|
Post by featphoto on Dec 1, 2005 15:24:58 GMT -5
Hank says: but just wearing a shirt or carrying a sign isn't disruptive, and surely the opposing view has a right to be seen (if not heard) Agreed. I just don't see why you would do it unless you were trying to be disruptive by antagonizing people that obviously don't agree with you. for the same reason that people take the time to disagree with each other in this forum ... you take the disagreement directly to the person (or persons) you disagree with. I think it's perfectly reasonable to stand up and disagree directly with your opponent ... in fact, it's the most honorable method. it's much easier (and safer) to get a quote in a newspaper or a 15 second byte on the news ... I think it takes far more guts and stronger convictions to put yer ass where your opinions are. oh please don't ... we've got enough attention whores at Feat shows as it is ... actually, it's become a standard tactic lately ... I hate to say it, but one used far more by those of a more right wing, republican nature: arrest 'em on a charge that you know won't stick, hustle them out of the hall and out of sight, case gets thrown out of court 3 days later ... the arrest isn't done with any illusions what-so-ever that the charge is legit, but simply as a quasi-legal device to shut up the protesters long enough to make them old news.
|
|
|
Post by featphoto on Dec 1, 2005 23:02:56 GMT -5
Ah Bill...keepin it reel! Since when do we get the privilege of a Constitutional Challenge with this administration? I'm not searching for horror stories (other than the couple from Corpus Christie that got arrested for wearing anti Bush T-shirts to a Bush rally in DC) but, some "cracks" that come to mind are: 1) Warrantless searches. 2) "Enhanced" surveillance powers. 3) Sneak and Peak searches (covert searches of a persons home or office that are conducted without notifying the person until after the search has been completed. *Watergate would have been legal!!! ;D) 4) Tracking Internet usage. Uh oh...that's all I'm sayin bout that for now. Of course these things have always gone on, just like corruption, but these guys have made it legal. Just like they have corruption. ... and, just to add a little more of a left twist to it all, try this link (be sure to have the sound turned on: www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927could it turn out this bad? who knows ...
|
|
|
Post by Rollin' Mark on Dec 2, 2005 7:03:16 GMT -5
actually, it's become a standard tactic lately ... I hate to say it, but one used far more by those of a more right wing, republican nature: arrest 'em on a charge that you know won't stick, hustle them out of the hall and out of sight, case gets thrown out of court 3 days later ... the arrest isn't done with any illusions what-so-ever that the charge is legit, but simply as a quasi-legal device to shut up the protesters long enough to make them old news. Sounds like the '68 Democrat National Convention ;D en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention
|
|
|
Post by featphoto on Dec 2, 2005 8:28:26 GMT -5
well, not really ... that was a pro/anti war thing among democrats, not anti Humphrey or McCarthy republican protesters being chucked out of the convention by democrats... and the charges that stemmed from that mess went to court (remember Hoffman vs Hoffman? ... "though your brother's bound and gagged and they've tied him to a chair, won't you please come to Chicago just to sing?"). dunno if that was a good or a bad thing, but it sure meant that the powers that be intended to pursue it.
|
|
|
Post by Rollin' Mark on Dec 2, 2005 8:58:24 GMT -5
well, not really ... that was a pro/anti war thing among democrats, not anti Humphrey or McCarthy republican protesters being chucked out of the convention by democrats... and the charges that stemmed from that mess went to court (remember Hoffman vs Hoffman? ... "though your brother's bound and gagged and they've tied him to a chair, won't you please come to Chicago just to sing?"). dunno if that was a good or a bad thing, but it sure meant that the powers that be intended to pursue it. My point was that Democrats as well as Republicans are capable of using undue or excessive force no matter who the protesters.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 2, 2005 11:56:44 GMT -5
Hey look...infighting amongest a faction of the Lobstah Mafia. I wonder who will win out and become the "Don"?
Bill L Underling
|
|
|
Post by Rollin' Mark on Dec 2, 2005 12:56:06 GMT -5
Hey look...infighting amongest a faction of the Lobstah Mafia. I wonder who will win out and become the "Don"? Bill L Underling Infight this, you ass clown! Or is it attention whore? Rollin' Mark Lobstah Mafia Dictator for life.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 3, 2005 0:07:47 GMT -5
For the record, I think it's absurd that they were arrested (or even asked to leave) but it's neither my responsibility to protect the life of a President nor the one that has to live with this decision either way. The Secret Service guy had to make a quick decision and he did. It was a wrong decision, the case should be thrown out, he should be reprimanded and this should go away. Of course, it won't. Bill L Man, y'all been busy! Actually, the case has been dismissed and it has gone away. Not a story Dubya the Emperor needs floating around. But as a consolation, she was fired from her job at FEMA. "Brownie" made another brilliant decision! ;D As far as changing the laws in McClennan County (birthplace of Bill Payne BTW. Moody is just a few miles from Crawford)...when a small county in Texas is issued orders by Karl Rove... Besides that we don't want to piss off the "dove hunter" again. ;D Maybe they should name it "The Bitch in the Ditch Law".
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 3, 2005 0:21:29 GMT -5
... and the charges that stemmed from that mess went to court (remember Hoffman vs Hoffman? ... "though your brother's bound and gagged and they've tied him to a chair, won't you please come to Chicago just to sing?"). dunno if that was a good or a bad thing, but it sure meant that the powers that be intended to pursue it. ;D We suspect that Kinky Friedman is actually Abbie Hoffman in disguise. I read on HHD that John Hall is running for congress in New York. Kool! Now all we need is Henley as a congressman from Texas. Then Joe Walsh..."a vote for me, is a vote for me.."
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 3, 2005 10:38:27 GMT -5
Been gone a while, and the thread has taken on a life of it's own. Welcome back jashley ... and it's good to see bill, mark and hank contributing to this gumbo again, as well!
I think
Anyway ... let's get a couple of historical things straight before going any further. The fracas at the '68 convention was sort of democrats against democrats. Most of the kids and adults in the streets were McCarthy supporters come to see that democracy would survive the backroom politics of the party apparatus. The majority actually believed that their participation would effect the outcome of the Convention. They believed that their presence would (1) clearly demonstrate that Eugene McCarthy deserved the nomination, evn if the electoral/delegate-selection process had been cooked to favor Humphrey and/or (2) make a clear statement about the War in hopes the Party would adopt platform statements opposed to its continuation. These people received the rudest of awakenings when the Daly forces decided that no dissent was going to be tolerated.
There were large numbers of realists, however ... people believing in the democratic process but knowing that realpolitik was the preferred operational method of the ruling class. Their intentions were a little murkier, and they were in equal numbers to the majority of protesters in terms of their reasons for being there (McCarthy vs. anti-war). They desired, I think, to draw attention to dishonesty, hypocrisy, and any other form of bad governance.
Clearly in the minority were the (still large) numbers of realists and political activitists who were protesting (rebelling) against the power structure itself, of which the Democratic Party was but one part. The power structure did a pretty good job of arbitrarily (some say randomly) identifying the various components of this latter group and putting them in the spotlight in a highly public, largely symbolic, trial. Each member of the Chicago Seven represented at least one disparate element of the protest movement, and those targeted for identification were clearly aware that they were now under the microscope. J. Edgar Hoover's microscope was pretty fine ... it's pretty scary to think what he could have done if he had had the tools that are now currently available.
Wearing a T-shirt at a George W. Bush rally to protest anything that he has done falls quite a bit short of any of the reasons and/or methods of protest used or arising from the 1968 Democratic National Convention. But it does say worlds about lots of stuff ...
Please note that this President insulates himself from the American public. He does not address Americans, but only speaks in carefully selected and guarded venues to "crowds" that are largely (if not totally) supportive. When he wants to make a major policy statement about staying the course, he does it in front of a bunch of wildly cheering college boys and girls at the Naval Academy. He surrounds himself with weasels; people tell him what he wants to hear (or what they want him to hear?). While many Presidents have operated this way, most have been intelligent enough themselves to do even basic research in order to get a sense of the opposing points of view. This President not only is flat out stupid (though he is most assuredly shrewd, which might count for a scrap of intelligence), he is an alcoholic and assuredly paranoid to boot. He takes pride in his lack of academic achievement (though insists that his punitive educational policies will leave no children "behind", because they will all just drop out), and can no more fathom the needs of a working class mom or dad than he can read the mind of Jessica Simpson (and would probably think it a great accomplishment if he could).
I'll end with two things: (1) A panel of Justice Department lawyers rejected the Georgia legislative attempt to require all voters to present a photo-id at the polling booth ... in case you don't follow these things, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires the Justice Department to review and authorize any changes to voting laws in several locations around the country with notorious records in regards to voting rights. These locations include most of the southern states, parts of New York and California, and huge swaths of Chicago (just so no one can say I pick on the South). Recommendations of this panel have been followed by the Justice Department in all cases since the Voting Rights Act was passed. Until now. Political appointees in the Justice Department ignored the conclusions of its own panel of attorneys and gave permission for Georgia to implement its photo-id law. Looking for patterns? You may recall the contentious efforts of Tom DeLay to redistrict Texas to guarantee a "Republican Majority" (forever) ... the one that kept dragging out because all Democratic legislators would suddenly "disappear" when it came time to vote. DeLay has been publicly censored in the House, by the way, for using the FAA to track them down (hiding in a motel across the Oklahoma border). Anyway, he finally got the redistricting plan adopted, five new Republicans were elected to the House from Texas, and the Republican Majority was preserved (thank Hermes). Unfortunately for Mr. DeLay (and ultimately this administration) ... it now turns out that a different panel of Justice Department lawyers also recommended, unanimously .... 8-0 .... that the Justice Department not approve this plan because it clearly served to split largely minority communities and prevent them from proportional representation. Once again, the appointed political operatives at Justice overruled the recommendations of the Voting Rights panel, and Texas was allowed to not serve its minority population.
Dare I once again bring up all the instances where this government has ignored the advice, recommendations and/or findings of its own expert panels in order to preserve policies that benefit small segments of the population (usually powerful donors and supporters) ... or chosen to interpret parts of the data and/or information that are supportive of its positions?
(2) Speaking of Mr. DeLay ... I see that Jack Scanlon's plea copping has not been mentioned on this thread. Interesting how it has sort of disappeared from the radar (at least for now). Besides Robert Ney (R-Ohio), who has actually been identified as recipient of large sums of gifts and favors and campaign contributions in exchange for letters, introductions, and legislative actions ... don't you think Mr. DeLay is quaking just a little in his boots as the solid wall of denial begins to crumble around him? Golfing trips to Scotland, gratuitous use of Jack Abramoff's restaurant, and trips to the Marianna Islands ... though all offered to "Congressman A" (Ney) ... were all benies that were offered up to DeLay, as well. Hmmm ... and all of this fine web of channeled money, power and influence ... which is going to rock the Christian Coalition and the Tax Rights groups as well as several key Congressmen (including Democrats, by the way) ... does not even seem to include good old "Duke" Cunningham and his cozy connections to the Defense Department.
Remember a little while back I predicted the bubble would burst when some smaller fish spilled his guts. Keep your eyes on the road that's ahead of you ...
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 3, 2005 10:59:56 GMT -5
In response to Bill L, who wanted some concrete evidence that the Patriot Act was being used to limit anyone's activities and/or threaten their liberty, here's a small bit:
A small unit within the California National Guard ... officially called the Information Synchronization, Knowledge Management and Intelligence Fusion Program ... has been disbanded and the commander who created it forced to retire. The military is not allowed to collect information or monitor the activities of U.S. citizens, but this intelligence gathering unit was doing just that in support of its interpretation of the Patriot Act. The target ... people who participated in an anti-war Mother's Day Parade in Oakland, CA under the Gold Star Mother's leadership.
Okay ... so the players are small. Clearly, they abused powers granted by the Patriot Act, and were acting outside of its actual parameters. And they got caught. All of this is somewhat reassuring. But how do we know this is the only group that has thusly interpretted the PA? Or that other groups have not done more? Or that larger fish aren't being fried, even as we speak?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 3, 2005 11:21:14 GMT -5
I said the guy's name was Jack Scanlon ... but it is Michael Scanlon (a former Congressional aide for Tom Delay who now is a multimillionaire because of choice "investments" he made in conjunction with Jack Abramoff, about whom we could write a BOOK length article describing his activities ... what I just learned is that he began his lobbying career representing the Contras!)
But here's some new dirt ... while on the subject ... and stuff I have yet to see in the mainstream press or media in any one place.
As many as 60 Congressmen are being investigated because of their financial connections to the Abramoff machine.
The following four have been named: Robert Ney (R-Ohio), DeLay (R-Texas), John Doolittle (R-California) and Senator Conrad Burns (R-Montana). Additionally, both Ney and DeLay's wives are under investigation (they were hired by Abramoff to do research).
The Associated Press has additionally identified the following 8 suspicious characters: Charles Taylor (R-North Carolina) J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona) Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas) Dave Camp (R-Michigan) Dale Kildee (D-Michigan) Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) Sen. Byron Durgan (D-North Dakota)
Additionally, all members of the Committees for Indian Affairs are being investigated (a whole lot of the tip of this iceberg stems from casinos and Indian gaming).
It is also public record that the largest beneficiaries of Abramoff's largesse (besides DeLay) are Dennis Hastert (R-Michigan and Speaker of the House) and Senator Harry Reid (D-Michigan and Senate Minority Leader)
Hmmm
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 3, 2005 11:43:33 GMT -5
... the one that kept dragging out because all Democratic legislators would suddenly "disappear" when it came time to vote. DeLay has been publicly censored in the House, by the way, for using the FAA to track them down (hiding in a motel across the Oklahoma border). He was able to "con" the FAA into this BTW by citing...The Patriot Act. He also had an APB out on each Dem Legislator with the Dept of Public Safety (Troopers) and wanted them ARRESTED and returned to Austin. ;D Somebody finally told the little emp that "you can't arrest them, they haven't broken any laws". IMO..they were doing what I pay them to do!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 3, 2005 11:54:15 GMT -5
As many as 60 Congressmen are being investigated because of their financial connections to the Abramoff machine. Additionally, all members of the Committees for Indian Affairs are being investigated (a whole lot of the tip of this iceberg stems from casinos and Indian gaming). Hmmm Kind of like waiting for a good movie to come out...we haven't even gotten to the MURDER TRAIL of the "Abramoff Gang" in Florida over the gambling boat thing yet. And this is a whole separate deal from the Indian Affairs thing. Abramoff, Scanlon, and etal haven't been indicted for murder...yet, but three men that did the killing have been arrested and are saying..... This is like going back to politics in the '60s. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101108.htmlAnd since then: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092700980.htmlWhat a sleazy bunch of pendejo's!!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 3, 2005 12:57:44 GMT -5
Wow! These are not my words and I can't even remember where I got em but...this is the deal. It used to be said that the moral arc of a Washington career could be divided into four parts: idealism, pragmatism, ambition, and corruption. You arrive with a passion for a cause, determined to challenge the system. Then you learn to work for your cause within the system. Then rising in the system becomes your cause. Then finally you exploit the system—your connections in it, and your understanding of it—for personal profit. And it remains true, sort of, but faster. Even the appalling Jack Abramoff had ideals at one point. But he took a shortcut straight to corruption. On the other hand, you can now trace the traditional moral arc in the life of conservative-dominated Washington itself, which began with Ronald Reagan's inauguration and marks its 25th anniversary in January. Reagan and company arrived to tear down the government and make Washington irrelevant. Now the airport and a giant warehouse of bureaucrats are named after him.
|
|