Posted on 02/04/2002 12:09:13 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:03:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
BLEAH!
A handcuffed protester strikes a rude pose after cops arrested a bunch of anti-World Economic Forum demonstrators in the East Village yesterday.
February 4, 2002 -- THE cops in riot gear rushed forward with such intensity, a dozen of us protesters crashed into the table of a panic-stricken merchant selling oil paintings.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I am amazed that an FR thread has gone on for 60 posts and no one has mentioned that one.
I don't believe that the cops were behaving in a militaristic manner, however. They know that in this age of camcorders and digital cameras, they best be on their best behavior.
I defy anyone to show me where one of these punks was billyclubbed or pepper sprayed without a reason.
Ever notice how Freepers don't get attacked by law enforcement?
When I was a boy, the college age punks spent their boredom on eating goldfish.
Of course, it was Depression (Big, Big "D") time and most couldn't afford much else. They tried to make Ripley's Believe It Or Not through the sheer number of the little carp they could eat at one time.
Then WW2 came along, and goldfish were mostly forgotten.
What an a**hole. I wish the cop would have hammered him.
I'll drink to that, LOL! But where did the NYPD get a "Hillbilly"? I suspect the author was toying with the word "redneck", but that wasn't working, either.
He also wrote the above quote, so I surmise that Sgt. Burton is large and Black or White and definitely pissed about what he has been reading from the press!
It could also be a lie, because a Sgt. would not usually dis-respect a true reporter that way and if the Sgt. suspected fake credentials he would have put the bag on the guy holding them and confiscated the papers, that is why I suspect the writer is a liar!!
Re-read my comment keeping 9/11 in mind and then ask yourself if a NYPD Sgt. would be either that stupid or that lazy?
Would he shove a guy he knows is a reporter or would he allow someone with fake papers to walk away?
I say neither!! Here comes my last post redux!!
It could also be a lie, because a Sgt. would not usually dis-respect a true reporter that way and if the Sgt. suspected fake credentials he would have put the bag on the guy holding them and confiscated the papers, that is why I suspect the writer is a liar!!
Blame the editors, not the reporter. This article was either heavily edited for length, or the reporter was so inept and ill-directed that his report should not have been run at all.
A reporter spending three days among this goofy cast of characters, staging public protests at this time, for these issues, and in this of all cities - should have produced an interesting and enlightening account. It wasn't, but it was not because of some bend-over to authority. It was the typical laziness and incompetence of so-called "journalists."
These protesters are not anti-globalist, they just think the wrong people are running things. If heaven forbid they should ever be in charge, they'll be ten times more tyrannical than anything that's out there today.
Well, maybe. That's certainly what the press keep telling us. Yet I can't help but wonder whether in amongst them there are people genuinely fed up with the growing intervention in their daily lives by faceless men who were never elected. Today in Australia we are facing yet more criticism from UN HR commissioner Mary Robinson, for instance. I never voted for her, or against her, yet apparently Australia is in breach of some international 'covenant on the rights of the child.' It reminds one of how the Founders must have felt early in the piece. (Supposedly) free men, yet still subject to rules from absentee authoritarians with no real understanding of the problems they're addressing.
It only ran for one day in a newspaper you don't even get deywn undah.
But Pard, the cops announce in the media they'll have water cannon, pepper spray, shields and billy clubs, snipers on the rooftops, and all the rest. So of course all you're going to get is the hardest of hard core protesters. Fact is, a lot of people have issues with the globalists, but wouldn't be prepared to face serried ranks of blue to protest about them.
Okay. Am I sounding shrill? I just wish you were here to see what's happening, Kid. Aborigines, taking us to the World Court. The UN Human Rights Committee, demanding to inspect the refugee detention centres. Even the (R) SPCA, appealing to 'external powers' to ban hunting in Australia. Our sovereignity is eroding at a worrying rate. Cheers, B.
Uh, I have some personal stories that would have made a pretty good episode of 'COPS' if there had been a camera around.
1. Let the aborigines open gambling casinos and don't tax them. The World Court people will come ask them why they dropped the case, and the aborigines will say 'We have the loosest slots in Ayers Rock! Don't forget to try the $1 shrimp cocktails in the Tiki Lounge! Have your joined our Golden Ticket club yet? It's the fastest way to earn comps!'
2. Let the UN inspect the refugee detention centers. Here in America, we dress our detainees up in blindfolds, earmuffs, ball-gags, orange jumpsuits, S&M bondage gear, oven mitts, and jello-filled fishing boots just to see the human rights people's expressions when they finally get a peek at them. A good Aussie solution would be to staff the aforementioned Aborigine casinos with busboys, maids, and cocktail waitresses. That solves your refugee problem.
3. Let the SPCA ban hunting. See how they like that law when you let a few hungry dingos out of your car near a Melbourne day-care center.
Think Judo, Byron. Not Karate.
Do Americans have to solve everyone's problems? ;-]
Thanks for the laugh, bud.
Their issue is simple. They, or rather the minority not too clueless to realize how they are being manipulated, are opposed to spreading the industrial and economic development and prosperity of the West to the rest of the world. They (again, the minority who understand what is really going on) want the little black and brown peoples of Africa, Asia, etc to remain mired in poverty. Their motivation falls into one or more of the following categories:
1) They are hard core socialists, or even Marxists, or devotees of some similar utopian, revolutionary vision. They realize that prosperous societies with large middle classes are "revolution proof". The acheivement of global prosperity and a global middle class (which should occur within about 50 years under current trends) will put an end to their dreams of creating their "perfect" world.
2) They are global "poverty pimps," or enablers thereof, with vested interests in expanding and perpetuating a system were Western funded global organizations dole out handouts to and maintain expensive "programs" for the "benefit" of the little brown people.
3) They are full of irrational guilt because of the success of their own culture, Western Civilization, which they consider evil. They would rather that billions of human beings be kept in degradation, and suffer political oppression, than that they join "us" in our decadent over consumption of Mother Earth's resources, our souless consumerism, yada, yada, yada. (Of course they are not going to forego the benefits thereof, they just want to deny them to the little brown people who are living in a blessed more "natural" state, i.e. poverty.)
4) Grading into number three, they are simply destructive nihilists who resent those who build things up, and desire to tear them down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.