Anti anti-Bush protesters beaten. Hilarious!

We're missing the whole point. The pro-Bush group than infiltrated the other group wanted a fight to break out to make the anti-Bush group look bad. That was the whole idea.

The Bush protestors were within their own group. If they had infiltrated another opposition group or infiltrated Bush's motorcade, they would have stood the chance of getting beaten just like the pro-Bush group did.

There were Bush protestors at the inauguration who tried to get near a fence along the route and got tear gas sprayed in their faces by security. They weren't even close to infiltrating the parade route. The story was on one of the European news networks. I didn't see it anywhere on the U.S. news networks.

The group that infiltrated the anti-Bush group didn't even get tear gassed when they hadn't yet approached the protestors. They actually got a good deal out of the whole thing compared with some of the Bush protestors who got gassed.

 

Peter Jennings and Tavis Smiley were commenting on it on, is it ABC? can't remember the logos because I rarely watch the tube. But, yeah, they did have the footage going on albeit from a great distance (tower cam).

As far as being specific, the PW are a bunch of fratboy dense lunkhead fucks. They marched into a group of people who were facing the possibility of batons, teargas, cuffs and jail simply for exacting their constitutional rights. Many had to go through all kinds of bs just to be there and many more were even denied access based soley on their opinions. One could say that tensions are already high. Then to march in their and rub it in the faces of people under duress is just plain stupid. Personally though, I wouldn't have whooped their ass but probably just given them each one hell of a wedgie and sent em crying to mom for mall money.

 

I didn't really watch much ABC. They had better shots of it on the European news stations.

I wouldn't want violence no matter who infiltrated who (just so there's no misunderstanding about what I posted earlier).

In an somewhat unrelated matter, one of the European news stations was showing some of the hotels near DC for Bush's inauguration that were charging $150,000 for a four night stay. Jeez.

 

Hey you have to respect the lines, remeber things can get ugly and in the past the goverment have gotten saboteurs into protests in the past to give the police a reason to attack protestors. I wouldn't put it past those PW fuckers to throw a rock at a police officer just to get the police to start pepper spraying the crowd.

While face it Pro-Bush supporters will never get pepper sprayed, tear gased or rubber bullets/beanbags fired at them no matter what they do.

 

violence should never be condoned.

 

J/K about the wedgie but the sentiment would be there. Same here as far as violence goes. I don't support it in any way because there are far more creative ways to deal with such a situation.
I guess I was just trying to point out the difference in environment between the two. The anti Bush, anti-war folk face guns, tazers, gas, billy clubs , "Free Speech Zones" , all manners of ugly things in opposition to their voice everytime they go out. There is always an intimidating police presence whenever you speak out against the administration. This is hardly ever broadcast in the American media and the info is stifled in the press. When the pro Bush/Neo Con/Police state people come out, they'll let them have a parade and million dollar bonanzas and there's tons of footage/ positive commentary etc... Big difference in how the freedom of speech is handled.
A good example was just looking at the difference in security where the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition had secured a section and just across the street. On the A.N.S.W.E.R. side the police were three/four rows thick. On the other side (pro bush) they had a single line. If it was really about a 'terrorist' threat, can anyone honestly believe that terrorist would be dumb enough to show up as 'Anti-Bush' or do you think they'd try to come off as one of the sheeple? Seems the answer on that one's quite obvious.

 

Compare the number of anti bush protesters to pro bush protesters. Big difference. Can you even name a time in the past 4 years that pro bush people were rallying in the hundreds of thousands, inaugerations aside?

Police position themselves were they believe they will be needed. They believe the violence will flair up on the side of the anti bush people. I hope you dont think they'll go 'easy' on bush's people who are throwing rocks at the police.

 

I love how the one's that are for peace resorted to violence, and the one's against the people for peace just took it like men.
I think the anti-anti-bush people did a good job

 

I stay out of political issues in cyberspace for the most part so my only comment on this is that street theater as it was called in the 60s has been used by radicals to the left and right for a long time . Peta pulls that shit all the time .
I bet if a peta member got there ass kicked at a bbq cook off ( yes it would be funny also) a lot of the people who thought THIS issue was a hoot would be screaming about freedom of speach.


and that comment does not mean I don't see the humor in the situation its just an observation from my slightly twisted point of view
..








" First they came for the jews
I did not speak out because I was not a jew
Then they came for the communists
I did not speak out because I was not a communist
Then they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist
then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me"

Martin Neimoller

 

I agree with the first part. Why are those kids anti-war? Usually because violence is wrong. Why make the whole world discredit your anti-war sentiment by participating in the very thing you are protesting against? Seems asinine

 

It was a staged event to give those results. They want the general public to have this impression in their minds, and hopefully generalize it to the whole hippie community.

 

Another generalization of the anti-war movement. Just because someone is opposed to the current war in Iraq doesn't mean they're opposed to all war, they just feel that that this war isn't justified. I sincerely believe that the majority of those who protest this war would have willingly served during WWII if they had been around then.

 

I suppose a few peace activists could infiltrate a pro-Bush group and get them to beat them up so that the public thinks all pro-Bush people are violent.

 

Bush won the election, so i think the pro-bushies win the war.

 

Still, say this war isn't justified is, for most, another way of saying that violence is not called for against another human being just because they believe a different way. That's all I was trying to say. Why ruin your voice trying to shut-up another's?

 

Um...they WERE trying to incite people. Did you read the article?

Honky Tonk, you're not very smart, are ya...

 

In this instance, respect means just knowing your place. These people who were beat up were inciting the peace protestors. I don't care about Bush supporters. I see them as ill informed. But that doesnt mean that I will go into one of their rallys and start trying to incite them.

Thats respect. Respect people, not the government

As far as free speech, I don't see this as a problem. Theres a difference between freespeech and inciting a riot. We all have free speech, but the other thing that most people don't understand is there is responsilibity that goes with this liberty. You are responsible for your words.

Do I think beating someone up because of their views is right? Not at all.

But do I understand it? Yes.

We are human.

 

It's getting hard to tell the genuine from the staged. A while back Bush spent a lot of money on a mock press conference where the reporters (actors) were praising him on his No Child Left Behind policy. I'm sure some people were fooled and thought it was a real press conference.

There were a number of other staged events during the last campaign. Some of them had the same group pretending to be both opposing groups (like the same person using two different usenames on a forum and debating back and forth with himself). It reminds me of the pre-arranged fights you see on the tabloid talk shows like Springer. It's a sleazy sort of tactic.

 

i'm confused how holding up signs that read "say no to war unless a democrat is president" is inciting a riot.