RNC Welcoming Committee

welsh said:
And so I can understand the Christians being all orgasmic that her 17 year old kid decides to keep the kid, but.... should that 17 year old be boning? And if Palin can't run her own family, how the fuck is she supposed to be able to run the country if McCain (72 and cancer survivor) croaks? Not that those questions seem to matter to the Christian conservatives.

Some twat on CNN said the same thing, and that has to be the dumbest fucking thing I've heard pertaining to the election. That's right up there with "Hilary couldn't control even control Bill, how can we expect her to run the country" from the right. I'd expect a more cerebral argument from you, not simply parroting some bullshit spin.

Please tell me you aren't actually suggesting that a parent can control (short of chaining them in the basement) what a 17 year old does (Remember your rebellious teens?), let alone whether they fuck or not.

I'd also love to know (I'm a little boggled here) how that pertains to your ability to do a few speeches, push papers, and follow the advice of your cabinet.


@ Maph

A bunch of leftist assholes with nothing better to do with their time, planning to commit crimes and cause disruption of something as innocent as a political convention is most definitely as fucked up as anti-abortion protesters hurling fake baby parts at a clinic.
 
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
welsh said:
And so I can understand the Christians being all orgasmic that her 17 year old kid decides to keep the kid, but.... should that 17 year old be boning? And if Palin can't run her own family, how the fuck is she supposed to be able to run the country if McCain (72 and cancer survivor) croaks? Not that those questions seem to matter to the Christian conservatives.

Some twat on CNN said the same thing, and that has to be the dumbest fucking thing I've heard pertaining to the election. That's right up there with "Hilary couldn't control even control Bill, how can we expect her to run the country" from the right. I'd expect a more cerebral argument from you, not simply parroting some bullshit spin.

Some CNN twat? Really. I didn't catch that. I have actually been watching MSNBC (waiting for the next fight) and Fox. No parrot here.

And to be honest, one of the problems I had with Hillary had to do with her choices in her marriage. She should have divorced him.

Please tell me you aren't actually suggesting that a parent can control (short of chaining them in the basement) what a 17 year old does (Remember your rebellious teens?), let alone whether they fuck or not.

I'm not, although I think that the way a parent raises a kid helps shape the kids decisions in life and the choices they make. Did Pallin know her girl was getting boned? Did she approve? Did she forget to teach safe sex or thought it wasn't necessary? Did she meet her daughter's boyfriends? Did she have a sit down with her daughter about risks?

Sorry- but Democrats support sex education, Republicans advocate abstinence program. Generally those abstinence programs have failed.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/09/03/teen.pregnancy/index.html

Kids are still going to fool around, get pregnant and lately, have had an increase in STDs. So its a failed and unrealistic policy. Yet she supports it. Consequence- her kid is pregnant.

I recall at 17 picking up a girl and her father having a talk with me while he was cleaning his shotgun. Doesn't mean I didn't bone her, but it did mean that I appreciated the risks. Did Pallin, a gun enthusiast, have a similar conversation?

And I am curious- Christian Conservatives are against late term partial birth abortions. Yet those abortions only happen when the woman's life is in jeopardy. Would Pallin's position change if it was her daughter who's life was in jeopardy?

I find it interesting that a lot of Christian Conservatives are supporting Pallin's decision to stand by her daughter despite her daughter "making a mistake." But that mistake produces a life and life is supposedly sacred- how it is therefore a mistake. And if life is not a mistake, then shouldn't the Republicans be supporting more adolescents having babies? Or, if it was a mistake but, because life is sacred, children shouldn't have babies- than shouldn't they support a policy in which kids know how to avoid getting pregnant?

After awhile the hypocrisy of the Republican position turns into a convoluted web of bullshit. Which I love.

I'd also love to know (I'm a little boggled here) how that pertains to your ability to do a few speeches, push papers, and follow the advice of your cabinet.

Well it goes both to what a would-be president is responsible for and the consequences of bullshit policies over the last 8 years.

Do you really want this woman being a hair's breath from the most powerful position in the world?

So sorry, but yes- you're a politician which means you put yourself into the public spotlight, and all that relates to your family- including your choices as a Mom and your decision making as a Mom. Is that fair? Yes, and its constitutional. The Supreme Court has upheld the principle that those who pursue the public spotlight choose to put their lives under scrutiny, and sadly, I think that includes their family. If Pallin didn't want the media spotlight on her decisions as a Mom, than she shouldn't have accepted the offer to run for VP.

@ Protestors-

You know, we can play the "Where's OZ" game here.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/po...ns.bpr.rnc.day2.protests.cnn?iref=videosearch
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2008/09/03/irpt.cop.attacked.cnn?iref=videosearch
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/08/30/vo.rnc.protester.hq.raid.kare?iref=videosearch
 
I support sex ed and teaching abstinence. Since they both work. I'm tired of people saying Palin is a hypocrite. Also note her daughter is 17. She knows it's wrong to have kids this early in life. This is a private matter with the family.

I don't like it when the media and liberals rip on Cheney because his daughter is gay.

Look at me! I'm a Republican and I support gays and the right to have a limit form of abortions.
 
B5C said:
I support sex ed and teaching abstinence. Since they both work. I'm tired of people saying Palin is a hypocrite. Also note her daughter is 17. She knows it's wrong to have kids this early in life. This is a private matter with the family.

I don't like it when the media and liberals rip on Cheney because his daughter is gay.

Look at me! I'm a Republican and I support gays and the right to have a limit form of abortions.

I agree. In fact I think it was wrong for the Republicans to go after Bill Clinton merely because he was fucking outside the marriage. I mean really- its a family matter... So what if he stuck a cigar up some chicks twat? So what he blew is load in presidential aide's mouth? Hey if J.Edgar Hoover wants to wear female clothing while sending feds to blackmail people over their various personal perversions... who is to complain? Honestly, I don't care if Pallin teaches her kids to be commies who practice beastiality- its not our business! So what if Pallin's kid is into furries... Who is to say what a pervert is?

Oops. But that's not very Christian.
And sorry B5C, but your admission doesn't make you a very good Republican, at least for some people.
 
random comment:

i find it extremely funny how much money you americunts waste on this retarded media circus filled with hype and meaningless speeches.

and i thought our politicians were shitty...

but hey, panem et circenses still works, right?
 
welsh said:
And so I can understand the Christians being all orgasmic that her 17 year old kid decides to keep the kid, but....

Not me. Abortion's always been a tough issue for me, but one thing I know for sure is that a pretty hefty percentage of the underage girls targeted by anti-abortion campaigns aren't exactly in the "my mommy is a United States Governor" income bracket. If you can afford to charge a full-time nanny to mumsy's credit card, I don't think you get to brag about keeping the kid, and neither do Mother Dear's political wranglers get to hold you up as a shining example for knocked-up teens everywhere.

Off-topic, I know, but it was an incongruity I felt I needed to address.
 
welsh said:
B5C said:
I support sex ed and teaching abstinence. Since they both work. I'm tired of people saying Palin is a hypocrite. Also note her daughter is 17. She knows it's wrong to have kids this early in life. This is a private matter with the family.

I don't like it when the media and liberals rip on Cheney because his daughter is gay.

Look at me! I'm a Republican and I support gays and the right to have a limit form of abortions.

I agree. In fact I think it was wrong for the Republicans to go after Bill Clinton merely because he was fucking outside the marriage. I mean really- its a family matter... So what if he stuck a cigar up some chicks twat? So what he blew is load in presidential aide's mouth? Hey if J.Edgar Hoover wants to wear female clothing while sending feds to blackmail people over their various personal perversions... who is to complain? Honestly, I don't care if Pallin teaches her kids to be commies who practice beastiality- its not our business! So what if Pallin's kid is into furries... Who is to say what a pervert is?

Oops. But that's not very Christian.
And sorry B5C, but your admission doesn't make you a very good Republican, at least for some people.

I was young at the time with the Clinton-intern scandal, but my personal opinion of today is that I don't care what Clinton did privately at his own home, but I do rat him for breaking federal law by lieing under oath.
 
welsh said:
Oz- you get pepper sprayed?
I wasn't there. I am an activist, not a protester. I do things that are constructive rather than disruptive.

[url=http://tacomasds.org/node/843 said:
RNC 8 Charged with "Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism"[/url]]The criminal complaints filed by the Ramsey County Attorney do not allege that any of the defendants personally have engaged in any act of violence or damage to property. The complaints list all of alleged violations of law during the last few days of the RNC -- other than violations of human rights carried out by law enforcement -- and seeks to hold the 8 defendants responsible for acts committed by other individuals. None of the defendants have any prior criminal history involving acts of violence. Searches conducted in connection with the raids failed to turn up any physical evidence to support the allegations of organized attacks on law enforcement. Although claiming probable cause to believe that gunpowder, acids, and assembled incendiary devices would be found, no such items were seized by police. As a result, police sought to claim that the seizure of common household items such as glass bottles, charcoal lighter, nails, a rusty machete, and two hatchets, supported the allegations of the confidential informants. "Police found what they claim was a single plastic shield, a rusty machete, and two hatchets used in Minnesota to split wood. This doesn't amount to evidence of an organized insurrection, particularly when over 3,500 police are present in the Twin Cities, armed with assault rifles, concussion grenades, chemical weapons and full riot gear," said Nestor. In addition, the National Lawyers Guild has previously pointed out how law enforcement has fabricated evidence such as the claims that urine was seized which demonstrators intended to throw at police.

The last time such charges were brought under Minnesota law was in 1918, when Matt Moilen and others organizing labor unions for the Industrial Workers of the World [ed. correction-TCIMC] on the Iron Range were charged with "criminal syndicalism."

Terrorism? What a joke.

Anyone look at the warrant?
 
welsh said:
But I gotta wonder- Republicans are all about the chastity and abstinence and women as second rate citizens. And so I can understand the Christians being all orgasmic that her 17 year old kid decides to keep the kid, but.... should that 17 year old be boning? And if Palin can't run her own family, how the fuck is she supposed to be able to run the country if McCain (72 and cancer survivor) croaks? Not that those questions seem to matter to the Christian conservatives.

So what's with the fucking hypocrisy?

Ok, I wasn't going to post, but that just pissed me off.

My parents didn't know I was having sex while I lived with them. Does that mean my parents couldn't run a family after 7 other kids?

Tell me, you didn't do stupid things while you were growing up?

Women as second rate citizens? Because vice president is so a second rate position, and republicans are happier to see her than they are to see McCain.

What, fucking, bullshit.
 
Ah-Teen said:
welsh said:
But I gotta wonder- Republicans are all about the chastity and abstinence and women as second rate citizens. And so I can understand the Christians being all orgasmic that her 17 year old kid decides to keep the kid, but.... should that 17 year old be boning? And if Palin can't run her own family, how the fuck is she supposed to be able to run the country if McCain (72 and cancer survivor) croaks? Not that those questions seem to matter to the Christian conservatives.

So what's with the fucking hypocrisy?

Ok, I wasn't going to post, but that just pissed me off.

My parents didn't know I was having sex while I lived with them. Does that mean my parents couldn't run a family after 7 other kids?

Tell me, you didn't do stupid things while you were growing up?

Not at all. The problem with this position is that it failed.

This not about parents knowing that their kids have sex or that kids have sex. Rather, its about a policy that failed.

Pallin is someone who advocates this position and proposed that sexual education in schools be about teaching abstinence. Yet within her own family, that failed. If her daughter, or thousands of other daughters had learned safe sex, would they be pregnant?

Of course no parent is 100% sure of what their kids do, but parents should be able to learn from personal experience- including when a policy fails. Pallin has personal experience that a policy she advocates doesn't work. Yet she sticks to it. Why?

Do you want a politician who learns or doesn't? A leader that deals with reality or their ideology?

Then there is the bullshit- "Oh she made the right choice." - Because she actually got a choice? A choice that would not be allowed if Pallin's policy were imposed on teens, who would have to give birth or look for back alley abortions?

And while its great that her family will help her daughter raise her child- to bad that most kids in a similar situation don't get the privs that come with being a governor's child.

Women as second rate citizens? Because vice president is so a second rate position, and republicans are happier to see her than they are to see McCain.

What, fucking, bullshit.

That is bullshit.

Actually I think Pallin is a more interesting candidate than McCain. Her speech was quite good, up until McCain got on stage and looked old and frail. Being a person raised by a widowed Mom, i wouldn't say women are second rate citizens, and I don't think that the Democrats have either.

It seems more like a bullshit strawman created by Republicans to seize female voters.

Yet its also the Republicans who haven't supported fair wages for working women? Why? Because Republicans think of women as second class? Bullshit.

My issue goes to the question of Pallin as a leader. If she can't learn from her own experience and her own family, than we are stuck with 8 more years of a Republican policy that produces more unwed moms, more underaged pregnancies and more poor families.
 
First They Came For The Anarchists
By Mordecai Specktor | Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008

My son Max was arraigned at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center on Wednesday, Sept. 3. He's in serious legal trouble.

In the aftermath of the Republican National Convention — and the arrests of more than 800 protesters, journalists and bystanders in the Twin Cities — Max and seven others, the alleged ringleaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee, have been charged with conspiracy to commit riot in the furtherance of terrorism.

That's right, terrorism.

...

Lurid allegations
The complaint in the case of the RNCWC 8 (shades of the Chicago 8, from another political convention brouhaha) contains lurid allegations about kidnapping Republican delegates, throwing Molotov cocktails, attacking law enforcement officers and burning tires on the freeway. The allegations are based on statements made by police plants in the group — CRIs, "confidential reliable informants."

"The charges in this case are supported only by allegations of paid confidential informants," Nestor told the reporters. "A number of the attorneys here have experience in investigations with the use of informants in political cases. We are concerned about the potential use of provocateurs, people who purposely plan and bring up discussions of violence, in order to get other people to respond and then report back that those discussions occurred. The confidential informants are paid based on the value of the information they provide. They have a clear incentive to exaggerate and lie about the information."

Nestor added that the allegations of kidnapping and violence, the "most outrageous allegations" made by the authorities — and the basis for the Aug. 30 SWAT team raids on three south Minneapolis homes — "are not supported by any evidence other than the statements of the confidential informants, they're not supported by the evidence seized."

Which brings us to the pails of urine. Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher proudly displayed 5-gallon pails of "urine" at a press conference following the raids. The anarchists ostensibly were fashioning IUDs (improvised urine devices) to use against cops and Republicans, according to the police authorities. The search warrants for the Aug. 30 SWAT team raids specified "urine and feces."

However, Nestor said that the "urine" seized was mostly "kitchen gray water" and had nothing to do with any of the defendants. Nestor also noted that "common household items" — glass bottles, rags and charcoal starter fluid, found in different locations in various houses — have repeatedly been referred to in news reports as bomb-making materials.

Warrant items not found
"We have search warrants seeking gun powder, explosive materials, Molotov cocktails, none of which were found," Nestor said. "We have the sheriff displaying a single plastic item, which he claims is a shield; as if, somehow, one shield was going to protect demonstrators from 3,500 armed riot police who have projectile tear gas weapons."

Nestor concluded that the authorities have recklessly wielded the "terrorism charge" so that any political activist involved in planning civil disobedience could be labeled as a "domestic terrorist."

Attorney Larry Leventhal told the reporters that the complaint does not allege that any of the defendants physically attacked anybody or even "broke a window."

The complaints against the eight defendants, according to Leventhal, weave "a narrative of various meetings that they claim occurred over a number of years. … We have, basically, [the authorities] saying, Here are some people, they've associated with other bad people, and those people have done bad things. If we were to accept the standard that people who associate with others who may do bad things are subject to arrest — and that certainly should not be a standard in a civilized society — but if that were the standard, there's a lot of delegates who are in the Xcel Center that have been associating with bad people who have done very bad things."

Leventhal termed the case a "political prosecution," which is characterized by people being targeted and arrested for "their thoughts, for their ideas — which may be different from the reigning political powers' — rather than for things they have done."
 
Ozrat said:
Terrorism? What a joke.

Why, exactly? Terrorism is any damage on people or property with the sole intent to inspire fear in the receiving party. It's not just flying planes into buildings.
 
Protesting is not terrorism. Stormtroopers are terrorism. Except for a few bad apples in the thousands of protesting citizens, they were non-violent. The law enforcers did way more physical damage and inspiring fear than the ones they were corralling. Strange how that works out.
 
Then you're targeting the wrong part of his statement. It's a conditional thing, they're saying "these guys do damage to property and scare people/intended to kidnap people (whatever) and thus are terrorists". Instead of trying to bullride the term terrorist, which is perfectly valid in the context they are using it, simply point out why the basis of the accusation is false.

You goddamn smelly hippy tard.
 
Brother None said:
Instead of trying to bullride the term terrorist, which is perfectly valid in the context they are using it, simply point out why the basis of the accusation is false.

Previously said:
The criminal complaints filed by the Ramsey County Attorney do not allege that any of the defendants personally have engaged in any act of violence or damage to property. The complaints list all of alleged violations of law during the last few days of the RNC -- other than violations of human rights carried out by law enforcement -- and seeks to hold the 8 defendants responsible for acts committed by other individuals. None of the defendants have any prior criminal history involving acts of violence. Searches conducted in connection with the raids failed to turn up any physical evidence to support the allegations of organized attacks on law enforcement.

You illiterate fag.
 
Are you stupid? He's still alleging intent to violence and conspiracy with terrorists, you illiterate fag. I just said that this allegation is what's tied to the second allegation of terrorism, I never said the claims were based on much solid. Now you're repeating the point that the claims are invalid? That has buck-all to do with what I said, smart guy.

Besides, it's funny how your blatantly one-sided article mentions the urine but ignores the baseball bats and slingshot the police also showed. Lemme guess, you're the kind of person that only reads articles that agree with your opinion, no? Any impartial coverage on this you'd like to quote?
 
I'm not exactly sure who the "he" you refer to is, and I am not sure which of the alleged allegations are invalid to you, so I am just going to drop this line of debate due to a lack of communication. Neither of us were involved with the RNCWC and cannot truly confirm or deny what the intentions of the eight being charged are based on hearsay propaganda from both sides of the story. If you would like to continue the debate, please restate your case in a clearer manner and I will respond.

I know one of the eight being charged, and I would really be surprised if he could actually be defined as a terrorist by any reasonable set of standards. We'll find out more about this once their trials begin in November.

On an unrelated note, I have 95% of those 'tools of terror' in my home, including the bucket of urine. Last time I checked, parents give baseball bats and slingshots to their kids as toys. It is really scary to think that the government can come over one day and decide that my common garden and garage inventory items are weapons of terrorism and arrest me due to my fault of being a do-it-myselfer.

I also know of others that were sent summons for federal charges of trespassing and conspiracy at a protest. The charges were eventually dropped because it turns out that they weren't even at the protest, and how they came to be charged remains a mystery. My point is that those charges were ridiculously trumped up by DHS, and the charges of the RNC 8 are likely to be jacked up as well, if not false. Luckily not all federal judges in this country are blind to these situations.

Edit: it seems that chores could imprison me as well.
 
Ozrat said:
If you would like to continue the debate, please restate your case in a clearer manner and I will respond.

Nnnnnggg.

I'll try to put it in a conditional phrase. If the allegations of intent of violence on people or property is correct than under US law they can be tagged as domestic terrorists on that account. The problem with the accusation lies not in the term "terrorist", but in the fact that the aforementioned allegations might not be correct.

That's why it annoys me that you keep harping on the term terrorist. I know it's a propaganda term in the US as much as anything, but the way the prosecution uses it is correct: it just sounds like they have no case to prove it in the end, in which case what's the problem amirite?

Ozrat said:
On an unrelated note, I have 95% of those 'tools of terror' in my home, including the bucket of urine. Last time I checked, parents give baseball bats and slingshots to their kids as toys. It is really scary to think that the government can come over one day and decide that my common garden and garage inventory items are weapons of terrorism and arrest me due to my fault of being a do-it-myselfer.

That slingshot did not look like the toy variety. Also, why do you have a bucket of urine?
 
Back
Top