Visit NihiloZero's column >>

NIHILOZERO

Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 10; Links Seeded: 43
Member Since: 5/2008Last Seen: 9/24/2009

Be Prepared for Police Violence at the RNC Protest

advertisement

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece entitled "Thoughts on the Upcoming RNC Protests" which (as of writing this) still ranks fairly high in the Google News search results for "RNC Protests". In that article I provided a history of past convention protests, reasons why people will be protesting this convention, and I gave some tips on how to prepare for it if you plan on attending. This current essay is in response to some of the few critiques of that piece which appeared around the web.

The main thrust of the criticism was directed at this paragraph (which was taken largely out of context):

"The anger and the ferocity of the protesters will vary, but I ask you to consider who your real allies are and who the actual enemy is. While some will stay on the parade routes, some will not. Still others might lock-down to block delegates or to draw more attention to the protest. And lastly, still others might even vandalize corporate property. And concerning this last group I ask you to consider this... the bank whose window they smash (or spraypaint) may have foreclosed on their family's home, pulled an Enron on their life savings, or maybe that corporation simply supported the war machine and deforestation. Vandalism is not violence, causing bankruptcy or starvation or war actually is. It is a betrayal of the protest to assist the police in catching petty vandals (who may be morally justified in their actions)."

I stand by this statement. What most of the critics did not seem to grasp was the fact that people ARE angry, and some WILL be surly and aggressive, but that should not give the police carte blanche to engage in their typically heavy handed tactics with the larger protest body. The police should also be restrained in dealing with those who are aggressively standing up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- even if those people engage in minor property destruction or violence. The point is... the police are supposed to be trained for discipline and fairly restrained but, in actuality, they very rarely are restrained at these protests. Even when the protesters are of the tamest variety, the police use violence (from tear gas and pepper-spray to clubs and rubber bullets). One critic suggested that the protesters should give the police "no reason to use violence." But the fact of the matter is, throughout history, non-violent civil disobedience has often been met by the state with brute force. Totally uninvolved people (who weren't even protesting) have been brutalized by the police (and not necessarily even during protests). Police forces are trained for violence, carry weaponry every day, and are often comprised of people who have violent and aggressive temperaments. Ignore this reality at your own peril, but please do not blame the victims of police brutality (which is a very real phenomenon).

In preparation for this upcoming protest at the RNC in St. Paul (Sept. 1, 2008), the mainstream media is already skewing the reality of violence at past protests. The protest at the DNC convention in '68 was A POLICE RIOT. The WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle '99 also was classified (by the state itself) as A POLICE RIOT and the Seattle police chief was forced to resign shortly after the events surrounding that event. Similar events took place in Miami at the FTAA protest in 2003. These are just a few examples from recent history, but the list could go on and on.

Now the state and their corporate media tools are preemptively raising the spectre of terrorism and invoking the unprecedented likelihood of a WMD attack or some other horrific event (and equating these things with a riot [as if the police have not been the primary participants of past riots]). The reality is that they are conditioning the public while preparing to use typically excessive force in their efforts to escort wealthy Republican warmongers past the generally non-violent protesters.

But my intention is obviously not to condemn those protesters who have potentially had their lives ruined by the system and who are now prepared to take to the streets as they attempt to hold their ground against the corporate police state. The police are going to abuse them whether they peaceably assemble or not and the system is going to continue raking them over the coals whether they protest or not. It is therefore my belief that some righteous indignation (and justifiable anger) will not only be good for this protest (which is preparing to use a blockade strategy to prevent Republicans from celebrating and promoting their policies of war, imperialism, and the destruction of human rights and liberties) but it's also inevitable -- people will violently resist when their lives are being threatened and their world is being destroyed. When people have their life, liberty, and basic needs stripped from them, true justice requires taking a firm stand in self defense (for the sake of dignity itself and to prevent further abuses). I'm NOT saying that I want these protests to be violent, I'm merely saying that people have not completely had their spirits crushed in this country and they have not yet been genetically engineered with sheep genes.

The debate about violence can continue elsewhere -- (is it ever justified and, if so, when?) -- but I'm merely reminding people that it is the state which institutes violence at every level of it's existence and mild retaliation or self-defense against it should not surprise anyone. Furthermore, supposed non-violent protesters or activists should not try to justify the state's violence or help the state apprehend anyone who is engaging in questionable activity. It's one thing to claim non-violence as a principle, but as soon as you assist the violent police state you give up any legitimate right to that claim. The police at the RNC will be defending veritable war criminals and they should not have free reign to brutally beat down those who oppose such villainy.

Concerning corporate property damage... throwing a brick through the window of some war-profiteering corporation is nothing compared to the violence the state would issue to someone who engages in such an act -- and that is precisely the problem. Violence against property & profit is put on the same level as violence against people -- and the former is arguably not violence AT ALL! Smashing a bottle in the street (even if it belongs to someone else), for instance, is not violent -- neither the bottle nor the asphalt is alive and they no feel pain -- but violently beating or imprisoning someone for making such a mess... that IS violent because people are actually alive and do feel pain. The same holds true if we are talking about a McDonald's sign or bank's window. Even if you agree with their corporate practices, symbolic property destruction IS NOT violence. Turning people in to the police for doing such things however... now we are starting to talk about violence towards actual living people.

So many protesters are planning to show up at the RNC protests prepared to defend themselves with body armor and gas masks, and I can't blame them. The economy is being laid to waste along with the environment. More people are imprisoned in total numbers, and per capita, here in the U$A than in any other country. The war is increasing the chances for terrorism -- by both fundamentalist abroad and from the psychologically scarred soldiers who are returning from the Iraq war. We need to muster some real resistance to this and not condemn those who are ready to fight for life and freedom.

The Republicans who are attending the RNC to celebrate and promote their destructive policies are not your allies -- and neither are the police who will use brute force to clear the path for them. Be prepared for police brutality and be prepared to defend yourselves and others. Taking a stand against these forces could prove to be a turning point in American history.

(If you liked this article PLEASE take a few minutes to buzz it here: http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=59126 )
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Be-Prepared-for-Police-Vio-by-Ray-Louis-080709-968.html

  • 10 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
21
2.2
0.3
{"commentId":2169912,"authorDomain":"nklausab"}
nklausDeleted
{"commentId":2170645,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}

A couple of seeds you might find pertinent, not trying to hijack you. Delete this if you like, no hard feelings. :)

Because the secret service said so. Basically a preemptive ploy to criminalize protesters for being visible.

legal observer/videographer program offered by Minnesota National Lawyers Guild. A training course in observation and recording.

{"commentId":2170645,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"Wheel"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:26 PM EDT
{"commentId":2170991,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

It is probably a good idea to go with a number of people whom you trust have plenty of legal observers around to take note of the inevitable police brutality which will occur at this event. All of them should probably have cameras and camcorders to document police criminality. They might also want to employ film runners to get footage to safety so that it does not end up as destroyed evidence.

Also, unfortunately, street medics will be in demand to assist people who are brutalized by the police.

{"commentId":2170991,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2170732,"authorDomain":"JStranahan"}

So what good do you expect to come of smashing windows and breaking bottles in the street?

I was in Seattle for WTO (I worked downtown). While the issue was new to me and it did serve to bring attention to the issue, but a lot of people got caught up in it who wanted nothing, but to get to work. I'm not talking about executives, but hourly workers who could ill afford to miss work.

Indeed, the Seattle police and King Co Sheriffs went out of control, no doubt. Appalling. But to see some idiot kick the crap out of a Nike Store sign while wearing a pair of Nike's seemed to set the tone of the disturbance, it became a party, drawing youth from around the area that just wanted to blow off steam and cause a little mayhem. Most of them had no idea what the issue was about or cared.

I am all for protests and have participated in a number of them, but if you condone destruction of property that has nothing to do with the RNC you'll just succeed in giving a moral victory to the Republican Party. Something that they have been unable to do themselves. Is that what you want? I don't.

Be smart about it. Strive to actually do some good. Get the dire message across of what a seriously deranged state this country is in. But don't advocate for this action to devolve into a personal prank that only shows you know only how to tear stuff up. That's easy.

The hard part is creating real change.

Thanks for the article. It should open up an interesting discussion.

{"commentId":2170732,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"JStranahan"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#3 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:45 PM EDT
{"commentId":2170957,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

I'm not advocating any particular action, I'm merely saying that rowdy resistance is as likely as police brutality is inevitable. And I don't condemn those who are angry at the system since it is, after all, destroying the world and their own personal livelihoods. And there are enough of angry victims of the system that they won't (and don't) care about all the police in the world -- much less some finger-wagging from the likes of me or you.

But I also must take issue with the fact that certain corporate properties do have a lot to do with republican politics. Certain corporations are involved with the destruction of the environment and promotion of the war machine -- and I can't imagine how they think that they would be exempt or free from all sorts of reprisal. The state is obviously tolerating and even promoting their corporate crimes so it seems that the people will probably be forced to dismantle these corporations on their own, literally, if they want these greedy oligarchs to stop their wanton destruction of life and freedom.

Like I say... I'm not promoting any course of action, I'd like it if all the Republicans and all the CEO's found inner peace and started to work for humanity and the environment. But that's probably not going to happen. Consequently, they are likely to face growing anger and resistance -- and I don't blame those who are angry and resisting. I can't blame them for thinking that a parade with signs, and letters to the editor or congress won't change anything. It very often seems that those actions are worthless. So if people are angry and threatened, I'm not surprised if people start to fight back -- and no one else should be surprised either. It's the pacifists and those who don't care at all that surprise me.

And the larger point is that the police are brutal -- excessively brutal. And they are brutal regularly even without a protest occurring and even if a protest is non-violent. I want people to recognize that fact and not blame the victims of the system who are fighting back against it.

{"commentId":2170957,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
  • 3 votes
#3.1 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:29 PM EDT
{"commentId":2176998,"authorDomain":"sedekka"}

Kicking a Nike sign wearing Nike shoes. You think he noticed that?
Why can't people protest peacefully anymore? They should look to how Ghandi did it if they need help.

{"commentId":2176998,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"sedekka"}
  • 1 vote
#3.2 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:43 AM EDT
{"commentId":2179647,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

The thing about Gandhi and MLK is that their actions were highlighted as the cause for liberation while, in actuality, there were violent protests/riots occurring simultaneously in their respective countries at the same time. So the question is begged? Did liberation occur because of their actions or because many more were demanding justice and equality in no uncertain terms. The state governments would like to say that they were moved by the peace activists humanity (because that makes the state look benevolent) but that may not be the whole truth.

{"commentId":2179647,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
  • 2 votes
#3.3 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:51 PM EDT
{"commentId":2182102,"authorDomain":"sedekka"}

Thank you for that Nihlo. We were never taught that at school. So they were as violent as the rest? Ahh. for once couldn't we all just be peaceful? I guess not. Time for me to review history. AGAIN!!!!

{"commentId":2182102,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"sedekka"}
  • 1 vote
#3.4 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:08 PM EDT
{"commentId":2191787,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

Hey Jim... I thought you might find this video interesting in response your initial question:

Breaking the Spell

{"commentId":2191787,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
    #3.5 - Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:31 PM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":2171276,"authorDomain":"cd-blather"}

    After voting up the article, I must remind you, most officers that you come in contact with are young kids as are most of our military. They believe in a principle. They are, in general, not excessive. (Some are power trippers, you find them in any field of authority)

    As I read, you seem to back speak. Talk peace while instigating violence.

    Yes, people are angry. Extremely so. Because certain persons can not follow the law does not give the right for the rest of us to disregard it. (only to make sure we reinforce it)

    Yes, I understand more then you can know. Follow what we have now. The rest is always an option.

    {"commentId":2171276,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"cd-blather"}
      Reply#4 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:51 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2171505,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

      I believe there is a culture of brutish machismo within American police forces which the new officers quickly assimilate themselves into. Along the lines of the Stanford Prison Experiments.

      But when you speak about "certain persons" who "cannot follow the law" and the rest of us reinforcing those laws, you beg the question: What if the corporations or politicians or the police violate the law? If they continuously get away with heinous crimes, why shouldn't the people defend themselves from those crimes and strike back? I mean certainly we all could do nothing and suffer any abuses endlessly -- but to me that actually takes away our humanity if we will suffer any injustice or any indignity and not ever fight back. That's a philosophical debate, but I trust you see my point.

      I don't know how much you know though and I honestly don't know what you mean when you write: "Follow what we have now. The rest is always an option." Are you suggesting that politics as usual is a working formula?

      {"commentId":2171505,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
      • 2 votes
      #4.1 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:47 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2171663,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
      local issues in Seattle (for instance, the recent occupation of downtown by some of the most nefarious of multinational retailers).

      Yeah we in Seattle are very much apposed to those horrible people that are invading our downtown and corrupting the very soul of Seattle.
      Some of those place that they were so concerned about, that nobody that lives here worries about are:

      Nordstroms
      Nike Shoe Town
      Starbucks Coffee
      Amazon
      Microsoft
      Google

      I attended the WTO, it was very clear, who came from Seattle and those that did not. Most locals are very proud of their city and the companies that helped it grow.

      {"commentId":2171663,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
      • 3 votes
      Reply#5 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:51 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2171973,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

      At first I thought you were talking about the people who work for the corporations as invaders but then I am to understand that you are proud of Nike, Microsoft and Starbucks? Well I'm certain you don't speak for all of Seattle if that's the case because I know it's fairly progressive place. I've spent time in Seattle and talked to several people there who despise those corporations.

      {"commentId":2171973,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
      • 1 vote
      #5.1 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:12 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2172312,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

      I would not even pretend to claim I speak for all of Seattle, However you can list all the URL's that you could like of people that are critical of Microsoft or Starbuck's or whomever.

      However I live here. And have for 35 years, my dad did for 60 years, my grandparents for 90 yrs. I think I have a concept of life in this town pretty well. There are tons of locals that work for Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation etc and those are not the people that are "critical" Maybe because of increased traffic jams and higher home prices. But before that. Seattle depended on Boeing and the local Power Company for jobs.

      Those companies helped put Seattle on it feet and made a major very progressive city out of it.

      Many of the WTO protesters also said "-eh" That is a dead give away from Canada. There were also a good number of bus's from California and people with great tans. Little hard to do at that time of the year in Seattle.

      So. No, of course I don't speak for "all of Seattle" however I sure work and talk with plenty of them and am painfully aware of what our city felt like after the WTO disaster.

      You might have talked to "Several people" but I have talked with several thousand. and sure, some are pissed that their smaller firms got gobbled up by larger companies, some are also very grateful they were saved by them. If you try to only look for the dark and evil side, I am sure you can find it. Many of those evil empires also give back to the community a very large amount, and yet, that part goes unnoticed by many.

      {"commentId":2172312,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
      • 5 votes
      #5.2 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:52 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2179612,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

      Some of this makes you sound like an apologist for the worst corporate crimes. I don't buy the greenwashing.

      {"commentId":2179612,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
      • 1 vote
      #5.3 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:45 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2180133,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

      Well you just proved one point very well. You are a very poor character judge as I spend 75% of my time in volunteer work for the homeless, for mental health patients and help out with many community functions via my church, So you are miles from the truth.

      You fail to see someone that is simple proud of his home city thru your very paranoid viewpoint.

      However, every single other person has pointed that out to you in their comments also. Perhaps you should listen. You might learn something.

      {"commentId":2180133,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
      • 3 votes
      #5.4 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:33 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2180436,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

      While I support anyone who wants to protest and make their views known about issues that we need to hear about, I am disturbed by those who seem to seek violent confrontation and purposeful destruction of property. Stop and think a minute -- breaking a few windows or throwing paint (or blowing up research buildings) around does not accomplish a thing, not a d*** thing. And Tedd -- I don't begrudge Canadians or anyone else who came to Seattle to protest WTO. The WTO affects everyone so it is not surprising if people from all over the globe would come to their meetings. I am disappointed if things got out of hand with broken glass, etc.
      But protesting is as American as apple pie. Maybe more so. We started this little country with a lovely tea party in Boston harbor and the habit hasn't died out yet.
      Let's not ruin it with the fringe element who thinks it's a great idea to instigate violence and egg on the police to battery and chemical sprays and what not.

      {"commentId":2180436,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}
        Reply#6 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:40 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2180506,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

        MinnieApolis,

        I have no problems with protests as I have been in plenty of them myself dating back to the Vietnam War, However in Seattle for the WTO, some of it was just totally out of line since people were bused in from other area's, that did not even know about the WTO, a few of the very radical people decided to have a free for all and try to destroy whatever they could in the area, and in most case's, it had nothing to do with the WTO and the local police way over-reacted. So, it was a bad scene all around.

        However, there were a huge number of just regular people trying to get back and forth to work, that got dragged into the middle of the mess, and that just seemed a little bit wrong to me.

        Protesting is fine, just don't screw up everyone else life that is trying to survive also, as they have things going in in their lives also.

        That was my point.

        {"commentId":2180506,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
        • 2 votes
        #6.1 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:53 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2180841,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

        The problem is that some people point out the property damage before they point out the police brutality or the destruction the damaged corporations cause every day in a number of ways. This needs to change and perhaps more people should join in and help punish the corporate police state. And often when the police are violent for no reason it just gets largely ignored or written off -- as if police will just be police. And then they claim that protesters "instigate" the police when the police are readily violent without any provocation.

        The corporations that were targeted in Seattle are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity every day and they never really seem to get punished. And then when they get some windows smashed people act like it's completely unjustified. Even the Boston Tea Party which you cite as good thing was about property destruction as a form or protest but you seem to somehow approve of that. Were the patriots who did that guilty of "egging on" the British and, if so, wasn't that a good and appropriately necessary thing?

        {"commentId":2180841,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
        • 2 votes
        #6.2 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:04 PM EDT
        Reply
        {"commentId":2180913,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

        Tedd, even Bush claims to help the homeless and does community service through his church. Such claims don't mean a whole lot. If you're doing good work, that's fine... but that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't a corporate apologist. And I get the impression that you don't really comprehend how destructive the WTO is. I mean, sorry if people can't get to their job or to the mall, but maybe sometimes there are things going on which are far more important. It's like those sailors in Boston who were just trying to do their job when the Boston Tea Party was taking place. Sorry... we got bigger issues than your paycheck. And the way you claim that many protesters were uninformed is simply not true -- it is those who doesn't care about corporate crime, police brutality, or the WTO who is actually uninformed.

        {"commentId":2180913,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
        • 2 votes
        Reply#7 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:19 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2181139,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

        I am against Bush, I am against his illegal war. I have made that clear from day one. everyone knows that, very clearly. I also was downtown that day, I photographed the police in action and complained about them, in public. So I put my life on the line in the town I live in.

        You can claim all you want that my facts are false, you were not on the team that studied the WTO and recommended way it could have been handled better.

        You are misinformed.

        Talk about subjects that you know what you are talking about, This one you are way off. Did you read Wiki to get the details or a couple people. This article is total crap.

        {"commentId":2181139,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
        • 3 votes
        #7.1 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:12 PM EDT
        Reply
        {"commentId":2180988,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

        I think some of you are missing the larger point of this article.

        Imagine a guy whose family has it's groundwater polluted by some corporation but the case gets thrown out or money can't replace the love ones who died because of it. Then imagine this guy's family loses it's life savings to some corporate Enron-type scandal. Then the guy's sister gets killed in Iraq defending Hallibuton's profits. Then his best friend gets caught up and sent through the system for some non-violent crime. The list could go on but you get the idea. This guy is getting screwed over by the system and very often their are very specific corporations and government policies responsible for his grief. So if this guy gets mad and throws a brick through a responsible corporations window and tries to stop the warmongers from holding their convention, isn't he a little bit justified? He's not getting justice anywhere else after all. But even if you think he should never get mad and fight back, how much more should he be punished? And more to the point, how much does his action justify police violence towards everyone else at the same protest?

        We are talking about a system and policies which are destroying the world and individual lives within it -- to say nothing of whole communities. There is very little punishment for the corporations or the police, voting and petitioning doesn't seem to work. Things just keep getting worse for more and more people -- so when does militant protest become justified in the face of these things, never? Is everyone just supposed to keep taking it -- day after day, year after year? Are they not begging for enough mercy from enough people, or what?

        {"commentId":2180988,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
        • 2 votes
        Reply#8 - Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:40 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2191759,"authorDomain":"nihilozero"}

        First you claim that Microsoft and Starbucks "made a major very progressive city out of it (Seattle)," and "that nobody that lives here worries about them." This is a rather inaccurate generalization. But even if it were wholly true (and if even if those were they only corporations protested -- and they were not), the negative effects they have on other people elsewhere give those people a right to protest and a right to punish those corporations if no other justice is being served. But you try to demean the protesters by claiming that many "did not even know about the WTO."

        But I still get the impression that you don't really comprehend how destructive the WTO is. When you claim that "I also was downtown that day, I photographed the police in action and complained about them, in public. So I put my life on the line in the town I live in," it seems like some grandstanding on your part. And I can't confirm what you did or why. You could have been photographing FOR the police as far as anyone knows. I'm not saying you were, I'm just saying that your charity and church work mentioned before and this claimed "action" doesn't really make your arguments legitimate. I mean, you oppose Bush... so what? Is the 70% who also oppose him correct about everything as well? I don't think so.

        {"commentId":2191759,"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248","authorDomain":"nihilozero"}
        • 1 vote
        Reply#9 - Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:28 PM EDT
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"311324","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"311324","contentId":"1658248"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking