NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a thread, not long ago, about how violent/offensive protesters tend to hurt their own cause...well, here is a prime example.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/10/BAG5UDLNU01.DTL

http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/archives/anarchy.jpg

SAN FRANCISCO
Anarchists protest G-8 -- officer badly hurt
Cicero A. Estrella, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, July 10, 2005

A San Francisco police officer was in serious condition with a head injury and three suspects were in custody Saturday following a demonstration by anarchists who broke windows in the Mission District to protest the gathering of the Group of 8 leaders in Scotland.

Police did not release the name of the officer who was hurt in Friday night's melee. Deputy Police Chief Greg Suhr said Saturday that the officer was in serious but stable condition with brain swelling at San Francisco General Hospital. He has developed a blood clot, which doctors hope to dissolve before he is released, Suhr said.

The department's spokeswoman, Maria Oropeza, said the officer and his partner were driving on 23rd Street in response to a vandalism call when protesters threw a mattress underneath their patrol car.

"They got out to apprehend the suspects, at which point they were surrounded by a crowd," Oropeza said. "One of the officers was struck on the head by an unidentified object."

Police arrested Cody Tarlow, 21, of Felton (Santa Cruz County), Doritt Earnst, 31, of Berkeley and a third suspect who refused to identify himself.

They were being held on suspicion of attempted lynching, malicious mischief, battery to a police officer, aggravated assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon and willful resistance to a police officer that results in serious bodily injury.

In addition, Tarlow was held on suspicion of wearing a disguise for the purpose of escaping discovery or identification with a public offense. Earnst was also suspected of removing a weapon other than a firearm from an officer, and the unidentified man was suspected of inciting a riot.

A posting on a Web site used by the organizers of Friday's protest said, "The legal team is working on getting (the suspects) attorneys and getting them released! There will be a meeting to organize support for them." The meeting is scheduled for this morning.

Read More >>> (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/10/BAG5UDLNU01.DTL)Where does one draw the line concerning "civil disobedience"? Did the protesters go to far? Did they not go far enough? Do the ends justify the means?

Discuss.

This isn't about "civil disobedience". I've taken part in CD actions, and what's described in the article isn't CD.

Why are you using that turn of phrase?

There was a thread, not long ago, about how violent/offensive protesters tend to hurt their own cause...well, here is a prime example.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/10/BAG5UDLNU01.DTL

http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/archives/anarchy.jpg

Where does one draw the line concerning "civil disobedience"? Did the protesters go to far? Did they not go far enough? Do the ends justify the means?

Discuss.
That cop gets my best wishes … violence is not the way to voice a political opinion such as that. Not on a man that was just trying to do his job.

:mp5:And THAT, my friends, is wh I support unlimited police powers and governmental powers: to keep wackos like that from taking to the streets. Any form of government that has to resort to beating police and government officials and burning things down and blowing things up is no system of government in my book. :headbang: Interestingly, most of the "anrcists" of today are nothing more then teenagers with no discipline and too many hormones. :mp5: By the way, I am a teenager also, and its people like those protesters who give my generation a bad name. This type of "protest" shows why Anrcy will NEVER work. :gundge:

If he was doing his job fine, it's out of order.. but if a pig hits you, hit the f**ker back.. repeatedly if necessary.. I've come across very few genuine police in my time.. Most where I come from are arrogant, power tripping morons..

This isn't about "civil disobedience". I've taken part in CD actions, and what's described in the article isn't CD.

Why are you using that turn of phrase?
These "protest groups" use the phrase to describe their property destruction and various other unlawful acts...why not use it?

Also, with the rhetoric that a lot of these groups (and related groups) use (save the earth, humans are a virus, capitalism is evil, police are scum, humans are worth less than animals/nature/environment, etc.), the next logical step would be killing/maiming people in the course of "civil disobedience" protests.

Personally, I see more of these attacks in the near future, as the rhetoric in this country becomes more and more outrageous and violent.

Anyone notice how often Anrchist = Excuse to be an Asshole?

Anyone notice how often Anrchist = Excuse to be an Asshole?
Actually, nowdays, it's "Anarchist = Excuse to be a criminal and justify criminal actions."

Yeah, after reading about how a police officer was nearly beaten to death in a "peace rally" during the whole iraq mess, I realized mobs are never the way to do this. Frankly, I've never seen a liberal protest in which nobody was hurt and there were no death threats, not to mention peta protests, which almost always involve blood. I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat.

Yeah, after reading about how a police officer was nearly beaten to in a "peace rally" during the whole iraq mess, I realized mobs are never the way to do this. Frankly, I've never seen a liberal protest in which nobody was hurt and there were no threats, not to mention peta protests, which almost always involve . I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat.

Hear, Hear!! I completly agree.

:mp5:And THAT, my friends, is wh I support unlimited police powers and governmental powers: to keep wackos like that from taking to the streets. Any form of government that has to resort to beating police and government officials and burning things down and blowing things up is no system of government in my book. :headbang: Interestingly, most of the "anrcists" of today are nothing more then teenagers with no discipline and too many hormones. :mp5: By the way, I am a teenager also, and its people like those protesters who give my generation a bad name. This type of "protest" shows why Anrcy will NEVER work. :gundge:
Use a few more gun smiles … it really makes your point :rolleyes:

G-8 Protesters Beat Cop Nearly To Death

I'm sure that up at the big riot in the sky Carlo Giuiliani is crying a tiny little tear for the cop.

:mp5:Any form of government that has to resort to beating police and government officials and burning things down and blowing things up is no system of government in my book. :headbang: Interestingly, most of the "anrcists" of today are nothing more then teenagers with no discipline and too many hormones. :mp5: By the way, I am a teenager also, and its people like those protesters who give my generation a bad name. This type of "protest" shows why Anrcy will NEVER work. :gundge:

1) I don't think you can be opposed to something you can't even spell properly.

2)You obviously have no idea what political anarchy is about.. Anarchy is the political ideology that advocates the abolishment of government.. It's a little more complicated than what you think it is.. The 16 year old with a crowbar and a black hoodie is not an anarchist, he/she is a petty vandal.

3) Why would a government blow up its own buildings and beat up its own officials?.. Read what you wrote.. It makes no sense.. again, anarchy means no government..

4) Protesters give your generation a bad name? How about misinformed and apathetic drones?

5) If everyone was like you, social reform would never occur.

Actually, nowdays, it's "Anarchist = Excuse to be a criminal and justify criminal actions."

and don't forget claiming from the gov.

These "protest groups" use the phrase to describe their property destruction and various other unlawful acts...why not use it?

Also, with the rhetoric that a lot of these groups (and related groups) use (save the earth, humans are a virus, capitalism is evil, police are scum, humans are worth less than animals/nature/environment, etc.), the next logical step would be killing/maiming people in the course of "civil disobedience" protests.

Personally, I see more of these attacks in the near future, as the rhetoric in this country becomes more and more outrageous and violent.

So then, what was the name of this 'group', and what other "protest groups" are you specifically referring to?

You're generalizing to an incredible extent, to the point of sensationalism - and I notice that others are jumping on your bandwagon.

Yeah, after reading about how a police officer was nearly beaten to death in a "peace rally" during the whole iraq mess, I realized mobs are never the way to do this. Frankly, I've never seen a liberal protest in which nobody was hurt and there were no death threats, not to mention peta protests, which almost always involve blood. I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat.
Lol nice make it a personal attack on just one group of people
A mob of any sort has its idiots but you add the “Ive seen” to avoid proving there is any statistical difference between “liberals” and the rest of the causes out there

You deserve the

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/roflcopter.gif

Yeah, after reading about how a police officer was nearly beaten to death in a "peace rally" during the whole iraq mess, I realized mobs are never the way to do this. Frankly, I've never seen a liberal protest in which nobody was hurt and there were no death threats, not to mention peta protests, which almost always involve blood. I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat.

ROFL

ROFL
We think alike lol

If he was doing his job fine, it's out of order.. but if a pig hits you, hit the f**ker back.. repeatedly if necessary.. I've come across very few genuine police in my time.. Most where I come from are arrogant, power tripping morons..

Many Police might be assholes, but the thing is many people think thier something thier not. If your punched you more than likely deserved it. A Law Enforcment Officer is trained to be forceful and take command of a situation. They are taught to keep people in line and not be all nice about it. For people with authority issues this comes off as being arrogant but they are really just doing thier job. A hardened criminal is going to respond to, "Will you pretty please stop being bad?"

I know an Officer and off duty he's a nice guy, if not a bit ... aggressive.

Unless you just had the bad luck of meeting all the bad ones. Then sorry. Al

So then, what was the name of this 'group', and what other "protest groups" are you specifically referring to?
I'll bother answering your questions when you bother reading the article...since the information you're asking for is in the article.

GOD, I hate lazy "debaters". :headbang:

Yeah, after reading about how a police officer was nearly beaten to death in a "peace rally" during the whole iraq mess, I realized mobs are never the way to do this. Frankly, I've never seen a liberal protest in which nobody was hurt and there were no death threats, not to mention peta protests, which almost always involve blood. I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat.


LMFAO! good one. Unless you are serious and then I just feel sorry for you. I've been sto several peace rallys and not a single one of them turned violent.

Those idiots that beat the police officer need to get punished big time. Those people hurt the peaceful protesters cause for sure. Peaceful protests may not bring laughter and rainbows to the world and stop all wars and famine in an instant but the vast majority of them have done nothing wrong.

I'm sure that up at the big riot in the sky Carlo Giuiliani is crying a tiny little tear for the cop.
If you're talking about Carlo Giuliani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Giuliani), then I call Strawman.

There was a thread, not long ago, about how violent/offensive protesters tend to hurt their own cause...well, here is a prime example.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/10/BAG5UDLNU01.DTL

http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/archives/anarchy.jpg

Where does one draw the line concerning "civil disobedience"? Did the protesters go to far? Did they not go far enough? Do the ends justify the means?

Discuss.



This is where lethal force is justified.

That Helicopter is the most awesome thing Ever. You made my day. I'm now going to make a goat sacrifice for you.

If you're talking about Carlo Giuliani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Giuliani), then I call Strawman.

Why a strawman? My point being that the activities of the cops often also harm the cause of democracy which they are supposedly protecting.

Why a strawman? My point being that the activities of the cops often also harm the cause of democracy which they are supposedly protecting.



Yes, and throwing objects at officers who are just doing their duty is conducive to democracy :rolleyes:

Why a strawman?
Giuliani and the other Italian anarchist protesters were engaging in violent action against Italian military police. Even in contrast, that is in no way comparable to the protest and police actions that went on regarding this story.

Comparing apples to oranges = strawman.

I'll bother answering your questions when you bother reading the article...since the information you're asking for is in the article.

GOD, I hate lazy "debaters". :headbang:

You're so full of it, it's a wonder you can walk straight. I read the article. My question still stands. What is the name of the protest group specifically involved? What specific "other groups" are you referring to?

These "protest groups" use the phrase (Civil Disobedience) to describe their property destruction and various other unlawful acts...why not use it?

Also, with the rhetoric that a lot of these groups (and related groups) use (save the earth, humans are a virus, capitalism is evil, police are scum, humans are worth less than animals/nature/environment, etc.)

*snips*



QUOTE=Texpunditistan]I'll bother answering your questions when you bother reading the article...since the information you're asking for is in the article.

GOD, I hate lazy "debaters". :headbang:[/QUOTE]

Well, the information isn't in the article, which I've read. The article refers to the name of the protest, (the "West Coast Anti-Capitalist Convergence and March against the G-8.") not the names of the "groups" you claim are taking so-called "Civil Disobedience" too far.

As much as you may hate "lazy" debaters, I utterly loathe misleading "debaters".

Yes, and throwing objects at officers who are just doing their duty is conducive to democracy :rolleyes:
I don’t think he was talking in this case more the proposed “unlimited police power’s” situation that one of the posters proposed

1) I don't think you can be opposed to something you can't even spell properly.

2)You obviously have no idea what political is about.. is the political ideology that advocates the abolishment of government.. It's a little more complicated than what you think it is.. The 16 year old with a crowbar and a black hoodie is not an , he/she is a petty vandal.

3) Why would a government blow up its own buildings and beat up its own officials?.. Read what you wrote.. It makes no sense.. again, means no government..

4) Protesters give your generation a bad name? How about misinformed and apathetic drones?

5) If everyone was like you, social reform would never occur.

1) I can be opposed to it, because I do know how to spell it, however my computer doesn't allow the correct spelling to appear in my text when I write it, so I have to misspell it in order for it to appear.

2) I do know what it is all about, for I have studied it. I also know that in the end there is no difference between Communism and Anrcy, because in the end they both advocate no classes and no government.

3) I never said that the government would. If you read what I wrote it makes complete sense. The people who are following it and want to establish it frequently do those things to try and wear away at the estabilshment. Their government has no government. Its politics without the politicians. Do you really think if they ever actually got this "government" of theirs formed, they would let the old politicians stay? Of course not, they would eliminate them because they would be the "estalbishment". And Anrcists are supposed to be so liberal and tolerant and they are going to get rid of the "oppressive" government. However, I wonder if they have thought of the fact that once they got into power, they would have purges to get rid of the "estalbisment" and al its supporters. Freedom of speech and press would be limited so as to keep the "government" from coming back. These "freedom lovers" would become just like Stalin. They are hypocrits. Do you still think I don't know the least bit of what I am talking about?

4) Protesters give my generation a bad name, as do ignorant "drones" too. And if you are trying to call me one of them, you are horribly misstaken. I spend 5 hours a day watching the news, listening to the news, and reading the news. I have started the Young Republicans club at my school, and frequently am involved in socioeconomic and political and geopolitical debates with the Amnesty International chapter in my school.

5) I am not opposed to all social reform, however I am against illogical social reform and "reform" just for the sake of reform, something which liberals are constantly doing.

Comparing apples to oranges = strawman.

Question: do some protestors sometimes overstep the line of acceptable behaviour or not?

Question: do some cops sometimes overstep the line of acceptable behaviour or not?

Well, at least you can guarantee that these rich lily-white wannabes are going to get a lesson in pain from their friendly prison staff. I've seen first-hand what people who attack police can expect in prison. Justice will be done, lawyers or no lawyers.

Well, at least you can guarantee that these rich lily-white wannabes are going to get a lesson in pain from their friendly prison staff. I've seen first-hand what people who attack police can expect in prison. Justice will be done, lawyers or no lawyers.

What, the same sort of Justice one can expect in a Police State? I feel so safe now.

Now I had a couple questions about this after my hatred for liberals cooled down.

Why were people protesting G-8? I can understand protesting a war, or someone's love for oil...but why do anarchists hate G-8? "You're trying to give aid to starving people in Africa? NEVER!! We must stop you"

Also, aren't there better methods of trying to stop something than a protest? A petition or something would seem productive, but stopping traffic and vandalizing homes hardly seems like you're going to peacefully convey a point and try to get others who disagree with you to come around. Don't get me wrong, the constitution gives you the right to protest, and if I can have a gun, you can protest. I just fail to see how a massive gathering is going to further a cause.

Finally, why is the group responsible for a demonstration so anxious to get these people off the hook? Don't they feel bad that a human being was nearly killed? Apparently it's only wrong to inflict harm on a human being if they disagree with your beliefs...

4) Protesters give your generation a bad name? How about misinformed and apathetic drones?

Nope, it's the misinformed and violent thugs who give my generation a bad name. Those of us content with the current system tend not to cause any problems, see.

Where does one draw the line concerning "civil disobedience"? Did the protesters go too far? Did they not go far enough? Do the ends justify the means?

Discuss.
Hell no. This is GBH (grevious bodily harm), plain and simple. Those protestors should be punished just like any other thug. This was not an act of civil disobedience.

Why were people protesting G-8? I can understand protesting a war, or someone's love for oil...but why do anarchists hate G-8? "You're trying to give aid to starving people in Africa? NEVER!! We must stop you"

I know some people who were in Scotland last week to protest. They do not believe that the leaders are interested in helping the poor. They believe that they are meeting to help corporations exploit the third world.

Why were people protesting G-8? I can understand protesting a war, or someone's love for oil...but why do anarchists hate G-8? "You're trying to give aid to starving people in Africa? NEVER!! We must stop you"

Why? Because the G8 is a coterie of the leaders of the most industrialised nations in the world who have been primarily concerned with maintaining the global status quo and thus keeping in place the international trade systems which perpetuate the condition of LDCs. The crumbs from the table that they granted this year are a start, but little more than a token gesture in the big picture.

Artanias, it didn't say why the Anarchists were there. I've been at demos that have been crashed by Anarchists, have you?

It doesn't matter how well-intentioned the organizers are or what the actual demonstration is about - if Anarchists show up, there's a 50-50 chance something's going to end up burned or broken.

So hold your suppositions at the door. Anarchists wrecked a protest. There's your headline. Don't blame the people protesting G-8. Blame the people throwing shit.

Or is it too much to ask to not grossly over-generalize?

Question: do some protestors sometimes overstep the line of acceptable behaviour or not?

Question: do some cops sometimes overstep the line of acceptable behaviour or not?
You brought the argument up, so stick to your guns instead of trying to change your argument.

Civil police and military police are trained in different ways and trained to deal with situations in different ways. What you were trying to say, when you brought Giuliani up, was that it didn't matter if it was military police or civil police, the situation and actions would have been the same. I'd argue that they would not.

Notice that the SF police officer was NOT wearing riot gear or any other type of protective gear and was most likely not involved in any kind of "crowd suppression". The Italian incident involved open attacks against military police in a riot situation.

Lastly, the Giuliani incident WAS IN ITALY...NOT THE US. Laws and procedures for each country and each police organization are different in dealing with different situaitons.

Now, can you actually come up with a comparable situation?

Now I had a couple questions about this after my hatred for liberals cooled down.

Why were people protesting G-8? I can understand protesting a war, or someone's love for oil...but why do anarchists hate G-8? "You're trying to give aid to starving people in Africa? NEVER!! We must stop you"

Also, aren't there better methods of trying to stop something than a protest? A petition or something would seem productive, but stopping traffic and vandalizing homes hardly seems like you're going to peacefully convey a point and try to get others who disagree with you to come around. Don't get me wrong, the constitution gives you the right to protest, and if I can have a gun, you can protest. I just fail to see how a massive gathering is going to further a cause.

Finally, why is the group responsible for a demonstration so anxious to get these people off the hook? Don't they feel bad that a human being was nearly killed? Apparently it's only wrong to inflict harm on a human being if they disagree with your beliefs...

You need to understand the issues more clearly before you make this argument. People were not protesting against aid being given but to the amount of aid. It is also unfair to say that the protestors all set out to cause damage. Most of those present would have much rather had a peaceful demonstration. My final point is in reference to your claim that a mass gathering makes no difference. What about the Million Man March?

if Anarchists show up, there's a 50-50 chance something's going to end up burned or broken.

.......

Or is it too much to ask to not grossly over-generalize?
Hypocrite. You are claiming that anarchists are violent in protests. Only a minority of them are, such as the Black Bloc organisation. Most are passionate and ideologically radical, but peaceful.

You brought the argument up, so stick to your guns instead of trying to change your argument.

Nope same argument: what exactly did you think my original argument was?

Artanias, it didn't say why the Anarchists were there. I've been at demos that have been crashed by Anarchists, have you?

It doesn't matter how well-intentioned the organizers are or what the actual demonstration is about - if Anarchists show up, there's a 50-50 chance something's going to end up burned or broken.

So hold your suppositions at the door. Anarchists wrecked a protest. There's your headline. Don't blame the people protesting G-8. Blame the people throwing shit.

Or is it too much to ask to not grossly over-generalize?
How is it overgeneralizing when EVERY major anti-capitalist "protest" involves private property being destroyed and people being hurt?

How is it overgeneralizing when EVERY major anti-capitalist "protest" involves private property being destroyed and people being hurt?

There are often fights at football matches but does that mean that every football fan is a thug?

Nope same argument: what exactly did you think my original argument was?
Nope... I'm not going to allow you to derail this. Either actually respond to the dismantling of your "valid comparison" (which was in no way a valid comparison) or have a nice day.

What, the same sort of Justice one can expect in a Police State? I feel so safe now.

It's not meant to make anyone feel safe. It's between the thug and the cops, not for public consumption. I'm not saying it's about justice, only that **in this case,** justice will be done.

There are often fights at football matches but does that mean that every football fan is a thug?
So... a soccer match is now a valid, direct comparison to an anti-capitalist "protest"? :rolleyes:

So... a soccer match is now a valid, direct comparison to an anti-capitalist "protest"? :rolleyes:

My argument is based on the same theory. The situation doesnt matter

Hypocrite. You are claiming that anarchists are violent in protests. Only a minority of them are, such as the Black Bloc organisation. Most are passionate and ideologically radical, but peaceful.

Not the ones that have shown up at the Civil Disobedience actions I've been involved with - in particular, the then anti-"G-7" actions. Of course, I knew some of these self-styled anarchists (neighbours of mine), and not only did I get beaten up by the cops for the bonfire the anarchists set with newspaper boxes, right in front of the cops, several weeks later I found out from the one anarchist I knew who had frickin' started the bonfire that he and his buddies had been frickin' PAID $100 CAN apiece to start a fire, by some newspaper photographers who needed some juicy pics - and weren't getting any from the people attending the peaceful sit-in that was the Civil Disobedience action that was actually planned for that day.

So... a soccer match is now a valid, direct comparison to an anti-capitalist "protest"? :rolleyes:
A bunch of people rooting for one teem and another an other team and when one of their sides dont go their way violence sometimes happens...

Actualy does not seem like THAT bad of an analogy

Some people in a wound up group seem to like to start trouble ... just seems to be a common thing even out of the political realm (such as soccer)

It's not meant to make anyone feel safe. It's between the thug and the cops, not for public consumption. I'm not saying it's about justice, only that **in this case,** justice will be done.

Justice is never "done" when it's not dealt with in the public eye. Rather, it's "done in".

How is it overgeneralizing when EVERY major anti-capitalist "protest" involves private property being destroyed and people being hurt?

You're defending your overgeneralization by the use of further overgeneralization?

Nice. Smooth. Circular.

A bunch of people rooting for one teem and another an other team and when one of their sides dont go their way violence sometimes happens...

Actualy does not seem like THAT bad of an analogy

Some people in a wound up group seem to like to start trouble ... just seems to be a common thing even out of the political realm (such as soccer)
Actually, you're right. It is a somewhat valid comparison, considering that groups show up to each "event" looking to engage in violence.

If this was all accidental, and things got out of hand, then how come none of the people at the riot (let's be honest, protest is watering it down) have come forward to issue a statement that things got out of hand? If that police officer wasn't meant to get hurt, how come the group organizing the protest, rather than wishing well to the officer or his family, stated they were going to focus on getting the attackers out of jail as soon as possible, as though they had done nothing wrong?

Granted, my sources on this are the article at the start of this thread, and the fact that all those who defend anarchy and these protestors have failed to show me any links to official statements made by people at this riot nor the group who organized it. Combined with the belief by said posters who defend these groups that because I disagree with them, I have to be a drone of some sort and am unable to think for myself, I have no choice but to come to the following conclusions:

The organizers of this protest intended for it to turn into a massive riot, and are only sorry that the people who attacked the police officer are in jail. They feel that since they oppose "the machine" they have the right to use whatever means necessary to make others see their cause.

The people who attended this riot feel little remorse for the destruction of property or human life that resulted, at least not enough that they would make a public apology or publicly acknowledge what happened was wrong.

If you fail to see how I came to these conclusions, feel free to ask, but be specific, or offer evidence to contradict my conclusions.

You're defending your overgeneralization by the use of further overgeneralization?

Nice. Smooth. Circular.
I can't remember seeing ANY major anti-capitalist protest that didn't involve property being destroyed and/or people getting hurt. HOW is that an overgeneralization?

Things are getting worse. This will prove to be yet another blow to the anarchist movement.

Justice is never "done" when it's not dealt with in the public eye. Rather, it's "done in".

I don't figure legality into my definition of justice, necessarily. Justice can be administered by legal or non-legal entities, or even inanimate objects. If a tree falls in the woods and lands on a killer burying his latest victim, I say he got his due, even if no recognized authority made it happen. Maybe intra-legal and extra-legal justice are two exclusive categories.

Things are getting worse. This will prove to be yet another blow to the anarchist movement.
I'm just waiting until Anarchists are included on government terrorist watchlists.

I can't remember seeing ANY major anti-capitalist protest that didn't involve property being destroyed and/or people getting hurt. HOW is that an overgeneralization?

That's like me saying I can't recall hearing about any 14-car pileup that didn't involve a transport truck, and then going on to claim that all 14-car pileups are caused by transport tucks.

It's a gross overgeneralization, and stamping your feet while insisting it's so doesn't make it the truth any more than holding my breath 'til I turn blue is going to make my gross overgeneralization about 14-car pileups true.

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear which specific "protest groups" are out to cause trouble under the guise of "Civil disobedience", btw. do you have anything, other than the name of the protest event as mentioned in the article?

I don't figure legality into my definition of justice, necessarily. Justice can be administered by legal or non-legal entities, or even inanimate objects. If a tree falls in the woods and lands on a killer burying his latest victim, I say he got his due, even if no recognized authority made it happen. Maybe intra-legal and extra-legal justice are two exclusive categories.

Yeah well Pepe, there's a world of difference between a random falling tree and the application of a rubber hose in the back room of the precinct house.

I can't remember seeing ANY major anti-capitalist protest that didn't involve property being destroyed and/or people getting hurt. HOW is that an overgeneralization?

Allow me to demonstrate the right and wrong way to respond to this.

Right way
Tex, in (year) at (location), (group) protested (capitalist cause). There was no violence, and nobody who opposed this group felt as though their proptery or lives were in danger. This was a peaceful anti-capitalist protest. Here's a link to a news report of said protest, if you don't believe me (link).

Wrong way
OMG, you are such an idiot! do u always believe what other people tell u r such an idiot u probably get raped lol! gro up and open ur eyez fascist idiot lol!

Now, although none of the responses have yet fit either category, I wonder which way they lean to, especially since this debate can quickly be ended.

Where does one draw the line concerning "civil disobedience"? Did the protesters go to far? Did they not go far enough? Do the ends justify the means?

Discuss.

this isnt civil disobediance, obviously if you simply notice the word CIVIL, this was a violent protest, that obviouslty was taken too far and certainly not civil diobediance.

How is it overgeneralizing when EVERY major anti-capitalist "protest" involves private property being destroyed and people being hurt?

I'll agree with you to a point on this statement. Yes there may have been violence at many of the major anti-capitalist protests but the fact that you use this to argue your point that as a result all protestors are violent is simply wrong.

Yeah, after reading about how a police officer was nearly beaten to death in a "peace rally" during the whole iraq mess, I realized mobs are never the way to do this. Frankly, I've never seen a liberal protest in which nobody was hurt and there were no death threats, not to mention peta protests, which almost always involve blood. I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat.

Let me get this perfectly clear, the reason why you oppose the democratic party, is because you oppose the right to protest? Without that right you soon would not be able to vote democratic, (or something else) any longer.

Let me get this perfectly clear, the reason why you oppose the democratic party, is because you oppose the right to protest? Without that right you soon would not be able to vote democratic, (or something else) any longer.

Okay pete, let me pretend it's 20 minutes ago when I was willing to defend this point.

So let me get this straight:
Getting people to support the patriot act by using fear that terrorists are everywhere - Wrong.
Getting me to support riots by using fear that if I don't, I'm somehow going to lose my right to vote - Okay.

...and I'm still waiting to hear something tangible about specific groups, here, Tex.

Got anything, or do I just keep mentioning this every other post?

Let me get this perfectly clear, the reason why you oppose the democratic party, is because you oppose the right to protest? Without that right you soon would not be able to vote democratic, (or something else) any longer.

I think he's saying that the way to prevent loonies staging a coup is to keep out the Democrats: "I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat."

I wouldn't call the Democrats *that* negligent, although I'd like to see them far, far, away from power, for other reasons. ;)

Okay pete, let me pretend it's 20 minutes ago when I was willing to defend this point.

So let me get this straight:
Getting people to support the patriot act by using fear that terrorists are everywhere - Wrong.
Getting me to support riots by using fear that if I don't, I'm somehow going to lose my right to vote - Okay.
So you make a statement and 20 minuets later you are no longer willing to defend it … nice

I'm just waiting until Anarchists are included on government terrorist watchlists.
A question:
By that do you mean that you believe that anarchists should be regarded as terrorists, or that actions such as the one in the article may cause the governmment to decide that anarchists are terrorists?

Lets look at the last World Social Forum - non-violent, and no vandalism. HUGE CROWDS of people.

I think he's saying that the way to prevent loonies staging a coup is to keep out the Democrats: "I soon realized the only way to stop these people from a coup on my government is to never vote democrat."

I wouldn't call the Democrats *that* negligent, although I'd like to see them far, far, away from power, for other reasons. ;)

I have nightmares of Hilary Clinton becomming president....Hold me...

Although, if people are so insistent on having a woman president, by the grounds that it's her turn, and not that she's more qualified in any way, why not have Anne coulter? If you stand by your man after he screws interns in the white house, I wonder if you'll stand up to global tyrants.

For those of you in the dark,

A Coup d'Etat is almost always an action taken by a nation's armed forces, or in conjunction with a nation's armed forces. It is not the work of mobs, or of anarchists operating at the fringes of mobs, at protest rallies.

Someone's used the wrong expression earlier in this thread, now everybody is running with it.

Pffft.

A coup d'etat is a violent overthrow of a government. It only seems logicial that armies would do this, but it's not limited to. If a mob gets angry enough, they can overwhelm a government. Wouldn't you consider the actions taken in the french revolution to be a coup?

coup d'etat

n : a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force [syn: coup, putsch, takeover]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Okay pete, let me pretend it's 20 minutes ago when I was willing to defend this point.

So let me get this straight:
Getting people to support the patriot act by using fear that terrorists are everywhere - Wrong.
Getting me to support riots by using fear that if I don't, I'm somehow going to lose my right to vote - Okay.

First off, thanks for calling me pete and not peter, i hate that, now then..

I condemn both of the things you sited here, there is nothing productive about a riot, there is however in a peaceful protest, i think that the people responsible for the officers injurys should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, but that doesnt mean that we should eliminate protest in order to elminate riots. Its like tearing down your house to keep the pipes from freezing.

ok let me get a lil more specific, If you limit free speech in such a way as to eliminate protest, then yes the chances of losing democracy is very high.
(once agian, protests not riots)

A coup d'etat is a violent overthrow of a government. It only seems logicial that armies would do this, but it's not limited to. If a mob gets angry enough, they can overwhelm a government. Wouldn't you consider the actions taken in the french revolution to be a coup?

No, I would consider that a revolution.

When "President" Pervez Musharaff seized power in Pakistan, it was a Coup D'Etat. He was a General in the Pakistani army, and used his personal power over his troops to oust the democratically-elected leadership on pain of death.

When George Washington roused the people of the American Colonies to arms against the British, he started a revolution.

See how that works? There is a difference, it's not just semantics.

Oh, and Tex? Are you willing to concede now that you don't actually have anything substantial to offer in terms of specific "groups" that actively seek to cause undue harm while at the same time claiming to engage in acts of Civil Disobedience?

I've been waiting for something from you for a long while, now. Just FYI.

I was at the G8 summit in Scotland, and along with several hundred other people I could not make it to Gleneagles, due to a combination of the police lying and the resulting actions of the coach company. So there were a few hundred people in Edinburgh who would have been at the protests which ended up violent, but couldn't go. By several people's assumtions that all anti-capitalist/G8 protestors are violent, you would have assumed that this protest was violent. However, it was entirely peaceful, apart from one time when the police got confused and started pushing us in oposite directions and so squashing everyone (I'm sure most would fight to be able to breath). The BBC's version of events can be found here: BBC report. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4657925.stm) Interestingly, the news of this demo never appeared on any TV news or featured prominently in any papers, and while there are much more 'photgenic' demos going on, why would it? I say this to point out that this may be where your opinion of all protests involving people who like to destroy property and get violent comes from.

Someone questioned why people would want to protest. There is a wealth of information available here, (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/g8) and even if you can't be bothered to read it all, the fact there is so much shows something. A principle reason is that many people see that while the G8, with their half-baked compromised comuniqués, may wish to take some action to help the world's needy etc, they are integral to its existence: the system is wrong, to put it simply. Personally, I felt there was little chance of anything substantial happening, and the thought that such an opportunity could go by made me sick.

Somebody mentioned that a petition or some other form of protest would be better. There are already several of these, but; A) petitions don't have such a force behind them; B) you have no idea whether a person in a position of responsibility ever even hears about it; and C) a petition has a list of people who could be bothered to write their names on a piece of paper when it came to them, protests are full of people who feel more pasionately and will put more effort in (for my own part, I spent 25 hours on a coach for an afternoon of pretesting). They therefore carry a bit more weight.

Oh and i never mentioned the patriot act so as far as you knew, i could have been a wholehearted supporter of it, dont make asumptions.
i however am not and that was a fine example (:

A question:
By that do you mean that you believe that anarchists should be regarded as terrorists, or that actions such as the one in the article may cause the governmment to decide that anarchists are terrorists?
The latter. The former would be a return to McCarthyism, which I do *not* support.

First off, thanks for calling me pete and not peter, i hate that, now then..

I condemn both of the things you sited here, there is nothing productive about a riot, there is however in a peaceful protest, i think that the people responsible for the officers injurys should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, but that doesnt mean that we should eliminate protest in order to elminate riots. Its like tearing down your house to keep the pipes from freezing.

If you remembered reading some of my later posts, you would have noticed that I stated I am not against the freedom to protest. I said that it's important because it's in the constitution, and I will not try to remove that. However, I implied that the democrats and liberals, by their use of protests, are doing things they shouldn't, and I felt the only way to stop these liberals from overtaking my country is to not vote them into public office or support their efforts. There has been a long debate about whether all protests in the nature of the topic of the thread are peaceful, or whether all are hostile. This debate is still raging. Please read my post at the start of page four for my position on this.

The right to protest would not secure any constitutional freedoms from a corrupt government. The purpose of a protest is for groups to gather publicly to show the government they oppose a certain issue or policy (or support). A protest is to imply a public outrage or voter backlash, and are meant to work as polls.

However, now, they have become excuses for people to start riots. Many people believe a protest is a substitution for a petition to the government, and a substitution for fighting in civlized court to strike down a law or policy felt unconstitutional by protestors. I feel as though protests are being used by groups as an excuse to commit petty crimes and cause chaos. You may disagree, but you can't say this belief is unfounded. I do not feel protests, in the way they were meant to be used, would stop a corrupt government, as the only last resort way to protect ourselves would be through the use of arms, which has throughout history always been the problem-solver. In fact, if it wasn't for said war, America would not be free of England (good or bad), which is a perfect example of how protests gain rights.

EDIT: I apologize, my said post was number 54.

If you remembered reading some of my later posts, you would have noticed that I stated I am not against the freedom to protest. I said that it's important because it's in the constitution, and I will not try to remove that. However, I implied that the democrats and liberals, by their use of protests, are doing things they shouldn't, and I felt the only way to stop these liberals from overtaking my country is to not vote them into public office or support their efforts. There has been a long debate about whether all protests in the nature of the topic of the thread are peaceful, or whether all are hostile. This debate is still raging. Please read my post at the start of page four for my position on this.

And I am sure some feel this way

"
I implied that the republicans and conservitives, by their use of protests, are doing things they shouldn't, and I felt the only way to stop these conservitives from overtaking my country is to not vote them into public office or support their efforts.
"
But neither position so far has been prooved

Artanias, you like the right to protest because its in the constitution? ('I am not against the freedom to protest. I said that it's important because it's in the constitution'). I accept that you then go on to explain why protest is useful, but it seems a strange thing to say.

Oh, and Tex? Are you willing to concede now that you don't actually have anything substantial to offer in terms of specific "groups" that actively seek to cause undue harm while at the same time claiming to engage in acts of Civil Disobedience?

I've been waiting for something from you for a long while, now. Just FYI.
I'll come back to this part of the discussion later this evening/tonight. Right now, I don't have time to do the research. In fact, I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion for a few hours due to some information needed for work coming in and now I have to work my ass off on it.

Carry on.

democrats and liberals, by their use of protests, are doing things they shouldn't, and I felt the only way to stop these liberals from overtaking my country

:rolleyes: what things do only liberals and democrats use protests for that they shouldn't?

However, now, they have become excuses for people to start riots.

like how those damn liberals are blowing up abortion clinics. oh wait.

Confabular']Artanias, you like the right to protest because its in the constitution? ('I am not against the freedom to protest. I said that it's important because it's in the constitution'). I accept that you then go on to explain why protest is useful, but it seems a strange thing to say.

Don't Misunderstand me. Let me clarify. The constitution gives us the freedom to protest. Regardless of how I feel about it, I'm not going to try to remove freedoms granted by this document. Understand? I then go to explain how I feel protest is useful, which I feel.

So to sum up, I first support the freedom to protest because the constitution gives us this freedom, and since the constitution is the law we all follow to have a peaceful, orderly government, I accept it. Then, I believe in the freedom to protest, so I like it.

If you remembered reading some of my later posts, you would have noticed that I stated I am not against the freedom to protest. I said that it's important because it's in the constitution, and I will not try to remove that. However, I implied that the democrats and liberals, by their use of protests, are doing things they shouldn't, and I felt the only way to stop these liberals from overtaking my country is to not vote them into public office or support their efforts. There has been a long debate about whether all protests in the nature of the topic of the thread are peaceful, or whether all are hostile. This debate is still raging. Please read my post at the start of page four for my position on this.

The right to protest would not secure any constitutional freedoms from a corrupt government. The purpose of a protest is for groups to gather publicly to show the government they oppose a certain issue or policy (or support). A protest is to imply a public outrage or voter backlash, and are meant to work as polls.

However, now, they have become excuses for people to start riots. Many people believe a protest is a substitution for a petition to the government, and a substitution for fighting in civlized court to strike down a law or policy felt unconstitutional by protestors. I feel as though protests are being used by groups as an excuse to commit petty crimes and cause chaos. You may disagree, but you can't say this belief is unfounded. I do not feel protests, in the way they were meant to be used, would stop a corrupt government, as the only last resort way to protect ourselves would be through the use of arms, which has throughout history always been the problem-solver. In fact, if it wasn't for said war, America would not be free of England (good or bad), which is a perfect example of how protests gain rights.


I didnt notice that post but i'll be sure to go back and re-read it;
The fact is that any form of free speech has extremely limited power in a corrupt government, and furthermore, corrupt governments tend to limit the power of free speech. Does this mean its a useless right used to make us feel a little better about our government? no, because of course in a democratic society the point is the peaceful transition of power and hopefully, that happens often, hopefully avoiding corruption in conjunction with other measures.
A protest serves to illuminate the number of people who have a specific stance on an issue and the fervor in which they express it, and of course politicians want to be elected and relected, they may change theyre plicys in order to acomidate(sp?) the group the protesters represent.
No your arguement isnt unfounded, but, protests in the way they were meant to be (as you said) are not an excuse for petty crimes to be commited and i condemn them unless the crime would be the protest itself.

Don't Misunderstand me. Let me clarify. The constitution gives us the freedom to protest. Regardless of how I feel about it, I'm not going to try to remove freedoms granted by this document. Understand? I then go to explain how I feel protest is useful, which I feel.

Yes, I do understand, and did before. I'm interested to know why you wouldn't change the constitution, why you have so much faith in it. Those 'founding farthers' that some Americans seem to love were just as suceptible to mistakes as we are. Not that I am in favour of changing this aspect of the constitution, I just question your faith in it.

Protests are not an excuse for crime. There are people who will use protests as an excuse for crime, but the passion felt by the people at the protests I attended was not a cover for crime, it was real.

If this was all accidental, and things got out of hand, then how come none of the people at the riot (let's be honest, protest is watering it down) have come forward to issue a statement that things got out of hand? If that police officer wasn't meant to get hurt, how come the group organizing the protest, rather than wishing well to the officer or his family, stated they were going to focus on getting the attackers out of jail as soon as possible, as though they had done nothing wrong?

Granted, my sources on this are the article at the start of this thread, and the fact that all those who defend anarchy and these protestors have failed to show me any links to official statements made by people at this riot nor the group who organized it. Combined with the belief by said posters who defend these groups that because I disagree with them, I have to be a drone of some sort and am unable to think for myself, I have no choice but to come to the following conclusions:

The organizers of this protest intended for it to turn into a massive riot, and are only sorry that the people who attacked the police officer are in jail. They feel that since they oppose "the machine" they have the right to use whatever means necessary to make others see their cause.

The people who attended this riot feel little remorse for the destruction of property or human life that resulted, at least not enough that they would make a public apology or publicly acknowledge what happened was wrong.

If you fail to see how I came to these conclusions, feel free to ask, but be specific, or offer evidence to contradict my conclusions.


Im not going to try and contradict you but im also going to use your same arguement, give me evidence and a reason why you made these conclusions other than your own opinion devoid of actual facts? You cant condemn peoples arguements because of a lack of evidence to make your own without a lack of evidence, just doesnt work.

:rolleyes: what things do only liberals and democrats use protests for that they shouldn't?
Liberals often protest chicken farms and people who wear fur. These protests often result in vandalism. Democrats protest government moves, which is understandable because since they are out of power, they are going to protest things which are done by those in power. Welcome to the two-party system. An example of this was the protests in this thread. Of course, you're trying to get me to say the conservatives are innocent. I'll respond to that later in the post.


like how those damn liberals are blowing up abortion clinics. oh wait.

I never said bombing abortion clinics is okay. I feel forcing people to agree with you is never okay. I personally am very much against abortion, which is an entirely different issue, but I would never be hostile to someone simply because they had an abortion. I sense you're trying to to get me to say what the liberals are doing is okay because the conservatives do bad things to. Is that the liberals' defense? This is why I don't support them. The injustices of the conservative party are a different issue, and shouldn't be used as a smoke screen to take concern away from the liberals. One's crimes are independent of anyone else. Honestly, has the democratic party actually adopted the idealogy of "Two wrongs make a right, and we can commit whatever social crimes we want so long as we can convince the public we're not as bad as the republicans" ? What if I'm an independent?

This is a lot like someone asking "why did this cop nearly get killed?" and then someone else shouting "POLICE ARE CORRUPT!" Discuss what you want, but regardless of what the republicans do, a crime is a crime, and a lot of liberals are trying to screw us over.

I didnt notice that post but i'll be sure to go back and re-read it;
The fact is that any form of free speech has extremely limited power in a corrupt government, and furthermore, corrupt governments tend to limit the power of free speech. Does this mean its a useless right used to make us feel a little better about our government? no, because of course in a democratic society the point is the peaceful transition of power and hopefully, that happens often, hopefully avoiding corruption in conjunction with other measures.
A protest serves to illuminate the number of people who have a specific stance on an issue and the fervor in which they express it, and of course politicians want to be elected and relected, they may change theyre plicys in order to acomidate(sp?) the group the protesters represent.
No your arguement isnt unfounded, but, protests in the way they were meant to be (as you said) are not an excuse for petty crimes to be commited and i condemn them unless the crime would be the protest itself.

so...where do you disagree with me?

well, you also cant focus soley on one group and ignore similar crimes of another, thats prejuduce

Liberals often protest chicken farms and people who wear fur. These protests often result in vandalism. Democrats protest government moves, which is understandable because since they are out of power, they are going to protest things which are done by those in power. Welcome to the two-party system. An example of this was the protests in this thread. Of course, you're trying to get me to say the conservatives are innocent. I'll respond to that later in the post.




I never said bombing abortion clinics is okay. I feel forcing people to agree with you is never okay. I personally am very much against abortion, which is an entirely different issue, but I would never be hostile to someone simply because they had an abortion. I sense you're trying to to get me to say what the liberals are doing is okay because the conservatives do bad things to. Is that the liberals' defense? This is why I don't support them. The injustices of the conservative party are a different issue, and shouldn't be used as a smoke screen to take concern away from the liberals. One's crimes are independent of anyone else. Honestly, has the democratic party actually adopted the idealogy of "Two wrongs make a right, and we can commit whatever social crimes we want so long as we can convince the public we're not as bad as the republicans" ? What if I'm an independent?

This is a lot like someone asking "why did this cop nearly get killed?" and then someone else shouting "POLICE ARE CORRUPT!" Discuss what you want, but regardless of what the republicans do, a crime is a crime, and a lot of liberals are trying to screw us over.

Answer this question: Are liberals more underhanded and violent than conservatives?

Are you implying that I am tryign to say what those idiots that attacked the cop did isn't all that bad since the Republicans are violent idiots too?

so...where do you disagree with me?

Mostly on the use and usefullness of protests, also im pointing out points of your arguement that might suggest "selective logic"

Confabular']Yes, I do understand, and did before. I'm interested to know why you wouldn't change the constitution, why you have so much faith in it. Those 'founding farthers' that some Americans seem to love were just as suceptible to mistakes as we are. Not that I am in favour of changing this aspect of the constitution, I just question your faith in it.

Protests are not an excuse for crime. There are people who will use protests as an excuse for crime, but the passion felt by the people at the protests I attended was not a cover for crime, it was real.

It's not faith in the constitution, but the acceptance of it as common law. Say you and I are in a society, just us. We get together and make a set of rules which we all follow. One day, I disagree with something in these rules, I can't just decide to disobey it. If you are expected to follow all the rules, why am I allowed to break them?

My support of the constitution is because it is the highest law of my country. If I am going to live in the US, I must follow the laws that every other American citizen must follow. If I disagree with a part of the constitution, I must still follow it, and get enough support from others who live the laws of the land to change the constitution. It is OUR law, and only ALL of us can change it. Does that make sense?

I am against protests because they usually involve a group of people who disagree with a part of the law, yet they feel as though they can pick and choose with parts of the law they must follow, which is unfair to everyone else. Of course, this is not what protests were set out to be, but what a number of them have become.

Liberals often protest chicken farms and people who wear fur. These protests often result in vandalism. Democrats protest government moves, which is understandable because since they are out of power, they are going to protest things which are done by those in power.

Liberals often protest chicken farms. That's a new one on me. The people protesting meat and fur are hardly among the more liberal people I know.

You must lead a fairly cloistered life, to think of animal rights activists as liberals.

Discuss what you want, but regardless of what the republicans do, a crime is a crime, and a lot of liberals are trying to screw us over.

Great. I'd like to discuss gardening. Any tips?

If he was doing his job fine, it's out of order.. but if a pig hits you, hit the f**ker back.. repeatedly if necessary.. I've come across very few genuine police in my time.. Most where I come from are arrogant, power tripping morons..
I really wouldn't be surprised if you were one of these juvenile delinquents. If you re-read that article, nowhere does it mention the police officer hitting anyone - he was hit by a flying object.

Now, personally, I would've beat the snot out of those three kiddies, shoved them in plastic bags so they don't get their blood and puke on my patrol car's seats, then driven them to the police station, dumped them very nonchalantly in a cell, and driven off to do some more good.

Maybe you need some of this - just for calling the last thin line between reasonable peace and you hooligans running the place "pigs".

Confabular']Yes, I do understand, and did before. I'm interested to know why you wouldn't change the constitution, why you have so much faith in it. Those 'founding farthers' that some Americans seem to love were just as suceptible to mistakes as we are. Not that I am in favour of changing this aspect of the constitution, I just question your faith in it.

Protests are not an excuse for crime. There are people who will use protests as an excuse for crime, but the passion felt by the people at the protests I attended was not a cover for crime, it was real.

It's not faith in the constitution, but the acceptance of it as common law. Say you and I are in a society, just us. We get together and make a set of rules which we all follow. One day, I disagree with something in these rules, I can't just decide to disobey it. If you are expected to follow all the rules, why am I allowed to break them?

My support of the constitution is because it is the highest law of my country. If I am going to live in the US, I must follow the laws that every other American citizen must follow. If I disagree with a part of the constitution, I must still follow it, and get enough support from others who live the laws of the land to change the constitution. It is OUR law, and only ALL of us can change it. Does that make sense?

I am against protests because they usually involve a group of people who disagree with a part of the law, yet they feel as though they can pick and choose with parts of the law they must follow, which is unfair to everyone else. Of course, this is not what protests were set out to be, but what a number of them have become.

Answer this question: Are liberals more underhanded and violent than conservatives?

Are you implying that I am tryign to say what those idiots that attacked the cop did isn't all that bad since the Republicans are violent idiots too?

Do I believe liberals are more underhanded, yes. The reason I believe this is a lot of the bad things liberals do hurts or annoys me, while the bad things conservatives do hurt and annoy the liberals...and the enemy of my enemy...

Plus, I have yet to hear of conservatives gathering to protest and beating a cop nearly to death.

Of course, this is a very subjective issue. Why do the conservatives matter to you? Why can't this bad thing be a bad thing? You seem like you feel as though what happened is okay, and whatever the liberals do is okay so long as the conservatives do bad things too.

Mostly on the use and usefullness of protests, also im pointing out points of your arguement that might suggest "selective logic"

Umm...okay...I'm using selective logic? Since you're not selecting to be specific, and let me know why you disagree rather than rewording some of my arguments, I'm selecting to go do something else. Have a nice day.

Does anybody have anything substantial today, or are we just going to bat ludicrously vague generalities back and forth?

(Most) liberals say/do/think X. Conservatives say/do/think Y.

The effin' bloody Hell does any of this have to do with some cop getting hit on the head in San Fran?

Do I believe liberals are more underhanded, yes. The reason I believe this is a lot of the bad things liberals do hurts or annoys me, while the bad things conservatives do hurt and annoy the liberals...and the enemy of my enemy...

Of course, this is a very subjective issue. Why do the conservatives matter to you? Why can't this bad thing be a bad thing? You seem like you feel as though what happened is okay, and whatever the liberals do is okay so long as the conservatives do bad things too.


I am merely pointing out that you are demonizing liberals as if they are the only ones doing underhanded or violent acts. At least thats how it looks from yoru posts.

Also, I would like you to show me where I said this wasn't a bad thing. perhaps you should look at my first post in this thread where I said these guys shoudl be punished big time.

I am just not a person to generalize a whole group of people (or at least I try not to). I'm only trying to help you see that the world is not so black and white. Perhaps that is beyond you though. At least I tried. Oh well. Good luck to you and all your angelic conservatives in getting all people with opposing viewpoints out of office (possibly even out of the country as I bet that is exactly what you would want to see). I will pray for the plank to be removed from thine eye.

Does anybody have anything substantial today, or are we just going to bat ludicrously vague generalities back and forth?

(Most) liberals say/do/think X. Conservatives say/do/think Y.

The effin' bloody Hell does any of this have to do with some cop getting hit on the head in San Fran?

102nd post!!!

I am against protests because they usually involve a group of people who disagree with a part of the law, yet they feel as though they can pick and choose with parts of the law they must follow, which is unfair to everyone else. Of course, this is not what protests were set out to be, but what a number of them have become.

You're now against protests?! This isn't what you were arguing before...

I completely reject your view that protestors pick and choose parts of the law to follow. Referring back to the protest I was involved with in Edinburgh, it was more the case that police were choosing which bits of the law to follow - our right to peaceful protest was constantly violated, some officers removed their number tags etc. In every major demonstration you can find non-police legal observers, something I think should not have to be necessary. I have been to several protests, both large and small, and can think of only 1 where the law was violated. This involved blocking the road outside parliament. I don't agree at all that protests aren't a good thing because lots go against the law; its just not true.

And even in the cases where it is, there is a strong case for the use of civil disobedience, which I'm sure I don't need to go in to. But there are some cases where minor infractions of the law are a 'necessary evil'.

Somebody mentioned that conservative protestors don't beat police up. I can't think of an example where they have, although I couldn't think of one for 'liberal' protestors until this thread either. But this doesn't put conservative protestors on any type of highground - I can't remember a liberal protestor ever beating up a gay person, or someone for the colour of their skin. I'm not justifying the actions of the people who hit police officers; just removing the highground that that person put themselves on.

killing gays

Not the ones that have shown up at the Civil Disobedience actions I've been involved with - in particular, the then anti-"G-7" actions. Of course, I knew some of these self-styled anarchists (neighbours of mine), and not only did I get beaten up by the cops for the bonfire the anarchists set with newspaper boxes, right in front of the cops, several weeks later I found out from the one anarchist I knew who had frickin' started the bonfire that he and his buddies had been frickin' PAID $100 CAN apiece to start a fire, by some newspaper photographers who needed some juicy pics - and weren't getting any from the people attending the peaceful sit-in that was the Civil Disobedience action that was actually planned for that day.
That's just anecdotal. It doesn't apply to all no-government advocates.

How is it overgeneralizing when EVERY major anti-capitalist "protest" involves private property being destroyed and people being hurt?
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of such protests in the world every year. How can you say that for every protest?

I'm just waiting until Anarchists are included on government terrorist watchlists.
You are a small-government advocate. They are no-government advocates. You probably have more in common with them than you think.

Let me get this perfectly clear, the reason why you oppose the democratic party, is because you oppose the right to protest? Without that right you soon would not be able to vote democratic, (or something else) any longer.
What's even worse is that he associates anarchists with Democrats.

Of course, this is a very subjective issue. Why do the conservatives matter to you? Why can't this bad thing be a bad thing? You seem like you feel as though what happened is okay, and whatever the liberals do is okay so long as the conservatives do bad things too.
Can't you fathom that there are more than just two political groups out there?