looking for Anti-Bush Demonstration tomorrow
Jim,
protesters?
Jim,
> I want to join in -- can anyone put me in contact with any sort of
> protesters?
planned for the school -- per the DNC office in Rochester; protesters
must stay MILES away.
John Passaniti
> I'll answer my own question -- 12:30 at the liberty pole -- NOTHING
> planned for the school -- per the DNC office in Rochester; protesters
> must stay MILES away.
As with *all* things related to the Bush administration, the one
question that left needs to ask (and that the right needs to answer) is
this: If the Clinton administration did the same things, can you
imagine the uproar?
In this specific case, can you imagine the uproar from the right if the
Clinton administration had "public" meetings to discuss national policy
in which only Democrats and those demographically determined to be
sympathetic could attend? Can you imagine what the right would say if
they weren't even allowed to quietly and peaceably protest across the
street against policy they didn't agree with? Can you imagine how the
right would be apoplectic over a President who apparently can't respond
intelligently to opposing views and has to vet and groom his audiences
to eliminate dissent?
The standard response to this that I hear from those on the right is
"well, if the left was in power, they would be doing the same thing."
Which is actually pretty funny-- such responses are a tacit admission
that what the right is doing is wrong, but gosh, everyone does it so
it's okay. So much for the right's claims of moral superiority and
reliance on absolute standards of right and wrong instead of relativism.
Those on the right are awfully silent about their leaders' abuses of
power, Orwellian twists on language, and behavior that would make the
Founding Fathers spin in their graves. But let's not forget the left's
role in all this, which has basically been to be a bunch of fuck-ups.
Case in point, Bush's carefully-controlled audience at the school is
likely going to be met with yet another typically ineffective protest
action on the left. Instead of signs with clever puns and catchy
shouted slogans that fade from memory moments after everyone packs up
and goes home, they should do something effective and meaningful. The
left should be countering Bush's appearance with a *true* open "town
hall" style discussion where the general public is invited to attend.
They could then present the opposing view and openly invite commentary
from the audience. And do this not just in Rochester, but in every city
where Bush visits.
Jim,
people holding signs, and banners on the overpasses. Come ON people --
speak your mind! either pro or con -- as Americans we have the right --
even duty to express our opinions!
David Lentz
"Jim," <Jimd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lPoke.11299$zd5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I would like to see 390 (I assume that will be his route) lined with
> people holding signs, and banners on the overpasses. Come ON people --
> speak your mind! either pro or con -- as Americans we have the right --
> even duty to express our opinions!
I read a bumper sticker in Fairport last week which read, that "If you can
read this, you are smarter than Bush." If the bumper sticker were right,
the signs would be pointless.
David
-bithead-
<nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote:
>Jim, wrote:
>> I'll answer my own question -- 12:30 at the liberty pole -- NOTHING
>> planned for the school -- per the DNC office in Rochester; protesters
>> must stay MILES away.
>
>As with *all* things related to the Bush administration, the one
>question that left needs to ask (and that the right needs to answer) is
>this: If the Clinton administration did the same things, can you
>imagine the uproar?
Apparently, among your other problems, is one involving a lack of
reading ability. Read the above again, and note it's the DNC saying
this.
---*
BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads
Before you preach tolerance, THINK
Those who tolerate *everything*, stand for *nothing*
What do YOU stand for?
Jim,
The DNC is repeating the orders of the secret service. and correction
-- per the 5:00 news it's 1 mile -- Bush can't bear to see anyone who
doesn't love him -- sorta like "the emperor has no clothes"
John Passaniti
>> As with *all* things related to the Bush administration, the one
>> question that left needs to ask (and that the right needs to
>> answer) is this: If the Clinton administration did the same
>> things, can you imagine the uproar?
>
> Apparently, among your other problems, is one involving a lack of
> reading ability. Read the above again, and note it's the DNC saying
> this.
And who told the DNC? Please answer the question both fully and honestly.
But you missed the larger context of my statement. This isn't just
about Bush coming to Rochester for a farce of a "open town hall" meeting
where "open" is anything but. Even before Bush Jr. was inducted into
office by activist judges-- and certainly in the days since-- there are
endless examples of outrageous behavior and policy. Had it been a
Democratic president in charge, the Republicans would have been kicking
and screaming. But because they effectively control all three branches
of government, they are strangely silent.
-bithead-
>
>The DNC is repeating the orders of the secret service. and correction
>-- per the 5:00 news it's 1 mile -- Bush can't bear to see anyone who
>doesn't love him -- sorta like "the emperor has no clothes"
So the idea that security is an issue, doesn't bother you?
-bithead-
<nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote:
>-bithead- wrote:
>>> As with *all* things related to the Bush administration, the one
>>> question that left needs to ask (and that the right needs to
>>> answer) is this: If the Clinton administration did the same
>>> things, can you imagine the uproar?
>>
>> Apparently, among your other problems, is one involving a lack of
>> reading ability. Read the above again, and note it's the DNC saying
>> this.
>
>And who told the DNC? Please answer the question both fully and honestly.
Since when would they parrot the Secret service without raising hell
about it, unless they knew there was a serious security issue?
And yes, this isn't just an open town hall; they're prefer people are
A; Don't want to kill him
b: who have an IQ
Dick Margulis
-bithead- wrote:
> And yes, this isn't just an open town hall; they're prefer people are
> A; Don't want to kill him
> b: who have an IQ
>
Oh, so now anyone who opposes his policy ipso facto is stupid AND a
psychopath bent on assassination? Try again.
Jim,
Tell me Eric -- do you ever READ your tagline?
John Passaniti
> Since when would they parrot the Secret service without raising hell
> about it, unless they knew there was a serious security issue?
So what you are saying is that the local DNC was given and has evaluated
proprietary information the Secret Service has regarding a "serious"
threat to the President. This information-- which is not given to the
general public for obvious reasons-- is for some reason given freely to
the local opposition party. And because the local DNC loves President
Bush so much, they chose not to leak out any of that information.
I'm fascinated by this Eric, and look forward to you giving a source for
your claim. All this time, I thought that the Secret Service would
limit dissemination of proprietary security information regarding the
President to (at most) law enforcement. Now, thanks to you, I learn
that apparently the Secret Service is much more free with their
information, giving it away to whatever random Joe happens to run the
local opposition party at the time! Amazing!
> And yes, this isn't just an open town hall; they're prefer people are
> A; Don't want to kill him b: who have an IQ
In other words, you admit it isn't an open town hall meeting.
As always, my question is can you imagine how the right would react to
the same thing if the President was a Democrat? You would be screaming
up and down about how the President was speaking to a vetted and groomed
audience of sympathetic supporters. Tell me Eric, are you enjoying your
taste of relativism? I didn't think a guy like you would embrace it so
openly, but I guess the ends justify the means, huh?
eflo...@rochester.rr.com
National security people put forward?
Tell me John, are you enjoying your minority status? Get used to it.
And please spare us the cries of 'moral relativity'. You ahven't got a
leg to stand on with that one, and we both know it.
eflo...@rochester.rr.com
That was an OR, Dick.
Dick Margulis
eflo...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> No.
> That was an OR, Dick.
>
Can't really tell from Bithead's elliptical construction; I interpreted
his intent as wanting both conditions true, not either.
John Passaniti
> ook, when has the DNC *NOT* argued against anything the WhiteHouse or
> National security people put forward?
That's easy: when they don't have a choice. The local DNC doesn't have
the ability to override the Secret Service. The Secret Service are
presumably reasonably bright and can figure that Democrats might want to
protest the President. So using the Bush administration's typically
Orwellian take on language, they told the local DNC that the supposedly
open town hall meeting would be closed, and they told the local DNC that
protesters couldn't get within a certain radius. The local DNC had two
options-- they could complain and argue all they wanted and ultimately
get nowhere (the Secret Service isn't going to budge), or they could
instead focus on telling people who wanted to protest what they were
told and instead focus the protesters into taking other action.
So your "proof" that the local DNC agreed with there was some "serious"
security issue (over and above the normal security issues that any
President going to any city would have) is that the local DNC didn't
spend their time protesting the Secret Service, even though they knew
that would be useless? I guess you're into meaningless symbolic
efforts, but others might want to spend their time more effectively.
> Tell me John, are you enjoying your minority status? Get used to it.
> And please spare us the cries of 'moral relativity'. You ahven't got
> a leg to stand on with that one, and we both know it.
I've held a minority status for years and don't have a problem with it.
I'm not registered in a political party, an atheist, I'm gay, I'm
anti-abortion, I don't drink alcohol, I like experimental electronic
music, and I love Nuoc Cham sauce. These and other things give me a
minority status. For me, personal integrity and acting consistent with
my heart and mind is more important to me than if I'm following the rest
of the herd.
So I'm not bothered being in the minority. I would rather be right and
in the minority than wrong and in the majority.
Politically, I'm certainly disappointed the Democrats aren't in power
because I'm (usually) more sympathetic with them than the current crop
of Republicans who have become largely infected by the Rapture Right.
But ultimately, I don't have a problem with it, because in the 23 years
that I've been old enough to vote, I've seen the balance of power shift
back and forth. So while I think the current crop of Republicans (and
indeed some Democrats) are insanely bad for this country, I prefer to
take the long term view that the oscillations between left and right
usually average out to somewhere in the middle.
As for my claim that many Republicans appear to be embracing the moral
relativism of ends-justify-the-means, I think that's largely self
evident, but would be happy to detail if necessary. It's best
illustrated by the issues that Republicans are strangely silent on. But
I know you don't want to talk about your fellow Republicans who are
freely ignoring standards of right and wrong, and want desperately to
deflect the discussion to me. Misdirection is one of your most common
tricks when a subject that hits a little to close to home comes up.
If you would like to discuss the issues raised, let me know.
Gordon Gekko
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
news:J_nke.896$l%.395@news02.roc.ny...
> Jim, wrote:
>> I'll answer my own question -- 12:30 at the liberty pole -- NOTHING
>> planned for the school -- per the DNC office in Rochester; protesters
>> must stay MILES away.
>
> As with *all* things related to the Bush administration, the one question
> that left needs to ask (and that the right needs to answer) is this: If
> the Clinton administration did the same things, can you imagine the
> uproar?
>
> In this specific case, can you imagine the uproar from the right if the
> Clinton administration had "public" meetings to discuss national policy in
> which only Democrats and those demographically determined to be
> sympathetic could attend? Can you imagine what the right would say if
> they weren't even allowed to quietly and peaceably protest across the
> street against policy they didn't agree with? Can you imagine how the
> right would be apoplectic over a President who apparently can't respond
> intelligently to opposing views and has to vet and groom his audiences to
> eliminate dissent?
People on the right don't spend their days "protesting." We usally spend
our days at some sort of job. Evenings we better ways to make ourselves
heard that looking like jerks carrying signs and shouting 40 year old
slogans.
GO BUSH!!!!
Gordon Gekko
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
You guys on the left need to let go of that nonsense of the Supremes
electing Bush. It is nonsense. You need to moveon.org for crying out loud!
John Passaniti
> People on the right don't spend their days "protesting." We usally
> spend our days at some sort of job. Evenings we better ways to make
> ourselves heard that looking like jerks carrying signs and shouting
> 40 year old slogans.
Really? So it is the left that is protesting in front of Planned
Parenthood, the left that assembled downtown after Lonsberry was fired,
the left that attends the local gay pride festivities with signs citing
Leviticus, the left that shows up to protest whenever Slaughter,
Schumer, Clinton, or other prominent are in town, the left that caused
me no end of amusement in their attempts to protest the showing of "The
Last Temptation of Christ," "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Kinsey," and others.
Yeah, you're absolutely correct. Those on the right *never* spend their
days protesting with signs and shouting slogans.
> GO BUSH!!!!
Don't worry. He'll be gone in only 2.6 more years.
Gordon Gekko
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
>> GO BUSH!!!!
>
> Don't worry. He'll be gone in only 2.6 more years.
Unless we are, hopefully, able to change the Constitution so we can keep him
around longer. He is America's best hope for the future right now!
Jim,
John Passaniti
>>> GO BUSH!!!!
>>
>> Don't worry. He'll be gone in only 2.6 more years.
>
> Unless we are, hopefully, able to change the Constitution so we can
> keep him around longer. He is America's best hope for the future
> right now!
Typical short-sighted Republican thinking. Gosh, you finally get a
government where checks and balances no longer need apply, and suddenly
you want to change the rules to suit you. I guess you forgot that
political power in Washington cycles over time. So what would happen if
you were somehow able to scrape together enough votes to remove term
limits for the President? That's right-- you're eventually looking at a
Democratic president for more than two terms.
It's ironic in a way that Conservatives-- supposedly the ones who want
to preserve the Constitution-- are the ones who are dancing as fast as
they can to rewrite it.
Gordon Gekko
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
> It's ironic in a way that Conservatives-- supposedly the ones who want to
> preserve the Constitution-- are the ones who are dancing as fast as they
> can to rewrite it.
You seem to have things mixed up. It is the Dems who ignore the
Constitution to suit their needs when they cannot get a majortiy. Either
for Senate judicial nominations or the 2000 Electoral College.
GO BUSH!
Scaly Lizard
More irony: the way that Liberals -- supposedly the party
of individual freedom -- are the ones who want to tell
other people what to do. Can i ride a snowmobile in
land my taxes keep wild? Liberals say no. Can i have
a cigarette in a bar where 98% of the patrons are smokers?
Liberals say no. Can i play gangsta rap on a bus? Although
a majority of passengers would groove on it, the Liberals
say no... because of the "possibility" that someone might
be "offended". There are many more examples.
Typical short-sighted Democrat thinking. Instead of presenting
a calm face of statesman-like opposition backed by reasonable
ideas, the dems are getting sorry and snippy and miserable.
I'm starting to realize the full extent of the impact on the
Democrats from losing Moynihan and having him replaced
with Yoko.
Instead of sitting back looking dignified and letting the
republicans hang themselves as their ideas get more
extreme by the hour, the dems are pouting and petty
and crying that everything that happens is "no fair".
That kind of attitude will lose them more seats in Congress
in '06. As a minority party, all they have to do is act
dignified and reasonable to reverse their recent losses.
As you say, power "cycles over time". Tragic for the
dems, that they are trying to win small victories now at
the cost of retaking the Center later.
SL
John Passaniti
> More irony: the way that Liberals -- supposedly the party of
> individual freedom -- are the ones who want to tell other people what
> to do. Can i ride a snowmobile in land my taxes keep wild? Liberals
> say no. Can i have a cigarette in a bar where 98% of the patrons are
> smokers? Liberals say no. Can i play gangsta rap on a bus? Although
> a majority of passengers would groove on it, the Liberals say no...
> because of the "possibility" that someone might be "offended". There
> are many more examples.
You can't play gangsta rap on a bus because you can't play *anything* on
a bus. As someone who both rode the bus for years and who would often
bring my ghetto-blaster on the bus with me, I was told (by a driver)
that the reason I had to go to headphones didn't have anything to do
with others being "offended" by my choice in industrial and goth music,
but had everything to do with being a distraction to the driver. And
frankly, although I think everyone needs a good dose of Einsturzende
Neubauten at full volume every now and then, I'd much rather have the
bus driver focus on the road than work on translating the German lyrics
in his head. I'd much rather let the old lady who can't speak above a
whisper be able to tell the driver what stop she wants, not scream over
the pounding beats of the early cut-up experiments of Meat Beat Manifesto.
So for being an example of supposed liberals worrying about others being
"offended" it fails. But good attempt to recycle a tired liberal
stereotype. I'm sure you have lots more.
Speaking of people trying to protect others from being "offended," the
best examples *always* come from those on the Conservative side. An
artist dunks a crucifix in a jar of his own urine. OH MY GOD, WE HAVE
TO SHUT DOWN THAT EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT WOULD OFFEND CHRISTIANS! A
comedian makes a brilliant and pointed jab saying the military had
already "picked all the low-hanging Lyndie England fruit" and should now
recruit from those who supported the war. OH MY GOD, THAT'S
ANTI-AMERICAN! IT OFFENDS THE SENSIBILITIES OF THOSE WHO LUST FOR WAR.
Someone wants to burn the flag as a form of protest. HOLY JESUS! THE
FLAG IS SACRED! WE DON'T WANT TO OFFEND THOSE WHO CONFUSE THE MAP FOR
THE TERRITORY!
There are endless more examples. Liberals got painted with being
"politically correct," but virtually every day I hear another example of
a right-wing political correctness, oh-so-worried about someone *daring*
to express an opinion that is counter to the herd or that causes some
cognitive dissonance in the minds of ditto-heads.
Regarding your other examples of liberals supposedly telling others what
to do, I think your smoking example would be a whole lot stronger if the
costs associated with smoking were carried entirely by those who choose
to smoke. But beyond that, I see very little difference between someone
deciding to smoke in public and someone else deciding to whip it out and
piss over others in public. So why is one tolerated by Conservatives
and not the other? The only reason Conservatives *really* seem to give
a shit is because the tobacco lobbyists still have a large amount of
power-- and we wouldn't want to offend them.
Snowmobiling? I have no idea what you're talking about. But I'll be
willing to bet that if you track down the specific law you're citing and
instead of relying on stereotypes of what liberals think, you will find
a real, honest, worthwhile reason why such a law exists.
> Instead of sitting back looking dignified and letting the republicans
> hang themselves as their ideas get more extreme by the hour, the dems
> are pouting and petty and crying that everything that happens is "no
> fair".
When things aren't fair, that's a perfectly reasonable charge. Sorry,
but I don't agree with you that the Democrats should roll over and play
dead as Republicans get drunk with power. Not only do the Democrats
have a responsibility to the constituents who elected them to reflect
their interests, but they have a responsibility to America itself to put
the brakes on whenever they can against Republican excess.
And yes, when the cycle comes around-- as it always does-- and Democrats
are dominating and getting drunk on power and doing the same stupid shit
that the Republicans are now doing, it will be the Republicans who
*better* speak out. They should kick and fight and scream all the way.
> That kind of attitude will lose them more seats in Congress in '06.
> As a minority party, all they have to do is act dignified and
> reasonable to reverse their recent losses. As you say, power "cycles
> over time". Tragic for the dems, that they are trying to win small
> victories now at the cost of retaking the Center later.
All polling data I've seen suggests that the center is a vanishing small
minority. This President and his administration have turned this
country into people who are deeply divided on a variety of issues, so I
don't quite get the value appealing to the center where there is no
center. At least there isn't anymore.
Gordon Gekko
"Scaly Lizard" <scaly...@nospampleaseyho.com> wrote in message
news:sd6t91tbdc880nnn4...@4ax.com...
> Typical short-sighted Democrat thinking. Instead of presenting
> a calm face of statesman-like opposition backed by reasonable
> ideas, the dems are getting sorry and snippy and miserable.
> I'm starting to realize the full extent of the impact on the
> Democrats from losing Moynihan and having him replaced
> with Yoko.
>
The Dems have had no new ideas since the successful "Contract with America"
in 1994. They started calling it "Contract ON America" while never saying
what provision was so bad. And since then they have continued a progressive
downward spiral. I LOVE IT! Their leadership is a bunch of girlie-men who
think the Alan Alda "nice guy" thing of the 1970's works. Until they
realize Alda now plays a Republican they will loose more and more elections.
And will keep claiming FRAUD when they do.