Battle in Seattle -- "Celebrating extremism?"
Current time: 05-23-2013, 06:51 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Darren Dirt
Last Post: Darren Dirt
Replies: 1
Views: 426

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Battle in Seattle -- "Celebrating extremism?"
02-21-2008, 05:11 PM
Post: #1
Battle in Seattle -- "Celebrating extremism?"
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/board/nest/68348281">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/board/nest/68348281</a><!-- m -->

(IMDB thread discussing this anti-WTO anti-policeviolence movie)

Quote:Re: Celebrating extremism   
  by patrickmaura   (Fri Jul 6 2007 06:18:00)  Ignore this User | Report Abuse 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So violence is ok in your case but not in terrorism or threats the government sees,

If we dont believe what you believe we are sheep. But if everyone believes what you believe then that makes us sheep.

It sounds like your a facist anyway. Thats the thing about liberals I cant stand, there all about freedom of speach unless you dont believe what they believe, there against war, unless a corporation wants to make money to pay employees.

I have a feeling your a spoiled little rich kind with way to much time on his hand or someone who is too lazy to work and thinks the everyone else should work hard so you dont have to.(socialism)






Re: Celebrating extremism   
  by ryanpm4545   (Sun Jul 8 2007 22:48:51)  Ignore this User | Report Abuse 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh, so if the GOVERNMENT does it, then it's okay. I get it now.... Germany was full of sheep like you in the 1920's and 30's. We both know where that led."

Why do you capitalize "government"? It's not a proper noun, and if it were, it would still only be Government. Silly boy. So I'm a sheep? Because I believe that the government can sanction violence? I don't want to stray into a civics lesson here, but a government does have a legal right to sanction violence. A mob does not. You're such a funny, silly little boy. You really don't know the difference, do you?

"Or in the case of Little King George, selected by Daddy's cronies on the Court."

He must have lots and lots of cronies .... as he did receive more votes than Kerry. Or am I about to hear a drab, interminable speech on Diebold?

"Who gives a *beep* what is "allowed" or "permissable"? When the system is corrupt, it's time to go around it and hoist the black flag (or perhaps the black and red one...)."

Um ... lots of people give a beep. The police care. Politicians care. The vast majority of U.S. citizens care. You are just a child. So full of angst. So cute. 






Re: Celebrating extremism   
  by turthlover   (Tue May 29 2007 10:22:05)  Ignore this User | Report Abuse 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"body elected by the majority of the people (or electorial college)"

First, the government does not represent a majority of the people, because millions are barred from voting, whether legally (b/c they are illegal or felons) or illegally (due to various dirty tricks). Not to mention that barely 50% of the electorate turns out at any given time to actually vote. So, for example, only 51.3% of the electorate turned out in 2000, of which Bush pulled down 47.9% - so his "mandate" from the "people" was 24.6% of the electorate - eerily similar to the percentage of this country who are essentially religious fascists.

This debate is so insane - the anarchists in Seattle fought with a few cops, after the police, under orders from President Clinton and his secret service detail, started carpet bombing the city with tear gas to break up the blockades, shooting unarmed, peaceful protestors with rubber bullets at close range, running people over with motorcycles, beating people, etc etc.

Whatever "violence" was committed - and, btw, damaging property is almost never "violence" - is miniscule in comparison to what the police doled out on the 30th and the following days, and what the State, on the behalf of capital, has doled out across the world on a daily basis for the last 300 years.

Crying about a few broken windows, paid for by insurance, is low on my list of subjects deserving of tears and grief.

etc.


also related: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/board/nest/89507044">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/board/nest/89507044</a><!-- m -->

and especially <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/board/nest/61722961">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/board/nest/61722961</a><!-- m --> ("The police presented, nakedly, a real-world training exercise in martial law. We were the guinea pigs as they tested new gaseous chemical weapons and "non-lethal projectiles" in their assault weaponry. I helped tend to a man whose jaw was shattered by a plastic bullet. His broken mouth oozed blood. I saw a mom shopping with her toddlers, unwittingly walk out of an expensive department store, into the midst of a fresh tear gas cloud. Her children shrieked in pain and terror as the department store manager LOCKED the front door, barring the woman and her children from returning inside to safety. The stories are endless. Remember, this "siege" went on for days."  :o )
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)