This is Not America

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Hueij
Che, congrats on your letter. But was it really smart to write it? You know, with Homeland Security and all that? I mean, Ned may be reading this thread too...

If I'm important enough for the government to be paying atteniotn to me, they already know all about me. If I'm not, then they aren't. According to them, they aren't. I did an FoI request on my FBI file some years back and was saddened to find out there was nothing on me . . . at least that they were willing to admit to.

And after organizing most of the universities in Chicago against the first U.S. Gulf War, too.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon

Who said that? They speak for themselves and those who agree. Sorry, you don't need permission for that. When did you come over so fascist?

Nice try-- never said anything about permission. Just a minor annoyance that some groups think they speak for the "people" when all they speak for is a largely irrelevant sub-faction

Originally posted by Agathon
Obviously. I told you exactly what they didn't like.

Since now you are agreeing with me, why you were you telling me I was wrong before ?

Originally posted by Agathon



But I really can't see what your point is. You've typed and typed, but seem to have come up with nothing other than sad old tory whining.

I whine about nothing. I just want to be left alone to live my life and raise my child. I don't want some ass-wipe thinking they have some divine right to block streets or crash into offices. Protest to your hearts content. If I believe in your cause I might even join you. Exercise free speech until you are blue in the face. I support and cherish all those rights. But your rights stop when they begin to unduly infringe on mine. Thats all.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon




Actually you don't have the right to force people to move unless they are deliberately blocking you, and that hasn't been the case in most marches I've been on. Sure, it might annoy drivers, but its no different from other heavy traffic. People have the right to gather on the street and march if they want to. If you don't like it, tough ****.

So you never heard of sidewalks and jaywalking? Thankfully most protest organizers prefer not to alienate several thousand people at once and therefore avoid protests on main routes at rush hour. The police likewise don't want motorists crashing into a crowd or even attempting to force their way through-- after all they have a right to be on the street as well right??

The result is usally a sensible compromise that allows exercise of free speech without unduly infringing on the rights or others and with lessened risks to the public

[Drake Tungsten]

God, why did I open this thread? Lame whining...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

Nice try-- never said anything about permission. Just a minor annoyance that some groups think they speak for the "people" when all they speak for is a largely irrelevant sub-faction

In other words you disagree with them. The anti-war marches were getting not much more than some of the anti IMF/World Bank protests, yet there is no question that the anti-war marches spoke for the majority of citizens of every country they occurred in except the United States. Most people when asked tend to agree that unelected transnational institutions need more democratic controls. Before 9/11 this was the fastest growing protest movement in history – books dealing with these problems were regularly in the bestseller lists.

What we have here is you objectifying your prejudices to impugn the protest movement.

Since now you are agreeing with me, why you were you telling me I was wrong before ?

I am not agreeing with you. I'm trying to point out how retarded your original post was. You claimed that the protesters are united over the fact that they think government is poorly run. Of course they are. Virtually every protest is. But that is a particularly poor, glib and misleading characterization of their actual views, which are rather more specific.

Perhaps this lame form of "argument" works where you come from, but not here.

[quoteI whine about nothing.[/quote]

He says, and then goes on to disprove this in the rest of the paragraph.

I just want to be left alone to live my life and raise my child.

Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around you and your concerns.

I don't want some ass-wipe thinking they have some divine right to block streets or crash into offices. Protest to your hearts content. If I believe in your cause I might even join you. Exercise free speech until you are blue in the face. I support and cherish all those rights. But your rights stop when they begin to unduly infringe on mine. Thats all.

What a load of crap. Nobody is claiming that protesters have a right to smash up offices or block streets or otherwise break the law. But they have as much of a right to walk the streets as you do, and when there are protests, there are more of them. If you are inconvenienced by this, then tough – that's what democracy looks like. Presumably you supported the Ukranian protesters or the mobs in Tiananmen Square. Guess what genius – they're exactly the same as the Canadian protesters or protesters anywhere. I'm sure that dour and selfish conservatives were inconvenienced by those protests. Big deal. Cry me a river.

I am inconvenienced by the results of conservative ignorance far more than you are by the 2 or 3 anti-globalization protests that Canada has experienced over the past five years. The fact is that people like who that have little or no appreciation of the world's real problems are the asswipes in this case.

Part of living in a free society is that you get inconvenienced by the political expression of others. The alternative is worse. Grow up.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If I'm important enough for the government to be paying atteniotn to me, they already know all about me. If I'm not, then they aren't. According to them, they aren't. I did an FoI request on my FBI file some years back and was saddened to find out there was nothing on me . . . at least that they were willing to admit to.

And after organizing most of the universities in Chicago against the first U.S. Gulf War, too.

You can just request the file? They give stuff like that out? Did you have to do a FOIA request or just called up the FBI? I'm interested to see if they've got something on me.

btw, good letter

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
The fact is that people like who that have little or no appreciation of the world's real problems are the asswipes in this case.

HEY! Enough with the personal crap... one more comment like this and you are toast!

YOU GOT THAT!!!!!!!!

[Flubber]

wow agathon

That was far too easy. . .. and I didn't even make one personal remark towards you.


Lets see "fascist" in one post and then

" retarded"
another shot at "where I come from"
"asswipe" etc etc

Got to say haven't been lectured on reality by a communist in a while. It must burn to be politically irrelevant.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


In other words you disagree with them. The anti-war marches were getting not much more than some of the anti IMF/World Bank protests, yet there is no question that the anti-war marches spoke for the majority of citizens of every country they occurred in except the United States.

Logical fallacy here. Just because one protest movement speaks for a majority does not mean another such movement does

Originally posted by Agathon

Most people when asked tend to agree that unelected transnational institutions need more democratic controls.

NO suprise-- you ask "do unelected transnational institutions need more democratic controls?" and the question indicates the answer since you would find very few people that would oppose democracy.

The funny thing is that personally I don't like the IMF or World Bank structures much either. BUt my question is again-- get beyond the platitudes . . . how do you reform things so that they are workable?

Originally posted by Agathon

I am not agreeing with you. I'm trying to point out how retarded your original post was. You claimed that the protesters are united over the fact that they think government is poorly run. Of course they are. Virtually every protest is. But that is a particularly poor, glib and misleading characterization of their actual views, which are rather more specific.

Nope -- I walked the streets a bit during the G-8 and talked with a number of protestors (away from the big protests) . Their views varied and they ranged from being well informed to completely ignorant regarding the issues they were protesting... and contrary to what you say there was very little commonality-- remember this was the G-8 and not IMF meetings-- you might have missed that earlier.

Originally posted by Agathon

Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around you and your concerns.

Nor yours. The difference is I don't expect it to.

Originally posted by Agathon


What a load of crap. Nobody is claiming that protesters have a right to smash up offices or block streets or otherwise break the law. But they have as much of a right to walk the streets as you do, and when there are protests, there are more of them. .

AS long as they move aside so I can get my SUV by we are all good *

Originally posted by Agathon

Part of living in a free society is that you get inconvenienced by the political expression of others. The alternative is worse. Grow up.

Part of living in a free society is that your expression rights are limited by the expression rights of others. If I don't like communist ideology, I can say so. I can proclaim it loudly from a streetcorner. But I can't expect to do it at 2 am through a megaphone on your front lawn. I cherish the right to free speech and welcome different viewpoints-- In fact I bet I have a more open mind than you on most issues . . . but rights have limits when they infringe on the rights of others.

* I don't actually own an SUV

[Ming]

Let's just chill and get back on topic

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

Logical fallacy here. Just because one protest movement speaks for a majority does not mean another such movement does.

It's mostly the same people plus a few more angry grannies.

NO suprise-- you ask "do unelected transnational institutions need more democratic controls?" and the question indicates the answer since you would find very few people that would oppose democracy.

The funny thing is that personally I don't like the IMF or World Bank structures much either. BUt my question is again-- get beyond the platitudes . . . how do you reform things so that they are workable?

By adopting fair trade polices or making it directly elected. These are the suggestions being offered. Your argument consists of entirely ignoring what the protesters actually say in favour of some bizarre notions that you've cooked up.

Nope -- I walked the streets a bit during the G-8 and talked with a number of protestors (away from the big protests) . Their views varied and they ranged from being well informed to completely ignorant regarding the issues they were protesting... and contrary to what you say there was very little commonality-- remember this was the G-8 and not IMF meetings-- you might have missed that earlier.

How would you know who was smart and who was ignorant, given your manifest ability to display the latter in this thread.

So we are to take your word for it instead of the statements made by the movements involved.

AS long as they move aside so I can get my SUV by we are all good *

I hope they firebomb your house.

Part of living in a free society is that your expression rights are limited by the expression rights of others. If I don't like communist ideology, I can say so. I can proclaim it loudly from a streetcorner. But I can't expect to do it at 2 am through a megaphone on your front lawn. I cherish the right to free speech and welcome different viewpoints-- In fact I bet I have a more open mind than you on most issues . . . but rights have limits when they infringe on the rights of others.

In this case the protesters are not infringing on the rights of others. If 1000 people decide to hold a march down a street for whatever reason, I can't take my car down it.

Skippedy doo dah.

[Agathon]

Perhaps if you lived in a country that is more tolerant

Bush's Lonely Campaign Against Chavez

By MARK WEISBROT

For anyone who has been to Venezuela, it's easy to see why no one wants to take Washington's side in this grievance.

A few weeks ago I passed by a 22-story government building in downtown Caracas, and saw about 200 students blocking the exits in a protest against the government.

Trapped inside past quitting time were thousands of employees including several Cabinet-level ministers. A few police stood by calmly, not interfering. This went on for hours. There were no injuries or arrests.

I thought of what would happen if people tried this in Washington. There would be tear gas, pepper spray, heads cracked, and mass arrests. Some would get felony charges. The protest would be over in 10 minutes. The next day I turned on the TV and on the biggest channels there were commentators and experts trashing the government, in ways that do not happen in the United States or indeed most countries in the world.

I picked up the two biggest newspapers at a newsstand -- very slanted against the government, again like nothing in the United States.

It's pretty hard to make a case that Venezuela is less democratic than other Latin American countries, and no respectable human rights organization has tried to do so.

The Venezuelan economy is booming, millions of poor people have access to health care and subsidized food for the first time, and President Chavez' approval ratings have soared to more than 70% -- according to opposition pollsters.

Still, the Bush administration perseveres on its lonely road.

The most recent embarrassment came at the Organization of American States meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., this month, when the United States failed to convince other countries that the OAS should monitor and evaluate "democracy" within member countries. It was widely seen as an attempt to use the OAS against Venezuela, to which other countries responded by saying, "Please take your fight elsewhere."

Just weeks before that, the US-backed candidate for OAS president lost to Chilean Interior Minister Jose Miguel Insulza, backed by Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil. It was the first time in 60 years that the United States failed to get its candidate as head of the regional body. The Bush team pressured Insulza to make a statement about "elected governments that do not govern democratically," which was seen as a swipe against Venezuela. But this turned out to be more of an embarrassment to Insulza than anything else.

After supporting a failed military coup in 2002, giving millions of dollars to the opposition (including some involved in the coup), funding a presidential recall effort that failed miserably last year -- one would think that the Bush team would know when to give up. But they don't.

And now an increasing number of US members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are beginning to question the wisdom of continually harassing our second-largest trading partner in South America and third-largest oil supplier.

It started when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced hostile questions about her Venezuela policy from five senators in January during her confirmation hearings. Now the criticism is spilling over into our House of Representatives. Eventually our government will have to learn to respect the results of democratic elections in Venezuela -- which is all that the Venezuelans are asking from us.

[Flubber]

Just so I get it straight, you applaud a few hundred people for having the ability to imprison several hundred ( assumption based on 22 story building). If I am in that building I don't want to see tear gas or cracked head but I would hope the police would do something. Its not mere inconvenience. You prattle on about your right to say this and express that. Doesn't the individual inside the building have the most basic right of liberty to his own person??

[Ming]

Nahhhh... he really is saying that the right of the protester for free speech is more important than your rights... and that if you are inconvienced, it's just too bad for you.

He calls that freedom

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's mostly the same people plus a few more angry grannies.

But don't you get it-- a given individual or group may speak an opinion shared by a lot of people on one topic and then spout something supported by very few on another. Diversity-- isn't it grand?

Originally posted by Agathon



By adopting fair trade polices or making it directly elected. These are the suggestions being offered. Your argument consists of entirely ignoring what the protesters actually say in favour of some bizarre notions that you've cooked up.

First your first suggestion is a platitude as is really your second. Direct elections by whom-- worldwide? That would be fun. Oh and what were my bizzare notions exactly? That the protest movement was a collection of widely diverse viewpoints with widely differing ultimate agendas that are in many cases conflicting??

Originally posted by Agathon


How would you know who was smart and who was ignorant, given your manifest ability to display the latter in this thread.

ha-ha-- Since I said next to nothing about the IMF, I am amazed at your perceptive abilities and what you can glean from silence. On the other hand, you have displayed your customary rudeness.

Originally posted by Agathon


So we are to take your word for it instead of the statements made by the movements involved.

I have no doubt that the leader had some clear and cogent statements. Heck I read many of them at the time. As for my word, it has always been good. Lets just see I recall in a parade there were

palestenians protesting Israeli opression and US support
Afghanis protestin US actions
A group with signs about freeing Chechnya
Another bunch with signs about protecting the environment
Some signs about scrapping the nukes

Again this was a G-8 !! There were several groups that had very little to say about the IMF and the World Bank. Believe me or not but I was there and I know what I saw. Do you really think that everyone that is protesting Bush or Putin are primarily concerned with the IMF? Don't be silly.

Originally posted by Agathon






In this case the protesters are not infringing on the rights of others. If 1000 people decide to hold a march down a street for whatever reason, I can't take my car down it.

Can you at least be consistent in your silliness. Earlier you said people should not break the law. Well jaywalking is a law put in place for public safety and essentially to keep order since if everyone walked and drove where and how they wanted, things would get crazy and deadly pretty quickly.

Lets make it simpler-- Assume 8-10 people that are part of the anti communist league decide to picket your house/apartment and create a ring so you can't leave. They link arms and sing kumbiya or something and there is no way by. Is this acceptable?