Is voting for Bob Barr a vote for smaller government?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

Do you know what the first amendment means? Explain it to me.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendmenti

Why don't you tell me which part confuses you, and we'll go from there.

This is what confused me: "When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?"

It seems to be a reference to the first Amendment, but the first Amendment has nothing to do with the RNC convention. Hence, I asked if you knew what it meant. Quoting the words to me says nothing. What does the first amendment have to do with the RNC convention?

[KazooSkinsFan]

My god, you're in hyperbole mode today, aren't you?...

I'll come back to this post and the rest of your points soon. I'm just reacting now, too many issues and I don't want to give a better reply then I have time for at the moment. But the only "hyperbole" I used was the word "Gestapo" and even that was more simple exaggeration then hyperbole. There is no doubt a reign of terror the IRS, Drug War, FTC (e.g., SOX) has over this country. I'm shocked you seem to be completely unaware of this.

[Deadskins]

Thanks, PulpExposure. It doesn't take too much research to find other horrific abuses of individuals done under the guise of 'fighting terror.' Why is it so hard to believe that the government would abuse its power in this area? Should we be cynical when people say tax dollars go to waste, too?

How about the last two Republican National Conventions for starters? When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?

Do you know what the first amendment means? Explain it to me.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendmenti

Why don't you tell me which part confuses you, and we'll go from there.

This is what confused me: "When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?"

It seems to be a reference to the first Amendment, but the first Amendment has nothing to do with the RNC convention. Hence, I asked if you knew what it meant. Quoting the words to me says nothing. What does the first amendment have to do with the RNC convention?

It has nothing to do with the RNC itself, but everything to do with peaceably assembled protesters outside the RNC being arrested. The "free speech zones" issue has to do with any public appearance by the current resident, where protesters are corralled into out of sight locations that are nowhere near the appearance, so that they will not be shown on television, and give the general viewing public the false sense that there is no opposition to him or his policies.

[KazooSkinsFan]

This is what confused me: "When did it become illegal to lawfully assemble in this country? Why do we need "Free Speech Zones" positioned conveniently out of the line of television cameras?"

It seems to be a reference to the first Amendment, but the first Amendment has nothing to do with the RNC convention. Hence, I asked if you knew what it meant. Quoting the words to me says nothing. What does the first amendment have to do with the RNC convention?

It has nothing to do with the RNC itself, but everything to do with peaceably assembled protesters outside the RNC being arrested. The "free speech zones" issue has to do with any public appearance by the current resident, where protesters are corralled into out of sight locations that are nowhere near the appearance, so that they will not be shown on television, and give the general viewing public the false sense that there is no opposition to him or his policies.

Some were not peaceful. Here's one story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26509509/

Who was arrested for legal, peaceful protesting?

How bout the 2004 Democratic convention, from Wikipedia:

"Protesters inside the "free speech zone" drew parallels to Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray, and staged a demonstration in which they wore hoods akin to those worn by Abu Ghraib detainees. Many demonstrators simply refused to enter the "free speech zone.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democ ... Convention

Or the 2008 Democratic convention, from Wikipedia

Demonstration zone

"The official demonstration zone was unused on Monday afternoon, as the convention opened. The 47,000 square foot fenced area was 700 feet from Pepsi Center and delegates could pass from 8 to 200 feet from it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democ ... Convention

Funny how it's only an issue when the Reps do it. And as for me, I criticized neither party because the first amendment does not say you can say what you want where you want when you want. I see nothing wrong with either party on this issue. I simply disagree with silence on the Dems and attacks on the Reps for it.

[Deadskins]

Follow the links in my original post for accounts of several people, who just happened to be on the street, not even protesting, when they were arrested and unlawfully detained.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Follow the links in my original post for accounts of several people, who just happened to be on the street, not even protesting, when they were arrested and unlawfully detained.

Ah, I didn't realize several people said they were arrested who weren't protesting. You're right, free speech is OVER in this country! They were just milling around no where near protesters? They spent months in jail and their criminal records will prevent them from ever having a job again?

[Deadskins]

Funny how it's only an issue when the Reps do it. And as for me, I criticized neither party because the first amendment does not say you can say what you want where you want when you want. I see nothing wrong with either party on this issue. I simply disagree with silence on the Dems and attacks on the Reps for it.

Even funnier how I already addressed that in a reply to Countertrey on the previous page of this thread.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the RNC's as an example, but they were the first instances that came to mind showing the repression of dissent and the lack of coverage of that dissent by the supposedly liberal media. There were also similar tactics used during the latest DNC. This is not a partisan issue in my eyes, but it does go to the heart of this administrations crackdown on civil liberties, and the lack of any real press coverage of that crackdown.

Sorry to spoil your fun, though. Rant on, brother!

[KazooSkinsFan]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the RNC's as an example, but they were the first instances that came to mind showing the repression of dissent and the lack of coverage of that dissent by the supposedly liberal media. There were also similar tactics used during the latest DNC. This is not a partisan issue in my eyes, but it does go to the heart of this administrations crackdown on civil liberties, and the lack of any real press coverage of that crackdown.

Sorry to spoil your fun, though. Rant on, brother!

OK, fair enough on your having mentioned early that you had mentioned the Dems and admission that the GOP one is the one of course the "first instances that came to mind" for you. But spoil my fun? There is still no Constitutional issue here, which was my point. You duck and dodge that like Mohammad Ali in his prime. Protesters have the right to state their views, they are getting that right. They do not have the right to do it anywhere and everywhere they want and the 1st Amendment doesn't say that. There is absolutely NO Constitutional issue for either the Dems OR Reps preventing protests AT their convention.

[Deadskins]

Follow the links in my original post for accounts of several people, who just happened to be on the street, not even protesting, when they were arrested and unlawfully detained.

Ah, I didn't realize several people said they were arrested who weren't protesting. You're right, free speech is OVER in this country! They were just milling around no where near protesters? They spent months in jail and their criminal records will prevent them from ever having a job again?

It wasn't that bad on them? That's your argument? More hyperbole from Kazoo, who'd have thunk it?

You'll love this link I found when googling 2004 RNC arrests:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr20 ... -a19.shtml

I'm sure you'll blame the messenger, though.

Who was arrested for legal, peaceful protesting?

A former vice president of Morgan Stanley was arrested while riding her bicycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Repub ... t_activity

I'm sure she was just one of those awful people expressing their first amendment rights.

[Deadskins]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the RNC's as an example, but they were the first instances that came to mind showing the repression of dissent and the lack of coverage of that dissent by the supposedly liberal media. There were also similar tactics used during the latest DNC. This is not a partisan issue in my eyes, but it does go to the heart of this administrations crackdown on civil liberties, and the lack of any real press coverage of that crackdown.

Sorry to spoil your fun, though. Rant on, brother!

OK, fair enough on your having mentioned early that you had mentioned the Dems and admission that the GOP one is the one of course the "first instances that came to mind" for you. But spoil my fun? There is still no Constitutional issue here, which was my point. You duck and dodge that like Mohammad Ali in his prime. Protesters have the right to state their views, they are getting that right. They do not have the right to do it anywhere and everywhere they want and the 1st Amendment doesn't say that. There is absolutely NO Constitutional issue for either the Dems OR Reps preventing protests AT their convention.

Did I blame the Dems or the Reps?

[Irn-Bru]

There is still no Constitutional issue here, which was my point. You duck and dodge that like Mohammad Ali in his prime. Protesters have the right to state their views, they are getting that right. They do not have the right to do it anywhere and everywhere they want and the 1st Amendment doesn't say that. There is absolutely NO Constitutional issue for either the Dems OR Reps preventing protests AT their convention.

So no law is being made in Congress against them stating their views, but why the hell are those people (who are not breaking any laws) getting arrested? Why do pre-emptive arrests on people who weren't even planning anything violent? The burden of proof is on the side of government here, not people who went out to state their views. I think that's what JSPB is getting at.

Besides, the sidewalks and streets outside of the convention are public property. This is a classic tragedy of the commons, and the cops' solution in this case was to aggress against many peaceful, innocent people. It's also a constitutional issue insofar as the government is assuming powers that it doesn't have by any right.

[KazooSkinsFan]

There is still no Constitutional issue here, which was my point. You duck and dodge that like Mohammad Ali in his prime. Protesters have the right to state their views, they are getting that right. They do not have the right to do it anywhere and everywhere they want and the 1st Amendment doesn't say that. There is absolutely NO Constitutional issue for either the Dems OR Reps preventing protests AT their convention.

So no law is being made in Congress against them stating their views, but why the hell are those people (who are not breaking any laws) getting arrested? Why do pre-emptive arrests on people who weren't even planning anything violent? The burden of proof is on the side of government here, not people who went out to state their views. I think that's what JSPB is getting at.

Besides, the sidewalks and streets outside of the convention are public property. This is a classic tragedy of the commons, and the cops' solution in this case was to aggress against many peaceful, innocent people. It's also a constitutional issue insofar as the government is assuming powers that it doesn't have by any right.

Sometimes I hate when you join a discussion because then I have to be serious. All I know is there were protests, some did involve crimes and there were some arrests. I haven't seen any of those points actually established, only assumed. Everything I saw was people "said" they weren't protesting. OK, fine. That is a basis of acquittal if it can't be proven. But when there are thousands of protesters and hundreds committing crime (vandalism, etc.) I want more then people "said" they weren't doing that to prove the police did anything wrong.

But when you say that's what JSPB was getting at, I joined the discussion on his points of "free speech zones" at the convention. Conventions have to allow no free speech at all. Neither does THN. You have rules and actually are pretty lenient and fair about enforcing them. But you don't have to be and I can't claim any "Constitutional" right if you kick me off because you hate people who abbreviate city names in Michigan. And that's the point I argued.

[Irn-Bru]

You seem to be bringing up an issue of private property. For example, there's no such thing as Constitutionally-backed free speech on theHogs.net because this website runs on BH's dime. The same holds true for the convention, because they rented it out, etc. But the people in question weren't in the convention, they were in the streets and sidewalks outside the conventions. The "free speech zones" that JSPB mentions were supposed to be the great compromise, but of course they were far away from the action (especially to get away from cameras) and thus had little meaning. What exactly is the point of a "free speech zone" if it's removed from where you wanted to do your speaking?

As for crimes versus peaceful protesting, there are a ton of stories out there. Protesting itself is not a crime. It is true that some of the people who were arrested weren't even protesting (including a reporter who was merely covering the event).

It was really botched by the police and other authorities. . .although botched implies that it was a mistake and not intentional.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You seem to be bringing up an issue of private property. For example, there's no such thing as Constitutionally-backed free speech on theHogs.net because this website runs on BH's dime. The same holds true for the convention, because they rented it out, etc. But the people in question weren't in the convention, they were in the streets and sidewalks outside the conventions.

Um..sort of..in a way. Let's go back to what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are:

- Constitution: Assumption, the people have all rights. However, the people are going to cede certain enumerated rights to the Federal government and here's how the Federal government will operate.

- Bill of Rights: Here are certain rights the Federal government cannot ever tread on. By the 10th Amendment still rights not enumerated are still not powers of the Federal government but of the States and people and by the 9th Amendment a power not ceded to the Federal government and not restricted in the Bill of Rights is no less important then those that are.

So, in regard to protesting at conventions, the first amendment says the "government" cannot restrict free speech. What does that have to do with the GOP or the DNC saying people can't protest AT the convention? It is not just "private property" so much as it has completely and utterly nothing to do with the First Amendment at all in any way shape or form. "Government" is not restricting free speech.

The "free speech zones" that JSPB mentions were supposed to be the great compromise, but of course they were far away from the action (especially to get away from cameras) and thus had little meaning. What exactly is the point of a "free speech zone" if it's removed from where you wanted to do your speaking?

Of course they WANT to protest at the conventions. It just has NOTHING to do with their "Constitutional Rights."

As for crimes versus peaceful protesting, there are a ton of stories out there. Protesting itself is not a crime. It is true that some of the people who were arrested weren't even protesting (including a reporter who was merely covering the event).

It was really botched by the police and other authorities. . .although botched implies that it was a mistake and not intentional.

OK, the claim's been made. Yes, there are "stories." A reporter got arrested? When you report on wars you can get killed, see Ernie Pyle for that. When you "report" on protests and some of them get arrested and some of them are guilty you may be detained. I'd hate to be a cop where you have to go to a mob and figure out exactly who did what when there's all that going on. In no way have you or JSPB that I've seen demonstrated the cops actually did anything improper much less illegal. Wow, you go to a mob and get associated with the mob. What a shock.

But again, my point wast his is NOT a Constitutional issue. Neither you are JSPB22 are making any case that it is.

[Deadskins]

You seem to be bringing up an issue of private property. For example, there's no such thing as Constitutionally-backed free speech on theHogs.net because this website runs on BH's dime. The same holds true for the convention, because they rented it out, etc. But the people in question weren't in the convention, they were in the streets and sidewalks outside the conventions.

Um..sort of..in a way. Let's go back to what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are:

- Constitution: Assumption, the people have all rights. However, the people are going to cede certain enumerated rights to the Federal government and here's how the Federal government will operate.

- Bill of Rights: Here are certain rights the Federal government cannot ever tread on. By the 10th Amendment still rights not enumerated are still not powers of the Federal government but of the States and people and by the 9th Amendment a power not ceded to the Federal government and not restricted in the Bill of Rights is no less important then those that are.

So, in regard to protesting at conventions, the first amendment says the "government" cannot restrict free speech. What does that have to do with the GOP or the DNC saying people can't protest AT the convention?

First of all, I never mentioned either the DNC or RNC objecting to the protests. My point was about the state (read government) cracking down on free speech and assembly.

Secondly, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause extends the 1st amendment's protections to the state and local levels as well.

Lastly, New York was successfully sued for false arrests and 1st amendment violations surrounding the 2004 RNC. So yes, it has been proven that the state (again, read government) did violate people's 1st amendment rights.

[Irn-Bru]

So, in regard to protesting at conventions, the first amendment says the "government" cannot restrict free speech. What does that have to do with the GOP or the DNC saying people can't protest AT the convention?

They are near the convention but not "in" the convention. Neither party has any business telling people what to do who are not on the premises of their operation.

Just so it's clear, we both agree that the GOP doesn't have legal authority over those who are protesting outside of the convention, correct?

It is not just "private property" so much as it has completely and utterly nothing to do with the First Amendment at all in any way shape or form. "Government" is not restricting free speech.

Who pays the cops? Who directed them to arrest protesters? Who was in charge?

[Irn-Bru]

Of course they WANT to protest at the conventions. It just has NOTHING to do with their "Constitutional Rights."

See below. . .

OK, the claim's been made. Yes, there are "stories." A reporter got arrested? When you report on wars you can get killed, see Ernie Pyle for that. When you "report" on protests and some of them get arrested and some of them are guilty you may be detained.

"Stories." There are also "explanations" by officials. How many crimes were committed at the conventions? How many actual instances of vandalism, or assault by civilians?

OK, and then: how many arrests were made?

Besides, this stuff was documented by reporters all over the place. I guess we can just give blanket distrust to all of their reports. . .but I don't see why it's even desirable to assume that the police officers have their story straight unless decisively shown to be false (and excluding any other eye witnesses at the scene because they are, well, untrustworthy). Not a rational perspective, in my opinion.

Look in particular for news coverage of the pre-emptive arrests that were made, and you will begin to see what JSPB, I, and many others are mad as hell about.

I'd hate to be a cop where you have to go to a mob and figure out exactly who did what when there's all that going on.

Yeah, me too. I think this is a fantastic example of the chaos that public property creates. Tragedy of the commons.

In no way have you or JSPB that I've seen demonstrated the cops actually did anything improper much less illegal. Wow, you go to a mob and get associated with the mob. What a shock.

Dude, researching this is not hard. If you don't have an impulse to even investigate this yourself then me posting links isn't going to change anything.

Funny, I had thought the burden of proof was on the government to show that someone was rightly arrested and detained. I forgot that citizens are to be distrusted and held until proven innocent beyond even a shadow of doubt.

But again, my point wast his is NOT a Constitutional issue. Neither you are JSPB22 are making any case that it is.

Public property, public security forces, public policy, federally-funded roads and sidewalks, federally-funded convention, federally-funded stepped-up security + abuses of individuals by the authorities = Constitutional issue.

[KazooSkinsFan]

First of all I never mentioned either the DNC or RNC objecting to the protests. My point was about the state (read government) cracking down on free speech and assembly

And yet you've made no case they did so in any unconstitutional way. All you did was imply that and use terms like "cracking down." This is why I said Irn-Bru's point of "private property" was sorta in a way true, but only sorta. You can't go into the Capitol Building and protest anything and everything you want any time you want and that's not "private" property. Same with all other government buildings. If one group gets a permit for a rally at a certain place or a certain time you can't get a permit for a counter rally at the exact same place and time. You can't demonstrate in the street or other places you're blocking traffic. You can't demonstrate within certain areas of abortion clinics. There are all sorts of restrictions on WHERE you can protest. And the Conventions are big todo's. The reason they want to protest them there is that's where the press is. But THEY didn't bring the press, the parties did.

There is no logical, ethical, legal, Constitutional or moral reason one group should be able to use the attention brought by the group they are protesting to protest them. I am for the Fair Tax. I would love to demonstrate against the Democrats for their outrageous crimes the IRS commits driven by the Democrats more then anyone. But why should I be able to demonstrate AT the convention, in the entrances, our immediately outside it when THEY drew the publicity for their Convention? I am totally free to set up a rally, call on supporters, ask the media to cover it. But why should I be able to leach off the effort of the group I'm attacking?

Secondly, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause extends the 1st amendment's protections to the state and local levels as well.

Agreed, I never argued though that it was OK as long as the State governments did it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

In no way have you or JSPB that I've seen demonstrated the cops actually did anything improper much less illegal. Wow, you go to a mob and get associated with the mob. What a shock.

Dude, researching this is not hard. If you don't have an impulse to even investigate this yourself then me posting links isn't going to change anything.

I see, JSPB posts that government cracked down on free speech and posts a bunch of links of people saying, "I didn't do nothin" and it's my job to go find more links that actually do establish it?

Sounds like the "Indian Rule." I use a different name in Smack, but I'm not there now.

Funny, I had thought the burden of proof was on the government to show that someone was rightly arrested and detained. I forgot that citizens are to be distrusted and held until proven innocent beyond even a shadow of doubt.

- Police charge someone with a crime and want a conviction, absolutely.

- Police go into a mob and detain a bunch of people to calm things down and let them go, not.

I know peoplewere charged and JSPB gave us some links saying they said they didn't do it, but I actually don't consider that proof police acted improperly either. Silly me.

But again, my point wast his is NOT a Constitutional issue. Neither you are JSPB22 are making any case that it is.

Public property, public security forces, public policy, federally-funded roads and sidewalks, federally-funded convention, federally-funded stepped-up security + abuses of individuals by the authorities = Constitutional issue.

This is absurd. You can't protest in the road, the police provide additional security at events (e.g., football game, protest marches) ALL the time. The 1st Amendment gives the right to peacefully protest. How does that mean you can peacefully walk through a mob expecting to be treated as if you're crossing 5th Avenue on a sunny afternoon? How does that mean the government has to allow you to rub a protest in the face of the people you are protesting? They have every right to protest all they want against the DNC AND GOP. They don't have the right to impede and create disturbances intentionally to get the people they are protesting. They are free to hold all the rallies they want. They don't want to do that BECAUSE they want to get in the DNC and GOP's face. That's not what the 1st Amendment says and it shouldn't say that.

[Deadskins]

Secondly, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause extends the 1st amendment's protections to the state and local levels as well.

Agreed, I never argued though that it was OK as long as the State governments did it.

I thought you did here:

- Bill of Rights: Here are certain rights the Federal government cannot ever tread on. By the 10th Amendment still rights not enumerated are still not powers of the Federal government but of the States and people and by the 9th Amendment a power not ceded to the Federal government and not restricted in the Bill of Rights is no less important then those that are.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Secondly, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause extends the 1st amendment's protections to the state and local levels as well.

Agreed, I never argued though that it was OK as long as the State governments did it.

I thought you did here:

- Bill of Rights: Here are certain rights the Federal government cannot ever tread on. By the 10th Amendment still rights not enumerated are still not powers of the Federal government but of the States and people and by the 9th Amendment a power not ceded to the Federal government and not restricted in the Bill of Rights is no less important then those that are.

In your "I thought you did here" quote, where does it say the States can impede on free speech?

And not only didn't I say that, this is a nit to the max argument.
- What I said is what the Constitution said when it was written.
- Then I said what the Bill of Rights were when written.
- You're arguing 14th Amendment applied that to the States.
- I argued all your links were people saying they "didn't do nuthin." I never used the argument it was Consitutional becuse the States can violate free speech.

So what your argument boils down to is that I didn't mention that the 14th Amendment, which came AFTER the Bill Rights (notice 14 is bigger then all the numbers between 1 and 10) extended the 1st Amendment to the States even though I never said anything counter to that in my argument.

[Irn-Bru]

I see, JSPB posts that government cracked down on free speech and posts a bunch of links of people saying, "I didn't do nothin" and it's my job to go find more links that actually do establish it?

Sounds like the "Indian Rule." I use a different name in Smack, but I'm not there now.

No, their innocence is presumed. I guess we can wait until the arrests and convictions get sorted out, but the ADD-media will have moved on by then.

And the fact that you summarized JSPB's links as a "bunch of links of people saying 'I didn't do nothin'" vindicated my assessment of the likelihood that you'd be convinced by anything I could link to.

- Police charge someone with a crime and want a conviction, absolutely.

- Police go into a mob and detain a bunch of people to calm things down and let them go, not.

First, this doesn't even cover all of the cases that JSPB and I continue to refer to and he has linked to. You are forgetting the arrests made on reporters (the one that I'm thinking of, by the way, was not standing in the middle of a mob), the pre-emptive arrests made on people before they were ever protesting, etc. Again, this is something that is going to require some reading on your part.

This is absurd. You can't protest in the road, the police provide additional security at events (e.g., football game, protest marches) ALL the time. The 1st Amendment gives the right to peacefully protest.

Okay, but we agree that this doesn't extend to private property, obviously. And now it doesn't extend to public property. So the 1st amendment gives me the right to protest. . .uh. . .who knows! But it's a right I have, damn it!

How does that mean you can peacefully walk through a mob expecting to be treated as if you're crossing 5th Avenue on a sunny afternoon?

You keep referring to "mobs" as if a collection of civilians is criminal. I know that's not what you think, but the imprecision here is hampering our ability to debate this.

How does that mean the government has to allow you to rub a protest in the face of the people you are protesting?

If it's on public property, I don't see how the government can stop it.

They have every right to protest all they want against the DNC AND GOP. They don't have the right to impede and create disturbances intentionally to get the people they are protesting

What do you mean, to "get" them? The vast majority of protesting was not violent. There were more arrests than there were instances of vandalism or assault. Something's not adding up. . .

[Countertrey]

What do you mean, to "get" them? The vast majority of protesting was not violent. There were more arrests than there were instances of vandalism or assault. Something's not adding up. . .

Once again, I have to imagine that it depends upon who's ox is getting gored...

The perspective of small businessmen with thousands of dollars in property damage is probably not quite the same as that of the innocent anarchist, who's baseball bat was repeatedly thrust into that plate glass and the crystal displays by the will of the cop who was just down the street...

[Deadskins]

The taxpayers in Minnesota, however, won’t face the same kinds of legal costs as those in New York. Before the 2008 convention, officials in St. Paul insisted that the Republican host committee use its own funds to purchase an insurance policy that would pay up to $10 million in damages for civil rights violations, said John Choi, the city attorney for St. Paul. “When the convention was awarded to St. Paul, we looked at what happened in other cities after everyone had left, especially New York,” Mr. Choi said.

By contrast, New York City not only was responsible for defending city officials and the police from charges of civil rights violations, but also agreed to pay legal costs for the Republican host committee if it was sued, court filings show.

As of this week, the city had spent $6.6 million to defend the lawsuits, a spokeswoman for the Law Department said. An additional $1.6 million had been paid to settle suits brought by 87 individuals, according to the comptroller’s office.

Paying $1.6 million to 87 people who had no claim whatsoever seems pretty stupid to me.

The city still faces 557 more claims, a spokeswoman for the comptroller’s office said, and lawyers may seek to broaden the cases into a class action that would cover all 1,806 people who were arrested. In about 90 percent of the cases, charges were dismissed outright or dropped after six months.

During the convention, the Police Department held hundreds of prisoners for as long as three days on charges equivalent to a traffic ticket, despite repeated orders by a State Supreme Court justice to bring them to court.

The reason for that delay, the city has maintained, was the need to fingerprint each person rather than simply issue a summons.

The above quotes can all be found here.

[KazooSkinsFan]

the fact that you summarized JSPB's links as a "bunch of links of people saying 'I didn't do nothin'" vindicated my assessment of the likelihood that you'd be convinced by anything I could link to.

Logical but wrong. I like arguing with JSPB22 because it's fun. I like arguing with you because you challenge my views and in defending them I do assess them. I read a ways into his links, but it was story after story of people saying they didn't do it. I stopped reading. In this case you may have read further then I did and maybe eventually there was more. But if you were to chose the links I doubt it would have been that hard to get to the point where it's not based on someone's personal statement they weren't guilty.

- Police charge someone with a crime and want a conviction, absolutely.

- Police go into a mob and detain a bunch of people to calm things down and let them go, not.

First, this doesn't even cover all of the cases that JSPB and I continue to refer to and he has linked to. You are forgetting the arrests made on reporters (the one that I'm thinking of, by the way, was not standing in the middle of a mob), the pre-emptive arrests made on people before they were ever protesting, etc. Again, this is something that is going to require some reading on your part.

I'll go back and read his links further based on your statement there is eventually meat. I have no apology given that I did try to read them that I should have had to work that hard. We'll see on the bias of a reporter who has meat and yet prints a whole lot of fluff first.

Okay, but we agree that this doesn't extend to private property, obviously. And now it doesn't extend to public property. So the 1st amendment gives me the right to protest. . .uh. . .who knows! But it's a right I have, damn it! ]

LOL is right because it's clearly a butchering of what I said. Are you arguing the KKK has the right to demonstrate on the Senate floor in the middle of a Senate session because it's "public property?" If you aren't you just lost this point because then we're just arguing about where to draw the line.

How does that mean you can peacefully walk through a mob expecting to be treated as if you're crossing 5th Avenue on a sunny afternoon?

You keep referring to "mobs" as if a collection of civilians is criminal. I know that's not what you think, but the imprecision here is hampering our ability to debate this.

How does that mean the government has to allow you to rub a protest in the face of the people you are protesting?

If it's on public property, I don't see how the government can stop it.

They have every right to protest all they want against the DNC AND GOP. They don't have the right to impede and create disturbances intentionally to get the people they are protesting

What do you mean, to "get" them? The vast majority of protesting was not violent. There were more arrests than there were instances of vandalism or assault. Something's not adding up. . .

Just riddle me this Batman. I'm saying that people have the right to organize any rally they want. I support the right of the KKK, Black Panthers, American Communist Party, radical Islamists, anyone. All I'm saying is they don't have the right to do it in the road, to block traffic, or to do it where they are doing it intentionally to exercise their free speech at other people's expense, like when they are trying to watch a football game or their own rally or convention. The protesters should set up their demonstration and draw the support they can get. How does free speech mean the right to impede someone else and if they are not trying to do it right at the conventions why else are they doing it there?