problem is, i can virtually guarantee that all of these government employees (cops) are republicans. they all work for the government but complain about wanting less government intervention. the hypocrisy is overwhelming. it's ok for me to collect a check from the government but not you. the private sector can no longer afford to compete with the jobs the government offers. those cops are making fantastic money. full medical and dental....pension....the whole works.
idc what u say, our law enforcement is a load of shit! if ur famous and rich u can get away with a slap on ur hand. if ur a protester not breakin the law, they beat your ass. thats fucked up!
When the Repukes are torturing children, murdering civilians by the hundreds of thousands, and illegally spying on Americans, you better fucking believe that we're going to challenge them. The police have a right to respond in a reasonable manner. At the RNC, they did not respond reasonably. And for that, they're about to be sued off their fucking thuggish asses. The lawsuits have just begun. Leah, if you're reading this, I encourage you to file your own. Don't let them get away with this.
Murdering and torturing children? That's a laugh. But not yours to pass judgement even if it were true. That's for the courts. Not the mob rule. That's why you are a fascist.
Read a newspaper dipshit. One of the things that American interrogators did to one of our detainees was to put his children in roomful of insects that they told them were poisonous. And yes, many children have been murdered in Iraq. So yes, I am open about the fact that a convention of these sick, twisted, putrid monsters should be opposed, by illegal and in your face tactics if necessary. Don't like it. Too bad. Waaahhh!
So the interrogator will be punished because he broke the law. As will protesters if they break the law.
I'm not the one crying because the police moved the fatso. You are.
So it's ok to use illegal tactics? Cool, so the interrogator who is responsible for an illegal tactic can count on your support then? I think he'll be happy to know that.
Personally I think he should be punished. But then again, I believe in rights for everyone. You only think SOME should have rights.
And you can suck my fascist Nazi dick (although it's really neither) Creeno. You ain't nothing but an apologist for war crimes and good little fascist ass licker. When those lawsuits go through and these protesters get the money they so richly deserve, just know that I'll raise my glass of Champagne and dedicate it to you, the great ass licker. Have a nice day.
Well, I don't know if Leah is going to be one of the ones that files an excessive force lawsuit. She seems more like a lover and forgiver to me. But if she does, then I'll revel in what will almost certainly be her victory. And if she doesn't, I'll revel in all the other ones. The total's going to be huge from this one Creeno. And my champagne's on ice.
So you say for the hundreth time. And I will say for the hundreth time; the fat fascist got moved. As she should be. I've long since taken the champaign off the ice and I enjoy it everytime I see this video.
You get you rocks off by watching a "fat fascist" (who happens to be waving peace signs and telling her attackers that she loves them) get hosed down and attacked? And you think we're the sick ones. You need a puppy. No, on second thought, don't. I shudder to think of what will happen to the puppy.
Well, if you act like a fascist, you ARE a fascist. And if you are also overweight, then you are a fat fascist. I call'em like I see them. She was not attacked. Police attempted to move an illegal protester (who tried to denie other people the right she claims for herself). When being unsuccesful at first, they moved on to harsher methods. Each step up the force ladder, was forced upon them by her. They cannot chose to let her break the laws of protesting. They are not elected to make that call.
fuck shes a strong girl, but those police deserve buckshot to the chest. this is a blatant brutalization of our constitutionally protected civil rights. my second amendment trigger finger twitches when i see this
Correction: It is not your constitutional right to block or prevent assemblies of people of different political observation than your own. Just thought I'd let you know since you appear to think otherwise.
I don't care if you're fat, thin, black, white, brown, tall, short, bald, gay, or straight. If you stand up to torture and war crimes, which all the Republican Party is capable of, then you're a hero and beautiful. Leah is beautiful. You are sadistic and ugly. And what's that on your mouth? I think it's some Republican cum from all those right wing dicks you've been sucking. Better wipe that off.
You're not really concerned about citizens. You're concerned about the right of the Republicans to assemble so they can murder, torture, and do all their other evil things. Fuck them. Even if Leah had tried to disrupt the convention, which she didn't, she deserves a medal. She deserves a medal anyways, but fuck the Republicans and fuck you too.
I am concerned about the right to assemble. Anyones right. This includes republicans. Your fascist view is that only liberals or people you agree with should be allowed to assemble.
Thats basically the difference between you and me. And that makes you the fascist. Not me.
Those Republicans should be in jail for crimes against humanity. Fuck their right to have a convention in peace. What you see here is called a rebellion, and it's about god damned time. You can either support it, get out of its way, or oppose it, You've made your choice. You chose to side with the war criminals. So fuck you, war criminal bitch.
Oh and I hasten to add, all Leah was doing was protesting in the street. She never tried to disrupt anything. She certainly didn't deserve this. And only a Nazi war criminal lover like you Creeno, would think that she did.
No, she was not just protesting in the streets. She was deliberately off limits of the proclaimed protest. To ensure the rights of all other citizens, she was moved. So no, she was not "just protesting". So now I am a war criminal too? Can I take it that again you've got nothing?
Only filth, but not argument. That is your capability. And THAT's why you fail.
And we fail in nothing. In fact, we keep winning battles. After the RNC in New York in 2004, more than 91% of all criminal cases against protesters were dropped or dismissed. To date, the police department there has paid out over 8.2 million in damages to protesters that they abused or wrongfully arrested. And they still have more than 500 lawsuits to go through. When the total is done from St. Paul, I imagine it's going to dwarf that. And the Republicans keep getting their asses kicked.
Seems to me the only ones who got their asses kicked were protesters.
If you refer to asskicking in the democratic and non violent sense, then that's cool. That is the whole point I'm trying to get through to you but you don't seem to grasp. Rights are for everyone. Not just protesters. And not just liberals. When you claim to have more right than anyone else, you fail. Super fail! And you WILL be moved. Every single time.
So far in St. Paul, more than 85% of all criminal cases against protesters arrested have been dropped. Even the terrorism charges against the RNC 8 have been dropped. They have managed to secure only a few convictions so far, and most of those were for minor offenses. Fail? I think not. When the lawsuits go through, I can guarantee not. There are hundreds of them in the works. I hope Leah is one of them.
So is this where I use your old argument that the courts are corrupt whenever they decide something not to my liking? That they are politicialy biased?
Should I too use illegal tactics to change these rulings? Maybe I should make a revolution and only seat judges and politicians whom *I* agree with regardless of what everyone else, including you, says?
Can you not see what the consequence of illegal tactics can bring. No, I'm afraid you can't.
And as for my lack of eloquence, I'm not the one that keeps calling her fat. That's an insult that people use when they have nothing else. So why don't you just run along and crawl back into whatever Nazi asshole shat you out in the first place? Make sure you give it a good lick on your way in. Oh, I know you're not going to leave. You're going to sit here and blah, blah, blah. You keep on going and maybe you'll graduate into yak, yak yak, instead of blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Dumb shit.
So again you've got nothing but filth. Actually, now I understand these protesters a little better. They've got nothing either. So they take to the streets and spread filth. Because they cannot argue their position in a democratic society. You are the perfect example. No arguments, just a variaty of swearing. That is the limit of your intellect. And that's why you fail. And you always will untill the day you realize you've become what you claim to be fighting against.
So I called her fat. Well buddy...she IS fat. Even she will aknowledge that fact. Look down the list of filth that you've posted here. That's what you can do. But fail miserably at arguing your point. I guess it's because you have none. Oh well.
Your stream of swear words doesn't change the fact that the fat girl was moved. So I'm fine.
Yak, yak yak, blah, blah, blah. Keep jacking of fuckface. I'l let the courts decide this. And they will. Those protesters are gong to get a lot f money, and you'll still be a Nazi jackass jerking himself off. Fuck you you worthless dickwad.
Got what? What are you talking about? What are you looking for? What exactly do you think is going to be said here that we haven't already said 100 times? You are against civil disobedience, even to war criminals and fascists, and equate a girl doing so with fascism. You support a brutal police attack on her just "to make her move." I say you are an asshole. Worse really, you are a worthless human fuckstick. Is there anything else you want me to say dipshit?
You are simply unable to argue your point or respond to the questions I have put to you in the past 4-5 posts. Your response is swearing and namecalling.
Intellectualy you are a child. Which ofcourse makes it so much easier for me to demonstrate your failure. Argumentaly, you've been put to the wall, and it frustrates you that you've got nothing left. And so the lashing out ensues and proves my point even more.
Amongst others I asked if the interrogator you refered to, could count on your support because he employed illegal tactics to attain HIS goal? If not, then why should anyone have anything but disdain for YOUR illegal tactics? Or put another way; please explain your hypocracy.
Um, okay Creeno. You do realize that you are now comparing a misdemeanor traffic citation to the torture of human beings? Hmm...let's see, putting children in a room full of insects.... traffic citation. Water boarding a guy 183 time in a month...traffic citation. I guess they're completely the same huh? LOL. Dumb ass.
No, I was comparing what she did, to a traffic violation. Initialy, not a big deal. But she stepped up the crime ladder when she refused to move. Much like a speeder who refuses to stop.
Please read my posts, instead of just guessing. Dumbass.
No, refusing to move is not that big of a crime. Still a misdemeanor. Not worthy of more than a small citation for a first offense. Refusing to stop while speeding is a felony.
The principal in the analogy is still valid. I was pointing out that even if your initial transgression is not great, you can chose to worsen it by refusing to ammend it. She not only refused to ammend it, she willfully provoced and upgraded it.
Just how big is your asshole to fit that Redwood tree in it? No matter how you try and slice it Creeno, it's still just a petty misdemeanor. It's not that big of a deal and it doesn't deserve this.
It still is a misdemeanor Creeno, even after she refused to leave. No matter how much you wish it was something else to fit your fascist view of the world, it is still only a misdemeanor.
Don't care if it was a misdemeanor or not. The point still stands. She stopped being a "peaceful protester" when she decided to take on a policeline and refuses to move so a democratic organisation could have it's assembly in peace.
Well, I don't care if you don't care. It's a misdemeanor, and not a serious offense. So all of your accusations about how it's such a terrible thing what she did are simply downright stupid and ignorant. As such a verbal defender of the law, you should be aware of things like gravity of offense. And this was a minor offense that you are attempting to turn into something much larger than it was to justify the police brutality in the video.
Oh, and I'll say one last thing. The reason I swear is because I get angry. I will say one thing about you Creeno, you do get under my skin. Mostly because I wonder how in the hell you can look at that video and say that that kind of force was justified. I think you're quite sick for thinking that.
I really have to question the humanity of anyone that thinks that a girl passively standing there singing songs about love and waving peace sigs deserves repeated blasts of pepper spray before getting knocked to the ground and beaten with bicycles. Are you human Creeno? Do have have an ounce of decency or compassion in your body? Are really that sick and perverted to think that there was no other way that that could have been handled? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???!!!
There can be no question that she should be moved. When failing to comply with the order to move, she is no longer peaceful. The same way a speeder fails to stop when ordered to do so by the police. Speeding is a minor offense. Failing to stop and engaging in a chase all over town, is not! So, had she moved in time, I would agree that she was peaceful. Worst case, she could have been fined for not staying on the protest route. But by refusing to move, she is stepping up the crimeladder.
Creeno, the thing that kills me is that I'm not disagreeing with you that the police should have moved her. No one's saying they were wrong to do their jobs. Civil disobedience, even when done for a just cause, as Leah's was, doesn't give you immunity from the consequences.
But could that situation have been handled WAY BETTER than it was? YES. ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY. She was ready to get arrested, and that's all they had to do. The macings and physical assault was gross overkill.
In the situation they couldn't have handled it in any other way. Taking out two policemen to arrest her is exactly what she wants. Because then she will have tied up two policemen. "No chance, fatty. We're on to you". The police are by the general public expected to control the protest, since the protesters cannot control themselves (stay on the route given). Taking personel out to arrest her is not feesable. Because then the police can't do the job they're required to do: Move the protest.
All indications are Leah would have willingly submitted to arrest. She herself has admitted so. A policeman's job is to enforce the law with minimal use of force. If their goal was to move her than they should have placed her under arrest and moved her willingly. And I find this theory of yours that Leah was trying to sap their manpower by getting herself arrested rather interesting, and extremely paranoid. I highly doubt she had such strategic goals in mind.
So you see Creeno, there was no need for the violence. She would have moved on her own if they had arrested her. Instead they assaulted her, and then she felt the need to resist what they were doing. I applaud her for that, and for the manner in which she chose her resistance.
If you or the police really just want her to move, then there was no need for this attack. But you like the violence don't you? Just like the police do. It makes you feel good, watching those hippies get beat down?
To be honest, it makes me feel a LOT of good, to see someone who denies other people the right of free speech that she so naturaly claims for herself, get maced.
Having said that, SHE could just as easily have chosen to move when told to do so. SHE forced the confrontation. SHE forced the pushing. SHE forced the mace. Not the police.
It is the very essence of civil disobediance to labour the law enforments of the government to such an extent that it is incapable of action. So no, I am not paranoid. It was her sole purpose. And, not to mention, common knowledge of any protester worth his salt. And subsequently, also common knowledge by policeforces all over. That is why they have no initial interest in arresting her. Their job is to move her. If she had been the only one there, it would have been an entirely different story.
In an organized action yes, but this was a spur of the moment decision. It seemed to me to be more of a principled stand than an attempt to sack resources.
For her perhaps it was a spur of the moment decision. Perhaps! But as I said, it is a commonly known "strategy" of protesters to drain the force which they oppose, by sheer numbers. The police correctly refused to play her game. Arrest is not the only response to her disruption. And it certainly shouldn't be the first.
Arrest actually is the only response to this situation. Pepper spray and physical force are only supposed to be used against violent suspects in self defense, and then only iwth the intent of subduing the suspect for arrest. Leah wasn't violent nor was she endangering any officers. The physical assault that occurred was improper and unnecessary. If people break the law, then they are subject to arrest, trial, and if convicted, imprisonment or other punishment.
The police don't get to decide that they don't want to arrest this person so they're going to beat the hell out of her instead. They are bound to follow the laws they swear to uphold. The law in this case was plain. See protester engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. Place her under arrest. Their personal opinions about what they would rather do are irrelevant. They do not have a right to use force like this in this situation. Maybe they do in your country, but not here.
"The police don't get to decide that they don't want to arrest this person". WRONG! That is precisely the police's call! I is in fact what their job is. It is however not their job to pass sentence. That is for a court to decide. Their job was simply to protect a lawful assembly of republicans. Moving her by force was HER call. Not theirs! She was given every chance to be peaceful, but decided not to. And the police exerted the force necessary to get the job done. And they did!
"Pepper spray and physical force are only supposed to be used against violent suspects in self defense". WRONG!
It is a perfectly legal and acceptable means of crowdcontrol. As it was used here. You say it was unnecesary? Then why didn't she move? She just proved that it WAS necessary
Actually NOT WRONG! First of all, Leah wasn't a crowd. She was a lone protester at the time of this incident. To use pepper spray as crowd control could be considered self defense if the crowd is considered a threat, then and only then. There are guidelines for the correct use of pepper spray and physical force. A girl standing there willingly submitting to arrest does not meet them. Too bad Creeno. You fail, as usual.
She was part of a crowd albeit in front of it. It is clearly the obligation of the police to clear the streets. And they did, using the means necessary to do so. SHE decided how harsh they were. Not the police.
It was justified because by not moving her, societys representatives (the police) accepts that she is excempt from the law. This must never happen. It must NEVER be ok to take the law into your own hands. And I say again; SHE instigated the confrontation. Each refusal by her to move, forced the police to up the level of force untill she complied. This was not a first choice by the police. SHE made that decision for them.
That's where you're wrong. It is okay to to take the law into your own hands if you're government is acting outside of the law and the police are doing nothing but protecting them. Those are the principles this country was founded on. When our government pisses on democracy by holding fraudulent elections, invades another nation without provocation, tortures human beings, eliminates constitutional safeguards relating to civil liberties, then yes, those people have an absolute right to rise up.
There was no fraudulent election (that is only your claim, but the supreme court begs to differ). Therefore it is a democraticaly elected government who carries out it's policies to the best of THEIR belief. Disagree? Vote for a different government. When you are prevented from voting, THEN I will agree with you. Untill then, you are a fascist with no regard for democracy and or the majority of the people. And if you seek to change government by ilegal means, you are a fascist.
I've given you my opinion already. You don't agree with it. Fine. You hide behind police brutality to enforce your view of law and order and yet make excuses for those really committing the violence. No matter what you say, I will NEVER relinquish my right to defend myself against a fascist and oppressive government like the Bush administration. You can go fuck yourself for choosing them over the side of those fighting for peace. Now I really don't give a shit what else you have to say.
It is your right to make the changes you want by democratic means. YOU believe that you don't have to follow democratic rules to make the changes you want. Yet you don't extend that right to people who believe differently from you. That's fascism. And you don't recognize it because you have been blinded by your own "religion".
As I have already told you Creeno, it is my belief and the belief of many in America that the Democratic process has failed. The fact that Obama and the Democrats recently won was due to an overwhelming tidal wave of rejection that even the Republicans couldn't cheat their way out of. And even with the Democrats and Obama, we still have the Patriot Act, we still have the war, we still have domestic spying. We basically have a choice between outright fascism and a more benign version of it.
The difference between the republican win last time and this years democratic win is 1% (one). It hardly qualifies as a "tidal wave". If you are disatisfied with the choices presented to you, then make your own choice. Run for office. If enough believe as you (and you claim that there are many) it shold be a breeze to win. Easy? Certainly no. But it is the only democratic solution to your problem. It is imperative for the survival of democracy that you understand the difference.
I find it fascinating the willful ignorance you display regarding Obama's vote totals. I have already told you the correct amount, yet you refuse to listen. That tells me a lot about who you are as a person. You will rigidly and fanatically cling to your worldview regardless of the facts. Even when those facts are made aware to you, you simply dismiss them and cling to your bogus statistics to reenforce your ignorant view of the world.
Okay Creeno, ONE LAST TIME, and you better acknowledge this and let it sink in, because I'm tired of holding your hand and explaining it to you like a child. The vote totals from 2008 were:
Obama: 69,456,897 52.9%
McCain: 59,934,814 45.7%
The 2004 vote totals (Lies) were:
Bush: 62,040,610 50.7%
Kerry: 59,028,444 48.3 %
A simple google search can confirm this. Do you understand now?
It's common knowledge that Obama won by 1% more than Bush did the first time around. Think it was New York Times who made this comment (from memory): Bush won 52/48, a country divided. Obama won 53/47, a country united.
As I said, if you think that 1% difference qualifies as a tidal wave, I think you need to look up what tidal wave means.
Maybe it's common knowledge in Creenolandia, but here in this place called THE REAL WORLD, it's anything but. I realize you're European and therefore infinitely more intelligent than all of us stupid illiterate Americans, but damn, at least I can do basic math. Allow me to repeat YET AGAIN the vote totals:
Obama: 52.9%
McCain: 45.7%
Bush: 50.7%
Kerry: 48.3%
Obama won by 7.2 percentage points. Bush won by 2.4. Maybe in Mathematica Creenolandia that translates into 1, but not out here.
A let's forget about vote percentages, they don't tell the whole story. Obama got way more votes than Bush, Kerry, or McCain. The vote percentages don't tell the whole story.
I agree that percentages don't tell the whole story. It's realy not the point. I was just commenting on your view that it was a "tidal wave" which is only a copy of the rhetoric that followed his election. I'm not against Obama. In fact, I think he'll make a much better president that Bush ever was. The point is that the public decides by vote who they want for president. Not a fascist riot who attempt to throttle free speech for people they disagree with. You claim the right to just TAKE power.
No one is taking power here. You are making accusations that have no bearing in reality. This was merely an attempt to register our disgust with the politics of the Republicans Party, and the protesters, and myself, felt that simply marching from point A to point B holding a sign in a designated area out of sight and out of mind from the murderers in the convention center wasn't enough. When you've been through as much shit as we have because of these bastards, maybe you'll understand then.
Yes, you are putting the rules of peaceful protest out of function by not staying to the route that you have planned yourself. You cannot claim the right to protest in the very space where people have asked to be left alone in peace to discuss their views with each other. You call them murderers simply because they consent to a war they believe is right and just? In my book there is a difference between a murderer and a person who wages war because he believes it is right to do so.
We didn't plan any route out. The government decides that for us. For years they have been telling us where and when we can protest, confining us to "free speech zones" out of sight and out of mind. If they're going to try and marginalize us, then we're going to defy them.
And it is not enough to simply say, "I believe that this war is right and just." If you're going to wage a pre-emptive war, you better be DAMN FUCKING SURE. Because you're going to kill an awful lot of innocent people.
Who has the right to decide who lives and who dies Creeno? You pose the question to me of who has a right to decide what the rules of protest are, but you give a blank pass to those waging a very dubious war? You condemn civil disobedience which has never killed anyone, but give those responsible for supporting a war that has killed bushels of civilians a free pass because they believe they were right? Explain this to me, as I don't understand your logic.
The logic of this war (as proposed by it's supporters) is that it will do more harm if it is NOT waged. It is illogical to claim that you will be saving anything, let alone lives of innocents, by doing nothing.
I condemn civil disobediance IN A DEMOCRACY. Because civil disobediance stands in direct contradiction with the majority wishes of that very public. It cannot possibly be correctly represented by an angry mob who disagrees with a majority. Therefore it has no validation.
"We didn't plan any route". WRONG! The plan was submitted to local authorities by the protest organizers. Plans that are in direct conflict with or is likely to disrupt the allready announced and approved assembly (the RNC) will ofcourse be denied. It's first come, first served when it comes to assemblies. Same rules applies if they situation had been opposite.
You do not have the right to protest anywhere, anytime. Why? Because not only protesters have rights. That's why.
If you would bother to look up a few things for a change Creeno instead of just having me explain them to you. you'd know that there were major court battles over the RNC protest routes, and the protesters were denied the path they wanted.
They were denied the path (AS I SAID TO YOU) because it was either in conflict with or in disruptance of the allready approve assembly. If you'd bother to read my comments.
And I'm just curious, are FINALLy admitting, after numerous posts in which I pointed out to you the correct vote totals and percentages, that Obama won by more than 1%? I just want to see if you're man enough to admit that you were wrong on this one. Most of what we're arguing about is subjective, it comes down to opinions and how we view the world. But not this. This can quite easily be proven. So Creeno, are actually man enough to admit that yes, Obama did in fact win by more than 1%?
Certainly not. I have never said that Obama won by 1%. I challenge you to find that anywhere in my comments. What I have said (numerous times) is that Obama won by 1% more than Bush did the first time around.I commented on that fact, the same way the New York Times commented on it: Bush wins, a country divided. Obama wins by 1% more, a country united. In other words (yours): a 1% "tidal wave". Personaly I had envisioned more than a 1% difference when talking "tidal wave".
Once again Creeno, or shall I call you Mr. Bury Your Head In The Sand And Ignore Facts When They Don't Go My Way?
Obama: 52.9%
McCain: 45.7%
Bush: 50.7%
Kerry: 48.3%
Obama's margin of victory: 7.2%
Bush's margin of victory: 2.4%
7.2 minus 2.4 is 4.8. Where exactly are you getting 1%? Out of your ass? And if you're going to say that 4.8% isn't a tidal wave either, need I remind you that the vote totals were much higher this time, by millions.
Let's play along with your "tidal wave" for a minute. Just to prove a point. The point is : DEMOCRACY WORKED! Votes brought a change about, because the MAJORITY of the people disagreed with the government they were under at the time. What right can the losers of this election claim, to justify forcefull action against this new government. NONE! They can protest, yes. But they have absolutely NO right to force a government by physical and "illegal means". Even just a little bit.
Actually we do have that right. When the government acts so outside of the law that human beings are being killed and tortured by it, yes, we have that right to attempt to change it, by force if necessary. I yield that right to no one Creeno, not you, not the police, and not the government. To deny us the right to demand that our government act with a semblance of human dignity is to deny human beings their right to dignity. I let no man or woman deny me that right.
You are arguing under the assumption that a war was not the right thing to do. By not acting, you are effectively concenting to a high level torture and killings of innocents. That was the basis of the argument to go to war. Wrong? Possibly. Your call entirely? Not in your life.
So are you finally admitting that it was more than 1%. You know I'm not going to let that slide, not because it's really important in the grand scheme of things, but because it's very indicative of your mentality. You keep repeating the same things over and over again and you ignore crucial facts and statistics that don't support your argument. It's very indicative of just how ignorant you really are, and of the lengths you will go to to maintain your delusional view of the world.
Noope, not at all. But you are welcome to continue digging your hole. I'm knocking them out of the ballpark just as quickly as you can throw them. And with considerable ease, I might add.
LOL. You know how I know when somebody is losing an argument? When they declare themselves the winner. You haven't hit anything out of the park here Creeno, and that you claim you have only makes you look like an even bigger fool than you already do.
So far I'm doing pretty well. You have yet failed to convince anyone but yourself that democracy has failed and that it should be fought with fascist means and terror against the public.
I see, so you can read the minds of anybody suicidal enough to have followed our little flamewar and know that none of them have been convinced? When I look at the comments on this video, I think most of the people agree with me, not you. You've been all over these RNC threads getting into it with just about everybody, so offhand I'd say it's you fighting the uphill battle, not me.
Oh I dont' mind uphill battles. I actually enjoy them. It gives me much satisfaction seeing fascist being confronted with the nature of their actions and then see them fly off their handle because it contradicts the romantic perception they have of themselves. It is quite an exhilerating experience.
LOL. You think I'm flying off the handle? Your delusion is once again quite apparent, ignorant of the reality of the situation, but then again, you've been doing that all along, haven't you?
Oooh, I think I could find a post or two where "flying off the handle" is pretty much the only way to describe your somewhat alternative vocabulary. Wouldn't you agree?
You mistake my contempt for your ignorance as flying off the handle. Yes, I'm passionate about my beliefs, and my country. And although in the past I've responded with vitriol, I'm quite calm now. I realized that you're really not worth getting worked up over. You're pretty much just a clown and you've unmasked yourself as one through your willful ignorance.
Well, I'm not the one who is failing to argue my point. But then again, it IS rather hard to advocate the blessings of a fascist rule. So I don't blame you for having a hard time. I would find it difficult too.
Again, declaring yourself the winner huh? LOL. I really don't have a hard time arguing with you Creeno. Your mind is quite simple, even childish. You remind me of a junior high school kid that makes some lame insult and then high five's all of his buddies about what a good zinger he just got in, not realizing that he looks more foolish than anything. You've won nothing and you haven't even argued your point well, as evidenced by your refusal to listed to facts that don't support your argument.
The facts are in the video. Girl takes part in protest. Girl is asked to move back to the protest route. Girl refuses to move. Girl gets pushed with bicycle wheels. Girl still refuses to move. Girl gets maced. That is all the argument I need. It is there for everyone to see. Yet you still claim her right to not obey the laws of a democratic society. Who's childish again?
You are. First of all, girl got maced before anything else. Pepper spray is supposed to be a last ditch effort next to only a gun. And if girl refuses to move, then the correct course of action is to place her under arrest. Now, if she had resisted arrest, then pepper spray use would be acceptable. Since she didn't, it clearly wasn't.
I disagree. Ordering her to move, did not work. Pushing her, did not work. Macing her, did not work (she sat down). Ok, we give up...arrest her. End of story. But the story begins with Leah. Not the police.
So Creeno, since when does police work involve first macing somebody, then pushing them, then knocking them down, and beating them with bicycles, and then doing so again, all BEFORE an arrest? Never, to my knowledge. An arrest is what was warranted here, nothing more. Like I said before, if she had resisted, then those things might have been appropriate. But she didn't and she wasn't going to. The violence was unnecessary and unprovoked. In my country, I consider that unacceptable.
And it wouldn't matter to me whether or not it was anti-war protesters, whom I support, or Neo-Nazis, whom I loathe. I hold the police to a higher standard, I pay my taxes and their salary with the full expectation that use of force will be applied only in certain circumstances. This case did not meet those requirements.
And that's where you and I disagree. She willfully and deliberately disregarded the laws of protest and in the process effectively violated (or at least, attempted to violate) other peoples rights. That is a clear case for use of force. It is done to keep the peace for those who DONT want to protest. Not just because "its fun". You have advocated that some people (republicans) do not have the same rights to assemble as you and that you would stop them from doing so if you could. Facsist!
"Fascist!" LOL. This was not a clear cut case for use of force. An eighteen year old girl standing in the street singing songs about love and flashing peace signs can be dealt with a hundred other better ways. The police could have handled it better, but they chose to be a bunch of cowardly dicks. Not okay by me, and not okay with most of the people commenting here it seems. Like I said Creeno, you want to run your country like that, be my guest. I expect better of America and its police.
You get what you give. And when you provoke a policeline, you get a reaction. A prompt and propper one in my view. Because I can see farther than just my own nosetip. I can see other people than a fatso trying to be cool on camera (notice how she turns around to make sure the camera is roling). I can see a convention that was just trying to be left in peace. And she didn't want that. Well bugger off, chubby. And leave our democracy alone. That was the message she got that day.
Yes, why is that even an issue where I live. We are discussing democracy and your right to ignore it and impose your own fascist regime based on your views and not that of the people.
Because you talk like an American Republican. You even use their talking points. And it matters because you aren't directly affected by the policies of Republicans, yet you pass judgments on those that are. I wouldn't judge you for standing up to a government that acts with the brazen criminality of the Bush administration, in fact, I'd applaud you for your courage.
But in your arrogance, you think you even have a remote understanding of what Americans have gone through the last eight years. Guess what? You don't have a fucking clue. It's a lot different when it's happening in your backyard as opposed to a TV screen.
Yes I have a very good understanding of what your government was like. And I certainly do not agree with a lot of it's policies. Alas, I do not have a vote in America. YOU HAVE!
No, you don't Creeno. You think because you've read about it and seen it on the Teevee and visited here that that makes you the same as an American that has to live with these policies and the fear and terror they create every day? It doesn't. You are so far off on this that it's actually quite comical. You don't understand what it's like. Until it's happened to you, you never will.
Then CHANGE IT!!!!! Are you realy so dense that you cannot comprehend the power that you have to change things. Was this recent election a hoax? A fraud? Was it yet another scam concocted by republicans? You do not NEED to use illegal tactics. You can change things with legal tactics. And recent events have shown that this is not impossible. Just very hard. But democracy IS hard. Not denying that. But your fascist mob-rule will be even harder to endure. I promise you that.
We are changing it. We did change it. And we used all the tactics in the book. From protesting to civil disobedience to riots and voting. And we've won, for the moment. You owe us no thanks. I didn't want you to have to live with an America governed by war criminals that's all.
You seem to put a lot of confidence in your protesting. And as I've said before, I'll let you soak in your own romantic perception of this. No skin of my back on that account.
Those who made the change, were those who went to the voting booth. Those who supported your protest voted for Obama anyway. And those who didn't believe in your protest, just voted for Mcain as they would have anyway. But maybe more of both sides did so on that account. But the protest moved no votes. I promise you.
Nope, it's just my experience when tallking to people. I have never met a person who has changed his vote on account of having seen a protest. Regardless of that person has been for or against the protest, it has only entrenched what ever belief they had to begin with.
Well shit Creeno, I guess if you've never met one, living in a foreign country thousands of miles away from where all this is happening, I guess there isn't one then, huh? LOL.
And we're back to the filth. You cannot honestly claim that you have changed one single vote because of a protest. Not a single one! But as I said, I'm quite comfortable with letting you believe that.
Come on Creeno. You say that because you've never met one, you know for certain that NO ONE'S mind has ever been changed by a protest, and say that it's a reasonable deduction? LOL. What you don't get is that I really just don't give a shit about what you think of protests or protesters. You go right ahead and be a hater. You mistake my indifference as not being able to express my views, when I think my views have been quite articulately stated time and again.
But if you're going to support police brutality, then I'm going to tell you that you're an asshole. That's really what it all comes down to. This isn't about the war, the election, or the merits of civil disobedience, it's abot the cops getting out of line and using way too much force on a girl that, even if you don't like her or what she did, obviously means well. We will fight such police abuse with every blood fiber in our beings.
I don't care if you say we'll lose, have lost, or will never win. Since the outcome is as yet undetermined, anything you say is pretty much horseshit and only reflects your wishes rather than reality.
As I said this can in no way be construed as police brutality. Had she been trying to get away, or had she been handcuffed, THEN it would have been police brutality. She instigated the confrontation and the police have a job to do: protect the rights of others by moving her away. It could have been done a lot less forcefull, if she had not resisted. But that was HER choice. Not the police.
Yes it is a resonable deduction. And as a matter of fact, I can safely say that you have never met one either. I say again: No vote has ever been changed on account of a protest. It only serves as a backslapping session for those who allready belive in the same (or pushes those away who believe differently). But I will agree that it gets more of those people to the voting booths. But it doesn't change the way they vote prior to a protest.
As a matter of fact I have Creeno. Since you don't associate with protesters and don't live here, it's very arrogant and even childish to assume so much about something you know very little about.
The point that you still refuse to accept is that the change you wish, can be achieved (and HAS been achieved) through voting. You are arguing for the right to refute the result of a democratic election. So why vote? If you claim the right to change things by physical and illegal tactics, then voting will be a thing of the past. In other words; we will then have a fascist rule based on violence and intimidation.
Creeno, for as long as I've been alive, there has been nothing but the two-party war making, police state loving, environmental raping, big business ass kissing two party police state here in the good old U.S. of A. And that's not going to be changed by voting Democrat or Republican. It's going to change from the people standing up and forcing ti to change. Yes Creeno, I said force. Call me a fascist if you will, but I think deep down you know that really isn't true. You've already admitted so.
If you insist that your ideas of a society can only come to be if it is forced upon the people, then maybe you need to revision your ideas? Your political views are apparently so disliked by the people that they will not willingly embrase them. What does that tell you? Is your claim that "I know better. So this is for your own good"?
What arrogance. What fascism. But at least you're open about now instead of covering it in words like "civil disobediance".
What do you mean by "stand up"? If you mean using illegal tactics to attain your goals, then no. That's fascism. If you mean stand up in peaceful protest in respect of differing views, then yes. What you see in the video is not respectful of differing views nor is it peaceful disagreement. That is full blown and in your face I-am-better-than-thou fascism.
Certainly it was not unnecessary. Otherwise she would have been moving without force ever being used. Had she been moving away, THEN it would have been unnecessary. But she wasn't. She clearly indicated that she was not going to move. Unprovoked? Surely not even you will make that claim. She clearly "told" the police that she was not going to abide by the laws of protest. That's a clear provocation right there. And it warrants clear and consequent action. We will move you!
The action taken must be proportionate. Refusing to move is not automatic grounds for police violence, especially against someone that willingly submitted to arrest. No matter how much you wish it was, the police don't have the right to use any type of force they want to make somebody move. They are bound to use restraint when called for and violence only when absolutely necessary. And in this case, it was not necessary.
The action was perfectly appropriate. If she did not move she would be violating other peoples rights. She could have chosen to move, but chose not to. The job of the police is to ensure the rights of others. In this case, she is the agressor and was dealt with accordingly. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that the issue could have been resolved by a cloud of mace. Unortunately it was not, and the police were forced to arrest her instead of just moving her. Sad.
Reaching for the mace as a first resort is not acceptable in this situation. And for about the hundredth time, she was not violating anybody's rights. I know you're going to just repeat that she is over and over, just like you do the Obama only won by 1% more than Bush did in contradiction to facts, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make it any more true. Like I said before, you are willfully ignorant and you don't allow facts or information into your head that contradict your narrow mind.
Oh, and you cannot possibly compare an everyday arrest to what is going on here. Had she been completely alone and the city was not occupied by screaming fascists, I concur that mace would not have been necesary. But that is simply not the case here. The police line is moving towards the bigger crowd to move them and she is impeding their movement. They HAVE to move her. She forces their hand because taking out two or more people to arrest her diminishes their strength considerably.
Yes, I can compare it to an everyday arrest, because arrest procedures are the same. Again, you are using the actions of a few people on a different day as a cover to hide behind. Crimes committed on a different day by different people do not mean that the police get to throw out standard arrest practices, and not to mention, common sense, when dealing with every protester form that point on. For all those cops knew, she might have been the daughter of a police officer. Or the girlfriend of one
She's a human being and deserves to be treated with dignity. But the simple truth is, it was the police that really did the rioting at the RNC and always has been. They got jacked up on adrenaline and saw an opportunity to bash some hippie skulls. And boy, did they ever take advantage of that opportunity. You can try and justify their actions all you want Creeno. But the truth is, the cops lost it at the RNC. Like I said, the lawsuits will come, and then we'll see who really comes out on top.
Hey Creeno, I thought of another question I'd like to ask you. You said that you were part of a peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia. I'd like to ask you, just how it that Milosevic was finally brought down? Was through NATO's bombing campaign that killed scores of innocent civilians, something which you seem happy to be a part of? Or was it through the youth of Yugoslavia rising up and committing non-violent civil disobedience against their government, just Leah Lane here?
I think you are getting things mixed up. Firstly, NATO intervention was implemented to stop the genocide that was going on from both sides (early and mid 90's). It succeeded. Secondly, Milosevic was not removed by a few hundred youts with signs. He was removed by a massive revolt (including police and military) when he refused to aknowledge that he had lost the election. De facto, he made the jump from democraticialy elected president, to dictator. Year 2000 if memory serves.
Ah, those strikes and protests were going on long before those last elections. Years in fact, even back when he was still a democratically elected president. So, were those out doing so fascists Creeno, or were they simply ahead of the curve, and it took the rest of the population a long time to catch up?
Hey it's cool if they convinced the general public to vote differently than they had before. That is part of the democratic process. That doesnt make them fascists. That makes them democrats. But had they tried to enforce their views by blocking other political parties, physical ilegal actions against the elected government and such, then yes; then they would be fascists.
Well, you probably know the answer. It was through civil disobedience. Now, do you think the youth of Yugoslavia were fascists for doing so? I guess it's okay for you to bomb them, but not for them to take matters into their own hands and non-violently force a social revolution? So what do you say Creeno? Were they fascists? And if they were, what does that make you? You, who use guns and violence to enforce what you see as international law, while they use protest signs.
It is a nice romantic thought to believe that the dictatorship ended because of civil disobediance. But alas, simply not true. So the rest of your point is moot. But setting that aside, the difference between ex-jugoslavian people who rebeled against a dictator, and the fatty in the video, is that they didn't have the right to vote. She does!
When/if her right to vote is taken away from her, THEN she will have all my support to oppose any dictactor. But not before.
REPTILIAN! at 4:35 she starts shapeshifting
groovass65 8 months ago
shes a fat hippie lol
superheromike 8 months ago
problem is, i can virtually guarantee that all of these government employees (cops) are republicans. they all work for the government but complain about wanting less government intervention. the hypocrisy is overwhelming. it's ok for me to collect a check from the government but not you. the private sector can no longer afford to compete with the jobs the government offers. those cops are making fantastic money. full medical and dental....pension....the whole works.
threemoresevens 1 year ago
Fuck the Police!!!!!!
SparkySharp69 1 year ago
fucking dickhead cops
420timetoburn 2 years ago 2
idc what u say, our law enforcement is a load of shit! if ur famous and rich u can get away with a slap on ur hand. if ur a protester not breakin the law, they beat your ass. thats fucked up!
33basketballforever 2 years ago 2
surprise fox is covering this
stargazerfreak 2 years ago 4
its a local fox.
baslisks 2 years ago 4
bingo. it's a local fox whose crew were teargassed like everyone else. so they got pissed.
nigelparry 2 years ago
Message to the protesters in the beginning:
No, it is not your streets. It is everyones street. And you're not everyone. Heck, you're not even the majority.
Arrogant fascist assholes! May your mob rule never prevail.
Creeno1 2 years ago
When the Repukes are torturing children, murdering civilians by the hundreds of thousands, and illegally spying on Americans, you better fucking believe that we're going to challenge them. The police have a right to respond in a reasonable manner. At the RNC, they did not respond reasonably. And for that, they're about to be sued off their fucking thuggish asses. The lawsuits have just begun. Leah, if you're reading this, I encourage you to file your own. Don't let them get away with this.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Murdering and torturing children? That's a laugh. But not yours to pass judgement even if it were true. That's for the courts. Not the mob rule. That's why you are a fascist.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Read a newspaper dipshit. One of the things that American interrogators did to one of our detainees was to put his children in roomful of insects that they told them were poisonous. And yes, many children have been murdered in Iraq. So yes, I am open about the fact that a convention of these sick, twisted, putrid monsters should be opposed, by illegal and in your face tactics if necessary. Don't like it. Too bad. Waaahhh!
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So the interrogator will be punished because he broke the law. As will protesters if they break the law.
I'm not the one crying because the police moved the fatso. You are.
So it's ok to use illegal tactics? Cool, so the interrogator who is responsible for an illegal tactic can count on your support then? I think he'll be happy to know that.
Personally I think he should be punished. But then again, I believe in rights for everyone. You only think SOME should have rights.
Creeno1 2 years ago
And you can suck my fascist Nazi dick (although it's really neither) Creeno. You ain't nothing but an apologist for war crimes and good little fascist ass licker. When those lawsuits go through and these protesters get the money they so richly deserve, just know that I'll raise my glass of Champagne and dedicate it to you, the great ass licker. Have a nice day.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So I should suck your dick? Ahh...you are the ever eloquent speaker. So what you're saying is that you've got nothing? I figured as much.
In the mean time, I can revel in the fact that the fatso was moved. As she should be.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Well, I don't know if Leah is going to be one of the ones that files an excessive force lawsuit. She seems more like a lover and forgiver to me. But if she does, then I'll revel in what will almost certainly be her victory. And if she doesn't, I'll revel in all the other ones. The total's going to be huge from this one Creeno. And my champagne's on ice.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So you say for the hundreth time. And I will say for the hundreth time; the fat fascist got moved. As she should be. I've long since taken the champaign off the ice and I enjoy it everytime I see this video.
Creeno1 2 years ago
You get you rocks off by watching a "fat fascist" (who happens to be waving peace signs and telling her attackers that she loves them) get hosed down and attacked? And you think we're the sick ones. You need a puppy. No, on second thought, don't. I shudder to think of what will happen to the puppy.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Well, if you act like a fascist, you ARE a fascist. And if you are also overweight, then you are a fat fascist. I call'em like I see them. She was not attacked. Police attempted to move an illegal protester (who tried to denie other people the right she claims for herself). When being unsuccesful at first, they moved on to harsher methods. Each step up the force ladder, was forced upon them by her. They cannot chose to let her break the laws of protesting. They are not elected to make that call.
Creeno1 2 years ago
I LOVE YOU LEAH LANE!
theedgeinshow 2 years ago 3
should have moved damn!
InfamousYG 2 years ago
Scummy police the same in the UK. How fucking brave are they? Martin Luther King - Love is the message..
napoli02 3 years ago 4
fuck shes a strong girl, but those police deserve buckshot to the chest. this is a blatant brutalization of our constitutionally protected civil rights. my second amendment trigger finger twitches when i see this
HagarsBastard 3 years ago 3
Correction: It is not your constitutional right to block or prevent assemblies of people of different political observation than your own. Just thought I'd let you know since you appear to think otherwise.
Also; she's not strong. She's just fat.
Creeno1 3 years ago
And Creeno's a fucking Nazi pussy. Leah Lane makes ten of him.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Sorry, not a nazi. But she sure comes close. But I agree she makes ten of me (or close to). Credit goes to McDonalds for that.
Creeno1 2 years ago
I don't care if you're fat, thin, black, white, brown, tall, short, bald, gay, or straight. If you stand up to torture and war crimes, which all the Republican Party is capable of, then you're a hero and beautiful. Leah is beautiful. You are sadistic and ugly. And what's that on your mouth? I think it's some Republican cum from all those right wing dicks you've been sucking. Better wipe that off.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
HAha...well at least I'm not a fascist like she is and you are.
Rights is not just something protesters have. Non protesters have them too (as you seem to have forgotten).
So good going on the police for moving the hippo, so citizens again can walk the streets in peace.
Creeno1 2 years ago
You're not really concerned about citizens. You're concerned about the right of the Republicans to assemble so they can murder, torture, and do all their other evil things. Fuck them. Even if Leah had tried to disrupt the convention, which she didn't, she deserves a medal. She deserves a medal anyways, but fuck the Republicans and fuck you too.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
I am concerned about the right to assemble. Anyones right. This includes republicans. Your fascist view is that only liberals or people you agree with should be allowed to assemble.
Thats basically the difference between you and me. And that makes you the fascist. Not me.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Those Republicans should be in jail for crimes against humanity. Fuck their right to have a convention in peace. What you see here is called a rebellion, and it's about god damned time. You can either support it, get out of its way, or oppose it, You've made your choice. You chose to side with the war criminals. So fuck you, war criminal bitch.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Oh and I hasten to add, all Leah was doing was protesting in the street. She never tried to disrupt anything. She certainly didn't deserve this. And only a Nazi war criminal lover like you Creeno, would think that she did.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
No, she was not just protesting in the streets. She was deliberately off limits of the proclaimed protest. To ensure the rights of all other citizens, she was moved. So no, she was not "just protesting". So now I am a war criminal too? Can I take it that again you've got nothing?
Only filth, but not argument. That is your capability. And THAT's why you fail.
Creeno1 2 years ago
And we fail in nothing. In fact, we keep winning battles. After the RNC in New York in 2004, more than 91% of all criminal cases against protesters were dropped or dismissed. To date, the police department there has paid out over 8.2 million in damages to protesters that they abused or wrongfully arrested. And they still have more than 500 lawsuits to go through. When the total is done from St. Paul, I imagine it's going to dwarf that. And the Republicans keep getting their asses kicked.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Seems to me the only ones who got their asses kicked were protesters.
If you refer to asskicking in the democratic and non violent sense, then that's cool. That is the whole point I'm trying to get through to you but you don't seem to grasp. Rights are for everyone. Not just protesters. And not just liberals. When you claim to have more right than anyone else, you fail. Super fail! And you WILL be moved. Every single time.
Creeno1 2 years ago
So far in St. Paul, more than 85% of all criminal cases against protesters arrested have been dropped. Even the terrorism charges against the RNC 8 have been dropped. They have managed to secure only a few convictions so far, and most of those were for minor offenses. Fail? I think not. When the lawsuits go through, I can guarantee not. There are hundreds of them in the works. I hope Leah is one of them.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So is this where I use your old argument that the courts are corrupt whenever they decide something not to my liking? That they are politicialy biased?
Should I too use illegal tactics to change these rulings? Maybe I should make a revolution and only seat judges and politicians whom *I* agree with regardless of what everyone else, including you, says?
Can you not see what the consequence of illegal tactics can bring. No, I'm afraid you can't.
Creeno1 2 years ago
And as for my lack of eloquence, I'm not the one that keeps calling her fat. That's an insult that people use when they have nothing else. So why don't you just run along and crawl back into whatever Nazi asshole shat you out in the first place? Make sure you give it a good lick on your way in. Oh, I know you're not going to leave. You're going to sit here and blah, blah, blah. You keep on going and maybe you'll graduate into yak, yak yak, instead of blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Dumb shit.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So again you've got nothing but filth. Actually, now I understand these protesters a little better. They've got nothing either. So they take to the streets and spread filth. Because they cannot argue their position in a democratic society. You are the perfect example. No arguments, just a variaty of swearing. That is the limit of your intellect. And that's why you fail. And you always will untill the day you realize you've become what you claim to be fighting against.
Creeno1 2 years ago
So I called her fat. Well buddy...she IS fat. Even she will aknowledge that fact. Look down the list of filth that you've posted here. That's what you can do. But fail miserably at arguing your point. I guess it's because you have none. Oh well.
Your stream of swear words doesn't change the fact that the fat girl was moved. So I'm fine.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Yak, yak yak, blah, blah, blah. Keep jacking of fuckface. I'l let the courts decide this. And they will. Those protesters are gong to get a lot f money, and you'll still be a Nazi jackass jerking himself off. Fuck you you worthless dickwad.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So....you've still got nothing? Thought as much.
Now everyone can see your failure.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Got what? What are you talking about? What are you looking for? What exactly do you think is going to be said here that we haven't already said 100 times? You are against civil disobedience, even to war criminals and fascists, and equate a girl doing so with fascism. You support a brutal police attack on her just "to make her move." I say you are an asshole. Worse really, you are a worthless human fuckstick. Is there anything else you want me to say dipshit?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
You are simply unable to argue your point or respond to the questions I have put to you in the past 4-5 posts. Your response is swearing and namecalling.
Intellectualy you are a child. Which ofcourse makes it so much easier for me to demonstrate your failure. Argumentaly, you've been put to the wall, and it frustrates you that you've got nothing left. And so the lashing out ensues and proves my point even more.
So thanks for that :).
Creeno1 2 years ago
What is your question?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Amongst others I asked if the interrogator you refered to, could count on your support because he employed illegal tactics to attain HIS goal? If not, then why should anyone have anything but disdain for YOUR illegal tactics? Or put another way; please explain your hypocracy.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Um, okay Creeno. You do realize that you are now comparing a misdemeanor traffic citation to the torture of human beings? Hmm...let's see, putting children in a room full of insects.... traffic citation. Water boarding a guy 183 time in a month...traffic citation. I guess they're completely the same huh? LOL. Dumb ass.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
No, I was comparing what she did, to a traffic violation. Initialy, not a big deal. But she stepped up the crime ladder when she refused to move. Much like a speeder who refuses to stop.
Please read my posts, instead of just guessing. Dumbass.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Comment removed
DowntownHound 2 years ago
No, refusing to move is not that big of a crime. Still a misdemeanor. Not worthy of more than a small citation for a first offense. Refusing to stop while speeding is a felony.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
The principal in the analogy is still valid. I was pointing out that even if your initial transgression is not great, you can chose to worsen it by refusing to ammend it. She not only refused to ammend it, she willfully provoced and upgraded it.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Just how big is your asshole to fit that Redwood tree in it? No matter how you try and slice it Creeno, it's still just a petty misdemeanor. It's not that big of a deal and it doesn't deserve this.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
It may have started as a misdemeanor, but panned out as a blatant attempt to refute the democratic rights the police were trying to protect.
Didn't quite catch that Redwood tree comment. But I presume it was sample of your usual irelevant filth.
Creeno1 2 years ago
It still is a misdemeanor Creeno, even after she refused to leave. No matter how much you wish it was something else to fit your fascist view of the world, it is still only a misdemeanor.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Don't care if it was a misdemeanor or not. The point still stands. She stopped being a "peaceful protester" when she decided to take on a policeline and refuses to move so a democratic organisation could have it's assembly in peace.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Well, I don't care if you don't care. It's a misdemeanor, and not a serious offense. So all of your accusations about how it's such a terrible thing what she did are simply downright stupid and ignorant. As such a verbal defender of the law, you should be aware of things like gravity of offense. And this was a minor offense that you are attempting to turn into something much larger than it was to justify the police brutality in the video.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
speeders can kill wayyy more people than I could ever
Lehl19 2 years ago 2
Oh, and I'll say one last thing. The reason I swear is because I get angry. I will say one thing about you Creeno, you do get under my skin. Mostly because I wonder how in the hell you can look at that video and say that that kind of force was justified. I think you're quite sick for thinking that.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
I really have to question the humanity of anyone that thinks that a girl passively standing there singing songs about love and waving peace sigs deserves repeated blasts of pepper spray before getting knocked to the ground and beaten with bicycles. Are you human Creeno? Do have have an ounce of decency or compassion in your body? Are really that sick and perverted to think that there was no other way that that could have been handled? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???!!!
DowntownHound 2 years ago
There can be no question that she should be moved. When failing to comply with the order to move, she is no longer peaceful. The same way a speeder fails to stop when ordered to do so by the police. Speeding is a minor offense. Failing to stop and engaging in a chase all over town, is not! So, had she moved in time, I would agree that she was peaceful. Worst case, she could have been fined for not staying on the protest route. But by refusing to move, she is stepping up the crimeladder.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Creeno, the thing that kills me is that I'm not disagreeing with you that the police should have moved her. No one's saying they were wrong to do their jobs. Civil disobedience, even when done for a just cause, as Leah's was, doesn't give you immunity from the consequences.
But could that situation have been handled WAY BETTER than it was? YES. ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY. She was ready to get arrested, and that's all they had to do. The macings and physical assault was gross overkill.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
In the situation they couldn't have handled it in any other way. Taking out two policemen to arrest her is exactly what she wants. Because then she will have tied up two policemen. "No chance, fatty. We're on to you". The police are by the general public expected to control the protest, since the protesters cannot control themselves (stay on the route given). Taking personel out to arrest her is not feesable. Because then the police can't do the job they're required to do: Move the protest.
Creeno1 2 years ago
All indications are Leah would have willingly submitted to arrest. She herself has admitted so. A policeman's job is to enforce the law with minimal use of force. If their goal was to move her than they should have placed her under arrest and moved her willingly. And I find this theory of yours that Leah was trying to sap their manpower by getting herself arrested rather interesting, and extremely paranoid. I highly doubt she had such strategic goals in mind.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So you see Creeno, there was no need for the violence. She would have moved on her own if they had arrested her. Instead they assaulted her, and then she felt the need to resist what they were doing. I applaud her for that, and for the manner in which she chose her resistance.
If you or the police really just want her to move, then there was no need for this attack. But you like the violence don't you? Just like the police do. It makes you feel good, watching those hippies get beat down?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
To be honest, it makes me feel a LOT of good, to see someone who denies other people the right of free speech that she so naturaly claims for herself, get maced.
Having said that, SHE could just as easily have chosen to move when told to do so. SHE forced the confrontation. SHE forced the pushing. SHE forced the mace. Not the police.
Creeno1 2 years ago
I'll bet it does make you feel good. Your life must be really empty to look at this and derive pleasure from it.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
I assure you, I derive great pleasure in seeing democracy defended so effectively against those who intend its demise.
Creeno1 2 years ago
It is the very essence of civil disobediance to labour the law enforments of the government to such an extent that it is incapable of action. So no, I am not paranoid. It was her sole purpose. And, not to mention, common knowledge of any protester worth his salt. And subsequently, also common knowledge by policeforces all over. That is why they have no initial interest in arresting her. Their job is to move her. If she had been the only one there, it would have been an entirely different story.
Creeno1 2 years ago
In an organized action yes, but this was a spur of the moment decision. It seemed to me to be more of a principled stand than an attempt to sack resources.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
For her perhaps it was a spur of the moment decision. Perhaps! But as I said, it is a commonly known "strategy" of protesters to drain the force which they oppose, by sheer numbers. The police correctly refused to play her game. Arrest is not the only response to her disruption. And it certainly shouldn't be the first.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Arrest actually is the only response to this situation. Pepper spray and physical force are only supposed to be used against violent suspects in self defense, and then only iwth the intent of subduing the suspect for arrest. Leah wasn't violent nor was she endangering any officers. The physical assault that occurred was improper and unnecessary. If people break the law, then they are subject to arrest, trial, and if convicted, imprisonment or other punishment.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
The police don't get to decide that they don't want to arrest this person so they're going to beat the hell out of her instead. They are bound to follow the laws they swear to uphold. The law in this case was plain. See protester engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. Place her under arrest. Their personal opinions about what they would rather do are irrelevant. They do not have a right to use force like this in this situation. Maybe they do in your country, but not here.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
"The police don't get to decide that they don't want to arrest this person". WRONG! That is precisely the police's call! I is in fact what their job is. It is however not their job to pass sentence. That is for a court to decide. Their job was simply to protect a lawful assembly of republicans. Moving her by force was HER call. Not theirs! She was given every chance to be peaceful, but decided not to. And the police exerted the force necessary to get the job done. And they did!
Creeno1 2 years ago
"Pepper spray and physical force are only supposed to be used against violent suspects in self defense". WRONG!
It is a perfectly legal and acceptable means of crowdcontrol. As it was used here. You say it was unnecesary? Then why didn't she move? She just proved that it WAS necessary
Creeno1 2 years ago
Actually NOT WRONG! First of all, Leah wasn't a crowd. She was a lone protester at the time of this incident. To use pepper spray as crowd control could be considered self defense if the crowd is considered a threat, then and only then. There are guidelines for the correct use of pepper spray and physical force. A girl standing there willingly submitting to arrest does not meet them. Too bad Creeno. You fail, as usual.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
She was part of a crowd albeit in front of it. It is clearly the obligation of the police to clear the streets. And they did, using the means necessary to do so. SHE decided how harsh they were. Not the police.
Creeno1 2 years ago
It was justified because by not moving her, societys representatives (the police) accepts that she is excempt from the law. This must never happen. It must NEVER be ok to take the law into your own hands. And I say again; SHE instigated the confrontation. Each refusal by her to move, forced the police to up the level of force untill she complied. This was not a first choice by the police. SHE made that decision for them.
Creeno1 2 years ago
That's where you're wrong. It is okay to to take the law into your own hands if you're government is acting outside of the law and the police are doing nothing but protecting them. Those are the principles this country was founded on. When our government pisses on democracy by holding fraudulent elections, invades another nation without provocation, tortures human beings, eliminates constitutional safeguards relating to civil liberties, then yes, those people have an absolute right to rise up.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
There was no fraudulent election (that is only your claim, but the supreme court begs to differ). Therefore it is a democraticaly elected government who carries out it's policies to the best of THEIR belief. Disagree? Vote for a different government. When you are prevented from voting, THEN I will agree with you. Untill then, you are a fascist with no regard for democracy and or the majority of the people. And if you seek to change government by ilegal means, you are a fascist.
Creeno1 2 years ago
I've given you my opinion already. You don't agree with it. Fine. You hide behind police brutality to enforce your view of law and order and yet make excuses for those really committing the violence. No matter what you say, I will NEVER relinquish my right to defend myself against a fascist and oppressive government like the Bush administration. You can go fuck yourself for choosing them over the side of those fighting for peace. Now I really don't give a shit what else you have to say.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Fighting for peace? Now there's an oxymoron :).
It is your right to make the changes you want by democratic means. YOU believe that you don't have to follow democratic rules to make the changes you want. Yet you don't extend that right to people who believe differently from you. That's fascism. And you don't recognize it because you have been blinded by your own "religion".
Creeno1 2 years ago
As I have already told you Creeno, it is my belief and the belief of many in America that the Democratic process has failed. The fact that Obama and the Democrats recently won was due to an overwhelming tidal wave of rejection that even the Republicans couldn't cheat their way out of. And even with the Democrats and Obama, we still have the Patriot Act, we still have the war, we still have domestic spying. We basically have a choice between outright fascism and a more benign version of it.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
The difference between the republican win last time and this years democratic win is 1% (one). It hardly qualifies as a "tidal wave". If you are disatisfied with the choices presented to you, then make your own choice. Run for office. If enough believe as you (and you claim that there are many) it shold be a breeze to win. Easy? Certainly no. But it is the only democratic solution to your problem. It is imperative for the survival of democracy that you understand the difference.
Creeno1 2 years ago
I find it fascinating the willful ignorance you display regarding Obama's vote totals. I have already told you the correct amount, yet you refuse to listen. That tells me a lot about who you are as a person. You will rigidly and fanatically cling to your worldview regardless of the facts. Even when those facts are made aware to you, you simply dismiss them and cling to your bogus statistics to reenforce your ignorant view of the world.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Okay Creeno, ONE LAST TIME, and you better acknowledge this and let it sink in, because I'm tired of holding your hand and explaining it to you like a child. The vote totals from 2008 were:
Obama: 69,456,897 52.9%
McCain: 59,934,814 45.7%
The 2004 vote totals (Lies) were:
Bush: 62,040,610 50.7%
Kerry: 59,028,444 48.3 %
A simple google search can confirm this. Do you understand now?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
It's common knowledge that Obama won by 1% more than Bush did the first time around. Think it was New York Times who made this comment (from memory): Bush won 52/48, a country divided. Obama won 53/47, a country united.
As I said, if you think that 1% difference qualifies as a tidal wave, I think you need to look up what tidal wave means.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Maybe it's common knowledge in Creenolandia, but here in this place called THE REAL WORLD, it's anything but. I realize you're European and therefore infinitely more intelligent than all of us stupid illiterate Americans, but damn, at least I can do basic math. Allow me to repeat YET AGAIN the vote totals:
Obama: 52.9%
McCain: 45.7%
Bush: 50.7%
Kerry: 48.3%
Obama won by 7.2 percentage points. Bush won by 2.4. Maybe in Mathematica Creenolandia that translates into 1, but not out here.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
A let's forget about vote percentages, they don't tell the whole story. Obama got way more votes than Bush, Kerry, or McCain. The vote percentages don't tell the whole story.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
I agree that percentages don't tell the whole story. It's realy not the point. I was just commenting on your view that it was a "tidal wave" which is only a copy of the rhetoric that followed his election. I'm not against Obama. In fact, I think he'll make a much better president that Bush ever was. The point is that the public decides by vote who they want for president. Not a fascist riot who attempt to throttle free speech for people they disagree with. You claim the right to just TAKE power.
Creeno1 2 years ago
No one is taking power here. You are making accusations that have no bearing in reality. This was merely an attempt to register our disgust with the politics of the Republicans Party, and the protesters, and myself, felt that simply marching from point A to point B holding a sign in a designated area out of sight and out of mind from the murderers in the convention center wasn't enough. When you've been through as much shit as we have because of these bastards, maybe you'll understand then.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Yes, you are putting the rules of peaceful protest out of function by not staying to the route that you have planned yourself. You cannot claim the right to protest in the very space where people have asked to be left alone in peace to discuss their views with each other. You call them murderers simply because they consent to a war they believe is right and just? In my book there is a difference between a murderer and a person who wages war because he believes it is right to do so.
Creeno1 2 years ago
We didn't plan any route out. The government decides that for us. For years they have been telling us where and when we can protest, confining us to "free speech zones" out of sight and out of mind. If they're going to try and marginalize us, then we're going to defy them.
And it is not enough to simply say, "I believe that this war is right and just." If you're going to wage a pre-emptive war, you better be DAMN FUCKING SURE. Because you're going to kill an awful lot of innocent people.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Who has the right to decide who lives and who dies Creeno? You pose the question to me of who has a right to decide what the rules of protest are, but you give a blank pass to those waging a very dubious war? You condemn civil disobedience which has never killed anyone, but give those responsible for supporting a war that has killed bushels of civilians a free pass because they believe they were right? Explain this to me, as I don't understand your logic.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
The logic of this war (as proposed by it's supporters) is that it will do more harm if it is NOT waged. It is illogical to claim that you will be saving anything, let alone lives of innocents, by doing nothing.
I condemn civil disobediance IN A DEMOCRACY. Because civil disobediance stands in direct contradiction with the majority wishes of that very public. It cannot possibly be correctly represented by an angry mob who disagrees with a majority. Therefore it has no validation.
Creeno1 2 years ago
"We didn't plan any route". WRONG! The plan was submitted to local authorities by the protest organizers. Plans that are in direct conflict with or is likely to disrupt the allready announced and approved assembly (the RNC) will ofcourse be denied. It's first come, first served when it comes to assemblies. Same rules applies if they situation had been opposite.
You do not have the right to protest anywhere, anytime. Why? Because not only protesters have rights. That's why.
Creeno1 2 years ago
If you would bother to look up a few things for a change Creeno instead of just having me explain them to you. you'd know that there were major court battles over the RNC protest routes, and the protesters were denied the path they wanted.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
They were denied the path (AS I SAID TO YOU) because it was either in conflict with or in disruptance of the allready approve assembly. If you'd bother to read my comments.
Creeno1 2 years ago
No actually it wasn't. They just wanted to move the protesters out of sight and out of mind, as they always do.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
And I'm just curious, are FINALLy admitting, after numerous posts in which I pointed out to you the correct vote totals and percentages, that Obama won by more than 1%? I just want to see if you're man enough to admit that you were wrong on this one. Most of what we're arguing about is subjective, it comes down to opinions and how we view the world. But not this. This can quite easily be proven. So Creeno, are actually man enough to admit that yes, Obama did in fact win by more than 1%?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Certainly not. I have never said that Obama won by 1%. I challenge you to find that anywhere in my comments. What I have said (numerous times) is that Obama won by 1% more than Bush did the first time around.I commented on that fact, the same way the New York Times commented on it: Bush wins, a country divided. Obama wins by 1% more, a country united. In other words (yours): a 1% "tidal wave". Personaly I had envisioned more than a 1% difference when talking "tidal wave".
Creeno1 2 years ago
Once again Creeno, or shall I call you Mr. Bury Your Head In The Sand And Ignore Facts When They Don't Go My Way?
Obama: 52.9%
McCain: 45.7%
Bush: 50.7%
Kerry: 48.3%
Obama's margin of victory: 7.2%
Bush's margin of victory: 2.4%
7.2 minus 2.4 is 4.8. Where exactly are you getting 1%? Out of your ass? And if you're going to say that 4.8% isn't a tidal wave either, need I remind you that the vote totals were much higher this time, by millions.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Let's play along with your "tidal wave" for a minute. Just to prove a point. The point is : DEMOCRACY WORKED! Votes brought a change about, because the MAJORITY of the people disagreed with the government they were under at the time. What right can the losers of this election claim, to justify forcefull action against this new government. NONE! They can protest, yes. But they have absolutely NO right to force a government by physical and "illegal means". Even just a little bit.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Actually we do have that right. When the government acts so outside of the law that human beings are being killed and tortured by it, yes, we have that right to attempt to change it, by force if necessary. I yield that right to no one Creeno, not you, not the police, and not the government. To deny us the right to demand that our government act with a semblance of human dignity is to deny human beings their right to dignity. I let no man or woman deny me that right.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
You are arguing under the assumption that a war was not the right thing to do. By not acting, you are effectively concenting to a high level torture and killings of innocents. That was the basis of the argument to go to war. Wrong? Possibly. Your call entirely? Not in your life.
Creeno1 2 years ago
So are you finally admitting that it was more than 1%. You know I'm not going to let that slide, not because it's really important in the grand scheme of things, but because it's very indicative of your mentality. You keep repeating the same things over and over again and you ignore crucial facts and statistics that don't support your argument. It's very indicative of just how ignorant you really are, and of the lengths you will go to to maintain your delusional view of the world.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Noope, not at all. But you are welcome to continue digging your hole. I'm knocking them out of the ballpark just as quickly as you can throw them. And with considerable ease, I might add.
Creeno1 2 years ago
LOL. You know how I know when somebody is losing an argument? When they declare themselves the winner. You haven't hit anything out of the park here Creeno, and that you claim you have only makes you look like an even bigger fool than you already do.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
So far I'm doing pretty well. You have yet failed to convince anyone but yourself that democracy has failed and that it should be fought with fascist means and terror against the public.
Creeno1 2 years ago
I see, so you can read the minds of anybody suicidal enough to have followed our little flamewar and know that none of them have been convinced? When I look at the comments on this video, I think most of the people agree with me, not you. You've been all over these RNC threads getting into it with just about everybody, so offhand I'd say it's you fighting the uphill battle, not me.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Oh I dont' mind uphill battles. I actually enjoy them. It gives me much satisfaction seeing fascist being confronted with the nature of their actions and then see them fly off their handle because it contradicts the romantic perception they have of themselves. It is quite an exhilerating experience.
Creeno1 2 years ago
LOL. You think I'm flying off the handle? Your delusion is once again quite apparent, ignorant of the reality of the situation, but then again, you've been doing that all along, haven't you?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Oooh, I think I could find a post or two where "flying off the handle" is pretty much the only way to describe your somewhat alternative vocabulary. Wouldn't you agree?
Creeno1 2 years ago
You mistake my contempt for your ignorance as flying off the handle. Yes, I'm passionate about my beliefs, and my country. And although in the past I've responded with vitriol, I'm quite calm now. I realized that you're really not worth getting worked up over. You're pretty much just a clown and you've unmasked yourself as one through your willful ignorance.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Well, I'm not the one who is failing to argue my point. But then again, it IS rather hard to advocate the blessings of a fascist rule. So I don't blame you for having a hard time. I would find it difficult too.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Again, declaring yourself the winner huh? LOL. I really don't have a hard time arguing with you Creeno. Your mind is quite simple, even childish. You remind me of a junior high school kid that makes some lame insult and then high five's all of his buddies about what a good zinger he just got in, not realizing that he looks more foolish than anything. You've won nothing and you haven't even argued your point well, as evidenced by your refusal to listed to facts that don't support your argument.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
The facts are in the video. Girl takes part in protest. Girl is asked to move back to the protest route. Girl refuses to move. Girl gets pushed with bicycle wheels. Girl still refuses to move. Girl gets maced. That is all the argument I need. It is there for everyone to see. Yet you still claim her right to not obey the laws of a democratic society. Who's childish again?
Creeno1 2 years ago
You are. First of all, girl got maced before anything else. Pepper spray is supposed to be a last ditch effort next to only a gun. And if girl refuses to move, then the correct course of action is to place her under arrest. Now, if she had resisted arrest, then pepper spray use would be acceptable. Since she didn't, it clearly wasn't.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
I disagree. Ordering her to move, did not work. Pushing her, did not work. Macing her, did not work (she sat down). Ok, we give up...arrest her. End of story. But the story begins with Leah. Not the police.
Creeno1 2 years ago
So Creeno, since when does police work involve first macing somebody, then pushing them, then knocking them down, and beating them with bicycles, and then doing so again, all BEFORE an arrest? Never, to my knowledge. An arrest is what was warranted here, nothing more. Like I said before, if she had resisted, then those things might have been appropriate. But she didn't and she wasn't going to. The violence was unnecessary and unprovoked. In my country, I consider that unacceptable.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
And it wouldn't matter to me whether or not it was anti-war protesters, whom I support, or Neo-Nazis, whom I loathe. I hold the police to a higher standard, I pay my taxes and their salary with the full expectation that use of force will be applied only in certain circumstances. This case did not meet those requirements.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
And that's where you and I disagree. She willfully and deliberately disregarded the laws of protest and in the process effectively violated (or at least, attempted to violate) other peoples rights. That is a clear case for use of force. It is done to keep the peace for those who DONT want to protest. Not just because "its fun". You have advocated that some people (republicans) do not have the same rights to assemble as you and that you would stop them from doing so if you could. Facsist!
Creeno1 2 years ago
"Fascist!" LOL. This was not a clear cut case for use of force. An eighteen year old girl standing in the street singing songs about love and flashing peace signs can be dealt with a hundred other better ways. The police could have handled it better, but they chose to be a bunch of cowardly dicks. Not okay by me, and not okay with most of the people commenting here it seems. Like I said Creeno, you want to run your country like that, be my guest. I expect better of America and its police.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
You get what you give. And when you provoke a policeline, you get a reaction. A prompt and propper one in my view. Because I can see farther than just my own nosetip. I can see other people than a fatso trying to be cool on camera (notice how she turns around to make sure the camera is roling). I can see a convention that was just trying to be left in peace. And she didn't want that. Well bugger off, chubby. And leave our democracy alone. That was the message she got that day.
Creeno1 2 years ago
"Our" democracy? Creeno, do you really live in Denmark?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Yes, why is that even an issue where I live. We are discussing democracy and your right to ignore it and impose your own fascist regime based on your views and not that of the people.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Because you talk like an American Republican. You even use their talking points. And it matters because you aren't directly affected by the policies of Republicans, yet you pass judgments on those that are. I wouldn't judge you for standing up to a government that acts with the brazen criminality of the Bush administration, in fact, I'd applaud you for your courage.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
But in your arrogance, you think you even have a remote understanding of what Americans have gone through the last eight years. Guess what? You don't have a fucking clue. It's a lot different when it's happening in your backyard as opposed to a TV screen.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Yes I have a very good understanding of what your government was like. And I certainly do not agree with a lot of it's policies. Alas, I do not have a vote in America. YOU HAVE!
Creeno1 2 years ago
No, you don't Creeno. You think because you've read about it and seen it on the Teevee and visited here that that makes you the same as an American that has to live with these policies and the fear and terror they create every day? It doesn't. You are so far off on this that it's actually quite comical. You don't understand what it's like. Until it's happened to you, you never will.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Then CHANGE IT!!!!! Are you realy so dense that you cannot comprehend the power that you have to change things. Was this recent election a hoax? A fraud? Was it yet another scam concocted by republicans? You do not NEED to use illegal tactics. You can change things with legal tactics. And recent events have shown that this is not impossible. Just very hard. But democracy IS hard. Not denying that. But your fascist mob-rule will be even harder to endure. I promise you that.
Creeno1 2 years ago
We are changing it. We did change it. And we used all the tactics in the book. From protesting to civil disobedience to riots and voting. And we've won, for the moment. You owe us no thanks. I didn't want you to have to live with an America governed by war criminals that's all.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
You seem to put a lot of confidence in your protesting. And as I've said before, I'll let you soak in your own romantic perception of this. No skin of my back on that account.
Those who made the change, were those who went to the voting booth. Those who supported your protest voted for Obama anyway. And those who didn't believe in your protest, just voted for Mcain as they would have anyway. But maybe more of both sides did so on that account. But the protest moved no votes. I promise you.
Creeno1 2 years ago
And how can you be so sure of this? Do you have personal insight into the minds of the 69 million+ Americans that voted for Obama?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Nope, it's just my experience when tallking to people. I have never met a person who has changed his vote on account of having seen a protest. Regardless of that person has been for or against the protest, it has only entrenched what ever belief they had to begin with.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Well shit Creeno, I guess if you've never met one, living in a foreign country thousands of miles away from where all this is happening, I guess there isn't one then, huh? LOL.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
It is a reasonable deduction.
Creeno1 2 years ago
I suppose, if your head is buried firmly up your ass.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
And we're back to the filth. You cannot honestly claim that you have changed one single vote because of a protest. Not a single one! But as I said, I'm quite comfortable with letting you believe that.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Come on Creeno. You say that because you've never met one, you know for certain that NO ONE'S mind has ever been changed by a protest, and say that it's a reasonable deduction? LOL. What you don't get is that I really just don't give a shit about what you think of protests or protesters. You go right ahead and be a hater. You mistake my indifference as not being able to express my views, when I think my views have been quite articulately stated time and again.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
But if you're going to support police brutality, then I'm going to tell you that you're an asshole. That's really what it all comes down to. This isn't about the war, the election, or the merits of civil disobedience, it's abot the cops getting out of line and using way too much force on a girl that, even if you don't like her or what she did, obviously means well. We will fight such police abuse with every blood fiber in our beings.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
I don't care if you say we'll lose, have lost, or will never win. Since the outcome is as yet undetermined, anything you say is pretty much horseshit and only reflects your wishes rather than reality.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
As I said this can in no way be construed as police brutality. Had she been trying to get away, or had she been handcuffed, THEN it would have been police brutality. She instigated the confrontation and the police have a job to do: protect the rights of others by moving her away. It could have been done a lot less forcefull, if she had not resisted. But that was HER choice. Not the police.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Yes it is a resonable deduction. And as a matter of fact, I can safely say that you have never met one either. I say again: No vote has ever been changed on account of a protest. It only serves as a backslapping session for those who allready belive in the same (or pushes those away who believe differently). But I will agree that it gets more of those people to the voting booths. But it doesn't change the way they vote prior to a protest.
Creeno1 2 years ago
As a matter of fact I have Creeno. Since you don't associate with protesters and don't live here, it's very arrogant and even childish to assume so much about something you know very little about.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
The point that you still refuse to accept is that the change you wish, can be achieved (and HAS been achieved) through voting. You are arguing for the right to refute the result of a democratic election. So why vote? If you claim the right to change things by physical and illegal tactics, then voting will be a thing of the past. In other words; we will then have a fascist rule based on violence and intimidation.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Creeno, for as long as I've been alive, there has been nothing but the two-party war making, police state loving, environmental raping, big business ass kissing two party police state here in the good old U.S. of A. And that's not going to be changed by voting Democrat or Republican. It's going to change from the people standing up and forcing ti to change. Yes Creeno, I said force. Call me a fascist if you will, but I think deep down you know that really isn't true. You've already admitted so.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
If you insist that your ideas of a society can only come to be if it is forced upon the people, then maybe you need to revision your ideas? Your political views are apparently so disliked by the people that they will not willingly embrase them. What does that tell you? Is your claim that "I know better. So this is for your own good"?
What arrogance. What fascism. But at least you're open about now instead of covering it in words like "civil disobediance".
Creeno1 2 years ago
What do you mean by "stand up"? If you mean using illegal tactics to attain your goals, then no. That's fascism. If you mean stand up in peaceful protest in respect of differing views, then yes. What you see in the video is not respectful of differing views nor is it peaceful disagreement. That is full blown and in your face I-am-better-than-thou fascism.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Certainly it was not unnecessary. Otherwise she would have been moving without force ever being used. Had she been moving away, THEN it would have been unnecessary. But she wasn't. She clearly indicated that she was not going to move. Unprovoked? Surely not even you will make that claim. She clearly "told" the police that she was not going to abide by the laws of protest. That's a clear provocation right there. And it warrants clear and consequent action. We will move you!
Creeno1 2 years ago
The action taken must be proportionate. Refusing to move is not automatic grounds for police violence, especially against someone that willingly submitted to arrest. No matter how much you wish it was, the police don't have the right to use any type of force they want to make somebody move. They are bound to use restraint when called for and violence only when absolutely necessary. And in this case, it was not necessary.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
The action was perfectly appropriate. If she did not move she would be violating other peoples rights. She could have chosen to move, but chose not to. The job of the police is to ensure the rights of others. In this case, she is the agressor and was dealt with accordingly. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that the issue could have been resolved by a cloud of mace. Unortunately it was not, and the police were forced to arrest her instead of just moving her. Sad.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Reaching for the mace as a first resort is not acceptable in this situation. And for about the hundredth time, she was not violating anybody's rights. I know you're going to just repeat that she is over and over, just like you do the Obama only won by 1% more than Bush did in contradiction to facts, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make it any more true. Like I said before, you are willfully ignorant and you don't allow facts or information into your head that contradict your narrow mind.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Oh, and you cannot possibly compare an everyday arrest to what is going on here. Had she been completely alone and the city was not occupied by screaming fascists, I concur that mace would not have been necesary. But that is simply not the case here. The police line is moving towards the bigger crowd to move them and she is impeding their movement. They HAVE to move her. She forces their hand because taking out two or more people to arrest her diminishes their strength considerably.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Yes, I can compare it to an everyday arrest, because arrest procedures are the same. Again, you are using the actions of a few people on a different day as a cover to hide behind. Crimes committed on a different day by different people do not mean that the police get to throw out standard arrest practices, and not to mention, common sense, when dealing with every protester form that point on. For all those cops knew, she might have been the daughter of a police officer. Or the girlfriend of one
DowntownHound 2 years ago
She's a human being and deserves to be treated with dignity. But the simple truth is, it was the police that really did the rioting at the RNC and always has been. They got jacked up on adrenaline and saw an opportunity to bash some hippie skulls. And boy, did they ever take advantage of that opportunity. You can try and justify their actions all you want Creeno. But the truth is, the cops lost it at the RNC. Like I said, the lawsuits will come, and then we'll see who really comes out on top.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Hey Creeno, I thought of another question I'd like to ask you. You said that you were part of a peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia. I'd like to ask you, just how it that Milosevic was finally brought down? Was through NATO's bombing campaign that killed scores of innocent civilians, something which you seem happy to be a part of? Or was it through the youth of Yugoslavia rising up and committing non-violent civil disobedience against their government, just Leah Lane here?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
I think you are getting things mixed up. Firstly, NATO intervention was implemented to stop the genocide that was going on from both sides (early and mid 90's). It succeeded. Secondly, Milosevic was not removed by a few hundred youts with signs. He was removed by a massive revolt (including police and military) when he refused to aknowledge that he had lost the election. De facto, he made the jump from democraticialy elected president, to dictator. Year 2000 if memory serves.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Ah, those strikes and protests were going on long before those last elections. Years in fact, even back when he was still a democratically elected president. So, were those out doing so fascists Creeno, or were they simply ahead of the curve, and it took the rest of the population a long time to catch up?
DowntownHound 2 years ago
Hey it's cool if they convinced the general public to vote differently than they had before. That is part of the democratic process. That doesnt make them fascists. That makes them democrats. But had they tried to enforce their views by blocking other political parties, physical ilegal actions against the elected government and such, then yes; then they would be fascists.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Well, you probably know the answer. It was through civil disobedience. Now, do you think the youth of Yugoslavia were fascists for doing so? I guess it's okay for you to bomb them, but not for them to take matters into their own hands and non-violently force a social revolution? So what do you say Creeno? Were they fascists? And if they were, what does that make you? You, who use guns and violence to enforce what you see as international law, while they use protest signs.
DowntownHound 2 years ago
It is a nice romantic thought to believe that the dictatorship ended because of civil disobediance. But alas, simply not true. So the rest of your point is moot. But setting that aside, the difference between ex-jugoslavian people who rebeled against a dictator, and the fatty in the video, is that they didn't have the right to vote. She does!
When/if her right to vote is taken away from her, THEN she will have all my support to oppose any dictactor. But not before.
Creeno1 2 years ago
Comment removed
DowntownHound 2 years ago