Posted on 08/29/2004 2:41:51 PM PDT by wagglebee
"Liberal amounts" of pepper spray, LOL!
Exactly...welcome to America...how the democrats want it.
Why would I be joking?
LV handles huge conventions all the time.
They have more hotel rooms than just about anywhere else in the world.
Lots of entertainment, if that is relevant to the real business of a convention.
Airport is only a couple of miles from the hotels.
If blocks of rooms were properly booked in advance for the delegates, the outside heat alone would fold up the crazies in very short order.
In LV even the down town sidewalks are private property, so the nuts would find themselves literally with no place to stand without trespassing.
Nevada is also a "swing state" this year.
These people are such pathetic wannabees. If they ever encounter real civic disruption, as in the kind where people are shooting back at them, they'd crap their pants.
From your lips to God's ear. Will you keep us updated with an "inside" view of NYC? (do you have a ping list?)
Hire Israseli bulldozer operators to drive the buses.
I'm ont disputing the reasons you listed for why New York City was chosen for the RNC but Sean Hannity who was on the "city selection team" or the team who was voting for NYC to be the city, stated that he felt that NYC needed the jolt in the economic arm that the Convention would bring - that the plays would benefit, the resturants and hotels would benefit (unlike Boston, people are actually going to go out of Madison Square Garden and eat; they are not going to have all the meals brought into the Fleet Center at they did in Boston!) and that it would, hopefully, give another huge bunch of people the idea of vacationing in NYC at some point in the near future.
I also happened to like the idea of bringing the Convention to the middle of Dimocrat land. Why not give these folks a chance, up close and personal, to see our President and hopefully, realize how personable and friendly and competent he is?
But that's just my two cents.
If need be, drop sleeping gas on the whole crowd. And, profile away!!
There is a significant difference between allowing themtoact stupid and show how utterly out of touch they are with mainstream America, and allowing them to directly endanger the lives of those attending the convention. Thye start rushing the barricades or the busses and all bets are off.
As for diverting attention from potential terrorist attacks that is the paradox of free speech. I won't disagree that their is a tension between vigilance and free speech. But I firmly believe (you are free to disagree) that there is a clear right to peaceful dissent. If the protestors get out of hand then they need to be shut down. But if they just want to chant, take their clothes off, show stupid signs, make out with their same sex partner and otherwise show their true colors then by all means let them do it and show it wall to wall on the network news.
I agree with all your points - except - where is their responsibility to understand how they risk the lives of the delegates, our president and the police and emergency workers of New York.
Do people continually have to be ignorant and act without any responsibility for what their actions do? They know they increase the danger, they know and might even support those that would use this as cover to attack, AND they choose to put their rights before anyone else.
It is irresponsible, selfish, and shows they are ignorant of our current dangers OR they don't care.
Frankly they should have to pay protest fees to pay for the extra police and security required for them to willfully ignore dangers to others so that they can exercise THEIR RIGHTS. Why should tax payers have to bear the burden of their irresponsibility and selfishness.
911 - that's why.
As despicable as it may be, responsibility and accountability are not a big part of the protesters vocabulary. (Except in conjunction with words like corporate pirates, etc.) They sincerely believe they have no responsibility. Aret they wrong? Of course. Can much be done about it? Not without violating the rights of the rest of us. I'm not a closte member of the ACLU. I just believe that we do have to protect the 'rights' of the minority, otherwise we diminish our own rights.
I'd love to see them get a bill for the extra cost they bring to the system, but you know their response, "Only the rich can afford to protest.' My question to them would be to ask how they can afford to spend all their time marching in the street. The rest of us have jobs and families to support.
A free society is not without risk. We have to balance the risks against the liberty we hold so dear. Sadly it is not always going to come out in the plus column.
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.