Inaugural Protesters Abused
March 16, 2001 5:52 AM Subscribe
Inaugural Protesters Abused "'Agents provocateurs' . . . allegedly punched a protester and more than one allegedly fired pepper spray at close range in the faces of peaceful demonstrators." Why do I get the feeling this is going to be a long and painful 4 years? The economy, bankruptcy laws, limits on abortion rights, failure to regulate carbon dioxide; we're only a few months into this administration and already things look bad. [and yes, I've included links to Salon stories; uh oh!]
I'm rather pissed at the bankruptcy laws. You know all those articles are available outside of salon. You're not helping the cause. heh.
I say we move operation mayhem into ack-shun.
posted by tiaka at 6:46 AM on March 16, 2001
I say we move operation mayhem into ack-shun.
posted by tiaka at 6:46 AM on March 16, 2001
Protesters were mistreated in the Clinton years also (Seattle for the WTO, Philadelphia and Los Angeles for the conventions), so I think that's a bipartisan achievement.
Bush backing down on carbon dioxide emissions is disappointing, but I think the real surprise is that he advocated regulation in the first place.
posted by rcade at 7:12 AM on March 16, 2001
Bush backing down on carbon dioxide emissions is disappointing, but I think the real surprise is that he advocated regulation in the first place.
posted by rcade at 7:12 AM on March 16, 2001
Won't any comment on the new bankruptcy laws? It's a headline for yahoo, but not many seem to want to pay attention to it. Even freepers have a semi-topic about. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.
And, I thought Operation Mayhem had no rules? I thought that was just the club. Gee.. I hope I'm not kicked out, I had to sleep my way in...
posted by tiaka at 7:16 AM on March 16, 2001
And, I thought Operation Mayhem had no rules? I thought that was just the club. Gee.. I hope I'm not kicked out, I had to sleep my way in...
posted by tiaka at 7:16 AM on March 16, 2001
Have the bankruptcy laws been modified from when they were discussed back on the 1st?
posted by hijinx at 7:18 AM on March 16, 2001
posted by hijinx at 7:18 AM on March 16, 2001
"The first rule of Project Mayhem is that you do not ask questions!"
posted by harmful at 7:23 AM on March 16, 2001
posted by harmful at 7:23 AM on March 16, 2001
There's been no significant action on the bankruptcy bill (HR 333) since the 1st. It's it the Senate, awaiting consideration.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:38 AM on March 16, 2001
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:38 AM on March 16, 2001
I used to hear said about some dictatorships that it was what the people deserved, allowing it...
posted by semmi at 9:15 AM on March 16, 2001
posted by semmi at 9:15 AM on March 16, 2001
I also should have added "Five Years in Prison for Talking on a Cell Phone" from Feed about the Republican convention protestors being prosecuted in Philadelphia.
posted by Outlawyr at 9:54 AM on March 16, 2001
posted by Outlawyr at 9:54 AM on March 16, 2001
The bankruptcy bill was passed by the Senate last night, 83-15. There are minor differences between this bill and the one the House passed, they'll probably be resolved in committee. With a majority like that, the debate is effectively over.
posted by dhartung at 10:49 AM on March 16, 2001
posted by dhartung at 10:49 AM on March 16, 2001
The bankruptcy bill made paying credit card bills legally more important than paying child support. You can’t have compassion and eat it too.
Outlawyr, I have to second rcade’s opinion that non-violent protestors have long since been abused under Clinton/Gore. In fact Clinton tried to persuade Mayor Schell to let him send in the National Guard to crack down on any protest, as if the Seattle coalition weren’t being tortured with every turn.
Look for news reports coming out of Quebec City April 20th about the same thing. Canda is sending 5000 mounties to attack the estimated 20,000 protestors.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:29 PM on March 16, 2001
Outlawyr, I have to second rcade’s opinion that non-violent protestors have long since been abused under Clinton/Gore. In fact Clinton tried to persuade Mayor Schell to let him send in the National Guard to crack down on any protest, as if the Seattle coalition weren’t being tortured with every turn.
Look for news reports coming out of Quebec City April 20th about the same thing. Canda is sending 5000 mounties to attack the estimated 20,000 protestors.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:29 PM on March 16, 2001
Well Captain, that may be so, but guess what . . . Clinton isn't President anymore. Bush is. I don't have to worry about Clinton anymore (or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Ford, or Carter, or Nixon for that matter). I do have to worry about this new guy, and so far he keeps giving me more and more to worry about.
posted by Outlawyr at 4:50 PM on March 16, 2001
posted by Outlawyr at 4:50 PM on March 16, 2001
Clinton isn’t in office anymore? When did this happen?
I see what you’re saying. You’ve got another reason to dislike George II (or is that W-D-40?), but establishment institutions historically react violently to freedom of speech and assembly. It’s nothing new: suffragists were force fed in their jail cells, anti-Nam protestors were killed by the National Guard and with advent of pepper spray and other gases, torture has become a nonchalant method of enforcing the status quo.
Saying Bush, as the head of a powerful regime, will react negatively, either by suppression or by force, against public dissent is not unlike saying cars can be dangerous. He’ll react the same way Clinton or George I did: rhetorically support diversity of opinion, then do his best to undermine it.
You may not have to worry about Clinton in an immediate sense, but Bush is sprung from the same indoctrinated mold. The worry then, is changing our expectations of our leaders, not whether the current one is marginally more or less repressive than the last.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 5:51 PM on March 16, 2001
I see what you’re saying. You’ve got another reason to dislike George II (or is that W-D-40?), but establishment institutions historically react violently to freedom of speech and assembly. It’s nothing new: suffragists were force fed in their jail cells, anti-Nam protestors were killed by the National Guard and with advent of pepper spray and other gases, torture has become a nonchalant method of enforcing the status quo.
Saying Bush, as the head of a powerful regime, will react negatively, either by suppression or by force, against public dissent is not unlike saying cars can be dangerous. He’ll react the same way Clinton or George I did: rhetorically support diversity of opinion, then do his best to undermine it.
You may not have to worry about Clinton in an immediate sense, but Bush is sprung from the same indoctrinated mold. The worry then, is changing our expectations of our leaders, not whether the current one is marginally more or less repressive than the last.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 5:51 PM on March 16, 2001
Agreed.
Oh, and here's the latest outrage:
Bush Would Sever [ABA's] Role in Screening Judges
posted by Outlawyr at 8:01 AM on March 19, 2001
Oh, and here's the latest outrage:
Bush Would Sever [ABA's] Role in Screening Judges
posted by Outlawyr at 8:01 AM on March 19, 2001
ABBA is screening judges? Gotta give Dubya props for stopping the Swedes from controlling our legal system. :)
posted by owillis at 10:17 AM on March 19, 2001
posted by owillis at 10:17 AM on March 19, 2001
« Older Comic Relief | RIAA reverses its position when it is beneficial... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by quirked at 6:30 AM on March 16, 2001