DNC protesters say new ordinance stinks

[stephanie]

ya just gotta love "THEM NONVIOLENT LIBERALS"..how friggen sick is this..

The city's push to keep feces and street barricades out of the event is termed overkill.
By Christopher N. Osher
The Denver Post
Article Launched: 08/05/2008 12:30:00 AM MDT


The Denver City Council on Monday approved a new ordinance aimed at preventing protesters from carrying buckets of feces or material that could form street barricades, paying little heed to a treaty that protest groups signed and labeled the "doo-doo accord."

Three protest groups — Re-create 68, Unconventional Action and Tent State University — had signed the treaty, which called for "a moratorium on the public throwing, spraying, smearing, hosing or inducing of excrement" during the Democratic National Convention.

The protesters labeled the ordinance, which Denver police pushed, as overkill and an insult against those who they said simply want to exercise their First Amendment speech rights.

read it all..
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10099314

[red states rule]

Looks like Denver is going to provide some great reality TV

[theHawk]

And you wonder why their called shitbag liberals.

[red states rule]

And you wonder why their called shitbag liberals.

and if you rely on CBS, NBC, and ABC for convention coverage - you will probably never see the shitbag libs

[crin63]

I can understand why they're upset with the ordnance.

Everything that comes out of their mouths is excrement so why shouldn't they be able to throw it as well! :coffee:

[red states rule]

I can understand why they're upset with the ordnance.

Everything that comes out of their mouths is excrement so why shouldn't they be able to throw it as well! :coffee:

http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/liberals13.jpg

[hjmick]

We have been hearing for months of the planned protests at the Democratic convention. The discussions frequently talk of the groups planning to disrupt the proceedings, describing them as liberal. The big concerns being violence and destruction of property. I would imagine that many, if not all, of these groups intend to protest at the Republican convention as well. Granted, this is an assumption on my part, but it only makes sense. I mean, why protest your allies only when you can express your ire at the people you hate the most as well?

Here's my question:

Why is it we never seem to hear of conservative groups planning the types of protests being planned by liberal groups? Hell, I'm not sure I have even ever heard of conservative groups protesting. Maybe I'm just not paying attention?

[red states rule]

We have been hearing for months of the planned protests at the Democratic convention. The discussions frequently talk of the groups planning to disrupt the proceedings, describing them as liberal. The big concerns being violence and destruction of property. I would imagine that many, if not all, of these groups intend to protest at the Republican convention as well. Granted, this is an assumption on my part, but it only makes sense. I mean, why protest your allies only when you can express your ire at the people you hate the most as well?

Here's my question:

Why is it we never seem to hear of conservative groups planning the types of protests being planned by liberal groups? Hell, I'm not sure I have even ever heard of conservative groups protesting. Maybe I'm just not paying attention?

The liberal moonbats will be at the RNC. I have seen some reports where they will dress in their stupid get ups, and show their stupidity

In Denver, the moonbats are pissed at their party for not being liberal enough

[crin63]

Here's my question:

Why is it we never seem to hear of conservative groups planning the types of protests being planned by liberal groups? Hell, I'm not sure I have even ever heard of conservative groups protesting. Maybe I'm just not paying attention?

I think it's because the modern Liberal movement has its roots in the war protests from the 60's. They grew up and raised their kids to think all things are subjective including right and wrong. While on the other hand Conservatives were appalled at the protests of the 60's and raised their kids with a sense of right and wrong as well as not wanting to look anything like those radicals from the 60's. These would be obvious generalities with exceptions.

[red states rule]

I think it's because the modern Liberal movement has its roots in the war protests from the 60's. They grew up and raised their kids to think all things are subjective including right and wrong. While on the other hand Conservatives were appalled at the protests of the 60's and raised their kids with a sense of right and wrong as well as not wanting to look anything like those radicals from the 60's. These would be obvious generalities with exceptions.

Yesterdays flower children are todays blooming idiots

[hjmick]

I think it's because the modern Liberal movement has its roots in the war protests from the 60's. They grew up and raised their kids to think all things are subjective including right and wrong. While on the other hand Conservatives were appalled at the protests of the 60's and raised their kids with a sense of right and wrong as well as not wanting to look anything like those radicals from the 60's. These would be obvious generalities with exceptions.


Now that's an angle that hadn't occurred to me and kind of makes sense.

[glockmail]

I guess its OK for Libs to use biological weapons.

[mundame]

I think it's because the modern Liberal movement has its roots in the war protests from the 60's. They grew up and raised their kids to think all things are subjective including right and wrong. While on the other hand Conservatives were appalled at the protests of the 60's and raised their kids with a sense of right and wrong as well as not wanting to look anything like those radicals from the 60's. These would be obvious generalities with exceptions.


Uh-huh ----- I like this analysis, though as an old peace marcher, I can tell you NOTHING like this was ever done in the '60s!! Marches were extremely orderly and law-abiding; the only riot was a police riot at the 1968 convention (and I know; I watched the whole thing front and center).

I'm thinking it's the lowest common denominator. A sort of metastatizing democracy in which every point of view, every behavior is supposed to be considered "equal," though many (like feces throwing like zoo monkeys, or wearing ski masks like terrorists) are not equal; they are dirty and disgusting.

It's the same with language. Language on all political forums I've seen is getting dirtier and dirtier, progressively, till the lowest common denominator types simply shriek obscenities, and that's pretty much all they've got for political commentary.

I don't think that is in any sense "equal." I think all of us who are capable of better have been slumming. In the 60s people were greatly influenced by Gandhi's passive protests, and that careful avoidance of violence or misbehavior was much talked about. And you never heard this kind of cursing then.

Now we get no holds barred, nothing too filthy not to do, and I think it's from seeing truly awful behavior abroad -- the Palestinians, the Congolese, the Pakistanis --- and adopting it because they want what they want (though what ELSE they want when they're getting Obama I can't imagine!!) and they have no moral core of restraint at all.

[mundame]

I guess its OK for Libs to use biological weapons.


Good: you got to my next thought before I did, glockmail.

I think the zoo-monkey types don't feel they should ever suffer defeat about anything. If they want something, they should get it. If they don't get it, ANYthing goes, up to and including nukes and biowarfare, sure.

They have no limits. They can't imagine ever limiting their behavior that forces getting what they want: if they think of it, whatever it is, they'll try it.

Bombs come next; they always do. Anarchists, terrorists, revolutionaries. People with no limits always end up throwing bombs.

I think the basic question is the same as the question about torture: at what point are we each willing to LOSE?

At what point do we say ---- no, stop, I don't want this so much that I'll gouge someone's eyes out; I don't want it so much that I'll throw feces at policemen. I don't want it so much that I'll use filthy language in public day after day!

We are losing our personal limits, our ability to say, I'm not going that low, no matter what.

[avatar4321]

I have to laugh for several reasons:

1)The fact that they need an ordinance to begin with implies that people at going to throw it. It's quite funny since no intelligent person would.

2)The fact that these guys are upset about banning it! its hilarious!

[crin63]

Uh-huh ----- I like this analysis, though as an old peace marcher, I can tell you NOTHING like this was ever done in the '60s!! Marches were extremely orderly and law-abiding; the only riot was a police riot at the 1968 convention (and I know; I watched the whole thing front and center).

I'm thinking it's the lowest common denominator. A sort of metastatizing democracy in which every point of view, every behavior is supposed to be considered "equal," though many (like feces throwing like zoo monkeys, or wearing ski masks like terrorists) are not equal; they are dirty and disgusting.

It's the same with language. Language on all political forums I've seen is getting dirtier and dirtier, progressively, till the lowest common denominator types simply shriek obscenities, and that's pretty much all they've got for political commentary.

I don't think that is in any sense "equal." I think all of us who are capable of better have been slumming. In the 60s people were greatly influenced by Gandhi's passive protests, and that careful avoidance of violence or misbehavior was much talked about. And you never heard this kind of cursing then.

Now we get no holds barred, nothing too filthy not to do, and I think it's from seeing truly awful behavior abroad -- the Palestinians, the Congolese, the Pakistanis --- and adopting it because they want what they want (though what ELSE they want when they're getting Obama I can't imagine!!) and they have no moral core of restraint at all.

I appreciate your response and maybe what you took part in was responsible and reasoned, but I have seen a good deal of video with protesters screaming at our men returning from Vietnam, calling them baby killer, spitting and throwing things at them. I've worked with Vietnam vets who told me about those incidents as well. So its very hard for me to think otherwise of 60's protesters.

[mundame]

I appreciate your response and maybe what you took part in was responsible and reasoned, but I have seen a good deal of video with protesters screaming at our men returning from Vietnam, calling them baby killer, spitting and throwing things at them. I've worked with Vietnam vets who told me about those incidents as well. So its very hard for me to think otherwise of 60's protesters.


Video? Are you sure? I always thought that spitting business was an urban legend; it would take a pretty hardy (stupid) soul to yell and spit at a battle-hardened soldier returning, I would think.

I have never known anyone who actually saw such a thing, and I don't actually believe it, but who knows.

What I REALLY think, crin63, is that the spitting thing is a meme, a shorthand for the disapproval of Vietnam fighters that DID happen. There was indeed a general feeling that fighting in Vietnam was immoral (this is about to afflict the Iraq and Afghan fighters, I suspect --- those wars have way outlasted public tolerance for our attacking primitive peoples that we tend to feel sorry for).

Because we all felt ("all" meaning at the colleges at first, and later really through society) it was immoral to go to Vietnam, the draft became an IQ test on how to get out of it. Bush's father got him out, not in retrospect really a good sign. Cheney got out again and again by himself! Well, I suppose it's obvious he's the smarter of the two. http://bestsmileys.com/sad/5.gif

So the soldiers coming back didn't feel appreciated, and let's face it, they weren't. The nation hated, hated that war. So I think the meme about people spitting on them was about how the soldiers FELT, not that anyone actually did that -------- at its lowest, it would have been dangerous!

[crin63]

I could be wrong, its been 15 years or so since I watched anything on Vietnam so maybe I only heard the part about being spit at from guys I worked with.

[Kathianne]

I could be wrong, its been 15 years or so since I watched anything on Vietnam so maybe I only heard the part about being spit at from guys I worked with.

It's not 'urban legend' and the same is going on today. Bottom line the far left HATES the troops, especially now, considering they volunteer. It makes obvious they are too stupid to not get the left calling points. They deserve it, goes the thinking.

[retiredman]

It's not 'urban legend' and the same is going on today. Bottom line the far left HATES the troops, especially now, considering they volunteer. It makes obvious they are too stupid to not get the left calling points. They deserve it, goes the thinking.


I have many friends who I would consider on the far left and I know absolutely NONE of them that HATE our troops. All of them certainly hate Bush's war in Iraq but NONE transfer that hatred to the troops themselves. Your bottom line is inaccurate partisan conjecture. They very well may be a handful of crazies that hate our military, but they do not represent ANY sort of even marginally significant constituency in the democratic party.

[hjmick]

Video? Are you sure? I always thought that spitting business was an urban legend; it would take a pretty hardy (stupid) soul to yell and spit at a battle-hardened soldier returning, I would think.

I have never known anyone who actually saw such a thing, and I don't actually believe it, but who knows.

What I REALLY think, crin63, is that the spitting thing is a meme, a shorthand for the disapproval of Vietnam fighters that DID happen. There was indeed a general feeling that fighting in Vietnam was immoral (this is about to afflict the Iraq and Afghan fighters, I suspect --- those wars have way outlasted public tolerance for our attacking primitive peoples that we tend to feel sorry for).

Because we all felt ("all" meaning at the colleges at first, and later really through society) it was immoral to go to Vietnam, the draft became an IQ test on how to get out of it. Bush's father got him out, not in retrospect really a good sign. Cheney got out again and again by himself! Well, I suppose it's obvious he's the smarter of the two. http://bestsmileys.com/sad/5.gif

So the soldiers coming back didn't feel appreciated, and let's face it, they weren't. The nation hated, hated that war. So I think the meme about people spitting on them was about how the soldiers FELT, not that anyone actually did that -------- at its lowest, it would have been dangerous!


I could be wrong, its been 15 years or so since I watched anything on Vietnam so maybe I only heard the part about being spit at from guys I worked with.

Two excellent pieces on just this topic. Both written by the same author, the second piece is a follow up to the first piece:


http://www.slate.com/id/2161038/

http://www.slate.com/id/2161383/

[red states rule]

I have many friends who I would consider on the far left and I know absolutely NONE of them that HATE our troops. All of them certainly hate Bush's war in Iraq but NONE transfer that hatred to the troops themselves. Your bottom line is inaccurate partisan conjecture. They very well may be a handful of crazies that hate our military, but they do not represent ANY sort of even marginally significant constituency in the democratic party.

Yea, the far left are so warm and fuzzy

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/106260.jpg

[glockmail]

I appreciate your response and maybe what you took part in was responsible and reasoned, but I have seen a good deal of video with protesters screaming at our men returning from Vietnam, calling them baby killer, spitting and throwing things at them. I've worked with Vietnam vets who told me about those incidents as well. So its very hard for me to think otherwise of 60's protesters.

Its inconceivable that anyone would be so stupid to think that contemporary protesters are any less virulent.

[red states rule]

Its inconceivable that anyone would be so stupid to think that contemporary protesters are any less virulent.

and not very bright

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/5494.jpg

[Gaffer]

I never got spit on. I got ostracized. While on a train going home in uniform I had lots of people turn their backs on me. I met people that called me a baby killer and others that didn't want anything to do with me when they learned I was in Vietnam. Got to a point where I didn't tell anyone I had even been in the military. I do know a few guys that described being spit on, it did occur but not as frequently as its made out. And the spitters did spit teeth and blood after the fact.

Returning to "the world" as we called it, was a culture shock for me and I imagine for most of the guys. A lot can change in a years time. I watched the news reports of the riots. There were a lot more than just the 68 riot.

I watched the democrat party be taken over by the moonbats. And they are still in control. They are getting worse and they are going to get violent real soon. Bombings and assassinations are on the horizon just like in the 60's get ready for it. Political correctness will allow them to do even more than they did then. Expect a resurgence of the weather underground, the SDS and others.

[red states rule]

I never got spit on. I got ostracized. While on a train going home in uniform I had lots of people turn their backs on me. I met people that called me a baby killer and others that didn't want anything to do with me when they learned I was in Vietnam. Got to a point where I didn't tell anyone I had even been in the military. I do know a few guys that described being spit on, it did occur but not as frequently as its made out. And the spitters did spit teeth and blood after the fact.

Returning to "the world" as we called it, was a culture shock for me and I imagine for most of the guys. A lot can change in a years time. I watched the news reports of the riots. There were a lot more than just the 68 riot.

I watched the democrat party be taken over by the moonbats. And they are still in control. They are getting worse and they are going to get violent real soon. Bombings and assassinations are on the horizon just like in the 60's get ready for it. Political correctness will allow them to do even more than they did then. Expect a resurgence of the weather underground, the SDS and others.

Thank you for your service Gaffer. Yesterdays flower children have become todays blooming idiots

[retiredman]

I never got spit on. I got ostracized. While on a train going home in uniform I had lots of people turn their backs on me. I met people that called me a baby killer and others that didn't want anything to do with me when they learned I was in Vietnam. Got to a point where I didn't tell anyone I had even been in the military. I do know a few guys that described being spit on, it did occur but not as frequently as its made out. And the spitters did spit teeth and blood after the fact.

Returning to "the world" as we called it, was a culture shock for me and I imagine for most of the guys. A lot can change in a years time. I watched the news reports of the riots. There were a lot more than just the 68 riot.

I watched the democrat party be taken over by the moonbats. And they are still in control. They are getting worse and they are going to get violent real soon. Bombings and assassinations are on the horizon just like in the 60's get ready for it. Political correctness will allow them to do even more than they did then. Expect a resurgence of the weather underground, the SDS and others.

I was spit on in OHare airport by a long haired flower child in December of '69. (he acutally tried to spit on me and missed) That still does not make the war in Vietnam wa great idea in terms of foreign policy and it does not make it a great place to end the lives of 56K of my peers.

[red states rule]

I was spit on in OHare airport by a long haired flower child in December of '69. (he acutally tried to spit on me and missed) That still does not make the war in Vietnam wa great idea in terms of foreign policy and it does not make it a great place to end the lives of 56K of my peers.

The long haired flower child is probably now an elected Dem somewhere

[mundame]

Yea, the far left are so warm and fuzzy

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/106260.jpg

C'mon, RSR, tell me that's one of those joke posters from a site where you can letter it yourself?

Oh, it must be. :coffee:

You are SO BAD. You almost had me going, there.

[red states rule]

C'mon, RSR, tell me that's one of those joke posters from a site where you can letter it yourself?

Oh, it must be. :coffee:

You are SO BAD. You almost had me going, there.

Nope, it is REAL picture

[mundame]

It's not 'urban legend' and the same is going on today. Bottom line the far left HATES the troops, especially now, considering they volunteer. It makes obvious they are too stupid to not get the left calling points. They deserve it, goes the thinking.


Not yet............. no, I don't see any of that going on now.

But from Vietnam, I can tell you, that if this war goes on too long, that is exactly what will happen, just like last time.

Probably we should abort this disaster BEFORE we lose all faith in our military for 30 years, like we did last time.

Because I am not at all sure we can afford that. I think there really is a Clash of Civilizations, and to expend the credit of our military on unpopular, losing, useless wars is not a good idea should Iran decide to stop up our oil or Pakistan decide to sabotage inside our country. These little nothing "humanitarian" forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say we can't afford.

We may need someday soon to actually fight a REAL war, and can we? Would we trust anyone to do that given the stupid mess going on now?

I worry about this.

[red states rule]

Not yet............. no, I don't see any of that going on now.

But from Vietnam, I can tell you, that if this war goes on too long, that is exactly what will happen, just like last time.

Probably we should abort this disaster BEFORE we lose all faith in our military for 30 years, like we did last time.

Because I am not at all sure we can afford that. I think there really is a Clash of Civilizations, and to expend the credit of our military on unpopular, losing, useless wars is not a good idea should Iran decide to stop up our oil or Pakistan decide to sabotage inside our country. These little nothing "humanitarian" forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say we can't afford.

We may need someday soon to actually fight a REAL war, and can we? Would we trust anyone to do that given the stupid mess going on now?

I worry about this.


Here is another example of the far kook left supporting the troops

http://www.capveterans.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/shoot_officers2.jpg

[mundame]

Here is another example of the far kook left supporting the troops

http://www.capveterans.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/shoot_officers2.jpg


It's probably not a great sign about our society when I genuinely cannot tell when you have made that sign up yourself and when it's real!!!

[stephanie]

It's probably not a great sign about our society when I genuinely cannot tell when you have made that sign up yourself and when it's real!!!

It is REAL..they showed it on the news when this was going on..
If you notice, the one chickenshit has to cover his face..If he were a REAL MAN, he'd carry that sign without a mask on..

[red states rule]

Want more mundame?

http://www.capveterans.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/fuck_the_troops2.jpg

[Gaffer]

I was spit on in OHare airport by a long haired flower child in December of '69. (he acutally tried to spit on me and missed) That still does not make the war in Vietnam wa great idea in terms of foreign policy and it does not make it a great place to end the lives of 56K of my peers.

Just being in uniform in those days could get you spit on and even attacked.

Nowhere in my post did I state, or even infer, Vietnam was a great idea. It was Johnson's war. It was totally misdirected and mishandled. It went on for 4 years more than it should have because of the media. The dem congress then handed SV over to the north two years after the war had ended. It's a prime example of how the dems fuck up everything they touch or get involved in.

The 56k lives wasted in that war fall solely on the shoulders of the democrat party and the media. The party your so proud to be a member of.