An interesting contrast in protests

[PaceAdvantage]

After watching video of today's "Tea Parties" across the U.S., an interesting point was raised. Nowhere did I see people throwing rocks or bottles or cans at police, nowhere did I see people breaking windows, nowhere did I see obnoxious signs or see angry folks screaming obscenities.

Interestingly, many in the MSM characterized these protests (before they actually happened) as events hosted by and attended by "rabid" "right-wing" "wackos."

Interesting.

However, when I recall past "left-wing" protests, such as those during the Republican National Convention this past summer, or the protests during the G-20 financial summits, one can't help but see the violence, the lines of police officers in riot gear, the anarchy that inevitably ensues.

Does anyone else not find this interesting? How does the left-leaning folks on this board reconcile such strange doings? I would expect "rabid, right-wing wackos" to be causing at LEAST as much havoc as their left-wing counterparts, but that simply isn't the case. Or maybe I missed the reports of rioting, arrests and property damage?

[NJ Stinks]

Since you asked, PA, here's a few reasons:

1. If 95% of the crowd are going to have their federal taxes reduced, how worked up can they really be about a tax protest?

2. If some protestors are making over $250k a year, are they going to get themselves arrested for something that may have a minute effect on their standard of living?

3. Generally, people don't go nuts over something that might not even happen in two years.

Other than borrowing the term "tea party" this wasn't exactly a case of no taxation without representation.

[Pell Mell]

Since you asked, PA, here's a few reasons:

1. If 95% of the crowd are going to have their federal taxes reduced, how worked up can they really be about a tax protest?

2. If some protestors are making over $250k a year, are they going to get themselves arrested for something that may have a minute effect on their standard of living?

3. Generally, people don't go nuts over something that might not even happen in two years.

Other than borrowing the term "tea party" this wasn't exactly a case of no taxation without representation.

Sort of like saying that if your not tearing your hair out and screaming during your mothers funeral you didn't care about her:bang:

[The Judge]

are use to having it their way why should they be upset? I'm sure most of them are new to this area of protest. I'm willing to bet this is their first time "taking it to the street".

Lets see how they act when they are ignored for 40 years or the police charge into their lines and rip up their signs or catch them on side streets and deliver a little "instant justice" , or send in undercover ops to try and incite the crowd, or ask them for permits, or "move along you are blocking the side walk," or stop them and give them tickets for minor traffic infraciton going to and from the protest. Of course that will not happen to them as I'm sure most of the police agree with them, for now.

In short they've got nothing to be very angry about.

[Tom]

Judge, we have 12 trillion reasons to be pissed off.

[lsbets]

Since you asked, PA, here's a few reasons:

1. If 95% of the crowd are going to have their federal taxes reduced, how worked up can they really be about a tax protest?

2. If some protestors are making over $250k a year, are they going to get themselves arrested for something that may have a minute effect on their standard of living?

3. Generally, people don't go nuts over something that might not even happen in two years.

Other than borrowing the term "tea party" this wasn't exactly a case of no taxation without representation.

1. Not true at all. While their marginal income tax rates go down, their burden from taxes will go up. Case A - a pack a day smoker who makes 40K a year. His tax increase on cigs far outweighs his tiny income tax cut. Case B - if cap and trade is implemented, energy costs will skyrocket to unprecedented levels. THe increased cost for electricity alone (which will be a direct result of government action) will more than outweigh any cut in marginal tax rates. To say 95% of people are having their taxes reduced is an out and out falsehood, and the burden of Obama's policies will fall on those he claims to help, at the lower end of the income scale.

2. Loss of liberty does not have a minute impact on anyone's standard of living. It should be the biggest issue for all.

3. Hopefully it doesn't happen. If more people rise up against the regime in DC it might not. If it does happen, we will be paying dearly for a long, long time.

[boxcar]

are use to having it their way why should they be upset? I'm sure most of them are new to this area of protest. I'm willing to bet this is their first time "taking it to the street".

Lets see how they act when they are ignored for 40 years or the police charge into their lines and rip up their signs or catch them on side streets and deliver a little "instant justice" , or send in undercover ops to try and incite the crowd, or ask them for permits, or "move along you are blocking the side walk," or stop them and give them tickets for minor traffic infraciton going to and from the protest. Of course that will not happen to them as I'm sure most of the police agree with them, for now.

In short they've got nothing to be very angry about.

Ahh...I get it. When the radical left protests, it's the mean-spirited, right-wing police who incite hostility, riots, chaos, etc.. On the other hand, if the yesterday's demonstrations had been characterized by mayhem, the police, I'm sure, would not have been the blamed. The right-wing "extremists" protesting would have! Talk about having it both ways! :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[Tom]

How do we get a tax cut when the Bush cuts are going to expire?

I hope everyone realizes that the so-called current tax cut is not a cut at all. It is a revised withholding rate, and we all have to pay more or get back less in 364 days.

[ddog]

After watching video of today's "Tea Parties" across the U.S., an interesting point was raised. Nowhere did I see people throwing rocks or bottles or cans at police, nowhere did I see people breaking windows, nowhere did I see obnoxious signs or see angry folks screaming obscenities.

Interestingly, many in the MSM characterized these protests (before they actually happened) as events hosted by and attended by "rabid" "right-wing" "wackos."

Interesting.

However, when I recall past "left-wing" protests, such as those during the Republican National Convention this past summer, or the protests during the G-20 financial summits, one can't help but see the violence, the lines of police officers in riot gear, the anarchy that inevitably ensues.

Does anyone else not find this interesting? How does the left-leaning folks on this board reconcile such strange doings? I would expect "rabid, right-wing wackos" to be causing at LEAST as much havoc as their left-wing counterparts, but that simply isn't the case. Or maybe I missed the reports of rioting, arrests and property damage?



Pa

That you so readily accept as fact that which you see on tv is a serious problem you need to get over it.

Maybe , as always , given a chance there are a number of people on any "side" that will look for any excuse to run amuck.

However, maybe the environment can be such that this part of your post
"one can't help but see the violence, the lines of police officers in riot gear, the anarchy that inevitably ensues" cuts both ways.

I found this an interesting take on part of the G20.


"I was at the protests yesterday and I was hoping for a peaceful protest. I am not the anarchists of Daily Mail lore - I am a Labour member and I read the Times (not to forget my subscription to this splendid paper). There was undoubtedly a minority who were bent on violence and I do not blame the police for acting to prevent this.

The problem came about two hours after the RBS windows were smashed when the police started to force people into a smaller and smaller area. I was standing at the end of Queen Victoria street after the police let people go down there to spread people out and let them out. I was standing there talking with a policeman, (who incidentally commented "I didn't join the police to protect the bankers") when suddenly 200-300 people came running down the street in a panic. A few minutes later, when I was sitting on the pavement, the hardcore riot police with balaclavas covering their faces came down the street with shields and batons drawn. They started pushing and attacking people - people who were the peaceful protestors seeking to avoid the problems up at RBS.

The girl next to me was hit over the head by a baton and was knocked unconscious immediately. Blood was streaming from her head and the police kicked her to get up and continued to do so until people dragged her away, again being attacked by policemen. The blood dripped from her head as she was taken away.

This was repeated throughout the day.

I went to the protests as a peaceful demonstrator. I acted - consistently - in a peaceful manner. Most of the police were friendly decent people who were as unhappy as we were - their superiors hadn't even arranged water and sandwiches for them and they'd been on duty for 10+ hours. The problem was the strategy used and the sheer brutality demonstrated by the small number of concealed riot police.

It was the first time in my life that the police were anything but a pillar I could rely on."


Do you think that given a "cattle-pin" type setup at the tea party that something untoward could erupt?

Would you react well to being forced to stay in an area when you are ready to leave?

Even if you see some number of hooligans getting out of hand?

Even if those hooligan were in the police force?
You don't think that police forces contain an element looking for an excuse?

Really.


That you draw such facile comparisons is a joke.
You seem to indicate that all G20 protests would have been made up of only left wing types.

I doubt it.

[ddog]

1. Not true at all. While their marginal income tax rates go down, their burden from taxes will go up. Case A - a pack a day smoker who makes 40K a year. His tax increase on cigs far outweighs his tiny income tax cut. Case B - if cap and trade is implemented, energy costs will skyrocket to unprecedented levels. THe increased cost for electricity alone (which will be a direct result of government action) will more than outweigh any cut in marginal tax rates. To say 95% of people are having their taxes reduced is an out and out falsehood, and the burden of Obama's policies will fall on those he claims to help, at the lower end of the income scale.

2. Loss of liberty does not have a minute impact on anyone's standard of living. It should be the biggest issue for all.

3. Hopefully it doesn't happen. If more people rise up against the regime in DC it might not. If it does happen, we will be paying dearly for a long, long time.



Oh, so now we are all worried about loss of liberty.
Maybe what you are worried about at most is loss of your liberty as you define it.

[cj's dad]

See PA- you thought you were entitled to your opinion. Once again the dog has straightened you out, with an example from overseas no less.

I have a thought; why not just post a topic and let the dog expound on same ad infinitum and then when he is done we will all know what the truth is and can subsequently and forthwith move on to the next issue.

Thank you dog, for your continued enlightenment and clarification of issues both
here and abroad. Thank you, thank you so much !!

[ddog]

You may try to deflect any issue and that's about all you are worth so have at it.


If Pa has a problem with the post I am sure he can handle himself.

You on the other hand go seek professional help.

your insipid postings don't impress me so do as you will.

Was Pa commenting on a LOCAL US based G20?
Was it only overseas when I raised a concern as to the MSM portrayal of same?

You are a one creature riot, I do appreciate the laughs though.

:lol:


your feelings of inferiority are not my problem.

Now for 200.00 bucks an hour I could offer some sessions.
:faint:


Oh daday, btw, i am entitled to my opinion of his opinion.

SEE, how that works, i know it hurts but try anyway.

[Tom]

Liberty as I define it.

I do what I want, when I want, how I want, as often as I want, and as long as I don't hurt anyone, you keep your steenking nose out my business.

Simple.

Loved Ted Nugent's message to Obama yesterday, fro the Alamo, no less...
"You want to fix the economy? Cut my taxes and get the hell out of my way. I don't need a thing from you."

[ddog]

Liberty as I define it.

I do what I want, when I want, how I want, as often as I want, and as long as I don't hurt anyone, you keep your steenking nose out my business.

Simple.

Loved Ted Nugent's message to Obama yesterday, fro the Alamo, no less...
"You want to fix the economy? Cut my taxes and get the hell out of my way. I don't need a thing from you."



seems you and DHS under bush and bama have a disagreement then.

wonder of wonders. they awaken.

[dav4463]

I'm sure there were a few homosexuals in the Tea Party crowd, but thankfully those on the right don't show up to their rallies wearing speedos and half-shirts demanding gay rights!

[PaceAdvantage]

That you draw such facile comparisons is a joke.
You seem to indicate that all G20 protests would have been made up of only left wing types.

I doubt it.I also mentioned the protesters at the RNC last summer. Perhaps I missed your take on that comparison.

[Lefty]

And the media has made it clear in their view that the tea parties are made up of conservative nuts. You mean not one dem or independent is concerned about all these taxes and spending?

[The Judge]

Seems I remember a Republican riot in Dade County back in 2000, they rampaged thru City Hall and forced the Board of Elections to stop the manual re-count of the votes for the President of the United States as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

[boxcar]

Seems I remember a Republican riot in Dade County back in 2000, they rampaged thru City Hall and forced the Board of Elections to stop the manual re-count of the votes for the President of the United States as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

It was the cops' fault. They incited that riot just like they do with all the left-wing radicals when they riot -- which is more often than not!

Boxcar

[ddog]

I also mentioned the protesters at the RNC last summer. Perhaps I missed your take on that comparison.


I didn't have one.

I could gin one up, but I think it's not helpful here.

Were there not protestors at the DNC deal as well?


Your views are valid, i just don't agree they are as cut and dried as the spin makes them out to be.

I will tell you(bigdeal) that I am all in favour of anything it takes to bring down the two parties.

So, you will not find a friendly take toward anyone who defends either of their right to exist.

They have both given up that right imo.

The country and gvt would be better served with violent overthrow of the two party system , if that's finally the only course left.[COLOR=Red]


Along those lines and to try for a positive spin to this thread, i urge your full support of the patriots in this movement.


http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and that oath will be kept. We won’t “just follow orders."[FONT=Arial Black]

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.




"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them.
The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army" - Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

[boxcar]

I didn't have one.

I could gin one up, but I think it's not helpful here.

Were there not protestors at the DNC deal as well?


Your views are valid, i just don't agree they are as cut and dried as the spin makes them out to be.

I will tell you(bigdeal) that I am all in favour of anything it takes to bring down the two parties.

So, you will not find a friendly take toward anyone who defends either of their right to exist.

They have both given up that right imo.

The country and gvt would be better served with violent overthrow of the two party system , if that's finally the only course left.[COLOR=Red]


Along those lines and to try for a positive spin to this thread, i urge your full support of the patriots in this movement.


http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and that oath will be kept. We won’t “just follow orders."[FONT=Arial Black]

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.




"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them.
The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army" - Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

See that? GW was a true blue Conservative. At the end of the day, the Tea Parties were about whether Americans are to remain Freemen or become Slaves of a large, oppressive, tyrannical, socialistic state. And freedom includes ECONOMIC freedom, as well. It includes freedom from oppressive taxes and debt.

Boxcar

[ddog]

box

if you think GW was a true blue conservative , then we don't understand the term the same way or one of us doesn't care about actions only words.

Once again, in the hope of sanity returning to this country, i link to one of the true conservative store houses.

Gw was and is far far away from the most important parts , he essentially turned it on it's head into a mercantilist-financially oligarch driven movement with a few hot button social issues tossed in for red-meaters.


http://www.amconmag.com/

[cj's dad]

You may try to deflect any issue and that's about all you are worth so have at it.


If Pa has a problem with the post I am sure he can handle himself.

You on the other hand go seek professional help.

your insipid postings don't impress me so do as you will.

Was Pa commenting on a LOCAL US based G20?
Was it only overseas when I raised a concern as to the MSM portrayal of same?

You are a one creature riot, I do appreciate the laughs though.

:lol:


your feelings of inferiority are not my problem.

Now for 200.00 bucks an hour I could offer some sessions.
:faint:


Oh daday, btw, i am entitled to my opinion of his opinion.

SEE, how that works, i know it hurts but try anyway.


Saul Alinsky's rules of engagement - RULE #3

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

Well done dog; but your futility is reaching epidemic proportions ! :lol:

[ddog]

Peace Out

With Obama in office, liberals learn to love war.

By Justin Raimondo


The antiwar rally at the University of Iowa was sparsely attended. The below 30 degree weather might have had something to do with it, but Paul Street, a local writer and one of the speakers, had another theory, as the Daily Iowan reported:

Before the crowd of fewer than 20, Street questioned why the ‘left’ locals and university officials aren’t doing more to help in the protests against the war. ‘The big truth right now, whether this town’s missing-in-action progressives get it or not, is that we need to fight the rich, not their wars,’ he said, citing big corporations for wasting their technology and funding on war.

The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama’s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. Those ostensibly antiwar organizations that did so much to agitate against the Iraq War have now fallen into line behind their commander in chief and are simply awaiting orders.

Take, for example, Moveon.org, the online activist group that ran antiwar ads during the election—but only against Republicans—in coalition with a group of labor unions and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. Behind AAEI stood three of Obama’s top political operatives, Steve Hildebrand, Paul Tewes, and Brad Woodhouse. Woodhouse is now the Democratic National Committee’s director of communications and research. He controls the massive e-mail list culled by the Obama campaign during the primaries and subsequently, as well as a list of all those who gave money to the presumed peace candidate. These donors are no doubt wondering what Obama is doing escalating the war in Afghanistan and venturing into Pakistan.

As Greg Sargent noted over at WhoRunsGov.com, a Washington Post-sponsored site, “Don’t look now, but President Obama’s announcement today of an escalation in the American presence in Afghanistan is being met with mostly silence—and even some support—from the most influential liberal groups who opposed the Iraq War.”

In response to inquiries, Moveon.org refused to make any public statement about Obama’s rollout of the Af-Pak escalation, although someone described as “an official close to the group” is cited by WhoRunsGov as confirming that “MoveOn wouldn’t be saying anything in the near term.” A vague promise to poll their members was mentioned—“though it’s unclear when.” Don’t hold your breath.

Another Democratic Party front masquerading as a peace group, Americans United for Change, declined to comment on the war plans of the new administration. This astroturf organization ran $600,000 worth of television ads in the summer of 2007, focusing like a laser on congressional districts with Republican incumbents. Change? Not so fast.

The boldest of the peacenik sellouts, however, is Jon Soltz of VoteVets, described by WhoRunsGov as “among the most pugnacious anti-Iraq war groups.” They came out fists flying, endorsing the escalation of the Long War.

According to Soltz, there is “much to like in the plan,” but his faves boil down to three factors, which supposedly represent “a stark departure” from the bad old days of the Bush administration. He applauds the administration’s recognition that “The military can’t do it all.” Yet we’re increasing the troop levels by some 17,000, plus 4,000 trainers to babysit the barely existent Afghan “army.” We’re going to send thousands more civilians—aid workers, medical personnel, and military contractors—to build the infrastructure lacking in Afghan society and promote fealty to the central government in Kabul. Schools, clinics, roads, and shopping malls will be built with American tax dollars in order to foster trust between the Afghans, their occupiers, and their government.

This nation-building strategy is at the core of the new counterinsurgency doctrine championed by Gen. David Petraeus and hailed by the policy wonks at the Center for a New American Security—the source of many Obama administration appointees at State and the civilian upper echelons of the Pentagon—as the key to victory on the Af-Pak front. Yet this scheme seems no less grandiose, in terms of its scope, than the “democracy building” campaign of the neocons, who set out to effect lasting change in the political landscape in the region. The Obamaites are much more ambitious: they seek to transform the economic and social landscape.

Another factor in the Obama Af-Pak war plan that appeals to Soltz and his fellow VoteVets is that “though it’s the ‘war in Afghanistan,’ we need to treat it like a region.” Translation: Don’t be surprised when Obama’s war spreads beyond Afghanistan’s borders. “This is a regional problem,” Soltz solemnly avers, “that requires a regional solution.” Imagine if George W. Bush had gone “regional” and announced that he was going to include Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and Iran in his plan to “liberate” Iraq? Soltz and his sometime peacenik buddies would have gone ballistic, denouncing this “escalation” of the conflict and demanding that we pull back. Yet the rules for the Af-Pak region are apparently quite different because, after all, this is Barack Obama doing the escalating.
Soltz doesn’t confront the obvious arguments against the Af-Pak plan: How is this different from the occupation of Iraq? Aren’t we creating more enemies by bombing hapless Pakistani villagers with drones? What about Afghanistan and Pakistan’s neighbors, notably Russia—do we really want to add them to our enemies list, as they respond with distrust to our feeding of this fire on their frontiers?

Soltz never answers these questions because he never bothers to ask them. He merely assumes the perfect justice and practicality of Obama’s Afghan cause. He is a soldier following orders.



http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/20/00020/

[The Judge]

don't remeber police anywhere around, not one person arrested, not one person handcuffed, no one hit with a club, no court appearances , nothing; just a bunch of the good old boys closing down election headquarters while the country was trying to determine who was the next President of the United States.

Talk about contrasts in protest!!

[boxcar]

don't remeber police anywhere around, not one person arrested, not one person handcuffed, no one hit with a club, no court appearances , nothing; just a bunch of the good old boys closing down election headquarters while the country was trying to determine who was the next President of the United States.

Talk about contrasts in protest!!

There should have been. The dimwit counters inside who were trying to desperately to rig the election. They should have been arrested!

Boxcar

[BlueShoe]

Strange isnt it,how violent those Leftist rallys and demonstrations seem to get?"Anti war demonstrations"?,"peace march"?,"political gathering for civil rights"?Wow,just watch the rocks and bottles start flying.Nice to see these "peace lovers" behaving so,well,unpeacefully,isnt it?

[The Judge]

where have I heard that before.

Boxcar what happened to law and order. It was for a higher good, right. The law breakers where actually heros they got a telepathic message that votes where about to be stolen so like true Americans they showed up and close down the election headquaters on election night.

Now thats what I call true Americans or is it taking the law into your on hands. Well thank godness the police thought it was O.K. or else they could have gotten a boo boo.