The more crap they pull, the more they drag the Democratic party down. They can't see that, I guess. Swing voters can, though.
Protesters seen in New York State 20 April. An organization representing groups protesting the US-led war in Iraq (news - web sites) filed suit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for being denied access to the city's Central Park in late August during the Republican National Convention(AFP/File/Luke Frazza)
Ah, the descendents of ex-McVeigh rear their ugly heads.
The leftists/anarchists want to replicate Chicago '68 in the streets of Manhattan.
My guess is that some protestors will try to duplicate 1998, i.e., create enough disturbance to associate the Republican Party with chaos, disorder, and trouble, so that voters vote Dem in order to "make it [the chaos] all go away." But it might backfire if they do this; voters might accurately perceive that the disorder and chaos are coming from forces sympathetic to the Dems.
I expect violence. It is a given, they cannot compete in the realm of truth and ideas.
Blessings, Bobo
If the demonstrations turn violent or ugly, watch for Republicans to sweep races from top to bottom. IMHO, you will see a lot of Democrats that have been on the edge now officially leave their party.
We have a Republican County Commission candidate that was a Democrat until last year and he said he could not take it anymore and became a Republican.
With Kerry heading the ticket, flyover country democrats have been shut out of the process. Heck Kerry came in 3rd here in OK.
This was posted early this morning with little notice. the far left plans on electronic rioting as well
Electronic Civl Disobedience against the RNC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1193886/posts
The dims put protesters in razor wire cages. How come the concerned rat politicians aren't investigating that?
And you KNOW when there is violence (I have no doubt myself)
that the first thing words they say are that it was,
"Agent provocators of the FBI and CIA who infiltrated the
peaceful demonstrators and incited... etc,etc, etc."
I'm sure Mr. Nadler will be on the front lines during the first amendment sanctioned peaceful protests.
... or he will be the front line.
To Nadler, Conyers and Scott, illegal demonstrations and protests without proper permits and the carrying and use of "offensive" weaponry is the same as "legitimate protest." Expect a democrat to come up with a constitutional right to break the law.
The Ruckus Society actually PUT A STATEMENT ON IT'S WEBSITE before the Democratic convention that they'd been ordered to stand down on their plan to protest it. The statemnt actually recommended the dear little members follow orders, then went on to enthuse about how they were gonna make up for it at the RNC.
I pissed off a lib this morning when I told him that the Great Unwashed descending on NY were in alliance with the Democratic Party and their intention was to disrupt the Republican convention.
He's an old time Dem who still doesn't realize that his party has been hijacked by hard lefties, commies, Hollywood and billionaires. He still thinks they care about 'little people'.
Matter of fact, he called me a 'McCarthyite' and has been giving me the cold shoulder all day.
Bummer...
Rats, it's changed. I should have saved it. Now they're just organizing the disruption of New York.
I am concerned no so much at the loony protesters, rather that they create additional crowd conditions, pandemonium, havoc, chaos, noise (the list goes on and on), which will make it much, much easier for an Al Qaeda team (or teams) to use the unruly environment to gain operational mobility and set off bombs etc, undetected.
My hunch is that because there will be so many unruly types, it will be much more difficult to efficiently deploy and utilize manpower where legitimate threats exist. In essence, the hordes of radical professional protesters serve as a tactical smokescreen for Al Qaeda elements, similar to smoke grenades being used on a battlefield to cover troop movement.
In that sense, if there IS an actual terrorist attack, and critical manpower was dealing with anarchist BS, and prevented from engaging or disrupting a terrorist operation in progress, I would argue that the hordes of unruly protestors can be directly implicated in any terrorist attack, and prosecuted accordingly to the maximum extent of the law.
I am concerned no so much at the loony protesters, rather that they create additional crowd conditions, pandemonium, havoc, chaos, noise (the list goes on and on), which will make it much, much easier for an Al Qaeda team (or teams) to use the unruly environment to gain operational mobility and set off bombs etc, undetected.
My hunch is that because there will be so many unruly types, it will be much more difficult to efficiently deploy and utilize manpower where legitimate threats exist. In essence, the hordes of radical professional protesters serve as a tactical smokescreen for Al Qaeda elements, similar to smoke grenades being used on a battlefield to cover troop movement.
In that sense, if there IS an actual terrorist attack, and critical manpower was dealing with anarchist BS, and prevented from engaging or disrupting a terrorist operation in progress, I would argue that the hordes of unruly protestors can be directly implicated in any terrorist attack, and prosecuted accordingly to the maximum extent of the law.
I sincerely hope those arrested are charged as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo!
Ahh....note to self. Bring tape for my hands in case I have to defend myself. (Note to FBI lurkers - I won't start trouble....my former FBI congressman would kick my ass if I did.)