On the town with GWB, AKA democracy in action

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by erik:

DFA, I WAS A BIT JUDGEMENTAL ON THOSE PEEPS...AND DAT IS MY ISSUE...DANKE

---

Well Erik, like any good ropegun, you shoot from the hip and examine the rack when you're 40' out...

 

(ps: dude, hit the caps lock key, yer shouting)

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

thanks for the chewy posts and your comments, even though we're on opposites sides we can try and demonstrate some civility ourselves!

 

Amen, MtnGoat! The Doctor might protest some of your points, but he's not about to start a riot wit' ya!

[Fairweather]

Originally posted by Off White:

At least the progressives have not begun targeted assasinations, unlike the anti-abortion crowd.

 

Did you forget about the The Unabomber? Wasn't he a "progressive" and an "environmentalist" just like you White?

 

[ 08-26-2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Originally posted by Off White:

At least the progressives have not begun targeted assasinations, unlike the anti-abortion crowd.

 

Did you forget about the The Unabomber? Wasn't he a "progressive" and an "environmentalist" just like you White?

You're right, I forgot about him. Actually, I tend to think of him as belonging in the "other" category. You know, like you can't say that a Libertarian is right wing or leftist, but c: none of the above. But its been a long time since I've read any snippets of his manifesto, so its entirely possible that is just wishful thinking on my part. However, I would not say that he is just like me, anymore than I would say you are just like the folks who flew planes into the trade center just because you're both dogmatic fanatics. heh heh, just a little joke there.

[sexual_chocolate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Off White:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Originally posted by Off White:

At least the progressives have not begun targeted assasinations, unlike the anti-abortion crowd.

 

Did you forget about the The Unabomber? Wasn't he a "progressive" and an "environmentalist" just like you White?

You're right, I forgot about him. Actually, I tend to think of him as belonging in the "other" category. You know, like you can't say that a Libertarian is right wing or leftist, but c: none of the above. But its been a long time since I've read any snippets of his manifesto, so its entirely possible that is just wishful thinking on my part. However, I would not say that he is just like me, anymore than I would say you are just like the folks who flew planes into the trade center just because you're both dogmatic fanatics.

heh heh, just a little joke there.

Tenino? My parents live in Yelm.

 

I've never read the Manifesto. Is it the work of a madman?

[AlpineK]

I think Eric, Mtn Goat, and some of you others are way off on this whole issue. Let me help you out.

 

While protesters may be stinky hippies that you wouldn't want hanging around your pad. Protests, especially violent protests make good TV. And what's good for TV is good for corporate America.

[Fairweather]

AK,

 

I see you're at post #999. Please post again so I can see if #1000 changes your status.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

So, are they not supposed to protect, even if it *is* big money donors? When a mob turns out to break things and hurt people, are the police just supposed to step aside because oh, these rioters "care", and are showing "democracy"?

 

This criticism makes no sense whatsoever. The police are supposed to keep the streets safe no matter who is rioting and trying to cause problems.

 

First of all, where do you get the idea that this was a "mob" turning out to "break things and hurt people?" Where in any of those pictures (and there are a lot more photos at www.indymedia.org) do you see anything getting broken or anyone getting hurt? It's not a riot, it's a protest or a demonstration. Riots involve lots of violence and looting, and while they may be in reaction to an event, they are rarely carried out to raise public awareness.

 

Since this is not a riot, who are the streets being "kept safe" for? Why is it that when a group of decidedly wealthy individuals turns out to hobnob with the President and Gordon Smith, they get police protection, essentially acting as armed guards? The police are public servants, not security-for-hire.

 

And thats wether it's rioters who "care" and are threatening people for "peace" and "progressive" values, or anybody else. Funny thing is, it's the folks who *claim* to be oh so caring, and oh so peaceful, throwing bricks and causing problems. And they wonder why they get pepper sprayed. If it always seems to be the folks rioting for peace getting treatment from the cops, maybe that ought to tell us something. It's because of all the folks in the nation who hold vigils, demonstrations, and marches, only those who describe themselves as the most caring and peaceful do the worst damage and lately always cause riots. Not the pro gun crowd, not the million moms, not even the reparations folks, when you see it's the pro peace, social justice, anti globalization folks coming downtown to show us how "democracy" should work, prepare for violence. Makes sense, huh?

 

Where are you getting this idea that peaceful protestors "always cause riots?" It does not make sense that the city should prepare for violence from peaceful demonstrators, because they rarely incite violence. What incidents of violence are you referring to? Even the highly publicized anti-WTO protests in Seattle only had a few instances of "violence," and as the Doctor recalls, that violence was against some windows and newspaper boxes. Hardly an attack on society at large. And even then, that demonstration was attended by thousands of people. If .1 percent of those people break some windows, are all protesters rioting miscreants? Try to keep the "violence" you're referring to in perspective.

 

"Does this make anyone else want to puke?"

 

It certainly does. We have folks claiming "democracy" is shown by rioting. "peace" is pursued by violence in the streets, and police protecting citizens some others disagree with is somehow outrageous.

 

Because apparently if you're a rich donor, rioters should be able to harm you on the sidewalks, you have no life, no rights, no kids at home or people who love you. You're just a cartoon figure, not a real person, and pissed off "progressives" should be able to do what they want to you on the street. yeah, it makes me puke alright.

 

Again (and again, and again), this is not violence. This is people exercising their right to peaceably assemble. This is the police keeping people from getting within several blocks of the people they disagree with. This has nothing to do with keeping these people safe, and everything to do with shutting out peaceful protest. These people weren't there to hurt wealthy political donors, but to voice their opinion of the "president" and what he stands for. You keep calling these people violent and rioters, but look at the pictures, and tell the Doctor who showed up with pepper spray, clubs, and shotguns? Do you see any protesters in full riot gear and pointing guns at people? Come on. Are the protestors beating up the cops and smashing windows? Hmmm ... no, they're not.

 

When you have a political disagreement with someone, you *don't* get mad because the cops keep you from harming them. You *don't* show up and cause riots.

 

Demonstration is a public right, causing harm is not, and if "progressives" cannot keep their demonstrations from turning into riots maybe they ought to grow up and take a look at who they are, who they attract, what they condone, and maybe, just maybe, *actually* *LIVE* what they claim to believe. Fat chance.

 

Again, where's the violence? Who is there to cause harm to other people? Perhaps you remember Los Angeles post-Rodney King incident, with all the burning, looting, and mayhem? That was a riot. That footage of the Middle East you've seen on the news with people burning cars, throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at the police? Those were riots. But people carrying signs, chanting, beating drums (there's something we could to without), and staying on their side of the barricades without throwing anything but a little attitude at the cops? That's a protest, not a riot.

 

Is not rioting for peace really all that hard? And they wonder why they are viewed as fringe, while they claim to be mainstream. one casual look at claims vs actions is all it takes to explain why.

 

How many of those people do you think claim to be mainstream, or want to be? They know that as protesters they are in the minority. Most people who might agree with the reasons behind them don't turn out to protests because they are either too cynical or too busy with other things, or don't want to get -- surprise -- pepper sprayed or worse by the cops.

 

****************************8

 

Poor babies got pepper sprayed. Call the Waaaaaambulance for them. Pepper spray is an appropriate low intensity responce to rioters. They have no "right" to riot, they are committing a crime and threatening others. If you don't want to be pepper sprayed, with the attendant risk of allergic reactions in some, it's pretty simple, really...don't riot! Don't hang around when told to leave! Don't threaten people for peace!

 

Look, it's not a riot, and demonstrating is not a crime, so why should people get pepper sprayed for it. Yeah, it would be understandable if these people were causing havoc and wrecking shit, but that's not what was happening, so why should they get treated like criminals?

[allthumbs]

What a way to blow the day. They should've been climbing, or drinking beer, or chasing hoochie mamas, you know, something worthwhile.

[vegetablebelay]

Wow! "Street Medics" - I missed my calling.

[sexual_chocolate]

"I do not agree with these protesters on nearly anything they say, I agree they have the right to protests, but when I see people *stay* at a barrier and *intentionally* face cops for long periods of time, they're not choosing the peaceful route IMO."

 

I suppose you would have been opposed to many of the tactics of the civil rights movements, such as sitting in the front of the bus, ala Rosa Parks, because it's "confrontational".

 

I personally don't like the idea of protesters being herded into smaller and smaller "containment" areas; wtf, last time I checked, a protest usually occurs in the vicinity of that which is being protested!

 

The peremptory tactics being employed by the ones making the policy decisions are, I believe, just adding fuel to the fire, further drowning out the voices of opposition. When a segment of the population feels itself to be voiceless, unheard, ignored by the corporate-owned media, and then pushed even further by COPS WITH GUNS, aka stooges for power-brokers (left or right), then yes, we will, predictably, have violence. Check:civil rights movement, War of Independence, Boston Tea Party, Romero in El Salvador (assassinated by US cronies), Daniel Ortega, etc....

 

For a "libertarian", you sound dangerously close to an ultra right-wing fanatic....?

[sexual_chocolate]

Oh my gawd! Did I just sort of call you a right wing fanatic?

 

[ 08-26-2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

[sexual_chocolate]

I think what happens often is that violence becomes institutionalized, ie. violence is inherent within the structures of a particular society/culture, and because it has become "part of the scenery", many are oblivious to it and its effects.

 

Then when opposition occurs, violence becomes much more apparent to the oblivious bystander, yet the mechanisms of the institutionalized violence have a self-protective mechanism built in (denial), much as what happens in the smoothest running dysfunctional family (everything is blamed on the individual who points out the dysfunctionality).

[Off_White]

Haw! I did it, a Mtn Goat style response. Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

“Are cops supposed to go home to their families with crushed skulls, broken limbs, or missing eyes, so protestors don't feel threatened? I can't understand why someone who is supposed to stand in front of hundreds of people is supposed to do so without appropriate protection. They're *supposed* be to hard to hurt, they're *supposed* to be able to do their jobs without worrying about bricks they don't see flying above the crowd.“

 

The track record so far suggests it the protestors who are far more in need of protective gear.

 

“So they're unhappy. OK. Lots of people are unhappy, only some feel this makes it OK to fill the streets and threaten cops. Maybe they need to do some work on why their unhappiness means they need to display it in public in threatening ways. Peaceful protestors walk *by* cops, they don't turn and confront them.”

 

Don’t confuse non-violent with non-confrontational. The barricade arrangement is not designed to allow “walk by” demonstration, but rather to (as you put it) “block travel of other free citizens.” If I oppose Retrosaurus’ bolt chopping activities, and confront him (picket, argue, rappel the line and hang from the bolts in question) at the crag, even if he is as big and scary (like cops in armor) as Caveman asserts, it doesn’t give him carte blanche to assault me. And it would not be effective to merely wave a sign at him and walk away either. Without confrontation and pressure, things don’t change.

 

“That would be a start. *Choosing* to stop buying consumer goods, taking vacations using fuel swilling jets, ceasing to buy hi tech corporate products like music devices, computers, outdoor gear, eating foods trucked thousands of miles, etc.... these simple choices by all those people would *instantly* change an economy in ways no nasty old capitalist could do anything about.”

 

I hear ya, hypocrites are irritating. You (or others) may view me as a rabid commie leftist, but actually I believe in moderation and compromise rather than extremism. The thing is, if someone is going to argue unbendingly full tilt in one direction, someone else has to argue the other direction just as hard if you want to wind up in the middle. My grandfather used to work for International Harvester, and travel all over the world investigating accidents and developing arguments for the lawyers to prove that in all cases Harvester had no responsibility for the equipment that failed on that bus full of schoolchildren. I asked him how he could live with that, when he knew in fact that sometimes it was the companies fault. He said that you count on the other side having effective representation to argue their point, but his job was to work for his employer’s interest, and that between the two positions the system works.

 

“What is it called when "progressives", use the same places to campaign for more govt programs? Is that opportinism too? Seems to me this "opportunism" is decided by political reasons.”

 

Well of course, but as I’m well aware (and if you would only submit, you would too), I’m right... err, I mean correct.

 

“I agree with you here, on the civil liberties, I'm all for missile defense.”

 

I know Libertarianism well enough to know where you and I are allies. I’d love to debate missile defense with you, but lets agree to spare everyone that right now, okay?

 

“ I do not agree with these protesters on nearly anything they say, I agree they have the right to protests, but when I see people *stay* at a barrier and *intentionally* face cops for long periods of time, they're not choosing the peaceful route IMO.”

 

Well, I don’t agree with nearly anything you say, but I’d be equally outraged if you participated in a pro-globalism demonstration and got sprayed for it. Come to think of it, where are those pro-globalism rallies? If it’s such a good thing for so many people, wouldn’t there be more evidence of support, people coming out to oppose those thuggish lefties?

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

What a way to blow the day. They should've been climbing, or drinking beer, or chasing hoochie mamas, you know, something worthwhile.

---

You know how it is Trask, arguing politics with someone is like wrestling with a pig, after awhile you realize they like it. I thought you avoided these threads, if you're not careful you'll have to increase your blood pressure medication.

[allthumbs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Off White:

I thought you avoided these threads, if you're not careful you'll have to increase your blood pressure medication.

hehehe I do try to avoid political and religious subjects...unless I'm drunk and wearing pink in a Cowboy Saloon.

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

quote:

---

hehehe I do try to avoid political and religious subjects...unless I'm drunk and wearing pink in a Cowboy Saloon

---

---

Oh my god, you made me laugh so hard that if I'd been drinking beer it would have come out my nose. Sometimes having a vivid imagination can be a real curse

[MtnGoat]

I can see corporate America doesn't do any good for you, running that PC supported by literally hundreds of nasty corporate engineers like myself who designed and tested it, who use parts from hundreds or thousands of other evil corporate drones.

 

Using the internet run by still more corporations and using fiberoptic and microwave backbones developed by other nasty corporations, network switches and servers developed by still more selfish capitalists, and running from the power derived by still other hundreds of other corporations for generation, instrumentation, troubleshooting, and all the infrastructure used there.

 

Yup, what's good for corporate America has never done a damned thing for anyone else. They make their money in a trade vacuum by offering nothing anybody wants or values, when you pay for something you get nothing you want.

 

[ 08-27-2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[erik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

I can see corporate America doesn't do any good for you, running that PC supported by literally hundreds of nasty corporate engineers like myself who designed and tested it, who use parts from hundreds or thousands of other evil corporate drones.

 

Using the internet run by still more corporations and using fiberoptic and microwave backbones developed by other nasty corporations, and running from the power derived by still other hundreds of other corporations for generation, instrumentation, troubleshooting, and all the infrastructure used there.

 

Yup, what's good for corporate America has never done a damned thing for anyone else. They make their money in a trade vacuum by offering nothing anybody wants or values, when you pay for something you get nothing you want.

---

 

ya know goat...we may not see eye to eye on the lamebone incident....but i certainly like your political style!!!

[Dru]

cooperative can outcompete corporation - look at MEC in Canada dominating outdoor retail market...

[MtnGoat]

Just cracks me up. *WE* are corporate America. We have lives, families, dreams, goals, and beliefs like all our fellow citizens. We each work for companies that work with and for other companies.

 

We each use products daily, no matter how simple or insignificant, which have value to *us* based on our personal needs and desires, products based in an enormous, complex infrastructure in which we each play a role both as creator, and consumer. Corporate America means *you* are responsible for what you value, because they can't sell it if you don't want it. We're not children, or pets of the state, we're free adults with the *right* to determine what we exchange with others, and for what.

 

Wether it's a nice new rack of pro, top ramen or freeze dried, a polypro hat, band aids, vitamin I, lithium batteries in an LED headlamp, or the GPS system that gets someone who's run out of luck into that chopper and back the the folks that love them, capitalism and corporate America rocks.

 

This wonderful system relies on each person to decide for themselves what they value and why, which is the realization of personal determination of values, beliefs and goals.

 

Why this is a bad thing or how "corporate America" is seen as some separate evil entity when it is composed of *US* is something I will never understand.

[MtnGoat]

"cooperative can outcompete corporation - look at MEC in Canada dominating outdoor retail market..."

 

Great point!. They still have the structure of a buisness, after all, right? The key to me is MEC is a *voluntary* cooperative, using it's strengths to compete in a free market against others with differing techniques and aims. MEC is a great biz, and does great service with good prices. There's a place for all buisness models, let the consumer decide!

 

It may be cooperative models win out in many areas, and if that's the case that's how it goes. No one has a corner on how a buisness should be run, after all!

[Greg_W]

DFA;

 

By definition, ELF uses these extreme actions to shock and scare people. This is terrorism - the use of terror and intimidation in order to coerce. ELF takes action to coerce the public or the government to take actions that ELF wants. Your other comments are equally scary: by what right does the ELF, or anyone, have sanction to destroy log trucks and other property that does not belong to them? No one has the right to exercise their rights (i.e., freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) at the expense of someone elses same rights.

 

Greg W

[iain]

Agreed with DFA, I just hope they don't hurt anybody.

 

[ 08-27-2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

DFA;

 

By definition, ELF uses these extreme actions to shock and scare people.

---

I think they use extreme actions to stop what they perceive as damage immediately, rather than to intimidate and scare (which might well be a by-product of the action).