RAVAGE THE RNC: Take the Streets, Take Control!

RAVAGE THE RNC: Take the Streets, Take Control!
> Call for Direct Action at the Republican
> National Convention in New York City
> August 29th - September 4th 2004
> In over 150 years of existence, the Republican
> Party has never had their convention in New
> York. But in over 150 years of existence, there
> have never been three thousand lives of innocent
> civilians to exploit all in one major
> metropolitan area. And you can bet that they'll
> be exploiting them every second that they're in
> town. Every photo opportunity, every fundraising
> dinner, every trinket sold will take full
> advantage of the tragedy of September 11th to
> turn Bush's reign of terror into a two term
> affair.
> The September 11th attacks have been used as a
> pretext for implementing an Orwellian program of
> social control at home and abroad. During the
> last four years under the Republican
> administration the US has accelerated its
> longstanding policy of bombing, pillaging and
> terrorizing other nations of the world, while
> expanding domestic repression to unprecedented
> levels.
> Two wars of aggression have resulted in the
> deaths of over 20,000 innocent people and the
> occupation of two sovereign nations. Thousands
> of immigrants and people of color have been
> secretly detained, some for years, and many
> others have been deported. The Bush
> administration is systematically gaining control
> of women's bodies, choices and lives through
> legislation, judicial review and redirection of
> federal funds. With the passage of the PATRIOT
> Act and other repressive policies, the
> goose-step of imperialism is becoming swifter
> while ignoring the true roots of terrorism; war,
> capitalism and the State.
> Beginning on August 29th, the Republican Party
> will hold its five-day long convention in New
> York City. By holding the convention in New
> York, George W. Bush is spitting in the face of
> a city that still bears open wounds, exploiting
> the misery of 9-11 for his own political gain.
> The fear of terrorism instilled in the American
> public by the Bush administration will be used
> to justify state terrorism in the streets of New
> York this summer, as expressions of dissent are
> met with brutal force.
> New York will represent the biggest opportunity
> for resistance to empire in decades. Inspired by
> mass anger and disillusionment with the policies
> of the Bush administration, the potential is
> incredible, and the authorities realize this.
> The response to these protests has already been
> determined. Armed with a $25 million donation
> from the federal government, the city of New
> York will attempt to define the terms of our
> free speech and right to assemble in ways that
> will minimize our impact. The city will use
> tens of thousands of police in an attempt to
> maintain rigid control over the protests.
> Despite the use of such highly militaristic
> forms of state repression, hope is not lost -
> the Bush administration's drive towards the
> illegal invasion of Iraq generated the largest
> worldwide demonstrations in history. Even the
> lowest estimates put 500,000 people on the
> streets of New York City this summer. The city
> of New York will be forced to deal with not
> tens, but hundreds of thousands of people coming
> to voice their opposition to these past four
> years of war and deceit. In the face of these
> numbers, the possibilities will be endless. The
> streets will be ours, and this is an opportunity
> we refuse to miss.
> As anti-authoritarians, we call upon people from
> around the world to come to New York City to
> participate in creative mass direct action, of
> the likes not seen in the United States since
> before the September 11th attacks. Critics say
> that our movement is dying; we must regain the
> militancy that our movement once had, showing
> our critics how wrong they really are, and
> teaching the ruling elite where the power really
> lies in this country.
> We must remember that it is our labor that keeps
> things functioning: without us, the cities
> stop, without our obedience, they have no rule.
> Only our absolute refusal will effectively
> challenge the State. As Mario Savio said:
> "There is a time when the operation of the
> machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at
> heart, that you can't take part; you can't even
> passively take part, and you've got to put your
> bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon
> the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've
> got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate
> to the people who run it, to the people who own
> it, that unless you're free, the machine will be
> prevented from working at all!"
> The time has come to move past outmoded and
> predictable tactics, expanding our strategy to
> include innovative tactics that will forever
> dispel the notion that the State, in any way, is
> in control of our lives.
> To get involved in creating a direct action
> framework for the RNC please join this
> listserve:
> http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/rnc-da.
> The Convention is less than four months away -
> let's start organizing now!
> See you on the streets in August!
> In Solidarity,
> Midwest Unrest - Chicago, IL
> New Jersey Anti-Racist Action - New Brunswick,
> NJ
> Baltimore Homes Not Jails - Baltimore, MD
> Stelton (A) Collective, North-Eastern Federation
> of Anarcho-Communists (NJ NEFAC )
> To endorse this call, please email
> rncda@hushmail.com with "Endorsement" as the
> subject.

 

Yes, yes. We're evil, killing the planet, murdering civies, blah, blah, blah.
I've heard it all before. Give me something new.

 

What's up with a protest against the RNC?

Why not just elect a majority of democrats?



Let the people, the majority of the people decide who will be the kennel master?



Bush didn't go to war! The civilized world through their representatives at the UN resolved in resolution 1441, and the majority of the congress of the US, including Senator Kerry said in a vote of "CONFIDENCE" it's a good idea to go to war with Iraq! That isn't even debatable. So why protest against the majority of voters? Do you want anarchy? Do you want a new rule, the minority rules?



WHY?



Changeyourlatitude

 

true, true. All good opinions

 

No, we did not have UN support. Bush threw out UN support to pick up Daddy's war. AND NOT ONE WEAPON FOUND YET I MIGHT ADD! Maverick all I've ever seen you do is tell people to stop whinning, Bush is doing a great job, aint america great bs. Lets hear some points. Im not saying shut the hell up, I'm saying you need points instead of "Blah blah blah" Can you sit there and say that Bush has not held up 9/11 as the reason to go and get everyone? He still uses it. Chaos is absolutly right about this. The convention will most likely contain the word "terrorist" or "9/11" every few beats. Now are you saying that they should do that, prolonging the fear, the saddness and the hurt, or that its not an issue? WHERE IS YOUR STANCE?! All you do is come on these threads going "Bitch Bitch Bitch" and its fairly irritating. I dont remember one damn line from that reading anything about killing the planet? Do you have a little book of generic retorts? I'd like to know if your anti-abortion or pro-choice? I think making women unable to abort is no worse than making women remove their clitoris with force. Control of something thats not theirs, thats what its all become about. The Patriot act is a bullshit act like the RAVE act as well. It will come to become law as well, mark me on it, because everyones gonna say the same thing, "If your not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about." Before you know it they'll be proposing random cavitey searches on everyone. "If your not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about." Then music will become illegal because it "promotes illegal or inapropriate behavior." Its a pebble now. I would like it stopped before its a landslide. If I were there I would protest.

 

Dark

How did you get so wise so young?

Maybe you fear too much but you are awake unlike so many more who are sleeping!

Changeyourlatitude

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE
ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

 

No the democrats are not saying saddam never had wmd...hell we sold them to him! fuck we just need to dig out the receipts! but we know that was not the issue. Hell most of them were used in the gulf war and then we had inspectors up his ass and more was destroyed. cheney and his boys have wanted to go to war with iraq ever since the first war ended. thats a known fact. and we are protesting the rnc because we do not want to force others against thier will in our name.
kill humans in our name
rape the earth in our name
we do not want another hitler mentality
we want our constitution and bill of rights restored and respected

we protest the rnc because that is our right and responsibility as americans. bush does not represent the people.
we are the people
we want peace
bush is not a leader. he is a war monger...and a dumb ass. the president should not be a dumb ass.

we protest because we have foresight through history.

 

This is all very true but! even after prezzy bush personally knew iraq had no WMDs he still decided to go forward with an ivasion anyway. Because Iraq and Afghanistan have the mother of all oil wells and we've already got them, and Iran has the mother of all oil pipelines, who shall the US invade next? hmm? I would so bet anyone anything that the US invades Iran within the next 6 months to a year. We started a revolution back in 1776 cuz we were tired of takin the brit's shit. (no offense to any modern brits, i know it is not your fault) but aren't we just turning into them. a modern US prez is just some puppet. c'mon how else does the male version of Paris Hilton get in office? and get reelected? im surprised that he wasn't the one who asked what wal-mart was. He has mad some stupid quotes in the past. like "They misunderestimated me." or "I beleive that the human being and the fish can coexist." or "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family" or "families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream" or "its your money, you paid for it" or "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." or "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" or my personal favorite "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

is everyone pissing thier pants yet?

Try to swallow what i'm about to tell you okay.

So i was reading about water powered cars. This guy was experimenting a little bit and one day he was just drivin mindin his own business. A car full of men in black suits with guns pulled him over and threatened the lives of several of his relatives if he keeps his experimenting up.


What does that all that tell you? :toetap05:Could those men in the black suits be CIA or FBI etc. agents. or could they be mafia cronies hired by the gov't or oil companies to silence this as it could potentially put them out of business? Or maybe he just made some of his neighbors mad because he was being too loud (my neighbors would be angry, because they're super lesbian gov't spies):smilielol5:


Sorry for all that length. but thank you to anyone who stuck it out to the end.

Peace and love always

 

Unfortunately, I see that there's an error. Bush didn't know until after the troops went into Iraq. Then it was too late. Already bombed it and marched in there. I guess we should have just said "Ooops our bad. We'll pack up and leave you guys to clean up your own mess." RIGHT? Then the world would have looked at the whole thing even worst than they do now.

Fact is, I watched those CNN reports and MSNBC airing all the satellite photos and all those so called "experts". They all said the same thing. Saddam has the WMD. Ohhh So, Bush did jump the gun. The United Nations just wanted another month or so to try for the millionth time to investigate. Let's not forget that the UN couldn't investigate everywhere due to Saddam limiting their access. I guess a lot of folks forgot that too.

So Bush jumped the gun. He was dealing with cleaning up a mess that could have been prevented if Clinton had done his job while he was in office instead of getting blow jobs and getting high.

Oh and let's not forget the fact that Clinton and his fellow democrats in Congress voted to cut our military in HALF back in the early 90's! I lived in a military town then and I remember the pissed off army guys going to local bars. All of them had the same complaint. They all were chosen NOT to be offered re-enlistment after serving only 6 to 8 years. Many of them WANTED to be in and WANTED to be career. Of course, Clinton didn't care about that. He was all about "balancing the budget" all the while setting our country up for being sideswiped by terrorists. Yeah. Thanks. No wonder he went to Canada instead of serving in Vietnam.

So save your doom and gloom about Bush and the shit you *think* republicans have done. I haven't seen any of the democrats do anything good in decades.

Oh and don't forget - Lincoln was a Republican. Douglas was a Democrat.