in iraq', when things are not taken care of at home, or in countries where people are currently being massacred. bush pushed the war like we were staring into the face of a real nuclear threat, and so far, our puppet government has failed in even coming close to stabilize the region.

without arab nations, we have no hope in iraq. without CHANGE, we have no chance of the considerations ever coming to pass. (maybe another four years?) what has to happen before you finally realize that we cannot impose our culture right smack dab in the middle of a (now) warzone?

Spilly, are you against the opposition having a convention? You don't think the Democrats can allow a different point of view? Actually, it may be the same, have you checked with Kerry today? He says he's in a 'fighting mood' and he's killed innocents before, his own admission, see his book.

please. of course not. just pointing out what an AMAZING COINCIDENCE at the LARGEST PROTEST EVER of such a convention.

Which Arab countries? Those like 'Palestine?' which doesn't exist? Or do you mean Syria? Make nice? What the F do you mean? Perhaps, France? They are not yet a majority Muslim.

gee. how about iran? how about syria? how about egypt? how about SAUDI ARABIA? why don't we impose democracy on them?

NK will not be any more agreeable to Kerry, than Iran has been with the European Triumphant, with Iran.

there is no way for you to KNOW that given the current course. i guess you'd forgotten how bush's demeanor was when he first took office? it was brash, shoot from the hip, and it largely alienated other countries. we broke contracts, treaties, and offered NO REPLACEMENTS! if you stay with bush, watch NK become a huge issue, and possibly a crisis that REALLY PUTS US AT RISK OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK. let me guess, you could care less about the western US?
we need change. the current route has not been impressive.

as for your outsroucing link. i can see right through comparing job growth in the 90's with the world is going to show a rosy view:

'That's not just economic theory. The numbers in the real world support this view. Between 1991 and 2001, wrote Haveman and Shatz, U.S. firms that expanded their employment abroad also increased their domestic employment by 5.5 million workers. Their share of overall U.S. employment also increased during this period.'

big whup. that doesn't mean jack. what DOES mean jack are all my friends whose companies have laid them off, tons of IT jobs GONE, never to return, because in india, they have better education, and they pay a lot less, and work longer hours! it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where to set up shop! great job avoiding the stem cell issue. you think bush is investing in our future? THINK AGAIN!

hopeless.... but hopeless...

 

[musicman]

Ah, yes - the economic boom of the nineties.

During his 1992 presidential campaign, one of Clinton's political ads promised, "The rich will be asked to pay their fair share of taxes. The rest of us get a break". "Break it off" was more like it. Imagine America's shock when they learned that a family of four, making $28,000 a year, was considered "rich". Slick Willie signed into law the largest tax increase in America's history, and the voters were not amused.

When Republican congressional candidates presented the Contract with America, voters responded by sweeping congress clean, giving Republicans a majority for the first time in 60 years. Bill Clinton was staring into his own political grave. He did what any self-respecting, soulless reprobate would do - he adopted the principles of the Republican revolution as his own, giving himself full credit for the resulting sustained economic boom.

No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

 

[theim]

Guys, the reason the RNC draws crowds of protesters and the DNC did not is very simple.

Bush did alot of huge things during his term in the presidency. He freed two nations from dictatorial regimes. He passed several peices of important legislation. Some of these drew the ire of people on the left who did NOT favor two more free nations. So they come out in force to protest.

Now John Kerry, in his 20 years in the Senate, has done pretty close to nothing. There is a reason that when he gave his speach at the DNC he barely talked his Senate Record. He has taken both sides of nearly every issue. So what are conservatives gonna protest? Are people gonna go out and chant "Down with Kerry! No More...Uh...Um...Er... psst -- what the hell did that guy support again?"

 

[musicman]

Good point, theim. Better for the Republicans to keep silent, and let Kerry convict himself out of his own mouth.

Welcome to the board!

 

[Bonnie]

Guys, the reason the RNC draws crowds of protesters and the DNC did not is very simple.

Bush did alot of huge things during his term in the presidency. He freed two nations from dictatorial regimes. He passed several peices of important legislation. Some of these drew the ire of people on the left who did NOT favor two more free nations. So they come out in force to protest.

Now John Kerry, in his 20 years in the Senate, has done pretty close to nothing. There is a reason that when he gave his speach at the DNC he barely talked his Senate Record. He has taken both sides of nearly every issue. So what are conservatives gonna protest? Are people gonna go out and chant "Down with Kerry! No More...Uh...Um...Er... psst -- what the hell did that guy support again?"

Also a lot the anarchist protestors actually get paid by the DNC to protest, they don't have real jobs to go to so this is their career. Plus they get college credits for it

Most republicans don't have the time to protest because they work, and raise families, etc so they do their part in the voting booth. Plus a lot of Republicans and mainstream Dems are happy well adjusted people who just want to do their job, get home at the end of the day and are just not angry and pissed off all the time at nothing like the wacko demonstrators.

 

[007]

Also a lot the anarchist protestors actually get paid by the DNC to protest, they don't have real jobs to go to so this is their career. Plus they get college credits for it

Most republicans don't have the time to protest because they work, and raise families, etc so they do their part in the voting booth. Plus a lot of Republicans and mainstream Dems are happy well adjusted people who just want to do their job, get home at the end of the day and are just not angry and pissed off all the time at nothing like the wacko demonstrators.

Boy, you hit the nail on the head there Bon.

Not to mention that n.y.c. is FULL of liberals. About 7 million of them.

 

[Bonnie]

Boy, you hit the nail on the head there Bon.

Not to mention that n.y.c. is FULL of liberals. About 7 million of them.

I just heard that Mike Moore was at the head of this protest parade along side of Al Sharpton.........That should tell us a lot right there

 

[KarlMarx]

I just heard that Mike Moore was at the head of this protest parade along side of Al Sharpton.........That should tell us a lot right there

Micheal Moore and Al Sharpton a.k.a "Blubber and the Beast"