Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

So, who else has been following the RNC? It's been interesting, to say the least. The speakers, of course, are continually (by which I mean twice every breath, at least in Giuliani's case and the big, huge "SEPTEMBER 11, 2001" backdrop) evoking the magical phrase "nine-eleven".

The real story, though, is outside, where some 1,500 peaceful protesters (and a number of uninvolved bystanders) have been arrested, many (I daresay most) under dubious circumstances (e.g. a crowd of many dozens was given only 15 seconds to disperse before being arrested), lied to by police ("please disperse in this direction -- oops, now you're arrested"), struck by cops riding scooters and driving SUVs, shoved against walls and pavement, and kept in razor-wire holding pens at Pier 27, where they have been forced endure chemical burns from sleeping on a cement floor covered in oil, diesel fuel, and other chemicals (one man was taken to the emergency room for a full-body reaction to the toxic chemicals), denied access to legal counsel for days, deprived of food (one pregnant woman was not fed for more than 15 hours) and doctor-prescribed drugs, and pretty much any other crass violation of civil and human rights you can think of.

So, wow.

This is going to be such a huge disaster for the City of New York. The number of lawsuits they're going to have on their hands by the end of the month boggles the mind. You'd think, that of all places, New York City could do this without botching it, but clearly that is not the case.

But the protesters, if nothing else, are proving that though this can no longer be considered the Land of the Free, it's still the Home of the Brave.

_________________

Sounds to me like your getting your news from some unreliable sources.I highly doubt little if anything that has just been listed is true."People were denied food for being a protesters"...Yeah Right!!!

a) You haven't lived in this country very long, have you? (<-- sarcasm) You have a lot to learn about the difference between the pretty picture painted by kindergarten teachers (and RNC speakers) and reality.
b) You didn't even click on the links, did you? Well, if you had, you'd have noticed that the "unreliable source" you're talking about is the Village Voice. Y'know, that little "unreliable" independent paper that's won three Pulitzer Prizes.

Seriously.

_________________

Election 2004:

Even Jon Stewart can't make it funny after a while.

A few things: One, most Republican sympathizers left the DNC well-enough alone, and Democratic sympathizers seem to think that the courtesy is not worth reciprocating. My observations have been that the demonstrators are less-than-peaceful (though I could be mistaken).


Also, an excellent point. The RNC isn't running the police here, NYC is. Thanks for your keen-ness.


My father has spent more than his fair share of nights in Jail after being arrested for peaceful protesting. He has always been treated exceptionally civil because he never, ever resisted the police. He always did exactly what they did while arresting him. If someone resists arrest, they can expect to get (at least) a form of crowd control unleashed. As it says in 1 Peter 3:17, you deserve what you get if you're punished for your own bad actions, but it's to your credit if you suffer for doing good.

_________________

What? What about Kerry do the Republicans have to protest, exactly? That he's a flip-flopper? And we've all heard the Bushies say (and maintain policies that indicate their belief) that dissent is tantamout to treason. And I hope we can agree that that's complete bunk. But you're trying to tell me that dissent should be curtailed because it's discourteous? Because, what, today's GOP is the most courteous party around? Yeah, tell that to Max Cleland.

And yes, I believe you're mistaken. From all that I've been able to gather, the vast majority of the protesters (and "vast majority" doesn't even begin to cut it, we're talking 99.999%) have been 100% peaceful, and I've heard only a handful of reports of violence on the part of protesters (also a handful of reports of violence on the part of law enforcement officers, and even a report of RNC delegates starting a fistfight with some protesters who were, to be fair, trespassing in the Gardens), and exactly zero reports of violence on a group scale. If I've missed such a report, however, I'd appreciate it being pointed out.



This is up for debate, but yes, that was my point, it's Mayor Bloomberg's (a Convention attendee, I-note-in-passing) neck that's on the line here.



I haven't read very many reports of people actively resisting arrest. Some peaceful protestors, I assume, have run away when police have arrived with orange nets (as would I, knowing the conditions at Pier 57), but it's not resisting arrest until you're told that you're under arrest, and many protesters have been ignored by officers when asking if they're under arrest (one of the questions which police officers are legally obliged to answer). Anyway, the point about Pier 57 is not about abuse -- from what I can tell, only a small minority officers are acting abusively toward protestors (arrested or otherwise) -- it's about neglect. IANAL, but I think that when the City of New York finds itself in the courtroom, that will be the charge -- criminal neglect. Jailing a thousand people is not wrong if they were jailed legally. But jailing them in a pen that has a floor soaked with toxic chemicals (Pier 57 wasn't constructed as a holding cell, it was constructed as a pier) for a day or more without giving them access to legal counsel or adequate nourishment or their doctor-prescribed drugs is criminal, no matter how much they resisted arrest. Every single one of those 1,500 under arrest could have kicked a police officer in the eye (and I've read no reports that any of them did) and it would still be illegal and, in my opinion, wrong to subject them to those conditions.

_________________

I'm scared for the future! We're not hippies.. this isn't Kent State! But I feel like we're being treated like little children by the gov't forces. Why did they have to hold it in NYC anyway? When I see the huge amount of police forces, I just think "Gee, and I was hoping my tax money would go to fight poverty and improve education (and believe me, I pay thousands in taxes every month), not to buying SUVs and sub-machine guns for police officers." I mean, seriously, they're just standing there in groups by every subway entrance.. why do they need to be there??

We're really in a police state, and businesses all over the city are dropping, by as much as 40%. This is terrible. Nobody's going out to theaters and restaurants (which is what Bloomberg had been encouraging).

--socetew

_________________
Hot!

Because holding it in NYC makes it so much easier to exploit people's lingering pain and fear over 9/11.

_________________

Oh, yes of course. Sometimes I forget to put 1 and 1 together.

Or should I say.. 2 + 2 = 5????? Hail to the theif! Hail to the theif!! F 9/11!! Ahh, short stream of consciousness!!

_________________
Hot!

In case you hadn't heard, a judge finally ordered that 560 protestors who had been held for more than 36 hours (they're not supposed to be held for more than 24) be processed and released by 5 p.m. today.



Thank god for sensible judges.

_________________

I ruleing I agree with, holding citizens in jail without charges has become an all too common occurrence in the U.S.

Well, said. Well said by someone who's never been outside the U.S.

As someone who's seved on a Grand Jury (the body which decides whether there's enough evidence to charge someone, or whether they go free), I know that it's illegal for the authorities to simply jail someone.

U.S. citizens should not be jailed without evidence and charges filed correctly. However, most of the world does not have laws that pertain to "authorities" like we do! The U.S. has something we call "the rule of law," where even police have to follow the laws. Most countries have something we derogatorily call "the rule of man" where the authorities do whatever they want to the people under their jurisdiction. To observe this happening, I recommend you commit a traffic violation in rural Mexico. Or have a discussion like we're having in the open on the campus of a high-school in the People's Republic of China. Or Turkey.

As bad as it is to be held without being charged for a few days (and I agree it's bad), I don't know where else in the world the protesters would be treated so well! I love America.

Oh, and yes, I have been to the People's Republic of China and no, I've never been in any negative contact with any authorities there. The people are actually quite nice. And while I've never been to Turkey, I do have some friends who were held in a Turkish jail without having broken any laws.

_________________

This is exactly what I was thinking in the other thread where people were trying to claim that the U.S. is a totalitarian state. Right.



Well, most of the EU is just as good if not better to its protester, but you're right, we do have a fairly cushy situation here.

_________________

P.S. NYT, as per usual, has a better article about the detainees' release.



I like this judge.

_________________

InterruptorJones wrote
This is exactly what I was thinking in the other thread where people were trying to claim that the U.S. is a totalitarian state. Right.
(sorry messed up using the quote feature)

Thank you for locking that thread I made I didn't think the wackos would get ahold of if...

Anyway, I like how the city was fined $1,000 per protester,the only way to make the government follow the law is to take away some of its fuel(money).

The NYT has a neat graph showing the words that the Democrats and Republicans used at their respective conventions. Really shows you what these guys are focussing on in their campaigns.

_________________

Ooh, look at the pretty bubbles! Nah, seriously, that's pretty interesting.

yours, socetew

_________________
Hot!

Love how they threw that "girlie men" bubble in there. Only Arnold could get away with that. :20x6:

Arnold and Zell Miller were both great. I didn't think that Pres.Bush's speech was all that great though.

Which RNC did you watch? Miller is a nutjob. And he's about as much of a Democrat as Bill O'Reilly is an Independent. Funny how the Republicans are parading around the handful of Dem "converts" they have, but they never mention the thousands of lifetime Republicans that Bush's antics have turned away from the party.

And talk about flip-flopping. Just four years ago, Miller called Kerry "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders -- and a good friend". So much for friendship.

More interesting were Miller's remarks during his speech, which were pretty incoherent. Some unspecified conflict under Carter's watch? Peace during the Regan era? Right.

_________________

Zell Miller was angry because he felt betrayed by the Democratic Party. He belives that John Kerry will not defend the country and that Bush will. So, I don't think its right to call him a nutjob...

I didn't like Bush's speech as well as I did McCains and Arnolds. They really got their point across, and I enjoyed it.

_________________

It's not what Zell Miller said, it's HOW he said it. And for that, he is a nutjob.

Hmmm...I guess your a nutjob if you give a passionate speech.

I didn't mean the speech (or did I...). I meant afterwards, on CNN & MSNBC. Would I say that if you have strong convictions, you are insane? No. More power to you. Would I say that you were "raised by a cup of coffee" if you tell someone that you "wished we live in a time when you could challenge another person to a duel"? Even more than I am.

Besides, I like Zell. Seems like the old man on the corner dishing out wisdom.

..while drooling into his tapioca.

_________________

That whole Zell Miller phenomenon is hilarious to me.

It all hinges on the fact that "Oh no! A Democrat is turning against his own!" idea, which holds no water for me. The difference between the two parties is really just a question of with whom you are going to make friendly. There are no real ideological differences, per se.

Zell Miller must think that he will get some great press out of this...

Did anyone see John Stewart take him apart on the Daily Show? I haven't laughed that hard in a while. Challenging that Matthews guy to a duel for some relatively softball questions is funny stuff. Zell must've been on a testosterone high from his "righteous anger" speech.

I know a lot of people that are not going to vote in thsi next election because they are so disgusted.

Arnold is a womanizing power-grabbing macho jerk. The fact that he can call people "girly-men" in this century sickens me.

All in all, I have realized how sick I am of politics from the RNC. Liars, all of them. Man, I'm too young to be this cynical.

LJ:

Actually there are differences between the two parties. Republicans tend to favor traditional moral values, but also support big businesses (who don't exactly live up to good morals, unfortunately). Democrats, on the other hand, tend to want compassion for marginalized people (much needed), but also government control of all social and economic institutions like health care (i.e., communism, which is a bad thing).

That is why I prefer not to associate myself with either political party. There are certain things about Republicans I like and don't like, and the same with Democrats. My ideal candidate would be one who takes the best of both while avoiding the fatal errors of both extremes. Alas, the two party system forces us to choose between the lesser of two evils rather than to select a good candidate.

_________________

Yes, I agree.

It would have been clearer for me to say that there is not a hard line division between the two, like they act. They have polarized it so much: like they are two different species. I guess my point is that it is not that big a deal if someone 'switches to the other side." Because the parties represent tendancies, not cold hard beliefs.

The main thing that holds a party together is alliances with others from that party. I think that beliefs have very little to do with it.

Well said Didymus, thats why i'm a Liberatrian...