Those wacky Communists

[FluffyMcDeath]

“They can sit there all night because they don’t have jobs,” said another.

So much for the strong economy myth.

Are you sure this isn't an onion article. It makes the Republicans sound like a bunch of snobby elite aristocrats looking down on the "commoners" and sending their bbailifs out to give them a darn good roughing up.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

“They can sit there all night because they don’t have jobs,” said another.

So much for the strong economy myth.

Are you sure this isn't an onion article. It makes the Republicans sound like a bunch of snobby elite aristocrats looking down on the "commoners" and sending their bbailifs out to give them a darn good roughing up.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

“They can sit there all night because they don’t have jobs,” said another.

So much for the strong economy myth.

Are you sure this isn't an onion article. It makes the Republicans sound like a bunch of snobby elite aristocrats looking down on the "commoners" and sending their bbailifs out to give them a darn good roughing up.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

“They can sit there all night because they don’t have jobs,” said another.

So much for the strong economy myth.

Are you sure this isn't an onion article. It makes the Republicans sound like a bunch of snobby elite aristocrats looking down on the "commoners" and sending their bbailifs out to give them a darn good roughing up.

 

[faethor]

Not all arrested are guilty. It's the US don't forget that whole innocent until PROVEN guilty. Journalists were arrested.

There were a minor amount of people causing problems, breaking windows and such. I doubt anyone supports this as freespeech. They are not likely commies. More likely they are anarchists.

The quality, or lack thereof, of the press in the USA like to focus on the sensationalism. It sells their wares and they make their profits.

US Police force has a history of using arrests as attempts to control unfavorable protests. If I recall the 2004 RNC correctly there were a few hundred arrests and a few tens convicted.

 

[faethor]

Not all arrested are guilty. It's the US don't forget that whole innocent until PROVEN guilty. Journalists were arrested.

There were a minor amount of people causing problems, breaking windows and such. I doubt anyone supports this as freespeech. They are not likely commies. More likely they are anarchists.

The quality, or lack thereof, of the press in the USA like to focus on the sensationalism. It sells their wares and they make their profits.

US Police force has a history of using arrests as attempts to control unfavorable protests. If I recall the 2004 RNC correctly there were a few hundred arrests and a few tens convicted.

 

[faethor]

Not all arrested are guilty. It's the US don't forget that whole innocent until PROVEN guilty. Journalists were arrested.

There were a minor amount of people causing problems, breaking windows and such. I doubt anyone supports this as freespeech. They are not likely commies. More likely they are anarchists.

The quality, or lack thereof, of the press in the USA like to focus on the sensationalism. It sells their wares and they make their profits.

US Police force has a history of using arrests as attempts to control unfavorable protests. If I recall the 2004 RNC correctly there were a few hundred arrests and a few tens convicted.

 

[faethor]

Not all arrested are guilty. It's the US don't forget that whole innocent until PROVEN guilty. Journalists were arrested.

There were a minor amount of people causing problems, breaking windows and such. I doubt anyone supports this as freespeech. They are not likely commies. More likely they are anarchists.

The quality, or lack thereof, of the press in the USA like to focus on the sensationalism. It sells their wares and they make their profits.

US Police force has a history of using arrests as attempts to control unfavorable protests. If I recall the 2004 RNC correctly there were a few hundred arrests and a few tens convicted.

 

[faethor]

Not all arrested are guilty. It's the US don't forget that whole innocent until PROVEN guilty. Journalists were arrested.

There were a minor amount of people causing problems, breaking windows and such. I doubt anyone supports this as freespeech. They are not likely commies. More likely they are anarchists.

The quality, or lack thereof, of the press in the USA like to focus on the sensationalism. It sells their wares and they make their profits.

US Police force has a history of using arrests as attempts to control unfavorable protests. If I recall the 2004 RNC correctly there were a few hundred arrests and a few tens convicted.

 

[faethor]

Not all arrested are guilty. It's the US don't forget that whole innocent until PROVEN guilty. Journalists were arrested.

There were a minor amount of people causing problems, breaking windows and such. I doubt anyone supports this as freespeech. They are not likely commies. More likely they are anarchists.

The quality, or lack thereof, of the press in the USA like to focus on the sensationalism. It sells their wares and they make their profits.

US Police force has a history of using arrests as attempts to control unfavorable protests. If I recall the 2004 RNC correctly there were a few hundred arrests and a few tens convicted.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Protests are organized, legal events.

Protests are protests, they need not be legal nor organized. In countries where protest is illegal all protests are illegal and protesting that law is also illegal, but would it be wrong?

Your definition of protest is somewhat ... I was going to say "simplistic" but I think "totally wrong" is more accurate.

But that is irrelevant.

Does this text ring any bells?

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.

Yes, it's the First Amendment.

And if you read the story that you linked then you can see that violence (which if it had happened, would have figured heavily in the story) isn't mentioned though some people are shirtless.

Here is a more in depth story and here is another account that emphasizes that there was no violence or property damage.

Also

The incident marked the second time this week that Rage Against the Machine were involved in a clash with Twin Cities police. On Tuesday, the band attempted to play a show on the State Capitol lawn in St. Paul, but police cut the power, saying that Rage arrived too close to the concert's curfew time, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Instead, the band led the crowd in a cappella renditions of its songs "Bulls on Parade" and "Killing in the Name."

And note the use of the charged word "clash" which can be used to imply violence when the word can also be used to describe a disagreement.

That congress can make no law forbidding peaceful assembly doesn't mean that other levels of government can't but doesn't it all sound a little un-American? A little anti-freedom? A little behind-the-iron-curtain? A little shoot-the-students-at-Tiananmen-square?

From the stories it seems like the police were harassing the people and trying to provoke a reaction. They must be disappointed they didn't get a flaming-garbage-can-through-the-store-window riot.

Sounds like the commies were sitting on the roof.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Protests are organized, legal events.

Protests are protests, they need not be legal nor organized. In countries where protest is illegal all protests are illegal and protesting that law is also illegal, but would it be wrong?

Your definition of protest is somewhat ... I was going to say "simplistic" but I think "totally wrong" is more accurate.

But that is irrelevant.

Does this text ring any bells?

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.

Yes, it's the First Amendment.

And if you read the story that you linked then you can see that violence (which if it had happened, would have figured heavily in the story) isn't mentioned though some people are shirtless.

Here is a more in depth story and here is another account that emphasizes that there was no violence or property damage.

Also

The incident marked the second time this week that Rage Against the Machine were involved in a clash with Twin Cities police. On Tuesday, the band attempted to play a show on the State Capitol lawn in St. Paul, but police cut the power, saying that Rage arrived too close to the concert's curfew time, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Instead, the band led the crowd in a cappella renditions of its songs "Bulls on Parade" and "Killing in the Name."

And note the use of the charged word "clash" which can be used to imply violence when the word can also be used to describe a disagreement.

That congress can make no law forbidding peaceful assembly doesn't mean that other levels of government can't but doesn't it all sound a little un-American? A little anti-freedom? A little behind-the-iron-curtain? A little shoot-the-students-at-Tiananmen-square?

From the stories it seems like the police were harassing the people and trying to provoke a reaction. They must be disappointed they didn't get a flaming-garbage-can-through-the-store-window riot.

Sounds like the commies were sitting on the roof.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Protests are organized, legal events.

Protests are protests, they need not be legal nor organized. In countries where protest is illegal all protests are illegal and protesting that law is also illegal, but would it be wrong?

Your definition of protest is somewhat ... I was going to say "simplistic" but I think "totally wrong" is more accurate.

But that is irrelevant.

Does this text ring any bells?

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.

Yes, it's the First Amendment.

And if you read the story that you linked then you can see that violence (which if it had happened, would have figured heavily in the story) isn't mentioned though some people are shirtless.

Here is a more in depth story and here is another account that emphasizes that there was no violence or property damage.

Also

The incident marked the second time this week that Rage Against the Machine were involved in a clash with Twin Cities police. On Tuesday, the band attempted to play a show on the State Capitol lawn in St. Paul, but police cut the power, saying that Rage arrived too close to the concert's curfew time, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Instead, the band led the crowd in a cappella renditions of its songs "Bulls on Parade" and "Killing in the Name."

And note the use of the charged word "clash" which can be used to imply violence when the word can also be used to describe a disagreement.

That congress can make no law forbidding peaceful assembly doesn't mean that other levels of government can't but doesn't it all sound a little un-American? A little anti-freedom? A little behind-the-iron-curtain? A little shoot-the-students-at-Tiananmen-square?

From the stories it seems like the police were harassing the people and trying to provoke a reaction. They must be disappointed they didn't get a flaming-garbage-can-through-the-store-window riot.

Sounds like the commies were sitting on the roof.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Protests are organized, legal events.

Protests are protests, they need not be legal nor organized. In countries where protest is illegal all protests are illegal and protesting that law is also illegal, but would it be wrong?

Your definition of protest is somewhat ... I was going to say "simplistic" but I think "totally wrong" is more accurate.

But that is irrelevant.

Does this text ring any bells?

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.

Yes, it's the First Amendment.

And if you read the story that you linked then you can see that violence (which if it had happened, would have figured heavily in the story) isn't mentioned though some people are shirtless.

Here is a more in depth story and here is another account that emphasizes that there was no violence or property damage.

Also

The incident marked the second time this week that Rage Against the Machine were involved in a clash with Twin Cities police. On Tuesday, the band attempted to play a show on the State Capitol lawn in St. Paul, but police cut the power, saying that Rage arrived too close to the concert's curfew time, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Instead, the band led the crowd in a cappella renditions of its songs "Bulls on Parade" and "Killing in the Name."

And note the use of the charged word "clash" which can be used to imply violence when the word can also be used to describe a disagreement.

That congress can make no law forbidding peaceful assembly doesn't mean that other levels of government can't but doesn't it all sound a little un-American? A little anti-freedom? A little behind-the-iron-curtain? A little shoot-the-students-at-Tiananmen-square?

From the stories it seems like the police were harassing the people and trying to provoke a reaction. They must be disappointed they didn't get a flaming-garbage-can-through-the-store-window riot.

Sounds like the commies were sitting on the roof.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Protests are organized, legal events.

Protests are protests, they need not be legal nor organized. In countries where protest is illegal all protests are illegal and protesting that law is also illegal, but would it be wrong?

Your definition of protest is somewhat ... I was going to say "simplistic" but I think "totally wrong" is more accurate.

But that is irrelevant.

Does this text ring any bells?

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.

Yes, it's the First Amendment.

And if you read the story that you linked then you can see that violence (which if it had happened, would have figured heavily in the story) isn't mentioned though some people are shirtless.

Here is a more in depth story and here is another account that emphasizes that there was no violence or property damage.

Also

The incident marked the second time this week that Rage Against the Machine were involved in a clash with Twin Cities police. On Tuesday, the band attempted to play a show on the State Capitol lawn in St. Paul, but police cut the power, saying that Rage arrived too close to the concert's curfew time, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Instead, the band led the crowd in a cappella renditions of its songs "Bulls on Parade" and "Killing in the Name."

And note the use of the charged word "clash" which can be used to imply violence when the word can also be used to describe a disagreement.

That congress can make no law forbidding peaceful assembly doesn't mean that other levels of government can't but doesn't it all sound a little un-American? A little anti-freedom? A little behind-the-iron-curtain? A little shoot-the-students-at-Tiananmen-square?

From the stories it seems like the police were harassing the people and trying to provoke a reaction. They must be disappointed they didn't get a flaming-garbage-can-through-the-store-window riot.

Sounds like the commies were sitting on the roof.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Protests are organized, legal events.

Protests are protests, they need not be legal nor organized. In countries where protest is illegal all protests are illegal and protesting that law is also illegal, but would it be wrong?

Your definition of protest is somewhat ... I was going to say "simplistic" but I think "totally wrong" is more accurate.

But that is irrelevant.

Does this text ring any bells?

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.

Yes, it's the First Amendment.

And if you read the story that you linked then you can see that violence (which if it had happened, would have figured heavily in the story) isn't mentioned though some people are shirtless.

Here is a more in depth story and here is another account that emphasizes that there was no violence or property damage.

Also

The incident marked the second time this week that Rage Against the Machine were involved in a clash with Twin Cities police. On Tuesday, the band attempted to play a show on the State Capitol lawn in St. Paul, but police cut the power, saying that Rage arrived too close to the concert's curfew time, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Instead, the band led the crowd in a cappella renditions of its songs "Bulls on Parade" and "Killing in the Name."

And note the use of the charged word "clash" which can be used to imply violence when the word can also be used to describe a disagreement.

That congress can make no law forbidding peaceful assembly doesn't mean that other levels of government can't but doesn't it all sound a little un-American? A little anti-freedom? A little behind-the-iron-curtain? A little shoot-the-students-at-Tiananmen-square?

From the stories it seems like the police were harassing the people and trying to provoke a reaction. They must be disappointed they didn't get a flaming-garbage-can-through-the-store-window riot.

Sounds like the commies were sitting on the roof.

 

[Robert]

Not all arrested are guilty.

Of course they are - the US never arrests anyone by mistake. Remember Gitmo and the "baddest of the bad" terr'ists?

 

[Robert]

Not all arrested are guilty.

Of course they are - the US never arrests anyone by mistake. Remember Gitmo and the "baddest of the bad" terr'ists?

 

[Robert]

Not all arrested are guilty.

Of course they are - the US never arrests anyone by mistake. Remember Gitmo and the "baddest of the bad" terr'ists?

 

[Robert]

Not all arrested are guilty.

Of course they are - the US never arrests anyone by mistake. Remember Gitmo and the "baddest of the bad" terr'ists?