what were you protesting again? Were you protesting the protesters? about their right to protest? what exactly?

not....
first off we went to counter-protest nearly everything they "stand" for....they assembled to show their opinions...we showed ours...sorry but not liking anothers opinions and then assaulting them because of it is something the right is always accused of but never proven.....the left on the otherhand is always said to assemble "peacefully" but thats never been proven either

It takes a bigger person not to, but not many of them truely exist

Helix

.....in not one instance despite serious provication...not one punch,kick,spitting on, or pushing occur...that cant be said of the other marchers

What's insane here is, many of the talking points on joeuser and other sites have revolved around how the big bad conservatives have restricted free speech by restricting the areas where the protestors can speak freely. And yet I see a lot of liberals here protesting where these people chose to speak. Things that make you go hmmmmm....

There's no defense for the actions of the protestors, frankly, everyone that was seen to participate should be jailed for physical assault. Being a part of a protest is not a license to abuse.

"More than anything else i think this fits into that class of acts known as provocation. of course you're allowed to do it, but why would you want to? I'm guessing to prove to yourself something you have long suspected. That large crowds will often turn to violence when encountered with something they don't like, regardless of their political stripe. Well done for proving something we all know."

And well done to you as well, sir, because hey, we all know it's okay for you and half a dozen of your buddies to beat someone up, as long as he was provoking you first, right? Go back and read the article again, that bit about the waves of black-clad, bandana-over-the-face thugs. That's not individual marchers spontaneously reacting (badly) to provocation, that's a deliberate and pre-planned effort to supress dissent, and you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for even attempting to act as their apologist, Marco.

"And Draginol, to hypothetically liken the protests in NY (which calls for peace and an end to bloodshed) to skinhead protests (which would openly call for bloodshed and confrontation) and make a point of ones allowance and the others inspiration of abhorrence is interesting to say the least. I don't have much of a stomach for political correctness, but the progeny of Nazism is something that i would rather be silenced."

So, let me see if I've got this straight: you would like to see the people/groups who openly call for bloodshed and confrontation 'be silenced', but you are willing to actually USE bloodshed and confrontation to silence anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view ... Is this another example of the superior intelligence of the Left in action?

Now, as for silenceing Nazis and other unsavoury types: by far the most effective way to deal with lies is not to supress them, but rather to bury them in a flood of truth. Fringe grouops like skinheads are fringe groups because their message is false, and most people are smart enough to see that, given the chance. In the long run, point and giggle is always more effective than "Quiet, you!"

Steve

And Draginol, to hypothetically liken the protests in NY (which calls for peace and an end to bloodshed) to skinhead protests (which would openly call for bloodshed and confrontation) and make a point of ones allowance and the others inspiration of abhorrence is interesting to say the least. I don't have much of a stomach for political correctness, but the progeny of Nazism is something that i would rather be silenced.

Ah I see. Hitler bad. Stalin good. Gotcha.

How about this radical concept: First amendment good. You speak your opinion, I speak mine. People can decide for themselves.

He managed to divide our nation in half. Pro-Bush (republicans that will follow anyone that is republican) vs. Anti-Bush (people with common sense and unfortunately those liberal cry babies) There was never a protest of this magnitude when Bush had is first RNC convention, nor was there for Dole in is RNC convention, or even the Bush the first's two RNC conventions. Think about that...

Rough...
Intresting but no...polls...past and present show that 87% of Bush voters are voting because they support Bush...with the remained voting out of pure disgust over kery.....63% of kerry voters are voting for kerry because of the "anyone but bush" mentality with the remainder voting because they actually support his platform (wait..kerry actually has a platform?). As for the resons why its become quite appairent...Bush didnt divide our nation..that was done with the political pr of the dem party...need proof..look at the makeup of those protesters and the groups they represent...the republican party isnt openly seeking the support of the extremists in its party.. the dems on the other hand have not only actively gone seeking but support those groups....either way kerry is finished....because if he wants to be elected president, he needs to take a stand on any of the key issues..which he hasnt...and if he does...he will in the end anger any number of useful idiots groups too which he needs to even have a slight chance...

There's no defense for the actions of the protestors, frankly, everyone that was seen to participate should be jailed for physical assault. Being a part of a protest is not a license to abuse.

Gideon.....

again you sifted through bullshit to discover the single most important ideal we should all learn and live by......Maybe the left might discover it down the road in the future...I'm not betting on it but who knows stranger things have happened (like kerry being in Cambodia in x-mas of 68 when he wasnt- his own words)

Rough... Intresting but no...polls...past and present show that 87% of Bush voters are voting because they support Bush...with the remained voting out of pure disgust over kery.....63% of kerry voters are voting for kerry because of the "anyone but bush" mentality with the remainder voting because they actually support his platform (wait..kerry actually has a platform?).

I don't want another four years of Bush, but I will concede it if it's what the people want (of course, I have no choice...lol). That being said, I refuse to join the rush of people to support a candidate with whom I disagree at least as strongly as I disagree with Bush.

Badnarik 2004!!

I would like to add that initial pictures are being uploaded to our members but they havent been put on the site as of yet...there are still ongoing counter-protests till the end of the convention and that means more pictures...i will post either a few in here or a link to them shortly

(like kerry being in Cambodia in x-mas of 68 when he wasnt- his own words)

I'm wondering if Kerry wasn't on a top secret assignment in Cambodia at the time...like maybe helping Al Gore create the Internet? lol

I see a bright side to this. Eventually, people will tire of the psychopaths on the left and realize that they actually are psychopaths and like the ones on the right, they shall be alienated from society, which will give the reasonable people a chance to make some actual progress.

And Draginol, to hypothetically liken the protests in NY (which calls for peace and an end to bloodshed) to skinhead protests (which would openly call for bloodshed and confrontation) and make a point of ones allowance and the others inspiration of abhorrence is interesting to say the least. I don't have much of a stomach for political correctness, but the progeny of Nazism is something that i would rather be silenced.

So, skinheads should be like the peaceful protesters and speak peace but act in the name of violence and bloodshed?

first off we went to counter-protest nearly everything they "stand" for....they assembled to show their opinions...we showed ours...sorry but not liking anothers opinions and then assaulting them because of it is something the right is always accused of but never proven.....the left on the otherhand is always said to assemble "peacefully" but thats never been proven either

Firstly, it is hardly ever reported that the "left" have assembled peacefully. Almost all in recent memory have had some element of violence, from Chigago 68' to New York 04'.

Me, personally, i would never promise a non-violent protest. If the issue is hot enough, this would almost be an impossibility.

It was not an issue of you not being abe to express your views or opinions, just that you happened to express them at the wrong time and place. What did you expect?

I also find the idea of protesting protesters a useless and futile idea. If you were protesting everything they stood for, then that means that your views and opinions already have power, at least in the White House. The Republican Party and its campaign budget can do infinitely more damage to Kerry's cause than you sinking into the mire at that protest, outnumbered and outgunned. It was, essentially, a futile act that had a minor goal as its outcome - proving that protests can get violent.

So, skinheads should be like the peaceful protesters and speak peace but act in the name of violence and bloodshed?

I don't even know what it is that you are asking? I was talking about the intent of the protest. One calls for peace, the other calls for bloodshed, both, in protest, are usually violent.

Marco

The lefties are adamant about allowing for dissent by the induhvidual unless you protest their point of view.
Too bad the wackos in NYC couldn't be herded unto ships in the New York harbor and given a free (one way) trip
to the beautiful worker's paradise just south of Florida. Uncle Fidel would welcome them with open arms, there's
plenty of sugar cane that needs cutting.

Too bad the wackos in NYC couldn't be herded unto ships in the New York harbor and given a free (one way) trip to the beautiful worker's paradise just south of Florida. Uncle Fidel would welcome them with open arms, there's plenty of sugar cane that needs cutting.

And it's just that attitude that dissent is somehow unAmerican that appalls me!

I noticed some left wingers tried to disrupt Bush's speech.  Those who oppose Bush work very very hard to try to demonstrate that if they had power, they would eliminate their opposition's right to free speech.

I noticed some left wingers tried to disrupt Bush's speech. Those who oppose Bush work very very hard to try to demonstrate that if they had power, they would eliminate their opposition's right to free speech.

This is scaremongering at its worst. Are you implying that the only viable opposition to Bush, the Democratic party, is not only a democratic, political threat to Bush and the Republicans, but also a constitutional threat.

That's a hefty claim that requires evidence. Produce one shred and then i would expect people to take a statement such as this one seriously.

So far the only threat to the American constitutional rights and rule of law (rather than marshal law) recently has come from Bush and his war on terror.

Marco

I am stating that I think, as a practical matter, that the left has less tolerance for dissent than the right.

I say that based on what I've seen on US campuses (where "incorrect" opinions - usually conservative ones - are banned from speech). I see that in the way the left will try to shame, intimidate, or shout down their opponents.

Don't recall right wing protesters barging into Clinton's speeches or Kerry's. 

I'm all for the right of the people, left or right, to protest. But their rights end where others begin.  And time and time again we see evidence of where the left will try to prevent their opponents from speaking.  We see this with the Democratic party which has used lawyers to sue Nader's campaign to keep him down (did the Republicans sue Ross Perot? No).  We see this with the Kerry campaign trying to get the Swift Boat ads removed even though they're a trickle compared to the MoveOn.org ads which Bush and Republicans have made no effort to supress (and don't even get started on F-9/11).

The fact is, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the left has less tolerance to differing opinions. I think much of this is because they are so self-righteous in their beliefs that they don't believe their opponents views have any value and must be suppressed for the "Greater good".

And if you're referring to the Patriot Act as the suppression of rights, perhaps you could learn for yourself the facts on that. It was passed UNANYMOUSLY in the Senate. Both Democrats and Republicans (including Kerry). So don't throw out that loaded BS in here about Bush being somehow the boogeyman on civil liberties.

Actions speak louder than words and the actions of the left both in the past year and in the past decade on college campuses where the left holds more sway are pretty damning.

Draginol.....

Don't recall right wing protesters barging into Clinton's speeches or Kerry's.

very true...the left is all for freedom of speech..just not for conservatives......

One thing I neglected to comment about which I should have is how the protesters used cardboard coffins representing military deaths as some sort of supporting talking point of how they are right and everyone else is wrong...intresting that these exact people never cared for any who wore the uniform, have called them murderers and robots, nazis and thugs etc. for so long that their use of the coffins as some sort of symbol on their part is rather disingenuous on their part....

For those who'd like to see some video and pics of that day....im gonna leave a site address that has some of them....

http://36echo.com/jb4gdi/PW/

This is some of them..from sunday....but to be honest we had many people shooting us during the march from our own people to the leftist fruitloops....and intresting enough....thanks to those same fruitloops, pics of us landed on al-jazeera's english edition...I'm so honored

I'm all for the right of the people, left or right, to protest. But their rights end where others begin. And time and time again we see evidence of where the left will try to prevent their opponents from speaking. We see this with the Democratic party which has used lawyers to sue Nader's campaign to keep him down (did the Republicans sue Ross Perot? No). We see this with the Kerry campaign trying to get the Swift Boat ads removed even though they're a trickle compared to the MoveOn.org ads which Bush and Republicans have made no effort to suppress (and don't even get started on F-9/11).

This is where i start baulking. Please, please, please stop implicating that the Democrats are in any way a left-wing party. Centrist, perhaps; Left-wing, NO!

Why do the left have to scream so loudly, why do they find themselves segregated in college campuses and smoke infested, bean bag littered lounge rooms across America - because the left in your country hasn't had any mainstream acceptance in decades. Why do they vote democrat, why do they support Kerry? What option do they have - a two party system that orbit roughly the same spot on the political spectrum, even if one's emphasis differs to the others.

I find it amazing that you guys scream and wail about the left so much when your country doesn't have a viable left wing politics, at most single issue organisations that couldn't touch a ballot sheet with a 10 foot pole or disgruntled academics that muble about the malevolence of globalisation. You guys ended all that when you decided that shooting unionists would be a good idea.

Let's face it. There hasn't been a serious threat to middle of the road politics in your country since the Second World War. Most of that time you were too scared of the red menace raining ruin upon your heads or wallowing in your own opulence. Now there's a new threat to occupy the political horizon, so i don't see you needing to worry about any seismic changes to the political landscape of your country.

America has survived apparent malfunctions in the credibility of its political institutions before and it will do it again. As long as there is always someone threatening to blow you all to smithereens it will continue to survive.

Marco

Why do the left have to scream so loudly, why do they find themselves segregated in college campuses and smoke infested, bean bag littered lounge rooms across America - because the left in your country hasn't had any mainstream acceptance in decades

What can I say bout this quote...except that its assumption is woefully wrong....the left are not segregated in colleges and for that you are way out in left field( pardon the pun)...actually it is the conservatives on campuses around the nation that have found it hard to organise....although this is slowly changing....the left even during the vietnam war were not segregated....so you listed an erroneous statement....

As to mainstream acceptance again you have screwed the pooch as it were....as this statement is very hollow....granted the majority of americans find their views very naive...they do find acceptance all over....look at hollywood, mtv, npr, aclu,.

You guys ended all that when you decided that shooting unionists would be a good idea.

...Kindly please explain this

Most of that time you were too scared of the red menace raining ruin upon your heads or wallowing in your own opulence.

......Okay putz...last I checked most of the world were concerned by the soviets including us...scared is not the term to use...and if it werent for the US putting its own cities and civilians into the firing line of the soviets for nearly 50 years...where would western europe be?I am getting sick and tired as most americans that hear the US is the blame for the world ills...this not only doesnt represent reality...but it's just sorry old line ....

I don't even know what it is that you are asking? I was talking about the intent of the protest. One calls for peace, the other calls for bloodshed, both, in protest, are usually violent.

It sounds as though they're just as bad. I don't see how somebody who preaches peace but practices violence is any different than somebody who preaches violence and practices violence, except that they're more hypocritical than the latter group.

What can I say bout this quote...except that its assumption is woefully wrong....the left are not segregated in colleges and for that you are way out in left field( pardon the pun)...actually it is the conservatives on campuses around the nation that have found it hard to organise....although this is slowly changing....the left even during the vietnam war were not segregated....so you listed an erroneous statement....

Conservatives are everywhere. They are the supposed "silent majority". Progressive liberalism, what is commonly labelled as the "new left", is known as such because it strives for situations that are not yet actualised. We are surrounded by social conservatism, by economic rationalism, by military intervention, everyday. It is the way of the world as it stands. Progressive liberalism is still an idea and therefore finds as its natural habitat university campuses and adjacent discourse and speculation. The tenets of conservative ideology is actually in practice. If it wasn't it would defeat the categorisation of this politics as conservative, conservative politics being an attempted, and often successful, retention of what is already existent, a defence of tradition. Conservative ideology finds its practice in corporate boardrooms, churches, political institutions, the military, the judiciary, the majority of the media...basically all the institutions of Western society. Educational institutions are basically the one place where Progressive Liberalism, or the New-Left, can find structural support for something that is still, essentially, nascent and unorganised.

they do find acceptance all over....look at hollywood, mtv, npr, aclu

Do you realise what percentage of the American population you're referring to? The cultural elite is what you're referring to and they are called the cultural elite because of their size. An elite is never in the majority. As far as the NPR and the ACLU are concerned, one is a public broadcasting organisation and will never have the muscle of the major networks. And are you saying that the ACLU, with a membership of 20,000, is a mainstream voice. A sizeable membership, that is sure, but hardly mainstream. The NRA, by way of comparison, in 2000 had a membership of 3.6 million. Producers and actors unions in America have a combined membership of just over 100,000. Remember that number 3.6million.

You guys ended all that when you decided that shooting unionists would be a good idea. ...Kindly please explain this

Refer yourself to the Battle of Rincon Hill, the Matewan Massacre, the Memorial Day massacre, Bloody Friday, etc

and if it werent for the US putting its own cities and civilians into the firing line of the soviets for nearly 50 years...where would western europe be?

During the Cold War not one bullet was fired on American soil. Comparison - 3 million die in Vietnam, over I million die in Korea, 1.8 million in Afghanistan, 75,000 dead in Nicaragua, etc. Most casualties in the "Cold" war were not American. Not one country attacked the United States during the Cold War.

The Cuban Missile crisis was the closest you got. America must have finally felt a little of what the USSR was feeling with Nukes in Turkey and most of Western Europe pointed squarely in their direction. There was no parity as far as nuclear force was concerned. When Detente was established under Nixon, the US outgunned the USSR by several to one, if not hundreds taking into account MIRV's. The fear was constructed and politically expedient. So well constructed, in fact, that those in power believed it themselves.

And most of the world wasn't as concerned about the USSR as you guys were. The Western Europeans were more concerned about the Communist parties in their own countries, made up of their own compatriots. Italy, France and Greece, if democracy was allowed, might have tumbled into Communist party control. But, as Yugoslavia, China and Vietnam proved, just because a country was under communist control, did not mean that it bent to the will of the USSR.

Marco

just because a country was under communist control, did not mean that it bent to the will of the USSR.

Please tell that to all the members of the eastern eurpean countries...I'm sure they will (not) agree with you

Most casualties in the "Cold" war were not American. Not one country attacked the United States during the Cold War.

Did you miss the meaning of Cold War?

Please tell that to all the members of the eastern eurpean countries...I'm sure they will (not) agree with you

They were all countries that did NOT fall under the control of local communist parties. They were essentially given to the USSR at the Yalta conference. The allies had the upper hand but decided not to push the issue. All other communist countries were essentially autonomous. The Chinese hated the Russians, the Vietnamese hated the Chinese, the Cubans accepted Russian aid but moved into Angola against the wishes of the USSR and went their own way, except when they could profit from USSR/US tensions. American accusations that the USSR was heavily backing the central American states was proven to be nothing more than conjecture, and the USSR did nothing to prevent the massacres that occured there with US backing.

The fact is the USSR was never strong enough to impose its will outside of its meaningless sphere of influence. It had enough problems dealing with Hungary and Czechoslovakia. When it moved into Afghanistan it got its ass kicked.

Did you miss the meaning of Cold War?

If you believe in that euphemism, by all means, it was a cold war. How many Americans died in Vietnam? 55,000. Korea? 33,000. That sounds pretty hot to me.

Both the US and the USSR chose the third world as the theatre of war for the "cold" war, knowing that attacking the home soil of their enemies would lead to assured mutual destruction. The US and the USSR never officially met in battle (even though Russian pilots were shot down in Korea and Vietnam, and they surely had men on the ground as well), and the US heavily outweighed the USSR when it came to international intervention.

Why?

Because the US could and the USSR couldn't.

The USSR was never really defeated, it just imploded, buried under its own economic and political hubris.

Marco