And we're off! Protestors already being arrested in NYC

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-08-28 12:28pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5833290/

Damn thing hasn't started yet and 250 arrested. What was the total for the DNC again?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-28 12:32pm

Yeah, but ow many actually showed up to protest the DNC?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-28 12:37pm

There were a grand total of six DNC arrests.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-08-28 01:25pm

the 250 arrested nitwits were swarming NYC streets on bicycles blocking traffic and arguing with mototists. Yeah, thats legitimate protest...

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-28 02:41pm

George Bush is a very, very frightened little man.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-28 02:44pm

Iceberg wrote:George Bush is a very, very frightened little man.

I shall refer you to Col. Crackpots last post.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-28 02:45pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Yeah, but ow many actually showed up to protest the DNC?

Not sure, but the Democrats seem to honestly care less who protests their meetings conventions. They don't have whole protestor groups carted off if they don't go to fenced of "Free Speech Zones" nearly as often or make people who want to hear speaker's speech sign loyalty oaths to the Bush Administration on attendance.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-28 02:51pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:or make people who want to hear speaker's speech sign loyalty oaths to the Bush Administration on attendance.

Of course they don't! They're Democrats; why would they sign loyalty oaths to Bush?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-28 02:55pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Of course they don't! They're Democrats; why would they sign loyalty oaths to Bush?

*cracks you across the face with a fish* Quiet, you... you know what I mean.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-08-28 05:15pm

Iceberg wrote:George Bush is a very, very frightened little man.

i really don't think he gives a flying fuck.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-08-28 05:28pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Iceberg wrote:George Bush is a very, very frightened little man.
i really don't think he gives a flying fuck.

More to the point it won't matter, as regardless of the size of the protest, it will be deemed massive by both CNN, MSNBC and a 50% chance that Fox will as well

Even if its less than a hundred people(Just the way the media reports things)
Incase your wondering what I mean by that I draw your attention to how many people came to both the Million Man/Mom marches and how they were reported

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-08-28 10:12pm

There's no need for all these arrest. If you just throw soapy water on them they'll probably disperse.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-28 10:42pm

I remind everyone that the Republicans have officially stated that they will blame even independent protests on the Democrats.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-28 11:06pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:I remind everyone that the Republicans have officially stated that they will blame even independent protests on the Democrats.

Proof?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-28 11:06pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:There's no need for all these arrest. If you just throw soapy water on them they'll probably disperse.

I shall refer you to Col. Crackpots post.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-28 11:31pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:There's no need for all these arrest. If you just throw soapy water on them they'll probably disperse.
I shall refer you to Col. Crackpots post.

Fucking hell you're dumb, don't you get that joke?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-28 11:38pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:I remind everyone that the Republicans have officially stated that they will blame even independent protests on the Democrats.
Proof?

From the Aug 22 issue of The New York Times.

Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrepsect for a sitting president.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-08-29 12:03am

Talon Karrde wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:There's no need for all these arrest. If you just throw soapy water on them they'll probably disperse.
I shall refer you to Col. Crackpots post.

You're just a dumbass.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 12:10am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:I remind everyone that the Republicans have officially stated that they will blame even independent protests on the Democrats.
Proof?
From the Aug 22 issue of The New York Times.

Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrepsect for a sitting president.

That's just fucking classless. Where was this whining about "displays of disrespect for a sitting president" when Clinton was in office, hmm?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-29 02:34am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:I remind everyone that the Republicans have officially stated that they will blame even independent protests on the Democrats.
Proof?
From the Aug 22 issue of The New York Times.

Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrepsect for a sitting president.

The arrogance of this administration never ceases to amaze me.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-08-29 04:35am

Did anyone see Bill Maher on his show exhorting protestors to outright riot? Said something like "I want to see a riot like the ones that made Whitey move to the suburbs. Two lesbians holding a sign that says 'Lick Bush' isn't going to get media coverage. Take a garbage can and throw it through the front window of a Starbucks."

(some mod please condense this with the previous post Done~Bean)

He also said something like "If anything with the name Trump on it is still standing when you're done, you're all pussies!"

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-29 11:44am

Talon, I've provided the proof. Any comment?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 11:54am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:He also said something like "If anything with the name Trump on it is still standing when you're done, you're all pussies!"

He expected them to knock over the Trump Building?

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2004-08-29 12:11pm

Sounds like fun for the whole family.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-08-29 12:14pm

Iceberg wrote:That's just fucking classless. Where was this whining about "displays of disrespect for a sitting president" when Clinton was in office, hmm?

Coming from the Democrats, of course.

It all depends upon whose political ox is getting Gored (pun intended).