Un-American Uncivil Protests

This was just a dog and pony show. Obnama just wanted all Americans to believe he actually cared about what we thought and wanted to hear complaints and praises. It was all just for show, he didn't care at all.

tidwe

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Norris:
This summer's town hall meetings were described as un-American and uncivil. Citizens raised their voices.

Protesters smash windows and vandalize cars at the G20 meetings, the Olympics, and -- again today -- on college campuses. Will anyone on the left denounce these protesters?

No, because the talking heads are biased liberals and it doesn't serve their 'purpose'.

32% rate hike is not something not to protest!

Most of the "carnage" re: G20 was not in the US save in Seattle and the people were anarchists, not "leftists" at all, the same in Vancouver at the Olympics. Those were international protests, not those held against and during meetings held by politicians duly elected by the US and in no way the same animal, "Chuck."

How is your new job as spokesman of the Texas Republic going?

quote:

Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
32% rate hike is not something not to protest!

Most of the "carnage" re: G20 was not in the US save in Seattle and the people were anarchists, not "leftists" at all, the same in Vancouver at the Olympics. Those were international protests, not those held against and during meetings held by politicians duly elected by the US and in no way the same animal, "Chuck."

How is your new job as spokesman of the Texas Republic going?

He's talking about what happened yesterday and the way it's being reported...and NOT being reported.

Like them or not...the Tea Partys are potrayed by many in the media/politics as "dangerous" etc.

What happened yesterday, decribed as "rowdy", "raucous"...you know...just kids being kids...

When they had that tea party/9/12 rally in Washington a few months ago estimated crowds over 100K...there was exactly ZERO arrests.

Yesterday:

*****
"Students carried out raucous rallies on college campuses nationwide Thursday in protests against deep education cuts that turned violent as demonstrators threw punches and ice chunks in Wisconsin and blocked university gates and smashed car windows in California.

At least 15 protesters were detained by University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee police after as many as 150 students gathered at the student union then moved to an administrative building to deliver petitions to the school chancellor...

In Northern California, rowdy protesters blocked major gates at two universities and smashed the windows of a car.

Protesters at the University of California, Santa Cruz surrounded the car while its uninjured driver was inside. Earlier, demonstrators blocked campus gates.

University provost David Kliger said there were reports of protesters carrying clubs and knives..."
*****

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201...ersity_cuts_protests

Were there neither water cannons nor Molotov ****tails, there is little more than spirited civil disobedience in my good eye's view. How can one equate college students' righteous anger with anarchists' fire bombs and destruction? Is holding up traffic to make a point the same as busting out the windows of McDonald's or firebombing international brands? I think not, but that is through "normal" lenses and not those of the elect, the holy, the pure, the WND readers and soi-disant "patriots." Far be it for such a lowly entity as myself with less advanced parsing skills than an anti-government activist to contend otherwise! Therefore I bow to the mighty memes demanded by the loud talking point masters on K Street and wherever Murdoch might be and call the students' riot what it was: an outrage! It was the same as Kristallnacht and burning the Reichtag in its lowness! It is up there with Judas' kiss of betrayal! The sarcasm is still intended, by the way.

quote:

Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
Were there neither water cannons nor Molotov ****tails, there is little more than spirited civil disobedience in my good eye's view. How can one equate college students' righteous anger with anarchists' fire bombs and destruction? Is holding up traffic to make a point the same as busting out the windows of McDonald's or firebombing international brands? I think not, but that is through "normal" lenses and not those of the elect, the holy, the pure, the WND readers and soi-disant "patriots." Far be it for such a lowly entity as myself with less advanced parsing skills than an anti-government activist to contend otherwise! Therefore I bow to the mighty memes demanded by the loud talking point masters on K Street and wherever Murdoch might be and call the students' riot what it was: an outrage! It was the same as Kristallnacht and burning the Reichtag in its lowness! It is up there with Judas' kiss of betrayal! The sarcasm is still intended, by the way.

You know a lot of words...and can string them into pompous nonsense...but apparently you have trouble with reading comprehension.

The OP was not comparing yesterdays "college students' righteous anger" to the European protestests. He was contrasting yesterdays nonsense along with the G20 stuff TO the Tea Party's/town meetings, and the coverage of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
32% rate hike is not something not to protest!

Most of the "carnage" re: G20 was not in the US save in Seattle and the people were anarchists, not "leftists" at all, the same in Vancouver at the Olympics. Those were international protests, not those held against and during meetings held by politicians duly elected by the US and in no way the same animal, "Chuck."

How is your new job as spokesman of the Texas Republic going?

I'm quite familiar with the "black bloc" anarchists. They, too, are left wingers. They always attack property, whether McDos or banks. They're just more violent versions of their leftie brethren.

quote:

Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
Were there neither water cannons nor Molotov ****tails, there is little more than spirited civil disobedience in my good eye's view. How can one equate college students' righteous anger with anarchists' fire bombs and destruction?

Renegade is right. You missed my point.

Town hall meetings are uncivil and un-American (the major premise of many media types on the left; e.g., Bill Moyers). Breaking things is less civil than shouting. Therefore, leftist protests are uncivil and un-American at best (a logical conclusion the likes of Moyers will never reach).

When I mentioned the G20 riots above, I had in mind Pittsburgh last September. Water cannons? Bricks were thrown at windows and police. How quickly we forget... Could it be that the media doesn't think its a big deal?

http://tinyurl.com/ybjzlvr

If our noble friend did not intend a comparison with G20 and student outrage then why did she raise the issue of G20 in the first place? That is the only outraged behavior of which I am aware of having recently occurred. Teabagging is so passe now that it isn't even much covered by the legitimate news any longer, much like Chuck Norris' ramblings (the secessionist Norris not our recent patriot poster).

Disrupting meetings is uncivil, by the way, by almost anyone's definition, and thus Unamerican in context, as we generally stand for a civil discourse not a loud shrill parroting of pre-planned points.

quote:

Disrupting meetings is uncivil, by the way, by almost anyone's definition, and thus UnBritish in context, as we generally stand for a civil discourse not a loud shrill parroting of pre-planned points.

King George III 1775

The Right Wing went for the guns the minute Obama won the election, they haven't used them yet except against an abortion doctor or bomb a clinic, they too are part of the right, as extreme as they may be and many right wingers can understand their actions, the left has the anachists.

A meeting is a meeting and a number were basically shut down or not a meeting at all.

A demonstration is a different event.

The Corporate Media plays down collage demonstrations I think because it does not want to see the National Guard shoot students any more.

Also get ready for all kinds of cuts and taxs, regardless who's president.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
The Right Wing went for the guns the minute Obama won the election, they haven't used them yet except against an abortion doctor or bomb a clinic, they too are part of the right, as extreme as they may be and many right wingers can understand their actions, the left has the anachists.

A meeting is a meeting and a number were basically shut down or not a meeting at all.

A demonstration is a different event.

The Corporate Media plays down collage demonstrations I think because it does not want to see the National Guard shoot students any more.

Also get ready for all kinds of cuts and taxs, regardless who's president.

The abortion clinic bombing happened well before Obama was elected. Since Obama, a capitalist hating, Marxist espousing leftist dive bombed an IRS office and a 9/11 truther Democrat gunned down Pentagon security guards.

Yes, SEIU shut out those trying to attend townhall meeting, while beating an elderly black man. Glad you mentioned that outrage.

National Guard hasn't been called out on any of the demonstrations. Didn't know Canada had a national guard.

Yes, Right Wing violence has been going on for years. When Obama was elected first thing the Right did was go get their guns and take them to demonstrations and "call" to be ready for action.

The majority of town meetings,in the beginning were disrupted and ended in unruly mob type actions that were planned.

A town meeting is a town meeting not a demo and unruly people should be removed. Suddeny the Righr Wing is concerned about police violence againt an innocent person, Black on top of that. I guess that's what's called "compassionate conservatism."

Meanwhile police brutality continues throughout the country, especially against people of color.

The reason people stocked up on guns and ammunition when Obama was elected was because of his record on gun control. Prices were expected to jump dramatically if he passed anti gun legislation, so people bought while the prices were still low. That doesn't mean people were wanting to go to war, it was out of fear that Obama would over legislate and guns would either be too expensive or too difficult to obtain.

It's interesting, the radical left has never had any problems with vocal, disruptive protests at public meetings. However, when people openly speak out against socialized health care, it's something different.

In other words, the rules only apply when it benefits them.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Yes, Right Wing violence has been going on for years. When Obama was elected first thing the Right did was go get their guns and take them to demonstrations and "call" to be ready for action.

The majority of town meetings,in the beginning were disrupted and ended in unruly mob type actions that were planned.

A town meeting is a town meeting not a demo and unruly people should be removed. Suddeny the Righr Wing is concerned about police violence againt an innocent person, Black on top of that. I guess that's what's called "compassionate conservatism."

Meanwhile police brutality continues throughout the country, especially against people of color.

Calm down Pogo, the right wing did not take guns to meetings and demonstrations. You're reading to much left wing news sites. The majority of town meetings were not disruptive and did not end in unruly mob type actions. The few that did were because of the SEIU involvement. There was some shouting but it was because the Representative refused to listen to the people. If you're stating these things as fact I would like to see proof. If theses are your opinions then you are entitled to your own. Police brutality is a rarity. The reason it is against people of color when it does happen is because people of color disobey laws more than others.

Sure, it was all a big misunderstanding wen the Right Wing went for their guns and carried them around, quoting Psalms about spilling blood etc,

Excerpt from a Long article, too long to post.


The Oath Keepers: The Militant and Armed Side of the Tea Party Movement |

http://www.alternet.org/story/...e_tea_party_movement

The Oath Keepers: The Militant and Armed Side of the Tea Party Movement

Meet the fast-growing "patriot" group that's recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.

March 6, 2010 |


THE .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a serious weapon. The model that Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray is saving up for has a 2,500-yard range and comes with a Mark IV scope and an easy-load magazine. When the 25-year-old drove me to a mall in Watertown, New York, near the Fort Drum Army base, he brought me to see it in its glass case—he visits it periodically, like a kid coveting something at the toy store. It'll take plenty of military paychecks to cover the $5,600 price tag, but he considers the Bushmaster essential in his preparations to take on the US government when it declares martial law.

Consider the source, it's from alternet. Of course they are going to make up negative stories about the Tea Party movement. Check out line tabloids have better credibility than alternet.

Exactly nash. The oath keepers are not the armed side of the TEA party movement.

Care to debate the isssue or do you just hide behind slander casue you know they are accurate? They are a lot more accurate then Fox.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Care to debate the isssue or do you just hide behind slander casue you know they are accurate? They are a lot more accurate then Fox.

I didn't follow your link, mainly because I'm sure it's more political than factual.

The fact is, even if some of the tea partiers were "gun toting", they were NOT breaking any laws. Speaking your opinion at town meetings is NOT breaking the law.

Some of the actions of the protesters last week DID break the law.

quote:

Care to debate the isssue or do you just hide behind slander casue you know they are accurate? They are a lot more accurate then Fox.

They aren't accurate, no where close. They have absolutely no credibility as a reliable source. They are simply a left wing blog, no different than World Net Daily or similar sites.

Find something objective, then we'll discuss it. Crap from alternet isn't worth reading.

A blog is an opinion piece in a site. Articles from these sites and sometimes the blogs site their sources and I have posted them.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Renegade Nation

[quote]

I didn't follow your link, mainly because I'm sure it's more political than factual.

The fact is, even if some of the tea partiers were "gun toting", they were NOT breaking any laws. Speaking your opinion at town meetings is NOT breaking the law.

Some of the actions of the protesters last week DID break the law.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You shouldn't comment on things you haven't read, damages your credibility. The article is long and takes time but is based on reality.

The right wing were talking about getting their guns and taking back the country the minute Obama won. Bitter sore losers as they are. They are egged on by their wacko Right Wing Media.

A mob scene that disrupts a Town Meeting is not "speaking " ones opinion. The purpose was to disrupt the meeting.

The Corporate Media gave more credence to the Tea Party then it did to the tens of millions who continually protested the war and still do.

quote:

A blog is an opinion piece in a site. Articles from these sites and sometimes the blogs site their sources and I have posted them.

Alternet has no credibility. None of their blogs, "articles" or anything they've printed.

Like I said, post something from a credible, respected source and we'll talk then.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Sure, it was all a big misunderstanding wen the Right Wing went for their guns and carried them around, quoting Psalms about spilling blood etc,

Excerpt from a Long article, too long to post.


The Oath Keepers: The Militant and Armed Side of the Tea Party Movement |

http://www.alternet.org/story/...e_tea_party_movement

The Oath Keepers: The Militant and Armed Side of the Tea Party Movement

Meet the fast-growing "patriot" group that's recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.

March 6, 2010 |


THE .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a serious weapon. The model that Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray is saving up for has a 2,500-yard range and comes with a Mark IV scope and an easy-load magazine. When the 25-year-old drove me to a mall in Watertown, New York, near the Fort Drum Army base, he brought me to see it in its glass case—he visits it periodically, like a kid coveting something at the toy store. It'll take plenty of military paychecks to cover the $5,600 price tag, but he considers the Bushmaster essential in his preparations to take on the US government when it declares martial law.

No connection between the tea partiers and oath keepers was shown in the article. Several oath keepers seem to be white supremists, definately not tea party material.

As to the .50 caliber rifle, definitely overkill for the money. He should buy a .458 winchester magnum for about 2,000. It looks like most hunting rifles and doesn't scare the bejesus out of folks. With the right ammo it does most things the .50 can do, including stop a charging elephant.

The connection is Ideology. They are the extreme movement that listened when Bachman and others told them it's time to get their guns for revolution. Their party lost.

You right away tied the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building as a Leftist when he really had no connection tp the left. The Oath Keepers have more of a connection and are the armed wing waiting for the revolution.

I believe a lot of people in the Tea Party are legitimate citizens with no violence but there's more to it then that.

The woman who shot up UAH is a self described liberal. Comments made by people who know her said that she is obsessed with Obama.

Does that mean she represents everyone who has liberal political beliefs? Of course not. She's a nut. If she was a republican, she would still be a nut. Her insanity and her political views are not connected.

However, the article, a term I use loosely, that you posted tries to do exactly that. It's trying to equate someone who may not be completely in check with reality to a huge group of people. It's no different than to say the UAH shooter represents all liberals. Just another example of how alternet isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I've been to several Tea party events and will attend several more this year, hopefully I'll get to go to Washington. I have not seen ANY militant radicals. All I've seen are common everyday citizens like myself. Are there radicals in the tea party? I'm sure there are a few as there will be radicals in all large groups of people. As for the oath keepers I don't know much about them if they do what they say are doing I see no harm in someone making a pledge to uphold the US Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
The connection is Ideology...

Well one could make the case that you share ideology with Mao, Lennin, Stalin, etc. Are we to assume you are for justifying their means to reach the collectivist ends?

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
The connection is Ideology. They are the extreme movement that listened when Bachman and others told them it's time to get their guns for revolution. Their party lost.

You right away tied the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building as a Leftist when he really had no connection tp the left. The Oath Keepers have more of a connection and are the armed wing waiting for the revolution.

I believe a lot of people in the Tea Party are legitimate citizens with no violence but there's more to it then that.

Again, no connection so you're just blowing smoke, again!

As to Joe Stack, the NYT tried to tie him to the tea partiers, in error. Either, you didn't read Stack's online screed or, your bluffing. Stack was anti-capitalist, hated the Catholic Church and espoused Marx. That's not a tea partier! For the full screed see:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html

I understand it's a long article but here are the references to the Tea Party.

Also I did not read Joe Stack's statement but he had no real connection to any leftist group.

PG 3

"I learned that bringing guns to Tea Party protests was a reminder of our constitutional rights, was introduced to the notion that the founding fathers modeled their governing documents on the Bible, and debated whether being Muslim meant an inability to believe in and abide by—and thus be protected by—the Constitution. I was schooled on the treachery of the Federal Reserve and why America needs a gold standard, and at dinner one night, Nighta Davis, national organizer for the National 912 Project [25],"

PG6

:He set up an Oath Keepers blog, asking soldiers and veterans to post testimonials. Word spread. Military officers offered assistance. A Marine Corps veteran invited Rhodes to speak at a local Tea Party event. Paul campaigners provided strategic advice. And by the time Rhodes arrived in Lexington to speak at a rally staged by a pro-militia group, a movement was afoot."

PG7

"The December gathering was merely a windup. In mid-April, another summit is planned to coincide with a huge gun-rights march and a Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington organized by Dick Armey's FreedomWorks [37] PAC and the American Liberty Alliance [38]—whose home page touts Oath Keepers as a key part of "the Movement."

"Dyer, who with Rhodes' blessing represented Oath Keepers at an Oklahoma Tea Party [40] rally on July 4, was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with uttering "disloyal" statements. He ultimately beat the charge, left the Marines, and reappeared unmasked on YouTube encouraging viewers to join him at his makeshift training area in Duncan, Oklahoma—"I'm sure the DHS will call it a terrorist training camp."

The Oath Keepers: The Militant and Armed Side of the Tea Party Movement | | AlterNet

Pogo, I'm not sure what your problem is with The Oath Keepers. Sure you may disagree with their philosophy, but are they doing or representing anything illegal? I don't know much about them, but the answer so far seems to be: no.

Being an armed American is NOT illegal. Encouraging others to arm themselves in NOT illegal. Expressing opinions is NOT illegal.

For all the claims of right wing fear mongering...you seem to be engaging in left wing fear mongering.

From the Oath Keepers website:

*****
"About OathKeepers

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial."

What We Are Not

We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution defined and instituted.

We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition."
*****

You may or may not agree with that, but until they start advocting violence as THESE GUYS did...You and the article seem to be blowing all this out of proportion for the purposes of fear mongering.

"Also I did not read Joe Stack's statement but he had no real connection to any leftist group."

He espoused numerous left wing views. That is in opposition to your view he was a tea partier, old varmint.

If you read the article you will find out "what my problem is" with Oath Keepers.

I never said Stack had anything to do with the Tea Party. I had read that his note was a mixture of right and left ranting and frustration.

quote:

Oath Keepers [1], one of the fastest-growing "patriot" organizations on the right. Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers.

Where do you find that the oat Keepers are anti-Obama? Where do you find that tea partiers are anti-Obama?

quote:

At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey "unconstitutional" orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.

What is the problem with this? The question would be what is more important, the government or the Constitution?

quote:

Now Pray is both a Birther and a Truther. He believes he is following an illegitimate, foreign-born president in a war on terror launched by a government plot—9/11

The author found one fringe member and decided to use him to streotype the whole organization. Aren't most liberals truthers as well?

quote:

In September, he was demoted from specialist to private first class—he'd been written up for bullcrap infractions, he claims, after seeking help for a drinking problem.

Looks like the author picked a real winner, if he is even real.

Maybe next time he will do an article on SEIU or Loius Farakhanns group.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
If you read the article you will find out "what my problem is" with Oath Keepers.

That they are a group of people expressing their opinion...that you don't agree with?

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
If you read the article you will find out "what my problem is" with Oath Keepers.

I never said Stack had anything to do with the Tea Party. I had read that his note was a mixture of right and left ranting and frustration.

So, you have no problems with detention camps for US citizens!

The author focused on one or two people but did attend a number of meetings and spoke to numerous members.

When I read them say they would oppose detention camps I wondered what their reaction would be if there was another major terrorist attack, say on a nuclear power plant, and the governmemnt rounded up all Muslims Americans and and protestors to these camps would the Oath Keepers really be ready to fight?

Armed Militia's defending rights of Liberals and Muslim Americans? I really have to question this one.

It's still amazing to me that there are so many taxpayers who HATE people who are against over-taxation. Makes no sense whatsoever.