NationStates Jolt Archive

You've probably all heard the news. The GOP convention has been targeted by anarchist and other extremist groups. Now, I have no problem with protestors. The constitution gives us the right to peaceably assemble and exercise free speech, but this is a little extreme, don't you think? They plan to do everything possible to create false alarms for the police. They plan to go to gun ranges beforehand so they smell like gunpowder. False alarm for police dogs. They plan to place amounts of fertilizer on subways and near the convention, the same fertilizer that was used by the terrorists in the 1993 WTC bombing and Timothy McVeigh to make bombs. They plan to make the police's job as hard as possible, and are making it easier for real terrorists to target the convention.
My take: I think it's bullshit.
Your take:

I feel it is a right for people to protest as long as it does not interfere with daily order. But as for goin to shooting ranges to confuse the dogs and putting fertilizer on subways I think they should have their legs broke and spend about 2 years in jail.

You've probably all heard the news. The GOP convention has been targeted by anarchist and other extremist groups. Now, I have no problem with protestors. The constitution gives us the right to peaceably assemble and exercise free speech, but this is a little extreme, don't you think? They plan to do everything possible to create false alarms for the police. They plan to go to gun ranges beforehand so they smell like gunpowder. False alarm for police dogs. They plan to place amounts of fertilizer on subways and near the convention, the same fertilizer that was used by the terrorists in the 1993 WTC bombing and Timothy McVeigh to make bombs. They plan to make the police's job as hard as possible, and are making it easier for real terrorists to target the convention.
My take: I think it's bullshit.
Your take:

Ok, you should get some thing straight. First of all, anarchist groups make up only a small percentage of the protesters, so I object to you putting them at the top of the list. I don't know who you are talking about when you say "other extremists." Who is this "they" that plans to go to gun ranges? Where did you get that? (I smell bulls*it, link maybe?) Anybody who does place fertilizer on subway platforms will likely be arrested, and made to look like an idiot or whisked off to Guantanamo without a word. Trust me, I live in NYC I know how well the subways are watched on normal day. I have a hard time believeing that any of the legitimate political groups that are orgainising the demonstrations would be stupid enough to support such actions, even the anarchists.

Second, you should realize that there are going to be protests at the DNC in Boston also. Anti-abortion extremists (see, I can use the same stupid tactic) and other "reactionaries" plan to protest the DNC. These protests illustrate a breakdown in the political system of this country. With a 2 party system half the population can be disenfranchised, which should not happen.

This brings me to my favorite point, Why the hell did they decide to have the RNC in NYC? NYC HATES the republican party as an entity, we don't want them here, and we hoe pthey learn their lesson and never come back. I think the reason for having the RNC in NYC is two-fold. One, its a failed attempt at "solidarity" after voting down NYC relief funding. (Which REALLY pissed off our Republican Mayor, BTW) Two, its because the NYPD is extremely effective in controling and subdueing grassroots demonstrations, and the grid pattern of the city streets makes crowd control much easier. (but more dangeous to demonsrators)

I don't buy this crap aobut fake bombs and going to gun ranges, I am active in the community of the left and have not heard about any of this. I think you have been looking at anarchist websites, which is the equivalent of me looking at white-supremacist sites and telling you about how the right wants to kill black people and abortionists.

BoogieDown is right, Reynes--posting an accusation like this without some sort of sourcing is Limbaugh/Savage bullshit.

He diddn't have to, it was all over the news. Although I never heard the demonstraters called anarchists or even extremists...

I think that's pretty sweet.

Fight the power! *raises fist*

He diddn't have to, it was all over the news. Although I never heard the demonstraters called anarchists or even extremists...
Round here, you have to back it up, or else you get hounded forever. Besides, if it was all over the news, there ought to be a story somewhere online. Find it.

Naw, I've heard of it too.


There are two protests that I know of. The first is the delightful bell ringing thing, which sounds pretty fun. THe second is this more...well, violent one.


I say, stick with the bell ringing. Only idiots go out of their way to piss off the police.

He diddn't have to, it was all over the news. Although I never heard the demonstraters called anarchists or even extremists...

What news? Is it that hard to post a link? If you don't you sound like an uninformed asshole... If you do.. You might help to inform somebody, sounds liek a no-brainer to me..

and Reynes used the term "anarchists and other extremists" in his/her original post, and you never heard it because its not true. Read my reply to the poll.

If they're anarchists, I support them unless they actually kill someone.

If they're anarchists, I support them unless they actually kill someone.

You support Nihilists (sp?) like these losers trying prevent the RNC from gathering? I thought Anarcho-Commies, like yourself, believed in freedom of speech? Or is it only freedom of speech if they agree with you?

Me!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125464,00.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/211401p-182089c.html
I'll keep looking for more, but few seem to want to report it. There's nothing on CNN. These sources do, however, specifically say "anarchist groups".

You were saying?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125464,00.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/211401p-182089c.html
I'll keep looking for more, but few seem to want to report it. There's nothing on CNN. These sources do, however, specifically say "anarchist groups".

You were saying?Thanks. The Daily News was very good at repeatedly mentioning that these were fringe groups not linked to the Democratic party or even to the liberal left. The Fox piece was far less detailed, but did mention anarchists in the piece. I wonder how the spin meisters like O'Reilly or Hannity will play this. I have little doubt that they'll try to form some linkage with the Democratic protestors in September.

You support Nihilists (sp?) like these losers trying prevent the RNC from gathering? I thought Anarcho-Commies, like yourself, believed in freedom of speech? Or is it only freedom of speech if they agree with you?

These pot-banning, anime-censoring, war-starting neofascists don't care about free speech at all. Haven't you heard of the patriot act? We're trying to slow the loss of freedom in the US.

These pot-banning, anime-censoring, war-starting neofascists don't care about free speech at all. Haven't you heard of the patriot act? We're trying to slow the loss of freedom in the US.

Actually, the Right would be the side of the spectrum that is trying to slwo the loss of freedom in the US. The Left is for more government. More govermnent equals less freedom. And please tell me what rights you've personally lost under the PATRIOT Act.....

Pot-banning? Personally, if you want to ruin your life with that leaf, go ahead. Just don't be taking other people with you (ie car accidents while high). Save for some medical uses, nothing good can come from marijauna. But who am I to stop you from destroying your life?

Anime-censoring? Admittedly, I'm not a fan of that form of animation/art, but could you point to me what is being censored in it? Is it the repeated uses of vuglar curse words? Continual displays of violence and bloodshed?

War-starting? So the Left can never start a war, 'eh? Or are you so far Left that anyone Right of freakin' Stalin is a "evil?"

Neo-fascists? Yeah, that would explain why we all see Jews, gays, and gypsies being whisked away in the night by the Gestapo... :rolleyes: Reshape your tinfoil hat, Letila....

Moreover, doesn't the RNC, even if you disagree with them one hundred fold, have the right to gather peacefully and speak their mind, (two rights promised to all Americans in the Constitution)?

Me!

For the record, Colerica, fascism means corporatist nationalism, and there's a very real argument to be made that the Bush administration is fascist. The problem is that the word "fascism" has been so horribly misused over the last 50 years that few people actually know what it means. If you look at the rhetoric of the Bush administration--their favor of corporations over the individuals and their "you're with us or against us" attitude toward the world--then fascist is a pretty accurate description.

For the record, Colerica, fascism means corporatist nationalism, and there's a very real argument to be made that the Bush administration is fascist. The problem is that the word "fascism" has been so horribly misused over the last 50 years that few people actually know what it means. If you look at the rhetoric of the Bush administration--their favor of corporations over the individuals and their "you're with us or against us" attitude toward the world--then fascist is a pretty accurate description.

I know what Fascism means, Incertonia. And President Bush is anything but a Fascist. He's a left-leaning, borderline-socialist. He's not a conservative....

Secondly, in the War on Terror, it does boil down to, "You're with us or you're against us." There is no middle-ground in this new war. Much like the fight that the brave Confederate patriots faced in the War Between the States, we conquer or die....

Me!

I know what Fascism means, Incertonia. And President Bush is anything but a Fascist. He's a left-leaning, borderline-socialist. He's not a conservative....

Secondly, in the War on Terror, it does boil down to, "You're with us or you're against us." There is no middle-ground in this new war. Much like the fight that the brave Confederate patriots faced in the War Between the States, we conquer or die....

Me!First off, what planet do you live on where Bush is a borderline-socialist? I completely agree that he's no conservative, but he's certainly no socialist. He's a corporate whore.

Secondly, there is no "war on terror." That's a misuse of language. Terror is a tactic, not a group that can be warred upon. We're in a war against radical Islamist groups led by Al Qaeda and they tend to use terror tactics as their primary strategies. But warring on terror is like warring on air-to-air dogfights--it's a ridiculous idea.

And speaking as a southerner, born and raised in the deepest of the Deep South, take your brave Confederate patriots bullshit and go back to the cave you crawled out of.

And President Bush is anything but a Fascist. He's a left-leaning, borderline-socialist. He's not a conservative....

This is just so crashingly wrong yet eerily intriguing at the same time that I have no idea how to respond to it.


Secondly, in the War on Terror, it does boil down to, "You're with us or you're against us." There is no middle-ground in this new war. Much like the fight that the brave Confederate patriots faced in the War Between the States, we conquer or die....

Interesting. So who is this "Us" that we have to be either with or against and how, exactly, do you decide which side you fall on? See, I don't advocate blowing up airplanes or monuments or releasing biotoxins into subways, but I also don't think it's right to trample the basic freedoms and rights of citizens that we're supposed to be protecting in this war. I don't think terrorism is an effective tool, either when practiced by bin Laden or when Ashcroft and Ridge give the same press conference six weeks apart to basically say, "Well, he's still out there and he wants to do something to us." I believe in the words of people like Benjamin Franklin ("They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."), Thomas Jefferson ("The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.") and John Adams ("But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.").

So, perhaps you're right, and this is a "for us or against us" situation. I would caution you, however, to be very careful of which "Us" you seem to be coming down on the side of, because it bears very little resemblence to the "U.S.".

You've probably all heard the news. The GOP convention has been targeted by anarchist and other extremist groups. Now, I have no problem with protestors. The constitution gives us the right to peaceably assemble and exercise free speech, but this is a little extreme, don't you think? They plan to do everything possible to create false alarms for the police. They plan to go to gun ranges beforehand so they smell like gunpowder. False alarm for police dogs. They plan to place amounts of fertilizer on subways and near the convention, the same fertilizer that was used by the terrorists in the 1993 WTC bombing and Timothy McVeigh to make bombs. They plan to make the police's job as hard as possible, and are making it easier for real terrorists to target the convention.
My take: I think it's bullshit.
Your take:
I think you should stop trying to demonize dissent like a typical republican

Actually, the Right would be the side of the spectrum that is trying to slwo the loss of freedom in the US. The Left is for more government. More govermnent equals less freedom. And please tell me what rights you've personally lost under the PATRIOT Act.....

The democrats are not left wing. Even the communist party isn't all that left wing. Neither advocate more than token benefits for workers. Socialism means workers owning and managing the means of production and not being robbed by a government or upper class.

First off, what planet do you live on where Bush is a borderline-socialist? I completely agree that he's no conservative, but he's certainly no socialist. He's a corporate whore.

Perhaps "socialist" is the wrong nomenclature when referring to him...we've had but one true socialist in the Presidency and that was FDR......anyway you slice it, however, Bush is a phony conservative....


Secondly, there is no "war on terror." That's a misuse of language. Terror is a tactic, not a group that can be warred upon. We're in a war against radical Islamist groups led by Al Qaeda and they tend to use terror tactics as their primary strategies. But warring on terror is like warring on air-to-air dogfights--it's a ridiculous idea.

Terror = terrorism, in this case. Perhaps you're taking the literal definitions of these terms to seriously. We're in a war for our lives versus radical Islamo-Fascists who want nothing short of our complete and utter destruction. To claim anything otherwise is not only foolish, it's dishonest....


And speaking as a southerner, born and raised in the deepest of the Deep South, take your brave Confederate patriots bullshit and go back to the cave you crawled out of.

A shame that you hate your own heritage....are you afraid of it or is that you don't understand it? I'm not condoning slavery if that's what you're about to say.....slavery is an evil of all evils. But are you going to tell me that there were no patriotic Confederates? You know, the men who gaves their lives for the cause of freedom in the US' Second War for Independance....

Me!

This is just so crashingly wrong yet eerily intriguing at the same time that I have no idea how to respond to it.

How can one logically call Bush a conservative? Granting amnesty to illegal aliens is far from conservative, as an example...


Interesting. So who is this "Us" that we have to be either with or against and how, exactly, do you decide which side you fall on?

The "us" is an ideal: freedom. And you decide on your own....are you for freedom or are you against it? Those who want freedom are those that seek out and destroy the terrorist murderers, who are hell-bent on killing every last one of us.....those who don't want freedom are those impede on the ability to seek out and destroy the terrorist murderers, who are hell-bent on killing every last one of us. There's no space for a middle-ground here.....


See, I don't advocate blowing up airplanes or monuments or releasing biotoxins into subways, but I also don't think it's right to trample the basic freedoms and rights of citizens that we're supposed to be protecting in this war.

And what rights have been lost under the PATRIOT Act? What freedoms have you lost, assuming you're an American?


I believe in the words of people like Benjamin Franklin ("They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."), Thomas Jefferson ("The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.") and John Adams ("But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.").

Three great quotes. Freedom for all....

So, perhaps you're right, and this is a "for us or against us" situation. I would caution you, however, to be very careful of which "Us" you seem to be coming down on the side of, because it bears very little resemblence to the "U.S.".

This is "win or die." That's what the War on Terrorism comes down to. If we want to ensure that we live, we have to fight for that right. If we want to die, than let us sit back and pretend that terrorists are not a theat. Let us sit back and pretend that dictators and oppressive regimes are not harboring, supporting, and plotting with those terrorists. If we pretend like that, the results will be frightening....

Me!

The "us" is an ideal: freedom. And you decide on your own....are you for freedom or are you against it?

Ahh 'freedom'. What a wonderful hooray word. Fighting for 'freedom' are you? Well you must be the good guy...

Ask anyone, no matter what political affiliation, he or she will be 'for freedom'. It's the definition of this wonderful freedom which is what most political arguments are about. Creating a black and white world in which only two kinds of people live--'freedom' loving, patriotic citizens or saddam-luvin, terrorist-freindly objectors-- is the real frightening thing.

But are you going to tell me that there were no patriotic Confederates? You know, the men who gaves their lives for the cause of freedom in the US' Second War for Independance....


Say what?

You mean the Civil War?

Sorry but splitting away from your country does not make you a patriot.

The colonies splitting from England is different.

A shame that you hate your own heritage....are you afraid of it or is that you don't understand it? I'm not condoning slavery if that's what you're about to say.....slavery is an evil of all evils. But are you going to tell me that there were no patriotic Confederates? You know, the men who gaves their lives for the cause of freedom in the US' Second War for Independance....

Me!
I don't hate my heritage--I hate what neo-Confederates push as "southern heritage" which is nothing more than Luddite racism. There's one group of Confederate soldiers I respect--the ones who signed up to defend their homes and communities. But the people who started the conflict--the war hawks in Congress who somehow managed to avoid doing any of the fighting (sound familiar?), the people who raised armies for invasion of the north, they were traitors, plain and simple. They put their individual interests above the interests of the people they purported to serve--their constituents.

I can respect those sections of the Confederate army that formed militias to defend their homes and then disbanded once the threat was gone--they were defending their families. But the rest of it was empty rhetoric and big talk.

Who is GOP?

Who is GOP?

The Grand old Party its the republicans.

Just out of interest, will the Republican supporters on here defend any protestor arrested for exercising their Second Amendment rights?

Which is odd, because the democratic party has been around longer :p

Actually, the Right would be the side of the spectrum that is trying to slwo the loss of freedom in the US. The Left is for more government. More govermnent equals less freedom.
Come on, Geoge W Bush is hardly a champion for small-government ideals.

It's also a hell of a statement to say that "More govermnent equals less freedom" or to say that only leftists increase the size of government. What about all those right-wing dictators? Are the people of say, Sweden less free than those of Russia because their government is bigger?

Thanks. The Daily News was very good at repeatedly mentioning that these were fringe groups not linked to the Democratic party or even to the liberal left. The Fox piece was far less detailed, but did mention anarchists in the piece. I wonder how the spin meisters like O'Reilly or Hannity will play this. I have little doubt that they'll try to form some linkage with the Democratic protestors in September.
The irony of the situation is that these so called fringe groups get more exposure when these ideas gets proliferated through the press and through forums such as this one. Sad but true. sometimes silence is golden?

The Daily News is a crap tabloid

What rights do the Patriot Act undermine?

I should think it was the Fourth Amendment.

Say what?

You mean the Civil War?

Sorry but splitting away from your country does not make you a patriot.

The colonies splitting from England is different.

Yes, splitting away from an oppressive gov't and forming a separate nation does make them patriots.....

Come on, Geoge W Bush is hardly a champion for small-government ideals.

It's also a hell of a statement to say that "More govermnent equals less freedom" or to say that only leftists increase the size of government. What about all those right-wing dictators? Are the people of say, Sweden less free than those of Russia because their government is bigger?

You are correct about GW -- that's why he's not a conservative. Please don't call him that because he's not like us real conservatives. He's a phony.

To be perfectly honest, it's impossible to have a true right-wing dictator. That's an oxymoron. The right-wing of politics is for as little government as possible. Anarchists, for example, are on the fringe of the right-wing...

Me!

The Daily News is a crap tabloid
The New York Post is really the crap tabloild. I'd take the News over the Post anyday.

The New York Post is really the crap tabloild. I'd take the News over the Post anyday.
true but they ultimately both rot--try reading Newsday instead

Just out of interest, will the Republican supporters on here defend any protestor arrested for exercising their Second Amendment rights?

Exercising your second amendment rights has limits. It does not allow for disruptive behavior, posing threats, or hooliganism. It revolves around discourse. No one will be arrested in NYC for speaking their mind. However if they disrupt us beyond what is reasonable demonstration then to hell with them.

Exercising your second amendment rights has limits. It does not allow for disruptive behavior, posing threats, or hooliganism. It revolves around discourse. No one will be arrested in NYC for speaking their mind. However if they disrupt us beyond what is reasonable demonstration then to hell with them.
I think you mean first amendment rights there. 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. (Wouldn't that create a fun situation?)

This is just like saying that you can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater and then say that it's your first amendment right. Our rights have limits to them. The protesters can protest as much as they want as long as they don't overly disrupt other people's daily comings and goings. Just because they're expressing their rights, they can't infringe on the rights of another (which is basically what their proposed hooliganism does to the city).

There are protestors--not the ones mentioned here--who simply want to be heard and want to demonstrate who are being denied their rights, and this is on both sides here. I'm talking about the bullshit "free speech zones" that are being put together for both the Democratic and Republican party national conventions. I'm ashamed of my party for taking part in it. I understand the desire for order and security, but penning protestors up far away from the goings-on sort of defeats the whole notion of freedom of expression.

Of course protesters are being denied their rights. A group asked for a permit to protest on the Great Lawn in Central Park. It was denied. Do you know why? The parks commisioner was afraid that all of the multi-million dollar investments in the lawn would go plop because it would get trampled by the protesters. Sure, it won't be good for the lawn, but that excuse is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard in my life.

Only days before the permit request was denied, there was a showing of some opera preformance on the Great Lawn. It supposedly drew a larger crowd than what the protest permit was for. When questioned further, the Parks Department said that the opera "did not put as much of a strain on the lawn" as the protesters would. Oh please, gimme a break.

(Let me go see if I can pull up a link about this story, but rest assured, it's all true.)

Of course protesters are being denied their rights. A group asked for a permit to protest on the Great Lawn in Central Park. It was denied. Do you know why? The parks commisioner was afraid that all of the multi-million dollar investments in the lawn would go plop because it would get trampled by the protesters. Sure, it won't be good for the lawn, but that excuse is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard in my life.

Only days before the permit request was denied, there was a showing of some opera preformance on the Great Lawn. It supposedly drew a larger crowd than what the protest permit was for. When questioned further, the Parks Department said that the opera "did not put as much of a strain on the lawn" as the protesters would. Oh please, gimme a break.

(Let me go see if I can pull up a link about this story, but rest assured, it's all true.)You don't have to convince me--I heard the same story--but it might be good for others.

I think in this wonderful age that anytime you have anyone getting any political rally in public now someone is going to conclude that someone else is going to react politically and publicly to it. So, generalization it is, on the part of myself, and anyone intending to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE in public, it's a foregone conclusion that it's gonna be safer to stay inside and refuse that right altogether. Terror. So without any linking and substance to the claim, ANY group of people that may have vocal detractors can simply claim someone is out to get 'em and whaddya know but security measures heighten and colors change and by golly someone better pass SOMETHING to make this so-called free society a safer f*cking place to do anything. Pass some more updates to PATRIOT. Sure, EVERYONE won't mind paying for it if it makes us "safer"!
Anyone here know about the RNC's motion regarding PAC status for non-profit organizations, and do you see a pattern here?

I think you mean first amendment rights there. 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. (Wouldn't that create a fun situation?)
I did actually mean second amendment rights. Otherwise the right are saying that only rich white people are allowed guns, and that'd be y'know, hypocritical. Out of my cold dead hands...;)

I think you should stop trying to demonize dissent like a typical republicanThere's a bit of a difference between sitting outside with a sign and planting chemicals to throw off bomb-sniffing dogs. These people are going to try to bog down the police with false alarms, which in turn makes it much easier for real terrorists to act. Can't you see that, or do you want to see the GOP convention get blown up?

Wait, no, don't answer that question.

You've probably all heard the news. The GOP convention has been targeted by anarchist and other extremist groups. Now, I have no problem with protestors. The constitution gives us the right to peaceably assemble and exercise free speech, but this is a little extreme, don't you think? They plan to do everything possible to create false alarms for the police. They plan to go to gun ranges beforehand so they smell like gunpowder. False alarm for police dogs. They plan to place amounts of fertilizer on subways and near the convention, the same fertilizer that was used by the terrorists in the 1993 WTC bombing and Timothy McVeigh to make bombs. They plan to make the police's job as hard as possible, and are making it easier for real terrorists to target the convention.
My take: I think it's bullshit.
Your take:

Classic scare tactics. They happened in Ireland a few months back when Mayday was chosen as the EU ascension day and the meeting was in Dublin.

What happened before Mayday:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64681

What actually happened on Mayday:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64730

From what I've read myself about plans for GOP (I read quite a bit of US leftwing media), the plans are very specific - colourful, noisy and very deliberately non-violent and not disruptive of the GOP itself. This includes anarchist groups, who, despite the bullshit propaganda of the meeja and the right, are not mindless thugs, but people who plan their tactics very carefully. A classic "anti-globalisation" clash would benefit Bush, as does media hyping in advance, so it'll be very important to all groups to keep it peaceful.

Vas.

Thanks. The Daily News was very good at repeatedly mentioning that these were fringe groups not linked to the Democratic party or even to the liberal left. The Fox piece was far less detailed, but did mention anarchists in the piece. I wonder how the spin meisters like O'Reilly or Hannity will play this. I have little doubt that they'll try to form some linkage with the Democratic protestors in September.Actually, there is a twice-removed link to the Kerry campaign. The main anarchist group is funded by an organization funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39502

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125464,00.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/211401p-182089c.html
I'll keep looking for more, but few seem to want to report it. There's nothing on CNN. These sources do, however, specifically say "anarchist groups".

You were saying?

There is a good reason that no other media besides FOX and the Daily News will report unsubstantiated crap pulled form the internet. This is the equivalent of looking at hard-core anti-abortion websites that call for the assassination of doctors and saying that that is the position of the DNC protesters in Boston. You really should't cite FOX, they are really really easy to refute, you should have just posted the DN article. This is what you call "all over the news"?

I am so glad that most media wont publish this kind of partisan sensationalism. "anarchists pursue chaos at GOP convention" was the headline, and it turns out that its based on crap pulled form the internet, if thats not obvious bias i dont know what is.

Actually, there is a twice-removed link to the Kerry campaign. The main anarchist group is funded by an organization funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39502

Remember that this is a fringe group that made the wesite that inspired the fiction on FOX news, not the main Anarchist group, whihc is a legitimate political movement, and is funded like any other.

As long as no one is injured, all protest methods are acceptable in my book. I can't get to NYC to protest the convention (Streaking across the stage as The Idiot accepts his nomination would be so good though) but I would pour gunpownder on the floor and rub myself in it if it disrupted the Republican convention.

I believe in absolute freedom of speech, on both sides. We have the right to do whatever the h*ll we want, and the Republicans have a right to do whatever the h*ll they want. We can try to stop the other side (Governments can't, people can) but they can just ignore us.

Seriously, anyone who thinks that Al-Qaida could pull of a strike in the US today with all the hurt we have given them is just falling in to the political fear-mongering that Bush is doing. Now, does that mean we should not finish them off, no. But it also means that we should not be afraid. I've never been afraid of them- not on September 10, 2001. Not on September 11, 2001. Not the day after, or the day after that, or today.

Three thousand people dying is sad. But it's not unprecedented- diseases kill more than that each day, even in the United States alone. Time claims even more. And out of a country with hundreds of millions of people, three thousand isn't a lot.

I'm not demeaning the victims of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or the flight that was stopped. I'm demeaning those who think that it was the worst thing to ever happen in history, go out and buy duct tape and all of that, and blindly fall in line behind the president. I'm not saying the attacks on the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and the other flight were not bad, and that we should not get the Al-Qaida. I'm just saying we need to take a step back, and put everything in perspective.

As long as no one is injured, all protest methods are acceptable in my book. I can't get to NYC to protest the convention (Streaking across the stage as The Idiot accepts his nomination would be so good though) but I would pour gunpownder on the floor and rub myself in it if it disrupted the Republican convention.

I believe in absolute freedom of speech, on both sides. We have the right to do whatever the h*ll we want, and the Republicans have a right to do whatever the h*ll they want. We can try to stop the other side (Governments can't, people can) but they can just ignore us.


No! Your rights end when they endanger the safety of others. What these anarchists and nihilists are plotting to do at the RNC convention endangers the safety of everyone there. It's not a joke. It's not a funny prank...

Actually, there is a twice-removed link to the Kerry campaign. The main anarchist group is funded by an organization funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39502
Wrong. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp) You really shouldn't believe anything you read from Worldnetdaily without checking it out first. They're as bad as Newsmax.

From Snopes:
The reason why is obvious: The charge does not stand up to objective scrutiny. Four facts undercut it completely. First, by legally binding contract, every penny of Heinz’s support to Tides has been explicitly directed to specific projects in Pennsylvania. It cannot legally be redirected and is the exact opposite of fungible.

Second, the Tides Center is a provider of management and administrative services, and we have used it only for those services, not to advance Tides’ grantmaking agenda. Foundations from all across the country-many, like Heinz, with strong centrist agendas-use these services to incubate an array of nonprofit programs. So does the federal government. It is no more accurate to suggest that Heinz supports every one of these programs than it is to suggest that someone who contributes to a specific group through the United Way supports the agenda of every other United Way beneficiary.

Third, the projects we have supported through Tides speak for themselves. They include programs to test the career readiness of area high school students, protect Pittsburgh’s environment and retain young people in our region-hardly an extremist agenda.

Fourth and finally, information about every one of our Tides-related grants is and always has been readily available in our public filings, annual reports and here on our web site. Far from being secretive, we have been consistently open in detailing the nature of our grants to Tides and every other organization we fund.

Try again.

Remember that this is a fringe group that made the wesite that inspired the fiction on FOX news, not the main Anarchist group, whihc is a legitimate political movement, and is funded like any other.

The Irish media went as far as to have a number of journalists post inflamatory rubbish on Indymedia so that they could report it. Never trust ANYTHING the press says about anarchists, unless you can find official back up (usually on Indymedia) of what was reported. Try looking here - http://nyc.indymedia.org/ (with a rational level of scepticism as agent provocateur type posting is common and will increase).

Vas.

For that matter, read the reporting that Salon.com did on the police brutality in Miami last year--I think it was an OSEAN summit. The cops were told all sorts of crap and basically riled up so they would abuse anyone that they thought looked like a protestor, even old union retirees who were down there protesting job displacement.

For that matter, read the reporting that Salon.com did on the police brutality in Miami last year--I think it was an OSEAN summit. The cops were told all sorts of crap and basically riled up so they would abuse anyone that they thought looked like a protestor, even old union retirees who were down there protesting job displacement.

Yup, it warranted an Amnesty International press release - http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGAMR511422003

Vas.

Actually, there is a twice-removed link to the Kerry campaign. The main anarchist group is funded by an organization funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39502

Do you have a more reliable source.

I went looking through their site and almost got fits from all the blink anti-kerry, clinton, hillary, etc. stuff. ;)

Hey wait a minute. They are trying to link Clinton to Berger.

What was your talk about the liberal media? :p

Colerica: And this puts them in danger how? It might scare them, but I think Bush's fearmongering rhetoric is more responsible for that. If the Republicans don't like it, they could grab pies and throw it at the protestors.

And actually, yeah, it kinda is funny, in a sad way that people would be scared by it.

That a person who is most likely a peace activist (Just so this doesn't turn into a debate on Iraq, I'll say it outright: supported the Iraq war. Bush went in for the wrong reasons, but I don't care as long as Saddam is kicked out of power. And yet, I fall into the Kucinich camp in the primaries... I'm weird like that.) has an odor of gunpowder on them and its enough to turn a whole city into panic. People need to not be afraid of Al-Qaida on the word of a Bush Administration official who for all we know is making it up.

Roosevelt (The best president we have had, in my opinion) said, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." Bush, tied for the worst with two other people, is spouting out rhetoric designed to make people afraid. Power-hungry lunatics like Bush play on people's fears to gain and keep power.

Colerica: And this puts them in danger how? It might scare them, but I think Bush's fearmongering rhetoric is more responsible for that. If the Republicans don't like it, they could grab pies and throw it at the protestors.

Read up on the Italian Hall. Then tell me if making false alarms never hurts anyone....

First of all, the people in the Italian Hall were idiots. No smoke. No increase in heat. No flames. People believe other people too easily. Besides, today, we have fire alarms. Someone would have to be an even bigger idiot to believe some guy yelling "Fire!" if the alarm wasn't going off. If that happended, I would turn to the guy, and say two words that should be the motto of every person with a brain in their skull: "Prove it."

Second of all, my whole point is that it shouldn't raise an alarm. That we are too paranoid today, assuming someone (Most likely a peace protestor, no less) who smells like gunpowder has a bomb underneath their clothes. For Christ's sake, are we going to have Homeland Security goons jump and throw in jail everyone who fires a gun? (Wouldn't be that bad, actually... no more guns in civilian's hands, but the point still remains.)

First of all, the people in the Italian Hall were idiots. No smoke. No increase in heat. No flames. People believe other people too easily. Besides, today, we have fire alarms. Someone would have to be an even bigger idiot to believe some guy yelling "Fire!" if the alarm wasn't going off. If that happended, I would turn to the guy, and say two words that should be the motto of every person with a brain in their skull: "Prove it."

The people in the Italian Hall were idiots? Thank you for insulting a family member of mine. I live a mere four miles from the Italian Hall. It's nice to know that you think a deceased relative of mine was an idiot.

Secondly, this was in 1913. C & H, (Calumet and Hecla mining company), was in the midst of a workers' strike. The worst strike that had happened to the Copper Country. (It was so bad that the Michigan militia/Guard was called in to break up the strikers.....as well as the fact that C & H hired the equivallent of Pinkerton strike-breakers...) For a brief period, there were machine guns mounted on train cars, gun battles in the streets, and bombings of buildings. When the miners were throwing a Christmas party at the Italian Hall, a strike-breaker (though, they've never really found out who....one crazy old guy confessed on his death bed, but many believe he was just a crazy old guy), shouted that there was a fire. The people went into panic and ran for the doors. 72 people, mostly small children, were trampled to death because of a false alarm, a relative of mine included.

False alarms kill people......and fooling bomb dogs with gunpowder creates a false alarm. Can you imagine if an idiot anarchist walked onto a subway and shouted "I have a bomb!"? What kind of response do you think would come from the crowd on the subway?

Second of all, my whole point is that it shouldn't raise an alarm.

Fooling dogs who are trained to sniff out explosives does raise an alarm....

False alarms kill people......and fooling bomb dogs with gunpowder creates a false alarm. Can you imagine if an idiot anarchist walked onto a subway and shouted "I have a bomb!"?

No, because it wouldn't happen. Christ, where do people get their ideas from?

Vas.

I am sorry for your relative's death, but he/she should have been more sceptical. I tend to be inflammatory in my writing, that's just how I am. I'm sorry if it offended you.

If someone does cause injury by a protest tactic, then they should be charged with crimes associated with the injury. But I doubt that in any other climate other than the ultra-paranoid one we have now the police would automatically assume that a person who smells like gunpowder has a bomb. My whole argument is not really about the protest tactic even, it's about the fact that we overreact to threats today.

Also, you really should stop bandying around the term "Anarchist." I'm not an anarchist, and most of the people who will be protesting or wish they were protesting aren't. Also, Anarchism is a political theory, not "let's go out and cause chaos."

No, because it wouldn't happen. Christ, where do people get their ideas from?

Vas.

And I'm sure you could have said that a man name Tim McVeigh would never blow up a Federal building, killing 160+ people, right? And I'm sure you could have said that terrorists would never fly planes in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, right? I wasn't aware that you can see into the future. I'll pay you ten percent of my earnings if you tell me the winning Michigan lotto numbers.....

McVeigh was a militiaman type guy. And I was expecting some type of attack on the United States. Not on that scale, no, and I wasn't afraid of it (basic probability, really) but I was expecting one.

Correct me if I am wrong, Anarchists, but aren't most in the Anarchist movement pacifists?

I am sorry for your relative's death, but he/she should have been more sceptical. I tend to be inflammatory in my writing, that's just how I am. I'm sorry if it offended you.

If someone does cause injury by a protest tactic, then they should be charged with crimes associated with the injury. But I doubt that in any other climate other than the ultra-paranoid one we have now the police would automatically assume that a person who smells like gunpowder has a bomb. My whole argument is not really about the protest tactic even, it's about the fact that we overreact to threats today.

Also, you really should stop bandying around the term "Anarchist." I'm not an anarchist, and most of the people who will be protesting or wish they were protesting aren't. Also, Anarchism is a political theory, not "let's go out and cause chaos."

A: I know that Anarchism is a political theory held to those on the far-right fringe of the spectrum. I improperly used the term when I said the bomb, I should have used nihilist....

B: The fact that these people are trying to disrupt the RNC convention by fooling the police and the police dogs should be enough to make them spend the night in jail. I just don't understand two things, and perhaps the residential forum anarchists can explain these to me......1) Why do people like these not respect the freedom of speech that the RNC has? 2) Why wouldn't they do the same to the DNC? Balance it out, 'ya know....

C: In a quick-reaction time like that of the Italian Hall disaster, peolpe don't think to be skeptical. Humans revert to a "fight or flight" instinct when we reach danger. If your body thinks that you can pyshically overcome that threat, your mind tells you to stay and face it. If your body thinks that you will die or be injured by this threat, your mind tells you to get the 'hell out of Dodge" PDQ. If your in a room and someone shouts "Fire! Everyone run for your lives!" you're not exactly going to have time to stand there and debate the issue with yourself about whether it's a real fire...you're going to wanna get the hell out of there as fast as your feet are going to carry you.....

Correct me if I am wrong, Anarchists, but aren't most in the Anarchist movement pacifists?

From what I know of anarchists, that depends on your brand....some are Anarcho-Commies...some are Anarcho-Capitalists.....some are nihilists....nihilists are more often the more ones who are the bomb-throwers, the trouble-makers, and the generally more militant ones....

A: I know that Anarchism is a political theory held to those on the far-right fringe of the spectrum. I improperly used the term when I said the bomb, I should have used nihilist....

B: The fact that these people are trying to disrupt the RNC convention by fooling the police and the police dogs should be enough to make them spend the night in jail. I just don't understand two things, and perhaps the residential forum anarchists can explain these to me......1) Why do people like these not respect the freedom of speech that the RNC has? 2) Why wouldn't they do the same to the DNC? Balance it out, 'ya know....

C: In a quick-reaction time like that of the Italian Hall disaster, peolpe don't think to be skeptical. Humans revert to a "fight or flight" instinct when we reach danger. If your body thinks that you can pyshically overcome that threat, your mind tells you to stay and face it. If your body thinks that you will die or be injured by this threat, your mind tells you to get the 'hell out of Dodge" PDQ. If your in a room and someone shouts "Fire! Everyone run for your lives!" you're not exactly going to have time to stand there and debate the issue with yourself about whether it's a real fire...you're going to wanna get the hell out of there as fast as your feet are going to carry you.....
Those protesters don't understand freedom of speech because they are mostly made up of America's undereducated college system and have been endoctrineated by their professors that all republicans and conservatives are evil and cannot have any say in any matter. And if you don't believe me go to any college in America and take a look.

B. Like I said, they have a right to ignore the protestors, but the protestors have a right to protest and try to stop them, and the RNC have a right to go out and yell in their face.

C. If someone yells "Fire!" and their is no smoke, flames, smell, heat, or any of that, then why would the instinct kick in? The word "fire" is a word, something that most likely did not exist, and definitely not in the form it is today, when the instinct evolved. Besides, people have to try to overcome their instincts. They do it every day, why could they not do it in that situation?

A: I know that Anarchism is a political theory held to those on the far-right fringe of the spectrum. I improperly used the term when I said the bomb, I should have used nihilist....

B: The fact that these people are trying to disrupt the RNC convention by fooling the police and the police dogs should be enough to make them spend the night in jail. I just don't understand two things, and perhaps the residential forum anarchists can explain these to me......1) Why do people like these not respect the freedom of speech that the RNC has? 2) Why wouldn't they do the same to the DNC? Balance it out, 'ya know....

C: In a quick-reaction time like that of the Italian Hall disaster, peolpe don't think to be skeptical. Humans revert to a "fight or flight" instinct when we reach danger. If your body thinks that you can pyshically overcome that threat, your mind tells you to stay and face it. If your body thinks that you will die or be injured by this threat, your mind tells you to get the 'hell out of Dodge" PDQ. If your in a room and someone shouts "Fire! Everyone run for your lives!" you're not exactly going to have time to stand there and debate the issue with yourself about whether it's a real fire...you're going to wanna get the hell out of there as fast as your feet are going to carry you.....
The reason they don't do it at the DNC is because they support the leaders at the DNC. Liberals and Democrats are historically known to be more passionate about their beliefs and opinions than Republicans look at the Civil War for instance. All of the southern states that seceeded were in the Democrat majority and went to the extreme against Pres Lincoln.

Actually, at that time, the Republican party were generally the liberal party then.

Actually, at that time, the Republican party were generally the liberal party then.
True, true, mostly because of their policy towards slavery.

B. Like I said, they have a right to ignore the protestors, but the protestors have a right to protest and try to stop them, and the RNC have a right to go out and yell in their face.

So you'd be perfectly fine if on the way to work, assuming you have a job, a horde of protestors prevent your car from moving for, say, two hours? Or would you got out and yell in their face?


C. If someone yells "Fire!" and their is no smoke, flames, smell, heat, or any of that, then why would the instinct kick in? The word "fire" is a word, something that most likely did not exist, and definitely not in the form it is today, when the instinct evolved. Besides, people have to try to overcome their instincts. They do it every day, why could they not do it in that situation?

Why do so many people get afraid when they see pictures of spiders? If there's no pyshical animal there, the people shouldn't be afraid, right? It happens...I see it all the time. Go the movie theatre...shout "fire!"....see how many people you stir up even though there isn't a real fire....(then enjoy your arrest ;) )

(Not actually telling anyone to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre....)

The reason they don't do it at the DNC is because they support the leaders at the DNC. Liberals and Democrats are historically known to be more passionate about their beliefs and opinions than Republicans look at the Civil War for instance. All of the southern states that seceeded were in the Democrat majority and went to the extreme against Pres Lincoln.

Don't get me started on the topic of the North's Illegal War Against the States or we'll be here all night.... :p It's unique that the Democrats held onto Dixie for so many years and now it is the exact opposite..... :)

I would yell, yes. Then kick the car into reverse and take an alternate route if I didn't get them to leave. And if there is no alternate route, I would park the car and shove my way through the crowd and hail a cab. Or walk.

So you'd be perfectly fine if on the way to work, assuming you have a job, a horde of protestors prevent your car from moving for, say, two hours? Or would you got out and yell in their face?



Why do so many people get afraid when they see pictures of spiders? If there's no pyshical animal there, the people shouldn't be afraid, right? It happens...I see it all the time. Go the movie theatre...shout "fire!"....see how many people you stir up even though there isn't a real fire....(then enjoy your arrest ;) )

(Not actually telling anyone to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre....)
People gain phobeas towards certain objects and situations, I have a fear of airplane crashes etc. Freedom of speech was created because The Founding Fathers believed that people wouldn't use it for evil they trusted the public to use it with responsiblity.

Correct me if I am wrong, Anarchists, but aren't most in the Anarchist movement pacifists?

Your quite correct.

I would call myself an 'Anarchist' if I had to label myself, and I'm a pacifist too. The majority of Anarchistsare peaceful people, dedicated to improving the world - not trying to burn/tear/bomb it down.

It's just a mindless stereotype, the same with the common idea that all stoners are lazy, wasteful idiots, or the idea that all French people eat onions and go "haw-hee-haw-hee-haww".

Don't get me started on the topic of the North's Illegal War Against the States or we'll be here all night.... :p It's unique that the Democrats held onto Dixie for so many years and now it is the exact opposite..... :)

Please! May I hear some Southern Revisionist History! Pretty Please!

Please! May I hear some Southern Revisionist History! Pretty Please!
I would also like to hear why you think the war was "illigal." (note-there was no UN in 1860)

My position on the whole Civil War thing is pretty complicated. Hold with me for a second.

First of all, I am of the opinion that if there are human rights abuses, countries should intervene, by military force as a last resort. Second of all, I am of the opinion that all groups who want to have a nation-state should.

So, I believe the North should have invaded the South to stop the slavery, and then sent them on their way saying, "Good riddence." Now, it's been too long to divide it up again. But then, that's what the Union should have done.

And I'm sure you could have said that a man name Tim McVeigh would never blow up a Federal building, killing 160+ people, right? And I'm sure you could have said that terrorists would never fly planes in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, right? I wasn't aware that you can see into the future. I'll pay you ten percent of my earnings if you tell me the winning Michigan lotto numbers.....

I could quite easily see the possibility of an anti-government militia man attacking a government building, or a bunch of anti-US terrorists attacking the US. My point is that anarchists are not going to do something that endangers the lives of innocent people.

Vas.

Please! May I hear some Southern Revisionist History! Pretty Please!

The truth isn't revisionism.....the North waged an illegal war and illegal invasion of a soveirgn nation, the Confederate States of America. Find me where the Constitution states that it is illegal for a state to secede from the Union. Hell, find me any law that says that it is illegal for a state to secede from the Constitution. The South fought for their freedom from the oppressive Yankee gov't....unfortunately, the brave Confederate patriots lost their war for freedom.....

Your quite correct.

I would call myself an 'Anarchist' if I had to label myself, and I'm a pacifist too. The majority of Anarchistsare peaceful people, dedicated to improving the world - not trying to burn/tear/bomb it down.

There are four or five historical incidents of actual anarchists engaging in actual violent action against people outside of a war situation (such as the Ukraine or Catalonia) or a clash with well-armed police. Some anarchists do believe in economic sabotage (smashing window, etc), but anyone who truly regards that as violent has their priorities a bit screwed up. There is a perverse idea that an anarchist who breaks a window is violent, but the riot cop who smacks him over the head with a night-stick is just doing his job.

Vas.

I would also like to hear why you think the war was "illigal." (note-there was no UN in 1860)

What gave the USA the right to invade the CSA and force them back into the Union?

From what I know of anarchists, that depends on your brand....some are Anarcho-Commies...some are Anarcho-Capitalists.....some are nihilists....nihilists are more often the more ones who are the bomb-throwers, the trouble-makers, and the generally more militant ones....

Nihilists are not anarchists, they're nihilists. It's a different, if related, political idea. Anarcho-capitalist are oxymorons. And, please, list for me the actual incidents of anarchists throwing bombs ever. It's about the only ideology for which you can pretty much list all of them, because there's so few.

Vas.

What gave the USA the right to invade the CSA and force them back into the Union?
The fact that The southern states were already and previously part of the USA for some 70 years. You know the history there was no way the two sides could live together under the status quo something had to give and when the southren states seceeded, everyone knew that the USA and the Confederacy couldn't live together.

The fact that The southern states were already and previously part of the USA for some 70 years. You know the history there was no way the two sides could live together under the status quo something had to give and when the southren states seceeded, everyone knew that the USA and the Confederacy couldn't live together.

That doesn't answer my question. What gave the US the legal right to force the states that had Constitutionally seceded back into the Union, against the will of the states? That's akin to you telling your parents that you're moving out of their house and when you get to your car, they beat you within an inch of your life and drag you back into the house, keeping you against your will, even though you're legally allowed to leave....

That doesn't answer my question. What gave the US the legal right to force the states that had Constitutionally seceded back into the Union, against the will of the states? That's akin to you telling your parents that you're moving out of their house and when you get to your car, they beat you within an inch of your life and drag you back into the house, keeping you against your will, even though you're legally allowed to leave....
First of all. It is not legal in the US for states to seceed. Second, A good parent would keep a kid from leaving the house if they cared enough about the child (beating the hell out of the kid isn't necessary though, but a nation is not a child. Tell me where do you get this legallity of war? Nations are free to do what they want when they want. Survival of the Fittest.

First of all. It is not legal in the US for states to seceed. Second, A good parent would keep a kid from leaving the house if they cared enough about the child (beating the hell out of the kid isn't necessary though, but a nation is not a child. Tell me where do you get this legallity of war? Nations are free to do what they want when they want. Survival of the Fittest.

Find me where the Constitution states that secession is illegal. It is an enumerated right retained by the states, as promised in the 9th and 10th Amendments....

A good parent would force their adult son or daughter to stay in their house? How, per se, is that being a good parent?

And, once again, tell me what gave the the Union the right to wage war with, invade, and occupy a soveirgn nation -- the CSA....

If you think The USA was making an "Illegal" war against the Southern States, then why wasn't the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia declared "illegal," why wasn't the Ottoman Conquest of Byzantium and Constantinople declared "Illegal." Who is this overlord judge who says what is legal or illegal in war.

TELL ME NOW! WHO HAS OR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SAY IT WAS ILLEGAL? :mad:

If you think The USA was making an "Illegal" war against the Southern States, then why wasn't the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia declared "illegal," why wasn't the Ottoman Conquest of Byzantium and Constantinople declared "Illegal." Who is this overlord judge who says what is legal or illegal in war.

The USA made an illegal war with the CSA because the CSA legally seceded from the USA. "If the Union was formed by the accession of States then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States," Daniel Webster, U.S. Senate, February 15, 1833.

Do you advocate letting any nation run around and invade any other nation for whatever reason they want?

TELL ME NOW! WHO HAS OR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SAY IT WAS ILLEGAL? :mad:

See above....and stop shouting, you're hurting my ears...

The truth isn't revisionism.....the North waged an illegal war and illegal invasion of a soveirgn nation, the Confederate States of America. Find me where the Constitution states that it is illegal for a state to secede from the Union. Hell, find me any law that says that it is illegal for a state to secede from the Constitution. The South fought for their freedom from the oppressive Yankee gov't....unfortunately, the brave Confederate patriots lost their war for freedom.....

Sorry but the fact that it isn't in the Constitution make it illegal either. That's why its called a civil war.

The Rebals attacked and lost.

No country is going to watch it split up and the ruling power say "Hey go for it and best of luck!"

The war was perfectly legal.

I advocate Freedom. and if that means any nation can invade another, then yes i do advocate that. BUT with me advocating that, i also say that its not right to just go around and attack any random nation just because they said something bad. In the case of the Civil War, Yes you may make the claim that the US was the aggressor but you forget that it was the Southerners that Besieged Fort Sumtner in Charleston S.C. Technically the south was the aggressors. The North hadn't done a thing but protect Federal outposts and military installations. The south upon declaration of secession, invaded Union Territory and stole Union Supplies.
now i know its not legal to steal

What gave the USA the right to invade the CSA and force them back into the Union?

The right of maintaining the Union.

The CSA was the poperty of the USA.

Sorry but the fact that it isn't in the Constitution make it illegal either. That's why its called a civil war.

The Rebals attacked and lost.

No country is going to watch it split up and the ruling power say "Hey go for it and best of luck!"

The war was perfectly legal.

A: They were not rebels. Rebels are fighting for a rebellion (duh). A rebellion is not a secession. They are two different concepts all-together.

B: The Union had no right to invade the states, after they legally seceded, and force them back into the Union....

C: Secession is legal, as defined in the 9th and 10th Amendments...

http://www.liberty-ca.org/presentations/articles/2003was_secession_legal.htm

The above link is an excellent site...read it...

The right of maintaining the Union.

The CSA was the poperty of the USA.

No, it was not. The CSA was property of itself. When the states ratified the Constitution, they maintained their individual soveirgnity, but agreed to accept the rules of the pact that they formed. They could withdraw from that pact at any time...

If a kid is in the Boy Scouts and wants to leave, he has the right, doesn't he? After all, he voluntarily joined the group. Or is that kid property of the Boy Scouts?

No, it was not. The CSA was property of itself. When the states ratified the Constitution, they maintained their individual soveirgnity, but agreed to accept the rules of the pact that they formed. They could withdraw from that pact at any time...

If a kid is in the Boy Scouts and wants to leave, he has the right, doesn't he? After all, he voluntarily joined the group. Or is that kid property of the Boy Scouts?
The CSA was never a nation before the ratification of the Constitution. Just indiviual states.

The only state that had "Legal" right to seceed was Texas because they were an independent nation.

I advocate Freedom. and if that means any nation can invade another, then yes i do advocate that. BUT with me advocating that, i also say that its not right to just go around and attack any random nation just because they said something bad. In the case of the Civil War, Yes you may make the claim that the US was the aggressor but you forget that it was the Southerners that Besieged Fort Sumtner in Charleston S.C. Technically the south was the aggressors. The North hadn't done a thing but protect Federal outposts and military installations. The south upon declaration of secession, invaded Union Territory and stole Union Supplies.
now i know its not legal to steal

The invasion of the North did not come "upon secession." Fort Sumter was an enenmy military base within South Carolina's, a soveirgn nation, territorial waters. South Carolina removed the military threat that Fort Sumter posed. On a side note, have you ever heard of the Star of the West incident?

The USA made an illegal war with the CSA because the CSA legally seceded from the USA. "If the Union was formed by the accession of States then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States," Daniel Webster, U.S. Senate, February 15, 1833.

Do you advocate letting any nation run around and invade any other nation for whatever reason they want?


Sorry but tell we what country will allow portions to "legally" withdraw?

The rebels didn't like the US administration and wanted their own. They attacked and lost. End of story.

Just love the revisionistic history! This is typical but I have heard some really good ones! Just love the stuff I hear about ol' Nathanial Bedford Forest being a decent guy!

Daniels quote is interesting but it's only an opinion. The fact there wasn't a law doesn't make it legal either....

A: They were not rebels. Rebels are fighting for a rebellion (duh). A rebellion is not a secession. They are two different concepts all-together.

B: The Union had no right to invade the states, after they legally seceded, and force them back into the Union....

C: Secession is legal, as defined in the 9th and 10th Amendments...

http://www.liberty-ca.org/presentations/articles/2003was_secession_legal.htm

The above link is an excellent site...read it...
So is Palistinian conflict a rebellion or secession?
Is the Chechnian conflict a rebellion or secession?

The CSA was never a nation before the ratification of the Constitution. Just indiviual states.

I never said that they were a nation before the rafitication of the US Constitution. They were not dreamed up at the time of the US Constitution's ratification. The states that formed the US, however, were soveirgn nations when they joined. They retained their individual soveirgnty when they ratified the Constitution, thus joining the pact that is the United States of America....

The only state that had "Legal" right to seceed was Texas because they were an independent nation.

All states have the legal right to secede, as retained to them in the 9th and 10th Amendments....

No, it was not. The CSA was property of itself. When the states ratified the Constitution, they maintained their individual soveirgnity, but agreed to accept the rules of the pact that they formed. They could withdraw from that pact at any time...

If a kid is in the Boy Scouts and wants to leave, he has the right, doesn't he? After all, he voluntarily joined the group. Or is that kid property of the Boy Scouts?

The southern states were never a seperate entity. Well maybe Texas.

The Boy Scout analogy is rather weak at best. Let's hear something better.

All states have the legal right to secede, as retained to them in the 9th and 10th Amendments....
When has the US ever paid attention to amendments i mean the US passed the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments and the US still had problems with race relations so why would that make a difference.

Sorry but tell we what country will allow portions to "legally" withdraw?

The rebels didn't like the US administration and wanted their own. They attacked and lost. End of story.

Just love the revisionistic history! This is typical but I have heard some really good ones! Just love the stuff I hear about ol' Nathanial Bedford Forest being a decent guy!

Daniels quote is interesting but it's only an opinion. The fact there wasn't a law doesn't make it legal either....

A: They were not rebels. They were secessionists. Rebels wish to overthrow their gov't. Secessionists simply wish to leave their government and form their own. The CSA never wanted to overthrow the US gov't....

B: I never said that Nathaniel B. Forrest was a decent guy. The man gives Southerners a bad name (not to mention he was a Democrat, go figure....)...

C: The right to secede is an enumerated right, retained by all states via the 9th and 10th Amendments.....

A: They were not rebels. They were secessionists. Rebels wish to overthrow their gov't. Secessionists simply wish to leave their government and form their own. The CSA never wanted to overthrow the US gov't....

B: I never said that Nathaniel B. Forrest was a decent guy. The man gives Southerners a bad name (not to mention he was a Democrat, go figure....)...

C: The right to secede is an enumerated right, retained by all states via the 9th and 10th Amendments.....
They were rebels! :)

The southern states were never a seperate entity. Well maybe Texas.

The Boy Scout analogy is rather weak at best. Let's hear something better.

Each state is it's own separate entity. Michigan is. New York is. California is. Virginia is. Florida is. Et al. They all retained their individual soveirgnty when they joined the United States of America...

The Boy Scout analogy is not weak. It fits quite well, actually. But let me give you another one. If you're at, say, Bob's party. You wish to leave at 11 pm for whatever reason. You tell Bob that you're leaving at eleven. Bob proceedes to beat the tar out of you for wanting to leave his party. Aren't you, legally and logically, allowed to leave Bob's party at any time you want? Does Bob have the right to kick your ass for wanting to leave?

Secessionist is a PC term for rebel. Its just a way to change history and make everything seem legal.

When has the US ever paid attention to amendments i mean the US passed the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments and the US still had problems with race relations so why would that make a difference.

Irrelevant side-stepping of history and the truth.....

Secessionist is a PC term for rebel. Its just a way to change history and make everything seem legal.

No, it is not. Secession is not rebellion....


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Secession


re·bel·lion (r-blyn)
n.

Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.
An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.



se·ces·sion (s-sshn)
n.
The act of seceding.
often Secession The withdrawal of 11 Southern states from the Union in 1860-1861, precipitating the U.S. Civil War.

Secession

\Se*ces"sion\, n. [L. secessio: cf. F. s['e]cession. See Secede.]

1. The act of seceding; separation from fellowship or association with others, as in a religious or political organization; withdrawal.

2. (U.S. Hist.) The withdrawal of a State from the national Union.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Rebellion

Colerica, you're wrong. Amendments 9 and 10 insure states rights, but look at this little section of the constitution limiting the states powers:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

when providing constitutional "proof" it's good to read the entire thing, not just what's useful to you.

Colerica, you're wrong. Amendments 9 and 10 insure states rights, but look at this little section of the constitution limiting the states powers:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

when providing constitutional "proof" it's good to read the entire thing, not just what's useful to you.


The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The right to prevent secession is NOT DELEGATED in the U.S. constitution. The states retain the right to secede. Since secession is neither granted nor prohibited by the constitution, the states (the people) reserve the right to secede (an unenumerated right). Plain and simple....

Maybe it would have been legal for them to secede if they had done it peacefully or one-at-a-time, but seceding en-masse and forming an armed Confederation is strictly prohibited by the quote I provided. Consider yourself punked.

Maybe it would have been legal for them to secede if they had done it peacefully or one-at-a-time, but seceding en-masse and forming an armed Confederation is strictly prohibited by the quote I provided. Consider yourself punked.

A: It was legal for them to secede...there's no "maybe's" about it, Lincolnite...

B: They could secede en-masse if they wished to...South Carolina did secede peacefully...all up until the Union violated it's soveirgn borders by sending the Star of the West through S.C.'s territorial waters...

C: See above. They only formed an armed Confederacy to protect themselves from the unlaweful military reprisal that they knew would happen....

D: Forming an armed Confederation is illegal to states within the United States. Once the states seceded from the United States, they were no longer subject to US laws. (That's the whole reason why the Emancipation Proclamation was bunk. Caesar Lincoln only applied it, when it was passed, to the Confederacy -- a nation that wasn't under his jurisdiction...)

E: You people have yet to cite where secession is stated as illegal in the Constitution....

F: "Punked?" That's such a childish MTV term......'Net folks use 'Owned,' or it's degenerated slang-term, 'PWNED', also spelt 'pwn3d...." :p

A: It was legal for them to secede...there's no "maybe's" about it, Lincolnite...


That's ok Neo-Reb. I must admit I had to review the 9th and the 10th. Especially their history and intent. I visted a legal firm that deals with Consititutional law.....

I read your article but I think it was written by another Neo-Reb vs a "neutral" evaluation.

Particular to me were the Madison and Jefferson remarks which don't really give their true intent.

Madison was the main force for Manifest Destiny. Why would be so supportive of sucession?

If you remember Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery when writing the Declaration. He abandoned the effort when the slave states threatened to pull out if they tried to end it. If he belived so much in states rights over the union.....

But to the point.

The 9th and 10th amendments were not designed for states to sucede from the union. Madison attempted to cover things that he could not forsee. Now having said that States leaving was probably not his intenent nor interest.

However, by the way they are written which allows for interpretation, you are right in the case for withdrawing from the union.

So it was more of a technicality then a "flagerant" violation of the Consititution.


B: They could secede en-masse if they wished to...South Carolina did secede peacefully...all up until the Union violated it's soveirgn borders by sending the Star of the West through S.C.'s territorial waters...


Well, you can play morality arguments and play "The South good" "The North Bad" all you want. The 9th and 10th are interpretive cases.

If the framers thought it was important, they would have set an amendment for leaving the union.

Also, the rebs were didn't follow the arguments you make. There was a town(or was it a county) in Texas that wanted to remain in the Union. The Rebs forcefully put it down and Hung a bunch of the "conspriators". At the moment I can't give you the name as I just bought a house and my library is still in boxes.

As to the Star of West? What's your point? Lincoln wanted an incident to incite the masses and the South played into his hands.

*snip*


D: Forming an armed Confederation is illegal to states within the United States. Once the states seceded from the United States, they were no longer subject to US laws. (That's the whole reason why the Emancipation Proclamation was bunk. Caesar Lincoln only applied it, when it was passed, to the Confederacy -- a nation that wasn't under his jurisdiction...)


Hmmm you argue the Consititution and seem to ignore that if you pull out it no longer applies.

Basically the South became a free territory. Who formally recognised the "new country"

It could be argued that Manifest Destiny plays here.


E: You people have yet to cite where secession is stated as illegal in the Constitution....


Well you also make it sound like it was a planned right. It was an interpretation.

The South had no chance to win. They played into "Ceasar Lincolns" hands and gave him the rallying cry he needed.

Also, the South brought Reconstruction on themselves. Killing Lincoln allowed it to happen. Lincoln would not allowed for it as he once said you can't heal wounds if you treat people like second class citizens.

Finally, I am glad the South was crushed. Think about it. With their views of the races, they probably would have sided with the Nazi's in WWII.

Oh and your Forest comment. Democrat? If you are trying to slam the current party, well you have to review the history. The Republicans of today are more like the Democrats back then. The big change came when Truman chased out the Dixicrats.

Well I guess it's time for the second civil war.

How the hell did this thread about extremist protestors in New York ge tturned into yet another idiotic debate about whether or not the south had the right to secede in 1860? P.S. Colerica--that question was answered with the end of the Civil War when the south lost, Had the south won, the answer would have been different.

F: "Punked?" That's such a childish MTV term......'Net folks use 'Owned,' or it's degenerated slang-term, 'PWNED', also spelt 'pwn3d...." :p

The latter, of course, being in no way childish?

I give contemporary slang a bit more respect than netspeak, personally, but each pot and kettle will differ...

The reason they don't do it at the DNC is because they support the leaders at the DNC. Apart from anarchists have done so your argument falls down. See the targetting of the DNC by the Yippies.

For that matter, read the reporting that Salon.com did on the police brutality in Miami last year--I think it was an OSEAN summit. The cops were told all sorts of crap and basically riled up so they would abuse anyone that they thought looked like a protestor, even old union retirees who were down there protesting job displacement.

it happens every single time there is a fairly major protest. the media all starts putting out these ridiculous stories of demonization, usually about anarchists. some of their stories are basically reprints of stories they ran about anarchists 115 years ago, with a few minor updates to the stereotypes - we are no longer swarthy immigrants but rich white kids, etc. but if you go check facts on any of the shit they claim we have done, you quickly realize that they either make it up completely or are simply repeating something that somebody else has made up. in the run-up to miami (it was the ftaa meeting, actually) we had the usual lines about "urine filled supersoakers" and "slingshots to hurl feces" which you can usually find in all of these stories, but also that we were going have bombs and biological weapons and "ninja sticks". of course, it wasn't true then, just like it wasn't true in cancun, just like it wasn't true in dc, just like it wasn't true in quebec, just like it wasn't true london, etc.

and there isn't even such a thing as a 'ninja stick'.

FTAA! That's right. I was actually in south Florida at the time and considered going down there. I'd have certainly been busted up if I'd gone, no question.