Are you kidding? These protesters face more time in jail than most murderers and rapists, simply for expressing an unpopular opinion without a permit. This begs some serious questions: What kind of country does such a thing? What else are they capable of? How much worse will it get? I see this case akin to the canary dying in the mine. It's a symptom of serious, deep seated problems.
if lefty protesters weren't so consistently violent, vicious, and intolerant, and lawless (all things they usually say they are there to potest), there wouldn't be such a desire for cops to be a bit more zealous in keeping these outlaws in line.
I agree, that may be part of it.
But there is another part. The civil rights protests of the 60's (whether you agree with them or not) effected a monumental change in American society, and shook established powers to the bone. Government isn't stupid, and they quickly recognized the power of free assembly and civil protest to hold their shake on power. They were hell bent to prevent anything like that from ever happening again and couldn't manage to outlaw protest altogether. Hence, the "free speech zone", where you're free to speak behind a chainlink fence two miles from anywhere while surrounded by a battallion of riot police.
Oh, you think THAT'S what our frustration is about? Protesters meekly stepping out of free speech zones? You think that's what makes us want to see heads get cracked? Tell me you're joking.
Maybe I wouldn't think that if I hadn't seen it here so many times.
In fact, given all this history, IT IS A GLOWING TESTAMENT to the restraint of America's people and government that the ONLY measure they've taken against this insanity so far is these dreaded "free speech zones".
Pardon me for not doing cartwheels of joy because government has neutered yet another core liberty of the Bill of Rights.
your illustration of Dennis Prager's Law of Conservation of Anger makes it hard for me to believe.
Oh, I'm pissed about this alright. Believe it. I've just seen so much of it I've become a bit numb to it.
These wouldn't be the ones who happen to commit all those violent crimes I listed, would they? The fact that they may have assaulted someone, that they may have resisted arrest, and as if that weren't enough, it then turns out that they may have a long rap sheet of other felonies and misdemeanors would have nothing to do with any of them getting a stretch that 'seems a bit harsh' for mere protesting without a permit, eh?
This is just like the big lie lefties tell about drug offenders, about how they're doing a 10-year stretch for mere drug possession. On the face of it, it's true and therefore easily impresses the likes of Dan Rather and Mike Wallace. Problem is, these people in most cases not only have a long arrest record all kinds of offenses drug- and non-drug related, their sentences are the result of a plea bargain in which far more serious charges were dropped in exchange for testimony against Mr. Big.
So I must ask: can you give us a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a protester who had no prior record, did not engage in any violent act, did not resist arrest, did not urinate or defecate in the middle of the street, etc., who spent more time in jail than most convicted murderers?
This begs some serious questions: What kind of country does such a thing? What else are they capable of? How much worse will it get? I see this case akin to the canary dying in the mine. It's a symptom of serious, deep seated problems.
I see it that way too, but for very different reasons and with very different conclusions. Another serious question that should be asked is how long the left will put up with marauding hordes sacking entire neighborhoods for their cause of peace and tolerance -- or is this the canary in the coal mine telling us just how toxic leftism really is?
I agree, that may be part of it.
But there is another part. The civil rights protests of the 60's (whether you agree with them or not) effected a monumental change in American society, and shook established powers to the bone.
You may find it shocking but I do agree with the civil rights protests of the 60's, the cause certainly. And the means in most cases too, because if you recall, most of the civil rights protests were VERY PEACEFUL AND NON-VIOLENT, especially those led by MLK, and what laws they did break were clearly unjust (e.g., Rosa Parks). They did not vandalize, they did not rape and pillage, they did not maim and kill -- and they won. Had MLK resorted to a Malcolm X "by any means necessary" strategy, they would have lost overwhelmingly. (ANOTHER SHOCKER: Having said that, however, if MLK's way failed, I would have been a lot more sympathetic toward Malcolm X's tactics.)
But it didn't fail -- yet somehow the modern lefty protester never absorbed this message. To this nano-second, they don't understand how dearly their willingly and gleefully honed public image as half-naked, drug-addled, violent perverts and lunatics has cost them in the voting booth -- especially over the last 4 years.
Government isn't stupid, and they quickly recognized the power of free assembly and civil protest to hold their shake on power. They were hell bent to prevent anything like that from ever happening again and couldn't manage to outlaw protest altogether. Hence, the "free speech zone", where you're free to speak behind a chainlink fence two miles from anywhere while surrounded by a battallion of riot police.
CONSPIRACY ALERT! CONSPIRACY ALERT! WHOOOOOP!!...WHOOOOP!!.....WHOOOOP!! Your credibility is waning. The federal, state and local goverments waited 40 years after MLK to come up with a means of STOPPING PEACEFUL PROTESTS, as opposed to being a reluctant measure to prevent violence from a crowd that has a long history of violence? The violence in Chicago, LA, Seattle, and all points in between over the last 40 years that even you grudgingly admit earlier "might be part of the problem" has NOTHING to with this?
The same violence you keep pretending isn't happening as if law enforcement should be condemn us all to repeat history by pretending that all protesters are Henry David Thoreau? They waited 40 years to retroactively get at MLK? What are you going to tell us next, the CIA controls earthquakes and weather and the K on the Snapple bottle means Ku Klux Klan?
I guarantee you that if the left stops the violence, the free speech zones will soon be nothing but a footnote in history books.
Oh, you think THAT'S what our frustration is about? Protesters meekly stepping out of free speech zones? You think that's what makes us want to see heads get cracked? Tell me you're joking.
Maybe I wouldn't think that if I hadn't seen it here so many times.
And you've never seen anything of the kind at Democratic Underground or MoveOn.Org or Michael Moore's website? Please! Multiply the worst of what you find here by a hundred and that's your typical lefty web forum.
Pardon me for not doing cartwheels of joy because government has neutered yet another core liberty of the Bill of Rights.
Pardon me for being equally upset that the violent anti-violence pro-tolerance left has forced us down this road.
Oh, I'm pissed about this alright. Believe it. I've just seen so much of it I've become a bit numb to it.
It was probably arrogant of me to throw something at you that I suspected you weren't aware of. Dennis Prager is a radio talk show host who came up with this "law" of conservation of anger as a sort of combination of the Law of Conservation of Energy and a Jewish proverb: "Those who are kind to the cruel will be cruel to the kind."
In other words, anger cannot be repressed, it just surfaces elsewhere, like a wet bar of soap in water. In your case, you sweep your outrage at violent protesters and their violation of others' civil rights in the name of anti-violence and civil rights under the rug of rationalization and excuses -- but then it pops up elsewhere in the form of you being angry at people like me for "causing" this violence by voting the "wrong way". Like blaming a store clerk for a liquor store robbery.