specialK wrote:
] As someone who works in New York City, I take very seriously
] the almost daily stories about security concerns. New York has
] been on terror alert level orange since September 11. Please,
] protestors who are planning civil disobedience or other
] actions that will cause havoc during the RNC, stay home. New
] Yorkers don't need this kind of stress in their lives. Getting
] to work that week will be stressful enough without people like
] this woman insisting on her illegal march to Times Square.
]
] From MSNBC.com:
]
] Cheri Honkala, a welfare mother from Philadelphia, who says
] she expects to bring in 5,000 rural and urban folks for a
] purposefully illegal march across town to Times Square. "The
] police told us there was no way in hell they were going to
] give us a permit to march," she said. Honkala, who led a
] similar march at the Republican convention in Philadelphia in
] 2000, shrugged. "We have to mess it all up. . . . Poor people
] have been living with terror every day."

You're kidding right?

You're more concerned about your daily commute versus this woman's right to protest? Why did the 'authorities' refuse her request for a permit? Why are 'protesters' being wrangled up in a barbed-wire fenced off area, jokingly referred to as the 'free-speech zone'? Why does the RNC require 3x the amount of security detail than the DNC does? Not to say that the DNC somehow earned a repreive from this kinda stuff, but you've got to expect a bit more vitrial against the RNC considering that millions of people rioted and protested worldwide when our current administration decided to invade a non-threatening country.

I find it atrocious that people will use inclement weather as an excuse to telecommute in a second, but when we've actually got something *important* going on, like exercising our democratic right to voice our opinions, then it somehow becomes an inconvenience.

And no, it doesn't matter whether most of these people are there just to wreak havoc. If we only allowed 'legal' protest and 'non-disturbing' signs of discord, then we would've never had the civil rights movement or women's suffridge. Especially considering that this administration has found it absolutely necessary to trample on your civil rights, invade your privacy, re-write fundamental pieces of the constitution, and use lies and subterfudge to counter its enemies (including its own citizens), I'd say that pretty much _anything_ will be considered illegal if they were left to continue their current course.

flynn23 wrote:
] specialK wrote:
] ] As someone who works in New York City, I take very seriously
]
] ] the almost daily stories about security concerns. New York
] has
] ] been on terror alert level orange since September 11.
] Please,
] ] protestors who are planning civil disobedience or other
] ] actions that will cause havoc during the RNC, stay home. New
]
] ] Yorkers don't need this kind of stress in their lives.
] Getting
] ] to work that week will be stressful enough without people
] like
] ] this woman insisting on her illegal march to Times Square.
] ]
] ] From MSNBC.com:
] ]
] ] Cheri Honkala, a welfare mother from Philadelphia, who says
] ] she expects to bring in 5,000 rural and urban folks for a
] ] purposefully illegal march across town to Times Square. "The
]
] ] police told us there was no way in hell they were going to
] ] give us a permit to march," she said. Honkala, who led a
] ] similar march at the Republican convention in Philadelphia
] in
] ] 2000, shrugged. "We have to mess it all up. . . . Poor
] people
] ] have been living with terror every day."
]
] You're kidding right?
]
] You're more concerned about your daily commute versus this
] woman's right to protest? Why did the 'authorities' refuse her
] request for a permit? Why are 'protesters' being wrangled up
] in a barbed-wire fenced off area, jokingly referred to as the
] 'free-speech zone'? Why does the RNC require 3x the amount of
] security detail than the DNC does? Not to say that the DNC
] somehow earned a repreive from this kinda stuff, but you've
] got to expect a bit more vitrial against the RNC considering
] that millions of people rioted and protested worldwide when
] our current administration decided to invade a non-threatening
] country.
]
] I find it atrocious that people will use inclement weather as
] an excuse to telecommute in a second, but when we've actually
] got something *important* going on, like exercising our
] democratic right to voice our opinions, then it somehow
] becomes an inconvenience.
]
] And no, it doesn't matter whether most of these people are
] there just to wreak havoc. If we only allowed 'legal' protest
] and 'non-disturbing' signs of discord, then we would've never
] had the civil rights movement or women's suffridge. Especially
] considering that this administration has found it absolutely
] necessary to trample on your civil rights, invade your
] privacy, re-write fundamental pieces of the constitution, and
] use lies and subterfudge to counter its enemies (including its
] own citizens), I'd say that pretty much _anything_ will be
] considered illegal if they were left to continue their current
] course.

Why does the convention require three times the amount of security? Because it's number 1 terror target in the country, ranking 49th in terms of per-person funding.

Not to discount your argument, because I can certainly see that this woman should be allowed to protest. But it does matter if she's coming here--like other protestors--to wreck havoc on the city. Newsflash: New York City isn't some bumblefuck town in the middle of nowhere with no worries in the world. While some may not like it, the rules have to be different here.

specialK wrote:

Newsflash: New York City isn't some
] bumblefuck town in the middle of nowhere with no worries in
] the world. While some may not like it, the rules have to be
] different here.

Then It's a damn odd spot to hold a "NATIONAL" convention, don't you think?

flynn23 wrote:
] Why are 'protesters' being wrangled up
] in a barbed-wire fenced off area, jokingly referred to as the
] 'free-speech zone'?

[ What's sad is, that wasn't referred to as such jokingly. That's real, and it was a government reporesentative who first said it. An FBI or Secret Service guy if i recall. They really actually do think that it's a-ok to cordon off the areas where you can dissent. It's pretty preposterous. In any situation where there isn't an obvious and direct risk to public safety, people should have the right to do their thing wherever they want. -k]

k wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] Why are 'protesters' being wrangled up
] ] in a barbed-wire fenced off area, jokingly referred to as
] the
] ] 'free-speech zone'?
]
] [ What sad is, that wasn't referred to as such jokingly.
] That's real, and it was a government reporesentative who first
] said it. An FBI or Secret Service guy if i recall. They
] really actually do think that it's a-ok to cordon off the
] areas where you can dissent. It's pretty preposterous. In
] any situation where there isn't an obvious and direct risk to
] public safety, people should have the right to do their thing
] wherever they want. -k]

I guess the thing that really set me off about this in the first place is that universal law of physics applied to mob violence. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and in this case, the more this administration tries to squelch people's right to protest and their opposition to be heard, then the more desperate and forceful they will become in order to be heard. Do we really want to repeat the late 60's and early 70's protest scene? Do we want another Chicago or Kent State? Cuz that's exactly where we're heading right now.

What's even more disgusting is the 'town hall meetings' and 'Q n A sessions' that the Bush administration is hosting, which requires attendees to sign their 'allegiance' (their words, not mine) to the party or to be a registered Republican. If this wasn't so frightfully fascist, I'd laugh at the concept, but with the way things are going, I'm starting to look at property in Canada.

flynn23 wrote:
]
] You're kidding right?
]
] You're more concerned about your daily commute versus this
] woman's right to protest? Why did the 'authorities' refuse her
] request for a permit? Why are 'protesters' being wrangled up
] in a barbed-wire fenced off area, jokingly referred to as the
] 'free-speech zone'? Why does the RNC require 3x the amount of
] security detail than the DNC does? Not to say that the DNC
] somehow earned a repreive from this kinda stuff, but you've
] got to expect a bit more vitrial against the RNC considering
] that millions of people rioted and protested worldwide when
] our current administration decided to invade a non-threatening
] country.

*** Non-threatening country? Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people, using chemical weapons that they developed. Iraq made certain agreements in order to end the first Gulf War. Iraq consistently and intentionally violated those agreements, including one major clause of allowing inspectors to monitor their weapons activities. Iraq refused to cooperate on terms that Iraq itself agreed to. In the past, they had tons of chemical and biological weapons, and had also researched and actively pursued nuclear weapons. Their is possible evidence these weapons have now been moved to other surrounding nations. Bottom line -- hardly the actions of a non-threatening country.
]
] I find it atrocious that people will use inclement weather as
] an excuse to telecommute in a second, but when we've actually
] got something *important* going on, like exercising our
] democratic right to voice our opinions, then it somehow
] becomes an inconvenience.
]
*** I do believe in the right to protest, but it does have to be done in a way that doesn't endanger other citizens of our country. Protestors saying they are going to 'wreak havoc' isn't the best way to get a permit. Either get a permit by displaying peaceful ways to protest, or get arrested protesting other ways. Read below for more on havoc.

] And no, it doesn't matter whether most of these people are
] there just to wreak havoc. If we only allowed 'legal' protest
] and 'non-disturbing' signs of discord, then we would've never
] had the civil rights movement or women's suffridge. Especially
] considering that this administration has found it absolutely
] necessary to trample on your civil rights, invade your
] privacy, re-write fundamental pieces of the constitution, and
] use lies and subterfudge to counter its enemies (including its
] own citizens), I'd say that pretty much _anything_ will be
] considered illegal if they were left to continue their current
] course.

*** I do agree that sometimes havoc is necessary. Personally I don't think this is a cause for it, however women's sufferage and the civil rights movement were valid causes.

*** However, how have our rights been trampled on? How has your privacy been invaded? Answer this on a personal level, then as a whole.

Golem wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ]
] ] You're kidding right?
] ]
] ] You're more concerned about your daily commute versus this
] ] woman's right to protest? Why did the 'authorities' refuse
] her
] ] request for a permit? Why are 'protesters' being wrangled up
]
] ] in a barbed-wire fenced off area, jokingly referred to as
] the
] ] 'free-speech zone'? Why does the RNC require 3x the amount
] of
] ] security detail than the DNC does? Not to say that the DNC
] ] somehow earned a repreive from this kinda stuff, but you've
] ] got to expect a bit more vitrial against the RNC considering
]
] ] that millions of people rioted and protested worldwide when
] ] our current administration decided to invade a
] non-threatening
] ] country.
]
] *** Non-threatening country? Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq
] slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people, using
] chemical weapons that they developed. Iraq made certain
] agreements in order to end the first Gulf War. Iraq
] consistently and intentionally violated those agreements,
] including one major clause of allowing inspectors to monitor
] their weapons activities. Iraq refused to cooperate on terms
] that Iraq itself agreed to. In the past, they had tons of
] chemical and biological weapons, and had also researched and
] actively pursued nuclear weapons. Their is possible evidence
] these weapons have now been moved to other surrounding
] nations. Bottom line -- hardly the actions of a
] non-threatening country.

yeah. Non-threatening country. Because despite all of what you list off, the fact remains that the reasons given to the American people to invade Iraq were all bogus. Iraq didn't declare war against the USA. Iraq doesn't have the capability of invading the USA or any of its allies. Iraq doesn't have the capability to even attack it's neighbors or Israel. Iraq didn't sponsor Al Queda or Bin Laden. Iraq had no role in the 9/11 incidents, other than to publically praise them. Iraq's agreements post Gulf War were with the UN, not the USA, so it wasn't the USA's responsibility to enforce or escalate that agreement.

So I ask you, where's the threat? What is the clearly impending action by Iraq that necessitated immediate "shock and awe" military action by the USA? When in the past 200+ years has the USA pre-emptively invaded another country? What is the rational reason why we, as taxpayers and citizens, are now saddled with a $400B+ defecit within 2 years, and the loss or permanent injury of nearly 4000 of our young people? And how is it that this action was largely committed without prior authorization by your representatives in Congress and the Senate?

] ] I find it atrocious that people will use inclement weather
] as
] ] an excuse to telecommute in a second, but when we've
] actually
] ... [ Read More (0.6k in body) ]

Oh, come on... When was the last time the place had a good riot? I think it's overdue. They've had plane attacks, blackouts and such, but the east coast is getting lapped by the west when it comes to riots. The reasons why it happens isn't important, they just seem like they could use it. Sort of like when they beat up the printer in office space, NY should let it out.

specialK wrote:
] As someone who works in New York City, I take very seriously
] the almost daily stories about security concerns. New York has
] been on terror alert level orange since September 11. Please,
] protestors who are planning civil disobedience or other
] actions that will cause havoc during the RNC, stay home. New
] Yorkers don't need this kind of stress in their lives. Getting
] to work that week will be stressful enough without people like
] this woman insisting on her illegal march to Times Square.