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]
Shut up, newbie.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
I think it's safe to say that all involved in the protest (not the counter-protest) are being led by socialist or, to a lesser degree, anarchist groups. It may also be safe to say that none of the participants believe that gun control or abortion is evil.
Wise words, Pard.
All hammering them does is build a bunker mentality. But what really concerns me is the way these excessively militaristic 'crowd control' techniques are becoming accepted by the public. The crystal ball tells me that eventually conservatives will rue the day they started condoning this heavy-handedness.
Yes, 'it may also be safe to say' that if my aunt wore army boots she'd be my uncle. The fact is, you don't know. And the reporter couldn't be bothered- or was instructed not- to tell you. There's a lot of this about now, in 'reporting'; an ersatz version of 1984's 'Three Minute Hate.'
Watch it, Ronnie.
Any more of your lip and I'll do things to you the Hamburglar never dreamed of.
Okay, thanks.
Not being familiar with the chap's work, I can only judge him on what I read here. Regards, B.
Well, lets see. My good friend Byron has been here since 1998. You and habs have been here since last summer. If my good friend Byron is a DU disruptor, he is a very patient one.
While I think Byron's statement that the protesters have "legitimate gripes" is unfortunate, I think his greater point is true. The "legitimate gripes" phrase is unfortunate because the gripe of the various Trotskyites, Moaists, Enviro-wackos and Anarchists is that the existing state has not yet been smashed and we are not yet living in a Utopia of their own construction and control. I count us all lucky that this is not (yet) true
But his larger point is that the Globalism movement is inherently wrong. I had the opportunity to listen to somebody who is part of the forum speak at a religious service on Saturday. He was a wonderful man, and inspiring speaker, and somebody who I would feel confident being in a position of authority. But if he is not elected and not accountable, and he operates with a lot of other people who are not elected and not accountable, then I do not like it one little bit.
It all comes down to who you think should be in control. Should it be the elites, or should it be the people? Should it be a ruling cabal who knows what's best for us, or should it be a representative democracy (i.e. a republic)? These are important and interesting questions. Trashing the idiot protesters only distracts from the real issue.
Actually, he did cover their motivations - didn't you read the article? The vast majority of them are spoiled suburban punks who are motivated by boredom and the search for some safe (i.e. the chances of NYPD cops actually using lethal force against demonstrators is zero) thrills.
What about the point that the enemy-of-our-enemy is not necessarily our friend? I don't think Byron is really supporting the Trotskyites. I think he is saying that you don't have to be a Trotskyite to think that the WEF might not be a great idea. And that the fact that the media attention is directed only at the idiot protesters allows the WEF to work largely out of the public view. This is a legitimate point, IMHO. Byron does not deserved to be attacked for making it.
Oh, and by-the-by, when Hillary! is President, and the boys with the billy-clubs come for you, I will support your right to protest, too.
Actually, the protests *are* against UN bodies like the WTO and the IMF.
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.