NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Eddie. you're talking SILLY. you cant possibly expect to win like that. The point is that these protestors DID NOTHING VIOLENT and the cops came at them with VIOLENCE. As soon as you take the bait and try to fight back with violence it's game over.
the only way to win is voting with your money. what do you spend your money on? do you spend it on movies and cable TV? then you are voting for this system. do you spend it on fast food and gasoline? you are voting yes to this system.
as soon as you resort to violence you give them an excuse to arrest you or beat you.
Well... my question is why did the protesters cross the street towards the police? Shouldn't they just protest across the street and stay there? I agree that this was waaaay excessive and that the police were greatly outnumbered... but marching towards them wasn't needed at all. That's my only issue with this. The right to assemble yes... but walking towards the cops like that... not a really good move.
there is one other, very important option: leave. If I don't like it here, I leave. Canada is close by and Europe isn't half bad if you can hold down a decent job.
"I want the people who are dishing it out to get a taste of it. "
they want a taste of it. they are like football players in high school who got all the girls. they like to trash talk the nerds until one of them tries to take a stand and talk back. then they get to have their fun. the smart nerds learned to ride skateboards or play music to get the girls and circumvent the jocks. hahaha.
"
Well... my question is why did the protesters cross the street towards the police? Shouldn't they just protest across the street and stay there? I agree that this was waaaay excessive and that the police were greatly outnumbered... but marching towards them wasn't needed at all. That's my only issue with this. The right to assemble yes... but walking towards the cops like that... not a really good move. "
the point is that they are trying to have their voices heard by the people in power over them ON PUBLIC PROPERTY and in a non violent manner and the police were there to keep them from their first amendment right to have their voices heard.
"there is one other, very important option: leave. If I don't like it here, I leave. Canada is close by and Europe isn't half bad if you can hold down a decent job."
that option is always available to upper middle class and rich people who have the means to do so.... so who gets the final say so on who has to leave? which group is the final authority on who gets to say what where and if not then leave? could you please choose a group for me so that I know? is it conservatives? if so which strain of conservatives get the top say in this?
I see... so there were marching across the street continuing onto public property but the police decided to stop them there. I see now... all the force would make sense if they were throwing bricks at the cops and stuff... but I saw no such thing as they were standing across the street. Crazy.... flashbangs.
I don't really understand what these people were trying to accomplish either. I mean, the only outcome of what they did that seems remotely likely is exactly what happened. Which leads me to believe that they are either incredibly naive or.... were actually trying to provoke such a response. If they really wanted to get through the gate the police seemed to be guarding, they would most certainly have had to be much more crafty about it.
I am not saying that this is the way the world should work, but just the way it does. It therefore becomes a matter of tactics.
I think sometimes it helps to protest kuchinch style--great suit, good humor, cute girl, clear concise message
if you don't have a suit, just put whatever your sunday best might be
the black is important and historically relevant, but show your face, put on your professional jacket, etc.
the key thing is to humanize yourself and your group--whatever it may be--both sides looked far too theatrical (i.e. uniforms) and the result was sordid
When I was the ant-Iraq war march in downtown LA in the rain years ago I saw numerous professionals, attorneys, kids, librarians, students etc. all out and about.... in the rain, in their 'work clothes' with a simple banner stating their group-identity and position...
Though it does frighten me so what I continue to read and see re: security at the conventions....
And yeh... if i'd the money i'd be screaming bloody murder at the GOP convention... maybe a sign saying 'educator: democrat, wishing you congrats on second place for 08 election'
Ok so does this surprize anyone? Battle for Seattle anyone?
I mean has no one been watching what the cops did before the RNC? The huge raids on believed activist groups. iWitness, a group of individuals whom share similar tasks as those in Copwatch here in Los Angeles, their main house was raided. They confiscated bottles of urine, the cops called biological weapons, when really it was an ecofriendly house who strived to use as little water as needed.
there was a group at a local community center near the RNC that was also raided while they were watching a movie. The cops came in, 'interviewed' everyone, and searched everything.
This isn't surprizing when, what is it, the chief of police over there has been accused of corruption, and is currently a part of a huge scandal, and one of the groups whom showed this, was iWitness. So of course, hit the groups you hate with a hidden agenda during a time when you can.
All in an attempt to catch the scary "RNC Welcoming Committee" .
www.nornc.org is their website, with a parody video on youtube that I luaghed at, lots of bikes too.
And one thing that I feel, Non-violence is a tactic, and with every tactic it fits for specific scenarios. With the small group they had, it was a smart move to run and hide, but in large groups, one should not be afraid to stand your ground if surrounded by people you trust.
you can't keep turning the other cheek all the time. there will come a time when we will need to bear arms for our protection and even theirs (the cop) as they are mindless brainwashed puppets of THE MAN. his interests do not include the peoples of this great nation.
molotov cocktails would have been awesome.
when will enough be enough?
read some ward churchill and read about pacifism and what has happened throughout the ages.
and what i meant about pacifism, as it might have seem contradictory, is that it does not relate only to non-violent methods. there are other options. one of which is violence. the powers that be have done the same to get to where they're currently perched and we think it's ok because they've carved out this great nation of ours? gtfo!
and to the person who said if we don't like it here we should just move to canada or something... i applaud you... for your ignorance.
A favorite quote of mine is "I'm not unAmerican, America is."
For a country founded on guns, anti-taxation, and freedom of speech, we sure have flown the opposite direction since it's conception.
I don't want to experience my freedom in short bursts, I want to live free, and in the current America, I don't see it as possible. I just hope I am doing something that ishelping the cause, whatever that cause may be, that someday leads towards some sort of actual liberation.
I haven't seen this on tv or on any mainsteam news sites. I did see another video similar to this on www.comcast.net this morning. My grandma called me at 6 am to get me to watch it (she's punk!). She was also pissed that it wasn't on any other sites, and it also became harder to find on comcast during the time we were talking about it.
i used to live in minneapollis last year.nice town,great bike scene.
[check out : mplsbikelove.com]
well,some of our rides became over run with the same kind of gutterpunks you show on these videos.nobody really knew them
and they show up on rides only to start shit with the cops.
critical mass became so bad our route was lined with police in riot gear.NOT FUN!!! eventually critical mass was just canceled
so i am sorry roadblock,i have no sympathy for these assholes.
and for anarchists,they seem to vote democrat because,where were they last week?
Most people who say living in another country is better, hasn't really lived in another country. Why do you think people risk life and limb to get in this country? Not everything is right with this country but it is one of the best ones to live in.
Sure there are other countries that might have a higher standard of living but that is for it's own native population. Try emigrating to those countries and see how difficult it is. Immigrating to the US is easy compared to countries like Australia, Germany etc.
As RB has said, those with money you can live anywhere. Most people I know who emigrate successfully made their money here and moved somewhere else. And most did not move to Western Europe, they settled in Central and South America, Asia and the Iberian Peninsula (Western Europe but not really). I can guarantee that as soon as they run out of money, they'll be back.
So as you criticize this country, remember the grass is always greener.......
I'm truthfully getting a little, tired of hearing "fuck tha police" on most rides I go to, but I let it slide, knowing that I tend to never let myself get touched by them.
I figure most of those who do complain about police tend to bring it upon themselves through whatever actions they choose.
At the same time, I still often wonder about police here, versus the quality of police in other countries.
Here, they appear to be menacing enough of a force, yet there's a likelihood that these menaces will actually come to your rescue.
In other countries, it seems as if "menacing" is the sole-duty of law-enforcement, and their just there to kick ass and take names.
Another thing I usually like to thrust upon Anarchists and other lawlessness-types is, "Would your quality of life really be any better if all this authority disappeared?"
I mean, yeah, it would probably be fun and games at first.
But, without no more authority to fight against, your lives would get boring really quick, then the next topic on the agenda would be self-immolation!!!
for all of you Battlestar Gallactica fans, i have one word for you:
EARTH.
there's not much you can do unless you place yourself in a position of rise within the political structure that has already been built yet is slowly dilapidating.
it's a giant game.. depends on which side you want to be on, how much money you have, where you influence, who has influenced you and the hope that good can overcome evil - awe, such a nice thought.
but really, it's a vicious circle - good will overcome evil, evil will muster and grow and take down good and yada, yada..
an interesting thought to ponder: what cycle were we born into?
i love Urth coffee the morning after an awesome ride of drinking on the East Side - Chill Chinatown Mosey Rocked!
Cops in most European countries have less ability to harass, yet they still get the same type of shit done. It's just in this country the cops are so self controlled that there is little balance to the power they have. Add that along with the fact that most people who become cops tend to have ridiculous anger issues, or control freaks who hate the idea of diversity, and soon everything that is different is being harassed.
And whats with this national bullshit taking place in this thread? We aren't number one in shit expect military spending. So fuck that. We aren't one of the best places to live. We aren't a 3rd world country which is nice, but out of the rest of the world we are quickly falling behind because of the lack of innovation. So stop this nationalistic pride. If you want to be proud go out and make America great. Saying people risk their life to get here is true, but most of the people who end up here from other countries tend to just get fucked for doing so.
Oh, and fuck the police. (not The Police, Sting, you the man.)
what Jaz said... but also... do you realize that refugees and migrant workers try desperately to get into all developed nations? in other words, they arent just migrating to the US they are migrating to Canada Europe... pretty much any of the G8 and so forth. We only hear about the people who come here because the US loves to hype it's own shit.
It not about nationalistic pride, it's a reality that is taken for granted. People are quick to criticize the United States yet they're still here. All I'm saying is the grass is not always greener.
the grass is very green here there's no doubt about it. and we all want to KEEP it that way... safe from tyranny.... so you have to recognize that when 300 million people are co-existing, the balance of rights vs. might can easily tilt too far into one group's hands. so there has to be a constant evaluation of where the thresh hold is, where the boundaries are because every one of the 300 million people have their own ideas about this country and they all deserve to be heard.
why is it such a problem that these people get their voice? why is it such a problem that they go where they want to go in a public space?
The only voice that counts is your vote. That is how the process is suppose to work. Problem is people complain but don't vote. Voter turn out is a little over 40% for the last presidential election.
Everybody has an opinion but at the end the people who get others to vote for their cause wins.
Plus the idea of voting in such a system only furthers it's power of oppression towards me. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. SO fuck that.
When we figure out that unlimited ability to fund a campaign is fucking retarded, in that only the rich people's choices get heard, then maybe it might be worth a damn.
Maybe once we reorganize the system so that every vote has worth, so instead of there being one president we have a group of individuals whose power is directly based on the number of votes they receive, maybe then it would appropriate to vote.
Until then. Voting is as productive as jerking off.
^^^ In the meantime what do you propose to do in the present system?
Going back to the topic of a police state, I really think its an exaggeration. As a young man, I found myself in a country that just proclaimed martial law. The president also suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The military and the police were the absolute authority. That was a police state.
Protest DOES WORK. You just have to have a strategy and a political goal.
Simply being "against capitalism" and trying to get the cops to shoot stuff at you is not a protest - it is an invitation for your own civilization to look at you like the ding bat you have made yourself out to be.
If these protesters were serious, they could have done some pre-game planning and really stuck it to the authorities in all sorts of funny, creative, and influential ways.
Maybe everything died after the 1960;s and 1970's revolutionary groups got shut down ... I don't know because I wasn't there to experience it. Our government was facing armed groups calling for the dismantling of the government, and they got crushed, murdered, arrested, or run out of the country.
If there was an agenda that fell short of "revolution" that united protestors - well then they could organize around that agenda and strategize collectively to get what they want done.
If these protesters were serious, they could have done some pre-game planning and really stuck it to the authorities in all sorts of funny, creative, and influential ways.
They were serious, they did plenty of pre-game planning starting on Labor Day 2007, and because of their belief in a diversity of tactics, they did intend to stick it to the authorities in various creative and potentially influential ways.
Where they went wrong, again, was in underestimating the cops and the Feds. The battle in Seattle was almost ten years ago, but the strategies and tactics of militant anti-authoritarian protesters still, to some degree, rely on the assumption that they will catch the Man off guard like they did in 1999. Never again, never ever ever again will that happen in any American city.
The FBI, the Secret Service, the DHS, police in the Twin Cities, and even some Minnesota state agencies that nobody has ever heard of, were preparing for this event just as seriously as the anarchists, and with a much bigger budget. They had moles, snitches, and undercover cops planted all over the movement, and as the convention approached, they started arresting people and raiding meeting spots (including the convergence space) so that the final spokescouncils(s) couldn't happen and the out-of-town affinity groups wouldn't be able to coordinate their activities as they had planned. Thus, a lot of these groups were left standing there with their figurative dicks in their hands when it came time to crash the convention, and the "Swarm, Seize, Stay" strategy that they had agreed on never came to fruition in any meaningful way. So it goes.
It's a minor point, I guess, but I love to argue minor points. I just had to call you out on that one or else I wouldn't have been able to sleep tonight. Next time, before you make these grand pronouncements, you should really do your research (or, as we call it in the Internet bickering game, your "pre-game planning").
"Voting in a republic is useless. Plus the idea of voting in such a system only furthers it's power of oppression towards me. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. SO fuck that. "
Right.
Because there's no difference between how John Kerry and Al Gore would have governed and how George W. Bush has run the country.
Because there's no difference between who John McCain would select as the next several Supreme Court justices during his term in office, and who Barack Obama would choose. (Especially if you think a woman's right to choose is even remotely important.)
Because a balanced budget under Clinton is the same as a record deficit under Bush.
Because 4,000+ Americans dead in Iraq is the same as not having gone to war at all.
Voting in a Democratic Republic is not useless.
Apathy and failure to participate in our democratic system, the oldest continuous democracy in the world, is useless.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL the LESSER of two evils.
As a certain Canadian rock band once said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
If you choose not to participate in electing our leadership, you are choosing to accept whoever wins.
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a pretty immature way to view the world.
Our system is imperfect, but it's the best we've got. So participate in it and work to make it better, or accept whatever happens and don't complain.
Protests without any actual constructive participation are little more than temper tantrums. They make for hilarious television, but can be safely ignored by our leaders and prospective leaders, because those throwing the tantrums AREN'T PARTICIPATING.
All those marches / articles in Mother Jones / angry blog posts / comments to DailyKos / etc. mean precisely JACK SHIT if they don't motivate people to express themselves at the BALLOT BOX.
There's no peace and happiness fairy who can wave her magic wand and fix stuff, so if you want change, register to vote if you haven't done so already, and on November 2nd, MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY YOU CAN, BY VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATE WHO BEST REPRESENTS YOUR VIEWS.
Or just sit at home and realize that other people have chosen your leadership for you.
No, I wasn't making that assumption at all, although it would be interesting to see how many of the protesters were actually registered to vote.
Obviously, police raids and tear gas on those exercising their first amendment rights in a non-violent manner are an absurd abuse of power.
I was responding to those who claim that voting is pointless, as I've seen a lot of people make a lot of noise about various issues, then fail to do the ONE THING that can most directly affect the issues they care about.
See now, the ideas you place there is that you think Gore or Kerry would be better at governing than bush, or that war wouldn't have happened with a different president. I've lost all faith in the system. When I see a democrat and republican I see the same person. They are two sides of a coin a fucking hell of out of the way from where I choose to support.
I never said I only support perfect. Hell, I would have voted had Mike Gravel won the nomination, but as it happens, those who lack money and the ability to campaign as strongly as those endorsed by rich people, they fall behind, even if it isn't far behind, behind they still fall.
The issue here is the system is unfair. By voting for a president I'm only condoning such contrived bullshit. Does that mean I don't vote in local elections, well I don't, but if something came to the ballot I was interested in, I would happily vote for it, because at least then my voice actually means something instead of most of the power being found in the rich Americans who bought their way into politics.
On this topic. California should succeed. I'd vote for that.
California will continue to succeed. But we'd better not secede, or we'd have to give lots of our water back to Arizona. Without water, we couldn't succeed.
to anyone who thinks a dem would not have invaded Iraq.... just remember that the invasion and dismantling of Iraq is a DECADES old process.
The first hints of this process was that the US was aiding Saddam's regime in the Iran Iraq war of the 80's with weapons (including chemical weapons).... WHILE on the down low the IRANIANS were receiving weapons from us through the IRAN - CONTRA scandal. THE US WAS AIDING BOTH SIDES! they werent playing fair they were just pitting two nations against each other and making money for the military contractors involved.
basically it boils down to destroying Arab governments in the hopes of re-arranging the middle east to be pro-western governments. All through the Clinton era the US was still working on weakening Iraq as a country and bombing Iraq. It's all part of a much bigger scheme than any one president could be responsible for.
The Iraq war is going pretty much EXACTLY as planned. A low level cost of American lives and chaos for the Iraqi people. Do you REALLY think that the US wants a democratically elected government in Iraq? a truly democratic govt? hell no. The people would shut out all US interests and oppose Israel. the US doesnt want that!
I believe all this shit is mostly aimed at cornering Iran. on the map both Iraq and Afghanistan are on the border of Iran. The CIA deposed a democratically elected Iranian leader back in 1954 and the Iranians were finally able to boot the puppet out in 1979.... lots of shenanigans going on that people are just not much aware of.
You're asking someone to make a rather large leap of faith in believing that if the dems were in power instead of Bush, we would be at war in Iraq regardless. I dispute that. I really don't believe Gore would have been that naive. Plus he didn't have a father that went to battle against Iraq. All the other stuff is true, and we could have still had our way with a little better planning. Not saying that it's right, just saying the dems wouldn't have screwed it up as big as Bush had.
"You're asking someone to make a rather large leap of faith in believing that if the dems were in power instead of Bush, we would be at war in Iraq regardless. I dispute that. I really don't believe Gore would have been that naive. "
it doesnt take a leap of faith you can go back in history and see that Iraq was being fucked with through the reagan, bush I and clinton era. Clinton dropped bombs on that ass just days before inspectors were to verify that Iraq was WMD free. the no fly zones the false propaganda about Saddam. none of it skipped a beat during the Clinton era....
"Plus he didn't have a father that went to battle against Iraq. All the other stuff is true, and we could have still had our way with a little better planning. Not saying that it's right, just saying the dems wouldn't have screwed it up as big as Bush had."
by saying that bush screwed up I'm assuming that you are assuming that the goal was to put democracy in Iraq. The goal IMHO was never to see a democracy in Iraq. The goal was simply to create chaos and keep an emerging modern Arab society weak and in disarray for decades to come. THAT is the goal IMHO and it has nothing to do with which party is in power. why would the USA want to have an actual Arab democracy in the Middle East? they didn't want Iran to be a democracy - which it is at the moment and is being bashed by the media and both parties in congress....
it is impossible to get elected in this country let alone have your voice heard without significant money backing you. Impossible to be elected without significant money backing you... basically any president is a money puppet not capable of making decisions on his/her own.
anyways, i don't think gore would have invaded iraq; he probably would have invaded russia or china.. democrats and republicans are just 2 factions of a larger global crime family. both ruled by the financial elite. war is profitable/human rights aren't. it's probably been like this for a very long time..
Again, you are asking someone to make that leap of faith. You are arguing that since the pass was this, this, and this. Our future is going to be this, this and this, regardless as to who's in power. By in power I mean president. You are asking people to believe that the future would have played out the same regardless if it was a democrat or a republican in office.
"by saying that bush screwed up I'm assuming that you are assuming that the goal was to put democracy in Iraq."
If you recall that was something like the third excuse as to why we were in Iraq wasn't it? What I'm saying is that Bush screwed up when he and his cronies thought it was going to be a cake walk going into Iraq. They thought they were going to have an easy time sitting on the second largest oil reserve in the world. US could have kept Iraq in check and eating out of our hands if they played it right.
All I'm saying is it would have been different if Gore was in office. Look, he came from a VP position that saw a reduction in military spending. How significant was that if he was president? We'll never know. I'm certainly not going to be making some whacked out claims.
"Bush screwed up when he and his cronies thought it was going to be a cake walk going into Iraq. "
you can make assumptions about Bush and his cronies thinking one way... I can make assumptions about Bush and his cronies thinking another.... I don't believe that Bush and cronies really actually thought it would be a cake walk. I think they knew and wanted this EXACT scenario. They have teams of lawyers, strategists, military advisors, war gamers, planners the pentagon, spies... they knew exactly what the outcome would be and the military people told him and his cronies and predicted the exact outcome we have the CIA predicted it too. this is not a wacked out theory it's EXACTLY the best scenario for Bush and his cronies if you consider the real goal which is simply to have weak Arab nations in the middle east. a democracy in IRAQ after YEARS of sanctions, bombings and other shenannigans would have said a big fuck you to the US and crew.... they knew. I know they knew....
"All I'm saying is it would have been different if Gore was in office. Look, he came from a VP position that saw a reduction in military spending. How significant was that if he was president? We'll never know. I'm certainly not going to be making some whacked out claims."
true, it would have been different, but that is why Gore isnt in office. the election was rigged.... but also, don't forget that Lieberman was VP nominee and look at what a turncoat hawk he is now. I'm telling you, it was rigged from all fronts.
By CURT BROWN, TERRY COLLINS, RANDY FURST and HERÓN MÁRQUEZ ESTRADA, Star Tribune
September 5, 2008
Police arrested scores more people Thursday night after another series of tense showdowns with protesters on the final night of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
Sweeping into the State Capitol grounds in riot gear, police used snowplows, horses and dump trucks to seal off downtown from antiwar demonstrators attempting a march to the Xcel Energy Center.
"They chose not to leave when told to do so and now everyone's paying the price," said one officer on the scene.
This is waaay up the thread, but I'd like to reply to PC's reply to my post.
What I meant by "pre-game" is not just "let's make a plan to X" - it is a larger practical political strategy that i was referring to. What does a bunch of people shutting down the Republican Convention mean to people who will see it on T.V., read about it in the newspapers, etc.?
Even if these plans were successful - what practical political end would have been reached? It just seems like a bad political strategy to me, frankly.
It might have been more effective to try and affect the media corporations that were covering the event, as opposed to cutting off the convention itself (which is a made-for-T.V. movie in its own right).
It's like this: people show up at City Hall all the time, when what's really going to change minds is the news story about the city hall march the day after. Aren't there more effective ways to make reach a political end?
I'm still left wondering what these folks wanted to achieve by shutting down the Republican and Democratic conventions.
I'm not sure what part of your question about a larger strategy hasn't already been addressed by (if nothing else) the FAQ on the RNC Welcoming Committee's website. You did at least do that much research, right? I'd hate to think that you've been issuing all of this sagely pontification without actually following the story. Anyway, if you can make that a little clearer, maybe I can help you get the answers you're looking for.
As to your suggested media strategy, let me suggest that there are people in the world (most of them outside Los Angeles, to be sure) who do not believe that being covered by the commercial media is the primary goal, or even an important goal, for an activity carried out in the public realm. The fact that up until Thursday morning the RNCWC's consensus policy was not to talk to the media at all (you know this, of course, because you've been following the events, right?) ought to have given you a better understanding of why the strategy you suggest is not one that would have resonated with the organizers. For better or for worse, that's not a game that they choose to play. I would argue that it is for better, as it's a losing game to begin with. It only takes a flick of a switch back in Atlanta or New York for a television network to cut away from an unsanctioned media stunt, and back to the media stunt that is paying their bills.
I don't write any rules about how public opinion is swayed.
If the Welcoming Committee did not want to sway public opinion, I guess that is their problem.
If all it takes is the flick of a wrist in Atlanta to radically change the information most Americans get - then why protest in Minnesota at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to target the decision makers and business interests of media companies in places WITHOUT $50 million in guns, armor, police, and Federal agents?
Maybe it would be harder to rally people together around that one point - but then again maybe not. I think it might have more of an affect anyway.
Are you saying that regardless if there was a democrat or a republican in office in 2003, we would have invaded Iraq? What would have been different if there was a democrat in office?
"Are you saying that regardless if there was a democrat or a republican in office in 2003, we would have invaded Iraq? What would have been different if there was a democrat in office?"
Honestly after 9/11... I think so.... the only difference I can see between dems and republicans is on social issues internally. on foreign policy.... I don't think either party differs much especially on the middle east.
If Gore was the president, I very seriously believe that he would not have invaded Iraq. Why would they? Iraq was in check and not a threat. They were a very weak state, right where you want them, according to what you said above. I find Gore to a far more intelligent of a man than Bush could ever hope for. Gore wouldn't have been so blind. I believe we would have had a far different nation than we do now. We have lost so much in the world standings. I don't believe for one minute that we would be even remotely close to what we have today. Sure there's huge corporations that are having an influence in politics, but there's only so much they are able to do. Even with this administration we were somewhat able to hold him in check.
Yeah Gore chose a crappy running mate, but I really think he would have been a popular president overseas. Probably as popular as Obama is today. Seems like today the European countries view the two parties as vastly different. One party, the democrats being far more popular than the republicans. Clearly something has changed since at least 2003. I think they've favored the democratic party at least since the Clinton era.
"If Gore was the president, I very seriously believe that he would not have invaded Iraq. Why would they? Iraq was in check and not a threat. They were a very weak state, right where you want them, according to what you said above."
a weak state but not a destroyed state which was the goal from back in the 80's.
My point is that the US presidents are puppets for money interests and really don't have much choice in the matter. The fact that it takes millions and millions of dollars plus mainstream media support plus the political support of money interests just means that a president has to answer to sooooooo much pressure......
I DO believe that BUSH is a complete moron of a boy. just a complete retard. but cheney isn't and neither are all of the foreign policy advisers and people whispering in the guy's ear.... that's where the real power of the presidency lies. Sure, it's possible that Gore would have just prolonged the sanctions and maybe only invaded afghanistan after 9/11...... but he would still have continued to destroy Iraq with bombings and no fly zones using the same excuses that the clinton regime did. and I DO think Gore is a much much more intelligent person. but to resist the powers that be..... very hard to do.
"Sure there's huge corporations that are having an influence in politics, but there's only so much they are able to do. Even with this administration we were somewhat able to hold him in check."
Huge corporations, lobby groups, money interests, banking interests... have a HUGE collective influence over the public opinion and over a president's decisions.... uh... what has been held in check about the Bush regime? they get away with spending trillions over lies. they hide their communications.... they fflout the constitution and hardly a peep from the media about it. they are straight up war criminals. what more could they possibly want to get away with that they haven't?
You don't want a destroyed state because then you have a "you broke it, you fix it" situation as Colin Powell pointed out with his Pottery Barn rule. You want a country that can barely function, which was what Iraq was before the invasion.
You've pretty much backed off from the position that the situation, such as the invasion of Iraq, would have been the same regardless if a republican or a democrat was in power from 2000-2004. And that was what I objected to.
Where Bush's regime didn't do as much damage as I thought he would and could have is in regards to the environment. Yeah he did alot of damage, but he was somewhat held in check via judicial proceedings. I thought our state parks would have been sold off by now to tell you the truth!
To add another website to give information on what happened with the RNC
Originally I gave the www.nornc.org and I'm sure a few have found the http://iwitnessvideo.info/ website, as it relates to some of the arrests made before.
and of course, indymedia has a page about it all. http://twincities.indymedia.org/
If anyone else has any links they'd like to share, I'm more than interested. I have a strange interest in the such, even if it's from 'the other side', I'd like to hear it. Just don't link me to stormfront or something.
Also, I feel that whether there was a democrat or a republican in office, the invasion would have continued. The two parties are too similar to separate. It won't be different until there is some sort of increase in ability for a non-corporately backed politician to have a chance at winning. Which I still feel won't come about until there is some sort of limit on campaign spending that is realistic.
Also, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that BOTH the R and the D voted to invade Iraq... Having a different president wouldn't have made much difference, we would have still invaded, the monied interests were calling for it, and then we have the audacity to call russia names for invading an oil rich nation pfft.. y'all are forgetting the political structure in this country, that whole congress thing... yeah, that whole lump of them voted for the shit we're in now, not just the dictator in chief.
What happened in the twin cities this week is appalling, however, many of the people there knew what they were getting into, many didn't and as usual the cops did the only thing they knew how to do, go overboard. Large numbers of people scare police, because they can't have utmost control when people are grouped together. This is one of the reasons we get what we get from the SMPD.
"If Gore was the president, I very seriously believe that he would not have invaded Iraq. Why would they? Iraq was in check and not a threat. They were a very weak state, right where you want them, according to what you said above."
look no further then "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998"
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support regime change in Iraq. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
I never said that there wasn't any position that we took as to possible invasion of Iraq. It's one thing to make your declarations, it's quite another to act upon them. There's a bunch of declarations being made now about Russia, does that mean we're going to war? RB was saying that there was no difference if there was the democrats are the republicans in power between 2000-2004. We would have gone to war regardless. I say it far more likely we wouldn't have gone to war if Gore was the president. After all he was the VP while we had Iraq in check those 8 years. He saw that it was effective, why change that?
And your reference to Clinton's environmental record is joke. I can't even follow up on that.
Anything I write on here is for people with open minds, who have the capacity and desire to learn. Its not intended for people who "know it all" already.
There will be slight variation, but not enough for it to matter. The big bucks supply the campaign in which these candidates run on.
The only thing that I see any sort of difference in is whether the middle class or the upper class will receive a tax break.
All the candidates are already bought by corporations who will use this to push their own agendas, and so far no one I know of has stood up to them and told them to piss off.
Al no longer sounds as convinced that Gore wouldnt have invaded.
thanks for the links Sexy. that's what I'm sayin. and Fuzzbeast you bring up a great point. DEMs and REPUBLICANS overwhelmingly voted for this war. I rememeber specifically being shcoked to see the dems vote for it - I thought they were all turncoats.
It's all marketing basically. When a dem is in it's because the people are in that mood and thus the actions of the dem are marketed to the people in a dem way. but it's still the same actions behind the scenes.
ps. Russia retaliated against georgia for an attck initiated BY Georgia on a region that had broken away in the early 90's. Russia was in the right to protect south ossetia and they didnt cause nearly the damage that the media would have you believe. they bombed georgia's military bases near by and occupied georgia to make sure they didnt continue their attack. The media would have you think Russia was the aggressors. they were not. it was a ploy to give McCain some face time speaking on international issues. but that idiot got it all wrong. PLUS the US has hundreds of military advisors in Georgia for years. Georgia would NOT have attacked without US permission. the timing was great- while bush was busy with the olympics and obama was on vacation. the press repeatedly showed McCain scolding russia - so as to re-raise the specter of the cold war - as though McCain had anyauthority to scold russia. This week Cheney announced a BILLION dollar aid package to Georgia. hmmmmmmm nice gift at the expense of the US taxpayer once again for political gains of the GOP.
the police state is here and the sheeple love their masters. I dislike the pigs because they took an oath to protect the constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Yet the Bush adminastration has destroyed our civil liberties and the police have done nothing, just going along to get along. However, what do i expect they are just ordinary people.
Thanks for the broken link Dave. BTW, if you want to use a page on a site to show that Clinton wasn't all that good on the environment, can I suggest a page from MIT?
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N28/hove.28o.html Whatever you do, do not show them this page,
10 Greenest Presidents in U.S. History These ratings look believable. I'm sure the Sierra Club's rating are similar to these. In regards to your quest in finding "open minds", I would try the forums where everyone is convinced that the 9/11 attack was an inside job and "the plane" that flew into the pentagon was a missile. I'm told they have open minds and have a quest for knowledge. Good luck.
RB, thanks for the recap. You forget that most of everyone on this thread read the news, I'm assuming this is for the ones that don't? On their behalf, I thank you.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all I was doing on this thread was making the point that no, regardless of who is in charge, history does not play out the same. Sure there can be some of the same players in the game, but there's so many other people that fill the cabinet positions, so many variables, that it is impossible to believe that regardless who is in charge, the out come will be the same. You realized that and that was all I was trying to do.
Finally regards to the Dems voting for the Iraq war. Yeah they voted for the war, but their vote came at a time right after the midterm election and a defeat in losing control of the senate. They also were not wanting to be seen as being weak on defense. And personally I think they were caught at a vulnerable time. Of course they also were not privy to all the reports and intelligence the office had too. I might also add, Bush was selective in what was released.
"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all I was doing on this thread was making the point that no, regardless of who is in charge, history does not play out the same. Sure there can be some of the same players in the game, but there's so many other people that fill the cabinet positions, so many variables, that it is impossible to believe that regardless who is in charge, the out come will be the same. You realized that and that was all I was trying to do."
And what you don't seem to grasp is the point I am making which is.... the politicians are NOT in charge. they are puppets for money interests. thus, they will act for the most part according to the will of money interests. which as Sexy pointed out, was according to a decades old plan to weaken and destroy arab states INCLUDING Arab democracies and islamic democracies.
"Finally regards to the Dems voting for the Iraq war. Yeah they voted for the war, but their vote came at a time right after the midterm election and a defeat in losing control of the senate. They also were not wanting to be seen as being weak on defense. And personally I think they were caught at a vulnerable time. Of course they also were not privy to all the reports and intelligence the office had too. I might also add, Bush was selective in what was released."
YADA YADA excuses excuses. the result was the same whether you admit it or not.... the turncoats showed their faces and half of them were the majority of the dems. they proved there is no difference. only a few were bold enough to oppose the war.... but you see what happened to them...
you will absolutely LOSE if you resort to violence. All violence did was destroy much of south LA's bunsiness community during the riots.
You want big change, you gotta think bigger violence.
A group of Americans got together one day and decided that their ideals were worth fighting for; they used violence to abolish slavery.
How far are you willing to go, and how many people are willing to go there with you? How many erasure marks do want to see on our constitution? Maybe even in our lifetime we'll be confronted with these questions. Or maybe we're being confronted with them already.
RB -
And what you don't seem to grasp is the point I am making which is.... the politicians are NOT in charge.
Me -
Who ever said that the politicians were in charge? All I was debating was your position that it didn't matter if it was the dems or repubs in office, the results would be the same. I maintained that there would be a difference, and that's all I was pointing out.
If there's no difference in the parties, then why go and volunteer for the Obama's campaign? Why not just volunteer for McCain?
Not sure what this link is all about....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney#September_11_attacks
And when I say about, I mean why it was added.
"Who ever said that the politicians were in charge? All I was debating was your position that it didn't matter if it was the dems or repubs in office, the results would be the same. I maintained that there would be a difference, and that's all I was pointing out.
If there's no difference in the parties, then why go and volunteer for the Obama's campaign? Why not just volunteer for McCain?"
well the one difference I think it CAN make is to put an intelligent speaking young ethnic face on the front of all of the bullshit. which can help to market the empire better to the rest of the world. and dems are more socially liberal which means better appointments to the supreme court etc. so there are SOME differences.... but like Chomsky says we have a one party system "the business party" with two factions.
ALAS, I really don't think Obama will be elected... but if he does get elected, there is some trace of hope deep down that he is just BSing his way past all the money interest pressure and when he gets in will try to implements some real reforms before he gets offed by a right wing radical.
that Cynthia McKinney link was an example of a congresswoman who called it like it was at the time when everyone else was turncoat. She got ousted real quick like.
I like that! Let's put a friendly face on our war machine. I'm thinking of some kind of Ronalds McDonald character that the kids can warm up to. We need a hip young face............. kinda like that Obama dude!!! We can keep this charade up for at least another 8 years!
LOL
Trust me, I share my hopes with you on Obama. Pretty much everything you are saying I agree with and hold the same view. I just believe that the two party do have some differnces and do contribute to a different turnout. That's the only difference I'm seeing.
In regards to Cynthia McKinney link, she's a mixed bag. I'm registered green party and I was not to happy to see her nominated. I could feel the sails loosing winds after that. She's a mixed bag. Some of her stunts cost her dearly. 9/11 conspiracy, bopping the police at Capital Hill, unintentional on-air criticism of aide, running for the Green Party, shit you want more?
as riders, we have some battles ourselves with a police state. i think its important to promote this movie so that it will be opened up to a wider audience. we are in an apex of possibility with social upheaval and internal citizen reform. i think alot of us (ridazz) have a revolutionary mindset, and we need to rise up not only as ridazz but as activist in whatever we believe in! the movie is not currently playing in LA, but go to this site to demand that it comes here: http://www.battleinseattlemovie.com/
If only attending City Council meetings week after week and actually participating in our democratic system was as much fun as whining online, we might actually be able to accomplish something worthwhile here in L.A.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
"I want the people who are dishing it out to get a taste of it. "
@Royal
More crafty. More likely to get you inside the gates if you're hidden inside it.......
Also found these. Don't think they'll be much help sneaking into the Rep. convention, but the craft club should mos def make some of these......
the police state is here and the sheeple love their masters. I dislike the pigs because they took an oath to protect the constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Yet the Bush adminastration has destroyed our civil liberties and the police have done nothing, just going along to get along. However, what do i expect they are just ordinary people. 
