Massive New York Protest

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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

 

[Phoenix44]

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]

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.

3. 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).

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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....