Judge Blocks Anti-war March Near United Nations (Snicker Snicker)

if it involves the IAC/ANSWER, probably not. they were very much against the clinton kosovo campaign.

While I disagree with IAC/ANSWER'x message, I gotta give it up to them for at least being consistent.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of people protesting this war (not to mention germany, France, Belgium and Luxemburg) totally looked the other way when Clinton unilateraly bombed Serbia, so as to remove Lewinski's testimony off the front page.

I have honestly lost count of the number of times that libs have been blatantly hypocritical.

are you sure about when the IAC sprung up?

That was the earliest I could ascertain from their website but of course I could be off on the timeline.

i know answer sprung up right after 9/11 and is made up of IAC folks. I think IAC has been around for a while complaining about the sanctions on iraq, but I don't know if they "sprang up" at the time of the kosovo campaing.

It is also possible that IAC came about when Clinton pulled the inspectors(after Saddam accussed them of being spies and threatened to kick them out) and decided to launch a few airstrikes. Either way their roots and connections with WWP are disturbing to say the least and should be shown the light of day at every convienience. The organizers are unrepentant stalinists who support any brutal dictator or regime provided said brutes hate the US.

Can you imagine if something like Operation Rescue had been run by an arm of the Klu Klux Klan and how that would be covered and preceived? And they still used/are using government force under the BS RICO act to kill these people's right to protest abortion.

I believe I read that the IAC was formed out of the WWP during or after Gulf War I. Ramsey had gotten some favorable press then, for getting out some of the hostages. Of course, the group probably wasn't online until much later, but then, hardly anyone else was either. They've gained much more visibilty and influence via the internet.

Well it would seem the protections offered by the Constitution are not important to some people. This is exactly what I have been saying on this thread. If we violate the principals of the Constitution when it is in our favor, we cannot complain when we have very few rights left. Every day the creeps in government chip away, law by law, regulation by regulation our Constitutional protections and you want to help that process along because you don't agree with the message or it may be inconvenient?

I am very glad the founding fathers did not care about inconvenience.

It is a shame we are letting the founders down by yielding our rights for something important to us at the moment.

If as you say, they do something other than protest, fine, we have laws to cover that without violating the Constitution. We should expect NYC to enforce the laws against violence, vandalism, blocking traffic with vigor, but we should not call for a ban on "peaceful protest" even if it is from scum.

Preventing the free speech, right to assembly of these sub-human, ungrateful, communist maggots is not proper and would simply lower us to their level. The left has succeeded for years in stifling the voice of the Conservative by marginalizing our opinions, ridicule, their dominance of the media and plain outright lying. I for one will not play their games.

I prefer to let them make fools of themselves. They do a very good job of that with their shrill voices spouting their Marxist BS. It's like a gay pride parade. How many people do you think see these prancing idiots and say to themselves "you know, I think they are right and I will now support their cause" or do you think maybe we look at them and say: "what friggen idiots, they better not come around my kids"?

Now you're making me yawn, buddy. The "peaceful protest" is taking place as scheduled. It will merely be stationary.

They won't get the set-dressing they desire, but their speech and right to peaceably assemble will be unimpeded.

The city is hurting financially. Property taxes have been raised twenty percent. Costs are a legitimate factor, as is the fact that these scum are proposing to drain our resources and tie up our police department when we are in an orange alert!!

The question of whether taxpayers should be forced to subsidize the speech/agenda of others is also legitimate. How do you feel about NPR and PBS?

I am very glad the founding fathers did not care about inconvenience.

And I am glad they were not in the habit of demanding that the exercise of their rights be funded by the forced appropriation of the money of others. I'm also glad they were content to leave some decisions to state and local governments.

"And I am glad they were not in the habit of demanding that the exercise of their rights be funded by the forced appropriation of the money of others. I'm also glad they were content to leave some decisions to state and local governments."

It would seem to be pointless to discuss this further with you.

If you read my entire post, you will see that there are many legal and Constitutional ways for NYC to control this protest.

I am not willing to let NYC ignore the Constitution when they have other legal avenues at their disposal. If you chose otherwise, then you become part of the forces erroding our Constitution. I doubt that is what you want to do, but that will be the result. Good day my friend.

It would seem to be pointless to discuss this further with you.

I agree. You make too many assumptions about my positions on this matter to make it worth my while.

A little less sanctimony and hyperbole would have been nice, too.

Have a good one...