# Massive New York Protest



## Kane (Aug 29, 2004)

See the link below if you have not heard about it;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1283422,00.html

Bad tactic the democrats are using by making such a massive protest. Making them look like they are going out of control. If you have seen any video footage of the protest, it actually looks kind of funny.

This massive protest might be the republicans fault as well because they choose a city where there are so many more democrats than republicans.


What do you think?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 29, 2004)

Blocking off streets?  Infiltrating delegates' hotels?  I realize that stuff like this (depending on what "infiltrating" entails) is perfectly constitutional, but we just saw a thread earlier discussing how people who so much as hold anti-Bush signs are arrested for disturbing the peace, or some such ********.  

I agree with them, and hope that their protests actually acheive something other than a whole lot of court cases, but I just hope that they keep things legal.  THe last thing they need is to inadvertantly reinforce the idea that these liberal protestors are potential terrorists.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 29, 2004)

Oh yeah, no swearing. Forgot about that.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 29, 2004)

I just saw it on CNN...it was HUGE.  

Protests at the '68 Democratic convention helped kill the Democrats that year.  Richard Daly's cops bat the tar out of people, and it was spread across the news.

Personally I don't think this will hurt the Dems.  It'll hurt the Republicans.  If the cops start cracking people (and I doubt this will happen) the election will get uglier.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 29, 2004)

United for Peace and Justice was anticipating 250,000. According to some reports, today the numbers may have topped 400,000. The police would not give an estimate. I heard there were approximately 60 arrests today.

I will be looking closely for Republican Congresspeoples staffs in any boisterous outbreaks, just like the recount shuffle.

Remember, they are planning for a minimum of 1,000 arrests per day.


----------



## Kane (Aug 29, 2004)

It's kind of scary; some of those protesters are probably plain Bush-Haters to the point of insanity. I'm sure if they get a chance to they will try to assassinate George W. Bush! Its there right to protest, I just hope it wont get out of hand. The republicans should have the convention elsewhere in a place where at least the city is neutral. Most people in New York City hate Bush.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 29, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> It's kind of scary; some of those protesters are probably plain Bush-Haters to the point of insanity. I'm sure if they get a chance to they will try to assassinate George W. Bush! Its there right to protest, I just hope it wont get out of hand. The republicans should have the convention elsewhere in a place where at least the city is neutral. Most people in New York City hate Bush.


Wow ... talk about hatred.

Just who is the 'THEY' you think will try to assassinate the President of the United States? How do you define 'Insanity'?

And yes, it is *their* right to protest, it's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Those who are protesting are doing so out of *their* Patriotic feelings and love of country. 

And where do you suggest the Republicans hold *their* convention where citizens might not be opposed (even strongly opposed) to Bush Administration policies?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2004)

Maybe Im a cynic, but I would say most of the issues being protested have more to do with "special interests" (sexual orientation issues, abortion, stem cells, $$, etc.) than any "Patriotic feelings and love of country". Not that those issues dont matter, but I feel many people dont feel much past their own self interests anymore.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 29, 2004)

I think it's about time people showed how they feel about the Bush presidency, policy and legacy.  I just hope the Dems don't allow the Reps to incite anger and violence on the part of Dems, since the Republican language base tends to use provocative terms...such as Kane's statement / accusation.

 I find it interesting that Tgace expressed concern that everyone seems to be after their own agenda rather than support the country...but this country was founded in the spirit of individual rights and tolerance...and they seem to be melting away under false patriotism.

 I think we all really need to pay attention to the divide-and-conquer tactics in use by our leaders.  Right now, the country is very divided and this is really not good.  I fear for our future in 100 years.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2004)

Politics always seems to be about "picking sides" on side issues rather than issues that we all can agree on. What should the focus be?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 30, 2004)

We can agree that if the Democrats hold a convention in Boston, with virtually no protest and lots of local cooperation, and the Republicans hold a convention in the city that perhaps more than any other has reason to support the, "war or terror," and a zillion people turn out to protest...you see where I'm going with this?

And as for the proposition that these protestors are merely self-interested, gee, I thought the whole premise of capitalism was that self-interest was A Good Thing. You know--like when you weasel out of Vietnam service, surf on your family's wealth and power, sell out whatever there is to sell out to become President, and then run your campaign around calling other Americans traitors?

Protest has a long, proud tradition in this country. Or it did, last time I checked our history...in point of fact, protest is exactly what our particular brand of patriotism seems to be all about. So, love it or leave it.


----------



## Kane (Aug 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Wow ... talk about hatred.
> 
> Just who is the 'THEY' you think will try to assassinate the President of the United States? How do you define 'Insanity'?
> 
> ...


Some people hate Bush so much that if they get the chance they might try to kill him. Think about it.

I'm not saying the people on the street is insane, that is just a figure of speech. I just hope that the protest doesn't turn to ugly.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 30, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Some people hate Bush so much that if they get the chance they might try to kill him. Think about it.


 Okay, this sounds a lot like news digested to me.  Come on, now - how many dems to you hear saying, "I'm sure some people hate Kerry so much that if they get the chance, they might try to kill him."  You have inferred the application of a generalization when the correct reference might be to a handful of people.

 Your statement is not taken seriously because you cannot be serious in a general sense.  You are flinging this statement out at a large group of people to whom it does not apply, and it is a serious accusation.  Do you really not see how preposterous it is?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

kane said:
			
		

> Some people hate Bush so much that if they get the chance they might try to kill him. Think about it.
> 
> I'm not saying the people on the street is insane, that is just a figure of speech. I just hope that the protest doesn't turn to ugly.





			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Okay, this sounds a lot like news digested to me. Come on, now - how many dems to you hear saying, "I'm sure some people hate Kerry so much that if they get the chance, they might try to kill him." You have inferred the application of a generalization when the correct reference might be to a handful of people.
> 
> Your statement is not taken seriously because you cannot be serious in a general sense. You are flinging this statement out at a large group of people to whom it does not apply, and it is a serious accusation. Do you really not see how preposterous it is?


I find it much more scary than you shesulsa. You see, I think most people think that most people are like themselves. This is perhaps, on reason why I find it difficult to understand why people such as Kane and deadhand31 are such stuanch Sean Hannity listeners ... oops, I mean conservatives. I think that most people have the same ability it see and understand the duplicitousness of our current administration.

Here, however, Kane is saying that he thinks some Americans hate so much that they are likely to assassinate the President. This tells me that Kane is capable of *thinking* such things.

Of course, if we assume that Kane is capable of assassinating a President, simple because he thinks others are, I think we will find a huge denial. Appropriately so. 

The only other conclusion is that Kane has mentally purchased the argument of the 'Other'. "Those Democrats are not like Us Americans." "They don't love their country Like we do." "They are like the Russians of the 70's, athiestic, communists." "They don't love their children like we do." "The Iraqi's can't handle freedom."

Dehumanize. Where do you suppose this is being taught?

I am about as left as anybody on this board, and the most drastic thing I have called for is the President's Impeachment.




			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Maybe Im a cynic, but I would say most of the issues being protested have more to do with "special interests" (sexual orientation issues, abortion, stem cells, $$, etc.) than any "Patriotic feelings and love of country". Not that those issues dont matter, but I feel many people dont feel much past their own self interests anymore.


Why are the two mutually exclusive?

"I love America because it is a free country, and as a woman, I should be free to do with my body what my morals and my doctor feel is appropriate."

"I love America because the protection against unreasonable searches and siezures guarantees that I can do whatever I would like with a consenting adult in the privacy of my bedroom."

"I love America because of its rich history of scientific research has provided bountiful benefits for citizens of the global community. I think the governement should support such research, rather than restrict it."

"I love America because I can be self-centered, egotistical and arrogant. Because we are CAPITALISTS (signed Ken Lay)".


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2004)

Im not saying the two are necessarily mutually exclusive...just that I dont think many people link the two concepts. If anything there seems to be A lot of "America sucks because (insert some topic)..." Somehow when I make this point, the conclusion that Im against protest is made. I dont think I said that.....


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

I'm curious why you think a protestor thinks 'America Sucks'?

Might a protestor think the Bush Adminstration Sucks ... yes, sure ... but I don't see how that relates to America Sucks. I do not think the policies of one administration are 'America'. I do not think even the ongoing battles represent 'America'. Might your brush strokes be a bit too broad?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2004)

Well...since many sources Ive seen have quotes of protesters saying they want to make such a scene that they will shut the convention down....stifling the opposing viewpoint seems unamerican to me, no matter which party does it. I may be critical of people, but Ive never implied they should be stopped.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

The argument you are making is that the Republican National Convention *is* America. Because a protestor wants to shut down the RNC, they must think America Sucks. That does not follow.

Additionally, to think that all protestors speak with the same voice and desire the same thing is, I think, false. I would like to see what Protest Groups you are referring to, and the calls that they have made for shutting down the convention.

I am not concluding, by the way, that you are 'on' any side. I'm curious why you think anyone has stated so. I do disagree with your premise and I think your thought processes are erroneous.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 30, 2004)

Half a million protesting citizens and the main bulk of the incumbent political party all in a measureable and distinct space.  What an opportune moment for terrorism.  

I agree that all should have the right to peaceful assembly.  I don't think that I would attend at this time, though.  I would just excercise my right to vote, and stay away from the crowds.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

Well ... I really want to be there ... 

but, life intervenes.

But But ... Hizzonor - CPlusAugustus is going to be in town today .... speaking at Nashua High School North ... I'm off with my protest signs shortly ... 


Robert ... I have   "  *WWMD?     971*  copyright rmcroberston" on one side.


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 30, 2004)

I think the point is that protesting motivated by antagonism instead of the desire to promote reform is destructive because it just prolongs factioning and tends to be 'anti-someone' instead of about the topic. We have seen it here on a much smaller scale. How many times have we pleaded for a "stay on the topic" style of discussion instead of the "you suck" arguments that accuse someone of a motive. 

The idea isn't that the Republicans are America, but that protest should not be to cut someone else down (as the language generally does regardless of the issue or people) so much as raising awareness/education/counterpoint to issues.

For all the cries for civil behavior and decorum here, there seems to be a lot of permissiveness about civil disobedience for the 'real world.' What happens when one of these civil disturbers/protesters gets hurt? Who is at fault? Do we demonize the secret service or NYPD for doing there job? Do we blaim that "Damn Bush" for something that was instigated by a person who chose to flout the law? I would say it comes down to personal accountability ON ALL SIDES.

Call me an idealist, but I thought the idea of AMERICA was about "One Nation (under God), with liberty and justice for all", NOT a nation that spends more time hacking at people/groups to try and discredit them.

I'm sorry, but I read some of this stuff and fear that we are far from the National Unity of WWII (tempered with reality that there were criticisms and factions then too) that helped stop the Reich from spreading that could rally 'round the flag so to speak and have moved to a Nation of UNITS that spend more time complaining about what someone else has or does.  Maybe the lack of this behavior at the Demo Convention was because the Republicans weren't stirring for publicity in the same way not the assumption that the lack of protesting means approval or support.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The argument you are making is that the Republican National Convention *is* America. Because a protestor wants to shut down the RNC, they must think America Sucks. That does not follow.
> 
> Additionally, to think that all protestors speak with the same voice and desire the same thing is, I think, false. I would like to see what Protest Groups you are referring to, and the calls that they have made for shutting down the convention.
> 
> I am not concluding, by the way, that you are 'on' any side. I'm curious why you think anyone has stated so. I do disagree with your premise and I think your thought processes are erroneous.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 30, 2004)

Hannity had some woman on who represented one of the "protest" groups. She could not commit to a "lawful" protest. He asked her several times, explicitly. He also mentioned several websites that gave instructions on how to help arrestees escape from the police and ways to conceil your identity and escape routes.


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 30, 2004)

No surprise MM, I read an article in Time a while back about "Prostester Schools" where groups could train in techniques and tactics on how to protest well.  They learned everything from packing lists that included gas masks to the legal ramifications of such actions and how to negotiate the legal system.

Again, the irony and contradiction between the "Honorable Evolution of a Martial artist" and how we learn to act and do with Dignity and Peace and this talk of encouraging unlawful acts (even 'little ones' like trespassing, disturbing the peace....which could escalate to much worse when the passion of a mob takes over) is interesting to me.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Hannity had some woman on who represented one of the "protest" groups. She could not commit to a "lawful" protest. He asked her several times, explicitly. He also mentioned several websites that gave instructions on how to help arrestees escape from the police and ways to conceil your identity and escape routes.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Hannity had some woman on who represented one of the "protest" groups. She could not commit to a "lawful" protest. He asked her several times, explicitly. He also mentioned several websites that gave instructions on how to help arrestees escape from the police and ways to conceil your identity and escape routes.


And what do you think Hannity's producers were looking for when seeking a representative from a 'protest' group; Fair and Balanced ... yeah, that's the ticket. Good Grief.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> No surprise MM, I read an article in Time a while back about "Prostester Schools" where groups could train in techniques and tactics on how to protest well.


Would that be this article?:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101930419-161478,00.html



> *Camp For Crusaders*
> *After 12 weeks of training in the ABCs of protest, antiabortion activists prepare to teach others what they have learned*
> By PAUL GRAY
> 
> ...


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 30, 2004)

Apparently no one learned a thing from chicago in '68.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2004)

Do you guys think, Honestly...

regardless of side...

When any of these groups hold their protests... 

Does it help get their point across, or does it make them come off looking like a bunch of whackjobs?

For me personally, I think, for the most part, it makes them look like whackjobs, and it makes me wanna disagree with their POV, so I am not associated with a bunch of whackjobs.

Think about it for a sec... when is the last big Liberatarian Protest you've seen?  

How about the last big "Meat Eaters" protest...

What about the last report of people having abortions blowing up churches?

Yeah...


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And what do you think Hannity's producers were looking for when seeking a representative from a 'protest' group; Fair and Balanced ...



No... because that doesnt get listerners. And no listeners means no sponsers, and no sponsers means no paychecks, and no paychecks means...

Well... you know where I am going with that.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And what do you think Hannity's producers were looking for when seeking a representative from a 'protest' group; Fair and Balanced ... yeah, that's the ticket. Good Grief.



True, some of the people they bring on makes it look like the Jerry Springer of talk shows, but it still fit the mold of my impression of "Bush Protesters".


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, the irony and contradiction between the "Honorable Evolution of a Martial artist" and how we learn to act and do with Dignity and Peace and this talk of encouraging unlawful acts (even 'little ones' like trespassing, disturbing the peace....which could escalate to much worse when the passion of a mob takes over) is interesting to me.



Just curious.  Could you provide some kind of criteria a MAist should use before the decide to protest in this fashion?  If an MAist refused to go to the bus in 1964 because he/she was black, was that a betrayal of these ideals of which you have indicated?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Do you guys think, Honestly...
> 
> regardless of side...
> 
> ...



Civil rights protests in the 60's made a big difference.  Perhaps the reason why they don't make a difference anymore is because protesters have been _portrayed _ as whackjobs for so long since then.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 30, 2004)

Holy guacamole.  Has anyone on this list besides me (and, most likely, michaeledward) actually ever attended a protest?

 I have attended several peaceful protests and they were indeed peaceful.  

 There is comfort in numbers and when others are aware that someone else out there thinks like they do it can spur more action, which is really what the answer is, anyway.  And it is a darn shame that there are those who are so zealous they rain on everyone else's parade by using illegal tactics, espousing guerilla-type motives and being just plain mean.  It never gives either side a good name.

 A word about conservative radio:

 If one were to analyze the Hannity and Limbaugh style talk radio, one could parallel it to the propagandizing done by socialist leaders in the past.  Inciting emotion (which is what these talk show hosts capitalize on) is a great motivator and brainwashing tool.

 You're all smart people.  Those of you who listen to these shows and take them to heart - ask yourselves - do you really need someone else to tell you what the news is really all about...or can you figure it out for yourself?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 30, 2004)

Good point. One thing I like about talk radio is that they go into what is not on the news as well.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 30, 2004)

Ya know, it's funny. For all the silly rhetoric--well, silly because it's ridiculously untrue, not because it doesn't work to convince some folks--I don't seem to hear the left wing saying that they hate America, or that they want the President dead, or any such nonsense, all that much. 

Where you really hear this sort of stuff is from the likes of Pat Robertson, Hannity, Ollie North, and all the rest of the right-wing whackjobs who are always screaming about the moral decline of America, how the country needs cleansing, how the Apocalypse is a-comin' soon, and all the rest. 

And in them, it's particularly offensive--given the considerable wealth they've accumulated for saying such things.

What you hear the left saying, typically, is that they want Bush out of office, and they want America to live up to its ideals. Huh, fancy that.

As was pointed out previously, it's also odd that some conservatives don't seem to mind a little violent protest, as long as it's on their side--never seem to see 'em criticizing the militia loons, or the women's-clinic bombers.

But O Lord, let about a hundred thousand or so Americans show up in New York and demostrate peacefully, and the only topic of conversation is their possible violence.

Incidentally, I tend to agree with Technopunk in one respect--some of these guys really need to think about how stupid they look on TV, if they're going to work hard to get on TV and spread their message.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Good point. One thing I like about talk radio is that they go into what is not on the news as well.


We seem to do some of that here, as well.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 30, 2004)

> Holy guacamole. Has anyone on this list besides me (and, most likely, michaeledward) actually ever attended a protest?
> 
> I have attended several peaceful protests and they were indeed peaceful.


 Me too - well, one of large national notice.  It was very impressive, and very inspiring.  The majority of demonstrators anywhere do not want to come off as "nutjobs", but as people genuinely passionate about their cause.


----------



## D_Brady (Aug 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> We can agree that if the Democrats hold a convention in Boston, with virtually no protest and lots of local cooperation,
> 
> The protesters were no even close to the convention, no permits were issued
> unless you agreed to be caged and penned up. As for local cooperation you didn't have a choice. I know I did security for the DNC and saw it first hand.
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> rmcrobertson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 30, 2004)

There is very little funnier than accusations against Kerry's party for being repressive.

But it's good to know that despite the extended coverage of the subject saying otherwise, the Mayor of NYC (oddly enough, a republican) and the GOP in no way restrained protest actions. Nope, didn't happen.

And it's good to know that the heroic defenders of the Bill of Rights such as John Ashcroft and the rest of the party of the Patriot Act had more than 100, 000 marchers rarin' to go, and we would have seen them if not for the Evil Democrats. 

I guess we woulda heard all about it, if not for the Conspiracy of the Liberal Media, eh?


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Aug 30, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> No surprise MM, I read an article in Time a while back about "Prostester Schools" where groups could train in techniques and tactics on how to protest well.  They learned everything from packing lists that included gas masks to the legal ramifications of such actions and how to negotiate the legal system.



Interesting that you should bring this up.
I was talking to a woman not to long ago and her son makes his living as a professional protestor. They train him on what to do or say and then they fly him around the world for different causes. 
He actually makes some good money too. After hearing that it made me wonder how many people are really protestors and how much is just smoke and mirrors made by someone with sufficient funds.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 30, 2004)

Absolutely right. Thank Satan, I can now reveal the truth--for years, funded by the Kremlin (I mean, you haven't bought that crap from the Liberal media about the Fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, have you? Fools!!), I have travelled and got on the Internet to spread lesbianism. 

Hell, I make over 250, 000 a year, weeviling away at decency and American values. They've offered me a bonus if I kill God.

And in the specific case of New York, well, I know I shouldn't be telling you this--but those 100,000 plus protestors? Paid for by Rob Reiner and Ollie North (I mean, you didn't know who he really works for? Oh, dear.)

Meanwhile, back on the planet...


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> The protesters were no even close to the convention, no permits were issued
> unless you agreed to be caged and penned up. As for local cooperation you didn't have a choice. I know I did security for the DNC and saw it first hand.
> 
> At least in New York they get there first Amendment right.


Protest permits were issued in Boston. There was a list of some of those protest groups listed in this thread:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16782

And in New York, you can not peaceably assemble in Central Park.


----------



## Nightingale (Aug 30, 2004)

My dad and his family are from New York.  That entire half of the family are staunch republicans and FORMER Bush supporters.  

the reason they're FORMER Bush supporters?

Because Bush has been using 9/11 to get himself re-elected.  That's why footage has been on TV, and why the convention is in NYC.  

Every New Yorker I know, republican, democrat, libertarian alike is damn pissed.  They're angry because Bush is taking a tragedy that happened to THEIR city, and using it as a tool to get himself four more years in the white house.  Its got people spitting mad.  They don't want people using a tragedy that happened to them, to their friends and loved ones, to their city, for their own personal gain.  

My friend (who is NOT a democrat) who is a born and raised New Yorker, and recently moved back there said that it was like "They're holding a party on the corpses of 3000 people."


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think the point is that protesting motivated by antagonism instead of the desire to promote reform is destructive because it just prolongs factioning and tends to be 'anti-someone' instead of about the topic. We have seen it here on a much smaller scale. How many times have we pleaded for a "stay on the topic" style of discussion instead of the "you suck" arguments that accuse someone of a motive.
> 
> The idea isn't that the Republicans are America, but that protest should not be to cut someone else down (as the language generally does regardless of the issue or people) so much as raising awareness/education/counterpoint to issues.
> 
> ...


Thanks bud...you express my opinion better than I can.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> My dad and his family are from New York.  That entire half of the family are staunch republicans and FORMER Bush supporters.
> 
> the reason they're FORMER Bush supporters?
> 
> ...



Perhaps New Yorkers should recall...

I happened in OUR COUNTRY... not THIER CITY.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Perhaps New Yorkers should recall...
> 
> I happened in OUR COUNTRY... not THIER CITY.


NYC is my city too.....my state taxes all go there.


----------



## Nightingale (Aug 30, 2004)

Whether it was a city tragedy, a national tragedy, or both, many New Yorkers feel very angry that it is being used as a tool to get someone re-elected.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 30, 2004)

Well, thank god that nobody puts loyalty to their town or city above national needs. I mean, if they did, we'd have all sorts of rivalries built around silly things like civic pride and sports teams...


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 30, 2004)

Yankees SUCK.

On a more serious note, sports fans are not the problem.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Protest permits were issued in Boston. There was a list of some of those protest groups listed in this thread:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16782
> 
> And in New York, you can not peaceably assemble in Central Park.



Mike, I've heard the multiple times about the free speech zones at the DNC.  Do you have the scoop on this?  You actually live in MA.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thanks bud...you express my opinion better than I can.



So, when is civil disobedience okay?  Was it okay for a black person to refuse to go to the back of the bus in 64?  That certainly was against the popular opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think the point is that protesting motivated by antagonism instead of the desire to promote reform is destructive because it just prolongs factioning and tends to be 'anti-someone' instead of about the topic. We have seen it here on a much smaller scale. How many times have we pleaded for a "stay on the topic" style of discussion instead of the "you suck" arguments that accuse someone of a motive.
> 
> The idea isn't that the Republicans are America, but that protest should not be to cut someone else down (as the language generally does regardless of the issue or people) so much as raising awareness/education/counterpoint to issues.
> 
> ...


OK Paul ... I'll bite. I know you are a peacemaker, and I can respect that. But sometimes it is appropriate to step beyond what you ask for.

Perhaps you hear Mr. O'Neill's description of the president; 'A blind man in a roomful of deaf people.' If that is how one perceives the current state of power in the United States, how do you suggest they; 'raise awareness/educate/counter'? When our President refuses to listen to scientists who state that Homo Sapiens are having an impact on Global Climate Change, what are we to do?

I have stated over and over again, that it is the Bush Administration and Bush Policies that I have a problem with. I don't care if he sucks or not. And I don't make the claim that he does ... and I don't see many arguing against him who make that statement. But I see some on the other side of the isle make those statements about protestors, liberals, and me.

You ask "_What happens when one of these civil disturbers/protesters gets hurt? Who is at fault?_". I ask, 'What happens when one of our military soldiers gets hurt or killed in Iraq? Who is at fault'. We were told that the Iraqi government had the weapons and were an imminent threat, but when that has proved false, who is held accountable? In this adminstration; No One. Instead the argument changes that 'Saddam Hussein' was a bad man, an evil man, he had to be removed, yet we watch the destruction and ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan with nary lifting a finger; who is held accountable?
In this administration; No One .... (But blame will fall on the prior administration for Rwanda).

And if America is supposed to be One Nation with Liberty and Justice for All, how is that we prevent gay americans from sharing the same liberty and justice as their straight brothers and sisters? While the United States Supreme Court recently over-ruled 13 states' sodomy laws, gay partners still are not entitled to the same social justice provided by a marriage contract. Are you out fighting for their rights? And who is it that is trying to keep the gays in their closets? (Oddly, I find myself in agreement with Vice President Cheney for, perhaps, the first time in my life).

Of course we have moved from the 'National Unity of WW II'. That time was quite probably never as unified as you imagine it, and what unity existed was not necissarliy caused solely by the the Axis powers. You will recall that the decade preceeding the United States entry into WWII was known as the Great Depression. People being at work probably went a long way to creating 'unity'. Of course, once we won that war, the government has continued to feed the machine. Money going from the Treasury into the Defense Contractors; Lockheed, Martin, Boeing, Ratheon, McDonald, Douglas. Keep that war machine going ... Never mind there was never an enemy that could match the US Military. Do you remember the claims that Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, and how they were going to be difficult to defeat in 1991? To this day, I don't understand how anyone could buy that bill of goods. What of our current military ... why do we need to spend more on weapons than the next 10 nations *combined*? Who do we think we are going to be fighting? And isn't it a good thing that Alaska is now protected by a Missile Defense Shield. More money going to worthless defense programs.

Anyhow ... there are lots of reason why we must protest against something. But not every protestor hates America, or even hates Bush. What I want, is the promise of my country; a place where all men are created equal, and we have equal opportunity to succeed. And when I see impedements to myself, or my fellow citizens, it is appropriate to raise voice or sign in protest.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 30, 2004)

I thought this of interest, given the location of the convention:


Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and Consciously Failed To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New Yorks Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals 



On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 31, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, I've heard the multiple times about the free speech zones at the DNC. Do you have the scoop on this? You actually live in MA.


Not really any scoop ...

The DNC had relatively few protest groups. Either the Secret Service, DHS, Boston Police or the DNC had a fenced in 'Free Speech Cage' ... a fenced in area that would hold, I think 1500 people under the highway in Boston. It was supposedly within sight and sound of the Fleet Center. But the protest rallies had to be held inside this box ... an abomination!

In New York City ... protestors can gather in Central Park, but no staging or sound amplification devices may be set up there. The 'Great Lawn' of Central Park apparently was refurbished in the last year, and the protest groups could have held their meetings there (theoretically) if they had purchased a $16,000,000.00 bond to ensure the lawn would be protected.

and finally, stating the Obvious ... If I can only exercise my right of Free Speech in a certain area, aren't my rights restricted? How did that 1st Amendment go again?

Yesterday ... outside Bush's campaign stop ... I showed the 'WWMD' sign to the people driving by ... and the '1st Amendment' sign to the police and secret service. 

mike


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 31, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Released: August 30, 2004
> Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and Consciously Failed To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New Yorks Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
> 
> On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International.


I wonder ... do you think it may have something to do with this?



			
				August 6 said:
			
		

> August 6, PDB​
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On the other hand, we must remember that as of October, 2003 the *majority of Americans* believed;a) there was clear evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11, 2001 attacks; b) the majority of world public opinion was in favor of the United States invading and deposing Saddam Hussein c) the United States had discovered Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

As of today ... that is 975 American Soldiers dead in Iraq.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Not really any scoop ...
> 
> The DNC had relatively few protest groups. Either the Secret Service, DHS, Boston Police or the DNC had a fenced in 'Free Speech Cage' ... a fenced in area that would hold, I think 1500 people under the highway in Boston. It was supposedly within sight and sound of the Fleet Center. But the protest rallies had to be held inside this box ... an abomination!
> 
> ...



The really scary part about this is that if both sides begin using free speech zones it will become commonplace.  I feel like trends like this will turn our political process and eventually our constitution into a sham. :idunno:


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Aug 31, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The really scary part about this is that if both sides begin using free speech zones it will become commonplace. I feel like trends like this will turn our political process and eventually our constitution into a sham. :idunno:


Judicial activists have already turned our political process and constitution into a sham!


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

In-your-face activists bedevil some delegates 
By CONNIE MABIN 
Associated Press
8/31/2004 

NEW YORK - As the Republican National Convention began Monday, not everyone in New York was rolling out the welcome mat. 
Some Ohioans were told to turn their GOP T-shirts inside out and hide convention credentials, to be more low-key about their party passion. 

Other delegates said anti-Bush protesters made obscene gestures and yelled profanities at them. In neighborhoods and boroughs far from Madison Square Garden, New York residents taped anti-Republican signs to their apartment windows. 

Florida delegate Sid Dinerstein was walking the few blocks between his Sixth Avenue hotel and a restaurant on Sunday evening when he said a protester pushed his way in front of him, blew a whistle in his face and yelled, "Go home!" 

Dinerstein, who grew up in Brooklyn, said he was unaffected and didn't plan to change any of his plans to accommodate those who may be less than welcoming. 

Missouri delegate John Winston, 58, of suburban St. Louis, said he had been cursed at and told to go home - or elsewhere - by protesters. 

For the most part, he was understanding. 

"Most of them are young," Winston said. "All of us, when you're young, go through a stage when you want to rebel." 

Though there was plenty of grumbling, New York police said Monday no official complaints had been filed. 

George Artz, a New York political consultant who has worked with former Mayor Ed Koch, said most city residents are friendly to tourists, regardless of their political party. He added that many of the people in town for protest marches were not from the city. 

"New Yorkers may be 5-to-1 Democrat, but they know what it is to be congenial," Artz said. 

Maybe so, but the reception for delegates was not all friendly. 

"A guy was screaming and yelling in my face," said Darren White, a delegate from Albuquerque, N.M. "They screamed and yelled that Republicans weren't welcome in New York." 

Grace Kudukis, a delegate from Cleveland, said some protesters who marched near the delegation's Times Square hotel Sunday gestured obscenely at delegates and shouted rude comments about the president. 

Some convention security officers suggested in response that delegates hide their credentials and any other signs that they were Republicans, including telling one man to turn his T-shirt inside out to hide the elephant symbol, she said. 

"I just felt violated," Kudukis said. "I have a right to be in the city. We have a two-party system and should be able to exist together. 

"As an American, I'm afraid to be identified as a Republican. It's a shame." 

Minnesotans came prepared for dissent. Their delegation received a memo telling them not to engage critics in debate, not to get impatient when maneuvering around protests, and to treat demonstrators with respect. 

"Unlike pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan, people in America are free to peacefully protest and speak their minds," the memo said. 

"I have no problems with those people telling me their ideas and thoughts. I'll be listening," said Dr. Richard Mulder, a delegate from Ivanhoe, Minn. "I have free speech, too. I can give them my ideas, too. That's what this country is all about."


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 31, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Just curious. Could you provide some kind of criteria a MAist should use before the decide to protest in this fashion? If an MAist refused to go to the bus in 1964 because he/she was black, was that a betrayal of these ideals of which you have indicated?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


This was kind of hard to decypher (must have been thinking faster than you were typing.  Happens to me all the time).

If you mean Blacks boycotting bus service because of segretative seating with your reference, it is far from the same thing as people waving signs that connote a hatred for a politician or a party and then cheering/encouraging/aiding people to basically trespass, disturb someone elses PEACEFUL and authorized assembly simply because they don't agree with it.

THe first it a legal act and peaceful. Even when Dr. King was leading marches, they were peaceful.  Charging into some Rep Conv function acting like a streaker isn't quite the same thing as that.

I don't know if anyone remembers the news footage of a 'protester' who slipped through security while the POTUS was giving a speech and got within arms length.  He claimed that his act of 'civil disobedience' was motivated by a dissatisfaction with some Administration agenda... that really helped his cause.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2004)

Sorry for the syntax confusion.  When I write professionally, I need to proofread at least twice as much as a normal person.  The only reason I asked the question before is because I wanted to see if there was a line for you.  For me, I try to follow my principles.  If I feel like something is hostile to my principles and there is no other recourse, I would (and have) engaged in protest.  Personally, I've yet to be thrown in jail though.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 31, 2004)

Ah. So we'd all agree that the anti-abortion protestors who go around picketing people at home, mailing their kids fetus pictures, shooting doctors and nurses, etc., are altogether wrong. And we agree that the crowd that showed up at a Kerry rally last week, screaming obscenities and booing him and his daughters, is wrong. And we'd take it for granted that when somebody like G. Gordon Liddy gets on the radio and says, "Shoot the ATF in the head," or Michael Savage gets on the radio and shrieks (yes, literally) that Kerry and Clinton are traitors, and deserve to be punished as traitors, that's wrong. 

Good. Just so's we're all on the same page.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

Yeah, Im on the same page...are you implying that somebody here isnt??


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 31, 2004)

I've been working in NYC this week, and I've been riding the trains to work.  No, most of us are NOT happy that the Republican Convention is here.  It is an ENORMOUS burden to our already over-burdened city.  In the opinion of most of us, we wish they'd gone elsewhere, rather than use the city to get their 9/11 photo-ops.  Why not just put a BIGGER target on our heads?  There are police and armed forces all over--in the streets, in the subways, on the railroads.  Men and women in uniform, with rifles, bomb sniffing dogs, barricades.  Travel in midtown is, well, problematic to say the least.

I've witnessed a few peaceful demonstrations (I was not there on Sunday for the big demonstration)  However, I have seen no violence, no one screaming in any Republicans' faces, no one being arrested.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  I'm just saying it is not widespread.  The police and armed forces are cool.  So are most of the rest of us.  So are the dogs.

But yeah, we wish they'd gone elsewhere.


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 1. Perhaps you hear Mr. O'Neill's description of the president; 'A blind man in a roomful of deaf people.' If that is how one perceives the current state of power in the United States, how do you suggest they; 'raise awareness/educate/counter'? When our President refuses to listen to scientists who state that Homo Sapiens are having an impact on Global Climate Change, what are we to do?
> 
> 2. I have stated over and over again, that it is the Bush Administration and Bush Policies that I have a problem with. I don't care if he sucks or not. And I don't make the claim that he does ... and I don't see many arguing against him who make that statement. But I see some on the other side of the isle make those statements about protestors, liberals, and me.
> 
> ...


1. Talk to two research specialists on any of the global impact topics and you will get two different answers all backed by verifiable, well structured scientific arguments. The general divide is between the human impact theories and the Planetary life cycle theories... who are you suppose to believe when one says that global warming is nothing more than the indication of the last Ice Age ending BUT the other is saying that it is because of human impact/rising CO2 levels and greenhouse affect? In the end, how do you know anyone is or isn't listening. People always talk about politicians saying one thing but doing another....what if that whole cowboy non chalance is really just part of the front and behind close doors there is more going on?

2. I never pointed at you with these ideas, only used your post as a springboard to make my point. If people, regardless of political/group affiliations are too busy labelling and fighting over that instead of recognizing that there is a common goal that can be reached then they are not part of the solution.

3. There is a big difference between False and Unconfirmed/Unverified. The intelligence was thinner than people like, but that does not mean that it was wrong. Don't forget the 10-11 years that SHussein had to move, sell and hide any WMD that were there. My point has always been that the timing and public rhetoric was off, but we were ultimately justified since we had a CONTRACTUAL treaty with SHussein that he was in clear violation of and posed a potential threat if left unchecked (though not as pressing a threat IMO as was presented to the general public). THe counter question/non answer doesn't really do anything but say "Yeah, but he did it too..." so both 'sides' are wrong if accountability and responsibility are not part of the demonstrative character. BUT, I do believe that the 9/11 commision findings were basically spreading the blame across the full spectrum of political levels and departments/bureaus, so who isn't taking their bite of the Sheit sandwich?

4. The Constitution is a living document and is reinterpretted with every issue. Before it was Women's vote, Slavery and other socio-economic issues, they aren't going to go away. But, college level pranks that are passed off as civil disobedience are not going to do anything but make the involved parties look like idiots NOT really improve their credibility. There is a big difference between the licensed, peaceful banner wavers and folks planning to break the law in ways that will only piss off the folks who have to deal with the time delays, legal red tape and clean the mess up after the fact.

5. Yeah and before, during and after WWI we had huge problems with Socialist parties, unionization... creating tons of conflicts because of the corporate fat cats who were not being regulated or 'encouraged' by gov. incentives to do the right thing by their employees (safe work environment, wages, benefits, job security...) The Depression was the consequence of an unregulated, unchecked private market/banking industry. I did acknowledge that things were not roses and tea time during WWII. We did have our own problems with domestic Nazi parties and such as well. I am sure that the isolationists were singing their songs and the civil liberty types were complaining about rationing and the invasiveness of war time government priorities. I am part Japanese (Okinawan) and know well the Internment camp issues... things were not perfect.

6. I am speaking out against this idea that panty raid tactics, disorderly conduct, trespassing, vandalism levels of legal violations (which can instigate/inspire people to more sever acts...like sniping abortion doctors, bombing clinics, bombing government buildings ie Oklahoma City) are in any way as noble or rightous as boycotting (Which is not illegal) segregation practices in gov/business or Peaceful marches where the protest is not antagonistic or hostile (sit in idea). I don't care who does these things, the tactics are essentially political and emotional terrorism that hold a politician/nations reputation and mental peace hostage until the 'protest group/special interest group" gets its way... and don't win any sympathy for the cause or respect for the group from me.

Change the specifics and the range of damage and it is the same as any pestering tactic that hopes to force people to do what ever it takes to get left alone.  That doesn't make the issue noble, it doesn't make the 'winning' a 'good fight', and it doesn't mean that the politician changed his mind set to your way of thinking...it just means that you got what you wanted because the guy/girl just wanted you to shut up.

Sorry for the length.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2004)

I've been doing a lot of listening lately, especially concerning the RNC.  The speakers are talking about patriotism and loving America.  They are talking about fighting terrorism.  They are talking about making America a better place.  They say that if you agree with what they want to do, then you agree with all of the above.  If you disagree, _you hate America_, _you are unpatriotic_, _you are weak on terror_, and that _you do not want to make America a better place for everyone_.  

According to the Republicans, they have the *only * answer.  

Here is an excerpt from Senator William Frist's speech.  It was not on TV.  I heard it on NPR and wrote it down, "We are a majority party.  We will not accept the agenda of the Unionists, the Environmentalists, the radical Feminists, and the agenda of the people who would turn American into government dependent slaves.  We will fight them.  We will roll back liberal ideas that are destroying this country.  In four years, we will enter a new world, a golden age..."

The Republican are not interested in working with the Democrats.  They want to conquer.  They want to be the ONLY party in this country.  

Here is an excerpt from California Govenor Arnold Schwarzanagger's speech, "some of you out there, who know in your hearts that you are Republican, may disagree with me or other fellow Republicans.  And that is what makes American Great!  We agree to disagree and we ALL can be Republican!"

The bottom line is that their rhetoric is an all out attack on almost all of the basic principles that guide my citizenship in this country.  They have no room for me and they do not want to listen to me.  I don't want to be a Republican.  I don't agree with what they believe.  Under this administration, this is my only option though.  

I hope this helps people understand the reason why so many democrats are turning out to protest.

Peace. :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've been doing a lot of listening lately, especially concerning the RNC.  The *speakers* are talking about patriotism and loving America.  They are talking about fighting terrorism.  They are talking about making America a better place.  They say that if you agree with what they want to do, then you agree with all of the above.  *If you disagree, you hate America, you are unpatriotic, you are weak on terror, and that you do not want to make America a better place for everyone*.



I haven't heard that last part at the convention. Who said it?


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> According to the Republicans, they have the *only *answer.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from Senator William Frist's speech. It was not on TV. I heard it on NPR and wrote it down, "We are a majority party. We will not accept the agenda of the Unionists, the Environmentalists, the radical Feminists, and the agenda of the people who would turn American into government dependent slaves. We will fight them. We will roll back liberal ideas that are destroying this country. In four years, we will enter a new world, a golden age..."
> 
> ...


I am sure that there were similiar declarative/persuasive statements being made at the Democratic convention as well.  These pep rally events are designed to rev up the supporters before they 'hit the road' what kind of sales pitch/persuasive presentation ever does anything different?

Aren't you saying essentially the same thing about your causes when you have a thread that complains about the 50/50 split of US support for the major party candidates?  The implication is that 50% of the population isn't on board with your 'right answer.'   Opinions are opinions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2004)

Nobody _said _ that exact quote, Mike, that is my interpretation.  For what its worth... :idunno: 

I've listened to almost a dozen speakers now and they have each contributed a little to that general feeling.  For instance, when the speakers talk about about the war on terror, if someone doesn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, then they are weak on terror.  The label "economic girly men" was applied to those who do not agree with Republican economic policy and are swayed by negative economic news.

Peace.  :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## qizmoduis (Sep 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I haven't heard that last part at the convention. Who said it?



That's been part of the conservative manifesto for decades now.  Where've you been?  It's like a mantra:

"Liberals hate America"
"Liberals hate God"
"Liberals hate families"
"Liberals are destroying American culture"
"Liberals are communists"
"Liberals love Osama/Saddam/terrorists"
"Liberals blah blah blah"

There's no talk of working with us or compromising or anything like that.  The Republican mission is and has been the utter destruction of the Democratic party and liberals in general, and they've certainly not tried to hide it.  The rhetoric of the right is destructive, vile, divisive and plumbs the deepest darkest depths of hypocrisy.

Note the differences in the speechs given by the folks during the Demo convention vs. the Repub convention.  Democrats talked of hope and the future and about real issues.  Repubs screech about how much "Liberals hate America" and John Kerry sucks, consistently avoiding every important issue.  Their hours-long milking of the tragedy of 9-11 is nothing short of gruesome.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Aren't you saying essentially the same thing about your causes when you have a thread that complains about the 50/50 split of US support for the major party candidates?  The implication is that 50% of the population isn't on board with your 'right answer.'   Opinions are opinions.



Not all opinions are equal.  Some are better then others and politics should be about judging which opinions ARE better.  The ascendency of the Republican party can basically be attributed to their _control of the message_.  People like Karl Rove sleep with Machiavelli under their pillows.  They are political geniuses.  Their spin is so good, the details don't matter.

The 2004 election and the rhetoric I have heard thus far is so different then anything that I have ever heard or read.  I am absolutely astounded when I look at the two worlds being presented by BOTH parties.  They are so different that its hard to get a grasp on reality.

I hope this makes sense. :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not all opinions are equal. Some are better then others and politics should be about judging which opinions ARE better.


I have trouble with this statement.  I think that perhaps it's fair to say that all opinions may not carry equal value when judged from a particular reference frame.  I don't think that it's in any way fair to disqualify the 'global' value of anyone's opinion.  But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 1, 2004)

Aside from which, everyone has the right to express their opinion in public, provided that it doesn't infringe on other's rights.  Thus, protests occur, and the one's protesting try to get everyone else to pay attention.  Everyone else has the right to choose to listen, or not.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I have trouble with this statement. I think that perhaps it's fair to say that all opinions may not carry equal value when judged from a particular reference frame. I don't think that it's in any way fair to disqualify the 'global' value of anyone's opinion. But that's just my opinion.


Yet to say the John O'Neil's opinion of John Kerry's military service should carry equal weight as John McCain's opinion is also foolish. Because while both John's have the right to an opinion, one of the opinions is backed up by a third party's documentary evidence. 

The frame of reference (liberal / conservative) really should become secondary to the third party evidence; especially when the evidence is provided from as reputable source as the United States Navy.

I present this as a demonstration of weighting opinions, rather than to re-hash, the SBVT issue.

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 1, 2004)

> Talk to two research specialists on any of the global impact topics and you will get two different answers all backed by verifiable, well structured scientific arguments. The general divide is between the human impact theories and the Planetary life cycle theories... who are you suppose to believe when one says that global warming is nothing more than the indication of the last Ice Age ending BUT the other is saying that it is because of human impact/rising CO2 levels and greenhouse affect? In the end, how do you know anyone is or isn't listening.


Not true.  The vast majority of scientists agree on the conclusion that increased global climate change is caused by human activities and impact.  The Planetary life cycle theories are interesting, but dismiss evidence out-of-hand on human impact that is relevent and meaningful to climate change.  

Phoenix - I know several people in the Boston area who were fed up with the DNR because all commuting into the city had to be re-routed for security reasons... most people just took the week off.    Hang in there!


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Not true. The vast majority of scientists agree on the conclusion that increased global climate change is caused by human activities and impact. The Planetary life cycle theories are interesting, but dismiss evidence out-of-hand on human impact that is relevent and meaningful to climate change.


Thank you ... I really didn't have the strength to continue beating-my-head against the wall on that comment.....  You Go Girl!


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I have trouble with this statement.  I think that perhaps it's fair to say that all opinions may not carry equal value when judged from a particular reference frame.  I don't think that it's in any way fair to disqualify the 'global' value of anyone's opinion.  But that's just my opinion.



When we compare the extremes, the difference becomes clear.  Take for instance, Nazi ideologic statements and compare it to the things said my Nelson Mandala and the ANC.  Like I said, there is a clear choice.  When we move toward the middle, the choice gets fuzzy and depends on the details.  Is it wrong to state that one of those opinions wouldn't have a better approach?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 1, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> That's been part of the conservative manifesto for decades now.  Where've you been?  It's like a mantra:
> 
> "Liberals hate America"
> "Liberals hate God"
> ...



Kind of like

Republicans hate the poor
Republicans are fundamentalists
Republicans are homophobes
Republicans live in the past
Republicans are fascists
Republicans are racist
Republicans blah blah blah...

The rest is your own opinion which you are entitled to, but I'd call terrorism an important issue.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Not true. The vast majority of scientists agree on the conclusion that increased global climate change is caused by human activities and impact. The Planetary life cycle theories are interesting, but dismiss evidence out-of-hand on human impact that is relevent and meaningful to climate change.
> 
> Phoenix - I know several people in the Boston area who were fed up with the DNR because all commuting into the city had to be re-routed for security reasons... most people just took the week off.  Hang in there!


As with most absolutes of theoretical presentation, the truth is somewhere in a blend/synthesis of the two 'schools'.  I am not an advocate of one or the other personally.  I think that stewardship of resources (human, ecological,...any kind) really has to be a carefully weighed decision. 

From sportsmanship (hunting, fishing, trapping) as well as outdoor sports (hiking, rockclimbing, camping...) and even military training (most/all military training areas are also designated federal nature preserves - which helps with funding land management to clean up such areas), I would say that whether it is human impact or not, we have a duty to responsible action.

The only problem I have with the idea that the "Majority" believes that human impact is the truth and planetary life cycle is false is that BOTH sides are throwing out/dismissing data that does not support their particular theory.  Besides which, most of the break throughs in science, industry, life in general have come from the minority/revolutionary idea makers.  Couldn't the 'majority' dismissing the 'minority' be motivated the same way that folks talk about conservativism or Republicanism dismisses liberalism and Democraticism?  

If it is right (proven over time possibly...not saying it is or isn't for sure just saying "if it is") it doesn't matter if only one person believed it or one hundred... remember a group called the Christians, Muslims, American Colonists, French Revolution.... all 'minorities' that were motivated by an ideal that proved successful (not necessarily always morally right or rightous, but successful) over time and gained 'majority' influence.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When we compare the extremes, the difference becomes clear. Take for instance, Nazi ideologic statements and compare it to the things said my Nelson Mandala and the ANC. Like I said, there is a clear choice. When we move toward the middle, the choice gets fuzzy and depends on the details. Is it wrong to state that one of those opinions wouldn't have a better approach?


I've spun this discussion off to here.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When we compare the extremes, the difference becomes clear. Take for instance, Nazi ideologic statements and compare it to the things said my Nelson Mandala and the ANC. Like I said, there is a clear choice. When we move toward the middle, the choice gets fuzzy and depends on the details. Is it wrong to state that one of those opinions wouldn't have a better approach?


So are you saying that Republicans are like NAZI's and Democrats are Mandela-like?

Taken to these extremes ANY comparison creates polarity.  My question is where are the common goals and how can parties, individuals, AMERICANS regardless of diversity in general agree that, though it isn't your particular plan or idea, there is A PLAN that can be emplaced that will improve the current situation?  I thought we were all one Nation.  Consensus building is a social skill that teachers are suppose to promote.  That way egos and 'special interests' (read possible political tunnel vision with no consideration how that one issue can impact the whole) don't get to call al the shots because they scream the loudest and get the most media attention and therefore induce the most political pressure.

I am NOT making a statement that it isn't happening all over the political spectrum but this all boils down to the fact that these are HUMAN FLAWS of motivation and agendas/factioning that happen on a relationship level all the way up to global issues.  People are people....


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> So are you saying that Republicans are like NAZI's and Democrats are Mandela-like?



Not by any means.  It was just an analogy.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Taken to these extremes ANY comparison creates polarity.  My question is where are the common goals and how can parties, individuals, AMERICANS regardless of diversity in general agree that, though it isn't your particular plan or idea, there is A PLAN that can be emplaced that will improve the current situation?  I thought we were all one Nation.  Consensus building is a social skill that teachers are suppose to promote.  That way egos and 'special interests' (read possible political tunnel vision with no consideration how that one issue can impact the whole) don't get to call al the shots because they scream the loudest and get the most media attention and therefore induce the most political pressure



I want to work my Right leaning brothers.  I listen intently to what they have to say.  I am currently involved in trying to come to a deeper understanding of Republican principles.  My family, being comprised completely of Democrats, have not been very positive or forthcoming with this informaton.  

The point is that I can find common ground with Republicans regarding my personal principles.  

As far as this discussion goes, by their own words, they do not care what I've got to say.  By their own words, they don't want to work with me.  They want me to shut up and be quiet or to move to Canada.  I am just as American as them and it doesn't seem to matter.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> They want me to shut up and be quiet or to move to Canada.


Screw'em, Upnorth.  Move to Canada.  We have better beer, and a winning national hockey team! 
:CTF:


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, when is civil disobedience okay? Was it okay for a black person to refuse to go to the back of the bus in 64? That certainly was against the popular opinion.


Some people advocate breaking the law.  So when is breaking the law O.K?  Martin Luther King wrote in his 'Letters from a Birmingham Jail' that it was sometimes O.K. to break the law - did you agree with him?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Some people advocate breaking the law.  So when is breaking the law O.K?  Martin Luther King wrote in his 'Letters from a Birmingham Jail' that it was sometimes O.K. to break the law - did you agree with him?



I think that breaking the law is okay when you feel that the law is unjust and that you feel it is your last resort.  I believe that one should exhaust *ALL * possible avenues before this is done.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 1, 2004)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *upnorthkyosa*
> _So, when is civil disobedience okay? Was it okay for a black person to refuse to go to the back of the bus in 64? That certainly was against the popular opinion._
> 
> Some people advocate breaking the law. So when is breaking the law O.K? Martin Luther King wrote in his 'Letters from a Birmingham Jail' that it was sometimes O.K. to break the law - did you agree with him?


 Yes.  It's a complex issue, however.  Saying, "I want to break the law" and gunning down a bunch of people is very very very different than making a choice to stand up for your rights, or the rights of others, in a peaceful manner.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not by any means. It was just an analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the point is negotiation/consensus and cooperation (which are things that Martial arts teachers, classroom teachers and parents try to encourage students/children to apply instead of tantrums and back alley tactics) are the key to focus on.  

The differences don't go away when people discuss things with the motive of consensus and accomplishing a common goal, they become points of discussion and items of examination.  Even if it isn't 'your way' of doing things but the job gets done and there is improvement, isn't that the important thing (of course assuming political, moral and legal limits are respected)?

Protesting, peaceful and topical IMO demonstrates (hah! just got that) maturity and respect for everyone as well as a conviction that 'I am right on this issue' because you don't feel the need to use Machiavelli tactics.

How do you deal with a seemingly (notice the qualifier here) insensitive, unresponsive counterpart or the 'powers that be'?  Lobby, vote and support your interest group.  

Dr. King, inspired by the likes of Ghandi, showed people how passive resistence and peaceful demonstration can bring dignity to civil disobedience because his supporters did not respond to what they deemed unjust/immmoral with immoral acts of violence or 'pranks' but resisted local ordinances of segregation.  Boycotting a service or a business is not illegal.  Marching or sitting in a legally (though immoral/unconstitutioal IMO) designated segregated section of a bus or restaurant is illegal I admit BUT the fact that they did such acts without letting them escalate or compound into other things like violence or domestic terrorism (though other groups did/do practice such methods) is where I respect the action.  It was focused, controlled and respectful of other laws that had nothing to do with the issue of the protesting action.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2004)

Good Post, Paul.  I greatly admire Dr. King and think the civil rights movement was a great example of what peaceful protest should look like (at least on the side of those who are protesting).  

As far as building a consensus and trying to actually get things done, this can't be done without trying to understand the other side.  I want to understand what Republicans are saying so I can work with them to accomplish the things that I care about.  

I don't see this happening on the other side.  I see the Republicans doing what they want and ignoring the opposition.  The only way this is possible is because they have become masters at controlling the message.  Their spin is so good, the details aren't important.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 1, 2004)

> If it is right (proven over time possibly...not saying it is or isn't for sure just saying "if it is") it doesn't matter if only one person believed it or one hundred... remember a group called the Christians, Muslims, American Colonists, French Revolution.... all 'minorities' that were motivated by an ideal that proved successful (not necessarily always morally right or rightous, but successful) over time and gained 'majority' influence.


 What you say is true... *but*... the nature of scientific research, and how we find out about the world, is in part based on consensus among rational people knowledgeable on a subject.  That's how we understand the way the world works - even if ideas change tomorrow, or in 1,000 years.  As of now, the consensus is that human imact is affecting global climate change.  If someone disagrees with the majority, he or she had better present one heck of a good argument.  I haven't seen that good argument yet.


----------



## SMP (Sep 5, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Good Post, Paul. I greatly admire Dr. King and think the civil rights movement was a great example of what peaceful protest should look like (at least on the side of those who are protesting).
> 
> As far as building a consensus and trying to actually get things done, this can't be done without trying to understand the other side. I want to understand what Republicans are saying so I can work with them to accomplish the things that I care about.
> 
> ...


 

Wow you are on your way to understanding republicans already - republicans feel the same about the democrats.


----------



## SMP (Sep 5, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Yes. It's a complex issue, however. Saying, "I want to break the law" and gunning down a bunch of people is very very very different than making a choice to stand up for your rights, or the rights of others, in a peaceful manner.


 
Breaking the law does have varying degrees but the right to own firearms that some of us agree with strongly was based on the people being able to defend themselves against an unjust government. If a law is unjust people have a responsibility or right to question/alter/ or break it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2004)

SMP said:
			
		

> Wow you are on your way to understanding republicans already - republicans feel the same about the democrats.



Like I said, the details aren't important.  

I was driving home today and I started reading the signs on the churches I passed.  So many of them had right wing political statements, it wasn't even funny.

When politics mixes with religion, why even argue.  Of course that may have been the point all along...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 20, 2004)

Today ... we find this article concerning the New York City during the Republican Convention.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6049361/


> Arrests at GOP convention criticized
> Many in N.Y. released without facing charges
> 
> NEW YORK - One late August evening, Alexander Pincus pedaled his bicycle to the Second Avenue Deli to buy matzo ball soup, a pastrami-on-rye and potato latkes for his sweetheart, who was sick with a cold.
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2007)

It appears the NYC Police Department may have stepped beyond its legal authority before and durning the Republican National Convention in 2004.

Imagine that. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/nyregion/25infiltrate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin - This link does require a login to the NYTimes.



> ...
> 
> Detectives collected information both in-state and out-of-state to learn in advance what was coming our way, Mr. Browne said. (chief spokesman for the NY Police Department)
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It appears the NYC Police Department may have stepped beyond its legal authority before and durning the Republican National Convention in 2004.
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/nyregion/25infiltrate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin - This link does require a login to the NYTimes.


 
Wow, a negative rep for this post ... (unsigned of course). 

I wonder what the are complaining about? I do not work for the New York City Police Department. 

If one didn't read the article, one might not understand that the training NYPD received to deal with terrorism and terrorists was turned toward protestors; many of whom offered no intent of disobedience, civil or otherwise. 

But, what the hey - let's treat all protestors as terrorists. 

As President Bush has said, 'governing would be easier if it were a dictatorships. As long has he was the dictator'.


----------



## crushing (Mar 26, 2007)

Sounds like a difficult situation for the police.  They had thousands of people to protect at a potentially prime location for another terrorist attack with all the news crews and big name politicians, and apparently police hands are tied until there is an explosion or someone is actually committing a crime.  I'm not saying what they did was right, I'm just saying it is a difficult position to be put in.

The ol' "as long as I'm dictator" joke.  Someone could make a lot of money creating a mockumentary from out of context quotes and data.  

"You know one thing that's wrong with this country? Everybody gets a chance to have their fair say."  -A President


----------

