C’mon, Dave…nobody’s doing that. I don’t see anyone defending the FSZ because it’s the Democratic convention. The closest we’ve come to that is the “private party” argument, which was, indeed shot down. But the majority of the arguments against roundly condemning the DNC are about the fact that it’s physically impossible to have any kind of orderly protest anywhere in close proximity to the venue. There’s just no room.
You still don’t get it, do you? The “other side” in this case turns out to be not the DNC, but the Boston Police. At least some of the “prominent lefties on these boards” are objecting to the blatant intellectual dishonesty of Lib’s OP, in which he “carelessly” leaves the impression that the DNC is the group demanding that protesters be kept in “free speech zones.” It ain’t the DNC who’s doing this. Re-read post #3 if you’re still confused about this matter.
The reference to Kent State, of course, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Lib’s reason for tossing it in can only be guessed at. It’s certainly inflamatory, if nothing else.
Translation: nolo contendere.
jayjay, Revtim, and others - I think you’re letting Lib suck you into his little trap.
What’s changed is that protesters are less inclined to be law abiding and more inclined to riot, since about 1965 on.
Want proof? Look at the Democratic Convention, Chicago, 1968.
Do you really think things would be much better today with the anti-globalization crowd gearing up protests? They regard the Democratic Party as a bunch of dangerous, right-wing reactionaries.
I don’t regard a free speech zone as an ideal solution to the problem. I never have. But I’ve been through the DC protests, and I’ve seen this crowd. They’re not into free speech. They’re into denying the right of speech to others, by disrupting meetings and creating chaos.
Forcing into a zone where they can’t create chaos, but still protest, is a better solution for all involved. I don’t think that “zone” should be terribly far away, but something has to be done.
Got your work cut out for you. All you need do is prove that the use of such stifling innovations as the “FSZ” is used as frequently by Dems as Pubs. Now, since this is a prominent feature in just about every venue where The Leader leaves his slime trail, you got yourself kind of a problem, don’t you, buttmunchkin?
The populace is polarized, and as we’ve seen during various demonstrations, time and again, some protestors are a little rusty when it comes to “nonviolent resistance.” The G8 Summit was held on an island, for heaven’s sake. It’s starting to look like the next Oath of Office might be issued from the Space Station.
As I alluded in my homage to “My Favorite Things,” in the minds of the Boston city planners/public safety, it’s much better to cage people than to have to herd them. Mr. Moto, I don’t see how you can be so hopeful about this development, especially with your first-hand view of the rancor. The chilling side effect is, eventually, if all “protesting” means is popping into a big city to preach to the choir (I mean really, who in Boston but other Republucans get to see their nifty pickets), many of the moderates will think it best just to stay home.
Sure. But these things are always determined by the onsite security people, and they always have been. It’s not even a new concept, really, it’s been going on for years and years with leaders across the political spectrum. People are allowed to protest, but they can’t protest just anywhere. It’s just lately that Bush bashers have been pinning the concept of moving protestors into a specific area as the latest of Dubya’s plots to turn the US into a fascist state, when in fact it’s been that way for decades. I’m pointing out the inherent dishonesty in claiming that when people want to protest Bush and are told they can do so in a specific area it’s the dawning of the brownshirts, while when the same thing happens in Boston, well, that’s just the Boston PD being prudent. Neither the DNC nor the Bush Administration has anything to do with these decisions 90% of the time.
See my previous post, asswipe. If you honestly believe that you could walk up to the stage at a John Kerry political apearance carrying a flag that says “KERRY SUCKS” and wearing a Bush/Chaney '04 t-shirt, than you are even more of a fool than your posts over the last few years have proven you to be.
Interesting retort. So, may we take it as a given that you cannot, in fact, prove that free speech zones are as prominent a feature in Kerry venues as they are in Bush venues? Which was my actual point, since you seem to have missed it. Would it help if I type slower?
Ummm. Maybe if your post made sense, I would understand it better. What kind of cite are you asking for? There’s one right here: the DNC convention. John Kerry was in Baltimore a few weeks back raising money at Ravens Stadium, and the area around the stadium was kept clear by the BCPD, the people I saw with protest signs were held well away from the venue itself. I saw this with my own two eyes. Howard Street was closed, I had to drive all the way around behind the baseball stadium to get where I was going. The protestors were a good 1/2 mile away, with police watching them. Pointing at something that is a security decision, made by security people and not under the control of either candidate, and then using it to lambaste one candidate is DISHONEST. There are enough legitimate reasons to dislike Bush, this kind of foolishness makes you look like an idiotic, shit for brains moron who cares not for the truth or reality in the noble quest to demonize Bush for any and all reasons, real and imagined.
All right, knock it off immediately and for good, Desmostylus. Posting sly hints and pictures of trolls don’t remotely suffice to edge around accusations of trolling. You knew perfectly well you were violating a rule or you wouldn’t have bothered with all the song-and-dance about it in the first place.
Consider this a dead-serious final warning, Desmostylus. You have several warnings before over quite a span of time about this type of aggressive behavior in various forums. Another incident and you’re out.
Interestingly, Boston has a much larger and more modern facility, the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. It is practically brand new, state of the art, away from the center city traffic snarl, and more amenable to orderly protests. I’ve no idea why the DNC opted for the older, more congested venue.
There is still no fucking equivalency here. A private party convention is in no way comprable to an official public appearance by a president. The convention itself is paid for only by the party, not with taxpayer funds. So sorry, douchebags. You don’t have a “gotcha.” Once John Kerry becomes president then you can start getting your fucking panties in a bunch. Right now you’ve still got dick on JFK and your president is still a fascist oppressor of free speech.
:: Fast cuts of action featuring incredibly sexy babe in futuristic leather & steel-spikes battle armor, thigh-high boots, and lots of skin, wielding battleax against trolls, barbarians, and rabid geeks ::
“Tonight at 9:00, on Foxhole TV! Don’t miss a minute of the action!!”
:: Music crescendoes as TVeblen, Pit Mod! smashes through final ring of ignoramuses, seizes bloodied but unbowed Prince Cecil for passionate embrace, then gets his back as battle resumes ::
Anybody know who actually chose the FleetCenter? It seems more likely that the DNC did, rather than the Mayor (hell, it’s not his convention). Whomever chose it, you gotta wonder why. Closer to the good restaurants?
You are so warped, EdTedFred. <g>
I’m splitting the gig between the Pit and IMHO, so the sign-off is just shorthand for which hat I’m wearing at the moment. Though if the hat is something wicked cool in black leather to go with all the spikes, whips and chains…
Hell, I was just writing a long post about this very topic when my cranky computer ate it, burped, and crashed.
Nutshell: The TV networks wanted the FleetCenter because its auditorium setup works way better for them than the wide-open flat floor of the Convention Center.
There was concern when the plans were made, months ago, that the Convention Center wouldn’t be ready on time.
Menino was a driving force behind getting the convention – feather in his cap and all that – and when Governor Romney (Republican) suggested a few months ago moving the damned thing to the CC, Menino, ably seconded by the state Democratic apparatus, threw a partisan pissy fit and refused to consider it. As far as I know, Kerry and the national party had little or no say in the debate (strangled in its cradle) over moving it.
But that was nearly 40 years ago. Have we had ‘Free Speech Zones’ since then? I thought we somehow managed to have conventions and presidential speeches without them in the last four decades. Were most of these events unmanagable and/or useless because the protesters not being segregated to their zones?