Protesting the RNC!- Page 7

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:30pm

jrb, I have no idea what you're talking about in your second statement. I'm not in high school and don't have those high school agendas anymore.

As far as your first statement, understanding that neither platform is all good nor all bad does not make me a flip-flopper. You seem to want everyone to agree 100% with you, or have to find something wrong with their views. That's not very democratic nor American. The whole point of America is that everyone is free to have their own views and opinions. If you don't agree, you can vote to change it. Attacking people whose views are different than yours is exactly what you hate about the other party. Ironic, eh?

Updated On: 8/29/04 at 02:30 PM

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:32pm

Exactly, Mattio. I didn't mean to give the impression that Christians shouldn't be involved in the government, just that Christianity shouldn't, as difficult as that may be- ideally speaking.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:33pm

You are twisting what I am saying--and I never attacked anyone. Don't overly dramatise this.


I don't want people to 100% agree with me. I just want them to know when they are wrong.

Updated On: 8/29/04 at 02:33 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:34pm

jrb, all I can say to your first sentence is...Ditto.

Updated On: 8/29/04 at 02:34 PM

[feinstein9]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:34pm

spider, lady, and rathnait- i've been really impressed so far with your posts. it takes a lot of guts to stand up for yourself when people want things... polorized. i set up a nice orange couch in the middle, and it's quite humorous to watch people go "respect me! believe what i believe!" and someone else say "no dawg you be respectin ME, believe what i believe!" and wonder exactly how it got to this. folks, please keep the posts intelligent and non-attacking... it's fabulous to see all the angles represented here.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:36pm

feinstein9: you miss the whole point. We want things fair. For everyone. Which is why we argue that religion has no place in government. Which is why we argue that gays should have equal rights.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:38pm

It's funny that we have to argue no religion in government. It shouldn't have to be argued. It's the way it should be. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. It's in ink in our lawmaking documents.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:41pm

And what I'm trying to get you to understand, jrb, is that voting Kerry into office is NOT going to ensure equal rights for gays. I'm gay! I want equal rights too. Voting Democrat is not going to assure that. Civil unions are not marriages. The Democratic platform is AGAINST gay marriage.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:45pm

The Democratic platform isn't against gay marriage, is it? It's not even present in the platform at all? Again, not perfect, but better ignored than directly attacked any day.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 2:47pm

Kerry has done much for the gay community. And, I do not think that Kerry will do anything to prevent gay civil rights--though he may well not push the gay marriage issue either. Granted, Clinton was supposed to be the gay Moses and wasn't either. But, when you compare Kerry and Bush, it is clear who is on our side despite that one "stance". And, you do not have to make me understand this--I am fully read up on it.

And, like it or not, we realistically live in a two party system country. I would LOVE to see a third or fourth party have a chance. But, we are stuck with what we have for the moment.

Updated On: 8/29/04 at 02:47 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 3:00pm

Okay, jrb, you do get it, and I'm glad. There are others on this board who seem to believe that electing Kerry will automatically propel gays to equal status in this country.

And bwaysinger, the way the platform handles it is to say they are leaving the issue up to the individual states. In other words, they don't want to touch it.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 3:03pm

Yes, and ultimately we agree on much more than we don't! :)

I will be the first to admit when I think I am wrong. And, I must say that I don't think I worded myself very well in my thoughts with you here. Therefore, it does seem that I am contradicting my own stance on things--and I can understand that.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 3:31pm

i am very disappointed in you, jrb. for all your rhetoric, you're at home typing while the real warriors for change are marching. how could you stay home and miss this event? why were you not out there where the bullet hits the bone? that goes for all of you nyers who are here whining while others are marching.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 3:42pm

Wow, the Times website says tens of thousands. That's a lot, lot, LOT more than Chicago '68. I'm thinking this one might actually do the incumbent some damage.

Updated On: 8/29/04 at 03:42 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 3:45pm

Honestly?

I spent an evening trying to locate buttons and t-shirts for this week. I just wanted simple stuff like "W" or a pic of Dubya with a line through it. Or pro-Kerry items. I came across more than my share of nutty people I want to. See--I do not consider myself or Kerry to be anywhere near the extreme Left. You want that--go to Revolution Bookstore. Go to Union Square. I hadn't had someone try to convert me so hard since girls in college and Fundamentalist Christians! I was very reminded of that fantastic moment in Laughing Wild that describes going to the Harmonic Convergence.

My grip with Bush isn't so much the war. So, I don't really have any desire to go to a war protest. Plus, I have been working so much this week (and so much next week)--the thought of getting up early and going into the city to walk all day and risk getting arrested (which I can not afford) wasn't what I needed today.

I am protesting with my icon, my shirts, my buttons. My taking part in debates online and elsewhere. My contributions to the campaign. My vote on November 2.

But to really be honest. I really don't know that I do feel that passionate about protesting the RNC. The Republicans have the right to convention. The protestors have the right to be heard. And, I have the right to rest today as I just didn't feel passionately enough about protesting in that manner.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 3:53pm

i see, jrb, let someone else do the heavy lifting, eh?

and namo, you do remember what happened after '68, right? sure they voted out the incumbent, but they also voted in nixon. if they manage to get through the week peacefully, i think it will be a net zero effect. if they get violent, it'll be a net plus for bush. the fun thing is that c-span is carrying the protests live and uncensored so anyone can tune in and watch them and hear the chants. that doesn't help the left.

http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 3:57pm

oh, papa, I see you aren't going to actually read what I said--just take joy in thinking that I am being a hypocrite or that I am letting others do the heavy lifting. If any of the protests were indicative of my gripes with Bush or the Republicans, I would be there.

Why weren't you in Boston? Why aren't you out there protesting the protest?

Don't throw stones.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 4:10pm

i'm not the one who's railing against the rnc and bush in a thread entitled "protesting the rnc" nor was i railing against the democrats and their convention at that time. but for one who's so vehement in their denunciations online in the safety of cyberspace to be so meek when faced with the opportunity of a lifetime to take part in a protest against those who would oppress you in an attempt to influence the election is curious. and don't tell me that at least one of the groups that makes up ufp&j doesn't represent your gripes especially when one of the groups that you advocvate in your own signature line is one of their component groups. of course they also represent the communist party. have a pick...

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1879

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 4:16pm

I entered the conversation in this thread when it changed to the Log Cabin issue. But, I have taken part in the rest of the debate in this thread.

And, you most certainly WERE hell on wheels on here during the DNC--remember that I told you to expect the same treatment this week because of so.

I don't live in the safety of cyberspace. It may be surprising to you--but you don't know everything about me. And, I have made myself a walking protest sign with my t-shirts and buttons--walking alone in NYC--not standing safely with thousands. So, don't get all excited that you have exposed me for anything.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 4:26pm

a one man protest, is that like a one man band? and i have not complained about the protest just asked a question about one vehement voice that's not out there.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 4:29pm

IS this protest the only way to protest or to be active?

I already told you why I did not wish to participate today. And, yet, you feel the need to make generalized statements.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 4:59pm

Papa is just mad because he knew that if you were there, jrb, you'd probably get wild and crazy and cause the protesters to get violent, and like he said, "that doesn't help the left".

Question: Were their a lot of protestors during the DNC?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 5:00pm

nowhere as many.

And I hate to disappoint, but I am not some crazy, violent activist.

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 5:01pm

Of course there were protestors.

I don't mind protestors on either side, it's just about how you go around protesting.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 5:07pm

I did a search and didn't find anything about violent protesting, but I could be looking in the wrong places, or using the wrong phrases. I did find a right winged pre-protesting article about protesters wanting to "tear up central park", but not getting the permit.