Protesting and disrupting the RNC in Minneapolis/St. Paul?

[yuppiejr]

As a Twin Cities resident and occasional poster here I figured I'd fish this topic out to the left-leaning majority at AT P&N.

The upcoming Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN seems to be attracting all sorts of groups with an axe to grind including militant Anarchist groups that have pledged to cause as much chaos and mayhem as possible in order to deliver their "message". This includes but is not limited to utilizing violence or destruction of property in order to interrupt transportation routes, intimidate convention goers and generally take as much attention away from the RNC as possible..

My question is this - In the case of the RNC, or any other political gathering, should individuals and groups that take their protests or demonstrations to a level that limits convention goer's rights to free speech and assembly be arrested and/or denied their right to assemble? Do those of you in the "left leaning" spectrum of political ideology condone this sort of activity and if so, what would you cite as justification or support for said actions?

I don't think anyone would deny that a peaceful demonstration to show solidarity for a cause (or against another) is reasonable as long as it does not negatively impact the local civil infrastructure or take away someone else's ability to support their cause, etc.. What's brewing in Minneapolis / St. Paul is something else entirely ... groups essentially planning to use any and all means at their disposal to impede the RNC and limit the Republican's ability to meet and speak while causing as much chaos and mayhem as possible.

 

[OrByte]

Sounds like nothing new. There will always be peaceful protesters, and not so peaceful protesters.

If people get out of hand, or if they do something that is dangerous, then they should be carted away.

 

[K1052]

The fringe of the left is just as totally nuts as the fringe of the right.

Tasers, tear gas, and water cannons for all these assholes.

 

[Genx87]

The RNC really picked a hornets nest of a location this time around hehe. Outside of Mass, Portland, and California. There arent many other places more liberal than good old St. Paul and the surrounding state.

Luckily I work in downtown Minneapolis and not St Paul. That is going to be a complete clusterfvck to navigate.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Do those of you in the "left leaning" spectrum of political ideology condone this sort of activity and if so, what would you cite as justification or support for said actions?

Obviously no reasonable person supports busting out shop windows or whatever. However what I find disgusting is when "lawful" protesters are confined to "free speech zones". Often several miles away behind a warehouse or something.

If citizens choose to march down the street en masse to voice their disagreement with Republican policies, I see no problem.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: K1052
The fringe of the left is just as totally nuts as the fringe of the right.

Originally posted by: OrByte
Sounds like nothing new. There will always be peaceful protesters, and not so peaceful protesters.

If people get out of hand, or if they do something that is dangerous, then they should be carted away.

:thumbsup:

 

[Tab]

I've always wonder why they don't host the event in some place that's actually - conservative.

I suppose they run out?

 

[ProfJohn]

They are having it in Minneapolis for the same reason the Democrats are holding theirs in Denver, to try and reach out to the other side.

Doesn't seem to make much sense and I doubt it changes many votes either.

One thing these groups should keep in mind that going too far could cause a backlash or give Republicans a chance to score political points. They could also piss of every day Republicans and get them a little more fired up about the election. Of course the anarchists don't care about this all they want to do is break things in a way that allows them to get away with it.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Meh, the time for "peaceful" protest is long past. Now, as stated earlier, protesters are confined to "free speech zones" and kept away from any actual activities. Our government learned their lesson back in the 60s and you can be sure that peaceful protests will no longer stand in the way of big business' agenda. You don't have to control a crowd if it's not where it might actually accomplish something positive.
We're watching The Constitution lose it's validity on nearly a weekly basis any more. To hell with being nice and friendly and kind and blah blah blah. Punch these asstards in the gut and then pay whatever price you must for showing just how disgusted you are with what's become of our once great form of government. The squeaky wheel gets the grease yeah?

 

[LegendKiller]

1. You're equating an Anarchist, who's as far from "left leaning" as possible, to "left leaners"? That's a pretty bad comparison.

2. Free speech is your ability to say what you want without government intervention. Whether that "hurts" other people with words, then that's their problem, not the government's.

3. Even if things were violent, violence against the RNC doesn't go counter to what they believe. The violence the RNC started in Iraq is completely different from protests. Would you compare violence for Britain during the French/Indian war to violence against Britain during the Revolutionary War?

4. Nothing should hinder free speech and expression unless they are causing bodily harm to people or property. "Free Speech Zones" are nothing more than temporary concentration camps for malcontents, used by tyrranical regimes to limit free speech, protest, and the god given right of people to display their displeasure over the abrogation of rights and/or political viewpoints.

It's a cowards way of limiting opposition and should be declared unconstitutional.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Meh, the time for "peaceful" protest is long past. Now, as stated earlier, protesters are confined to "free speech zones" and kept away from any actual activities. Our government learned their lesson back in the 60s and you can be sure that peaceful protests will no longer stand in the way of big business' agenda. You don't have to control a crowd if it's not where it might actually accomplish something positive.
We're watching The Constitution lose it's validity on nearly a weekly basis any more. To hell with being nice and friendly and kind and blah blah blah. Punch these asstards in the gut and then pay whatever price you must for showing just how disgusted you are with what's become of our once great form of government. The squeaky wheel gets the grease yeah?

Oh, your hypocrisy is amazing. You complain about your rights getting eroded by "big business", and yet you are perfectly willing to take away other people's rights to assemble as they wish to support the party they wish -- using violence no less. People have a right to peacefully protest something, but those who cross the line should pay severely. Commit a violent act while "protesting" (such as burning cars, assaulting someone, etc), spend 10 years in jail. That should help curb the stupidity.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You're equating an Anarchist, who's as far from "left leaning" as possible, to "left leaners"? That's a pretty bad comparison.

2. Free speech is your ability to say what you want without government intervention. Whether that "hurts" other people with words, then that's their problem, not the government's.

3. Even if things were violent, violence against the RNC doesn't go counter to what they believe. The violence the RNC started in Iraq is completely different from protests. Would you compare violence for Britain during the French/Indian war to violence against Britain during the Revolutionary War?

4. Nothing should hinder free speech and expression unless they are causing bodily harm to people or property. "Free Speech Zones" are nothing more than temporary concentration camps for malcontents, used by tyrranical regimes to limit free speech, protest, and the god given right of people to display their displeasure over the abrogation of rights and/or political viewpoints.

It's a cowards way of limiting opposition and should be declared unconstitutional.

I forgot you had a libertarian side LK.

:thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You're equating an Anarchist, who's as far from "left leaning" as possible, to "left leaners"? That's a pretty bad comparison.

2. Free speech is your ability to say what you want without government intervention. Whether that "hurts" other people with words, then that's their problem, not the government's.

3. Even if things were violent, violence against the RNC doesn't go counter to what they believe. The violence the RNC started in Iraq is completely different from protests. Would you compare violence for Britain during the French/Indian war to violence against Britain during the Revolutionary War?

4. Nothing should hinder free speech and expression unless they are causing bodily harm to people or property. "Free Speech Zones" are nothing more than temporary concentration camps for malcontents, used by tyrranical regimes to limit free speech, protest, and the god given right of people to display their displeasure over the abrogation of rights and/or political viewpoints.

It's a cowards way of limiting opposition and should be declared unconstitutional.

:thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Meh, the time for "peaceful" protest is long past. Now, as stated earlier, protesters are confined to "free speech zones" and kept away from any actual activities. Our government learned their lesson back in the 60s and you can be sure that peaceful protests will no longer stand in the way of big business' agenda. You don't have to control a crowd if it's not where it might actually accomplish something positive.
We're watching The Constitution lose it's validity on nearly a weekly basis any more. To hell with being nice and friendly and kind and blah blah blah. Punch these asstards in the gut and then pay whatever price you must for showing just how disgusted you are with what's become of our once great form of government. The squeaky wheel gets the grease yeah?

Minnesota is a concealed carry state. Better make sure the Republican you punch in the gut isn't packing, fool.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Minnesota is a concealed carry state. Better make sure the Republican you punch in the gut isn't packing, fool.

Good, maybe we'll see some media outlets take notice of the dissenting opinions if a couple folks get shot. It seems that's the only way to get a non government sanctioned viewpoint aired any more anyway.

And while you(Double Trouble) may think my "hypocrisy is amazing," the fact that the system is broke should not be left to pass unchallenged. Standing in a government approved cage miles away from anything meaningful is the last gasp of a once free nation. If you're happy to watch your rights go out the window, feel free to stay at home and let the media tell you all is well and everything is fine. Some folks actually have the guts to stand up for what they believe is right and if that offends others, well so be it. Once upon a time this was a free country and PC was shooting a Brit for enforcing laws that were improper and unfair.

And, just so we're clear, the punch in the gut comment was in a proverbial sense not literal. No better way to do so than to cause disharmony and raucous preventing the "ruling party" from accomplishing their goals. This goes for those planning on doing so at the DNC as well. Perhaps, just perhaps, the disturbances at these conventions may actually wake up the politicians to the fact that the status quo isn't going to float us by any longer. If the people are getting wound up, it may be time to listen. But I suppose that could lead to even stricter laws governing how and where you can object to the deaf and blind government. I'm sure most of you will be just as silent then as you are now.

Peace!

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Good, maybe we'll see some media outlets take notice of the dissenting opinions if a couple folks get shot.

Peace!

Pretty good explanation of liberal gun grabbers view on things. A little blood spilled is a small price to pay in exchange for a lot of power (taking away all the guns in the wake of a "tragedy.")

And the "peace" at the end... well that just goes to show that liberals have mad cow disease.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Meh, the time for "peaceful" protest is long past.

...

To hell with being nice and friendly and kind and blah blah blah. Punch these asstards in the gut and then pay whatever price you must for showing just how disgusted you are with what's become of our once great form of government.

Yeah, sounds really proverbial to me. :roll:

You're as violent as a necon, you just have a different target for your hatred. In other words, you're no different.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Meh, the time for "peaceful" protest is long past.

...

To hell with being nice and friendly and kind and blah blah blah. Punch these asstards in the gut and then pay whatever price you must for showing just how disgusted you are with what's become of our once great form of government.

Yeah, sounds really proverbial to me. :roll:

You're as violent as a necon, you just have a different target for your hatred. In other words, you're no different.

Hey, that may very well be. I obviously don't see it that way but then again our founding fathers were all violent treasonous folks too so I guess I don't really mind how you see it.

 

[Double Trouble]

Yep, NaughtyGeek is the epitome of the hypocritical left -- and of course there's a hypocritical right to match. They don't believe in freedom for all, they believe in freedom for those who agree to them, but not for those who disagree. Freedom of speech is great! ..... unless they are saying something you disagree with. :roll:

He also fails to think that when the protesters go over the top and do stupid things, it reflects badly on their cause, which will make for a backlash against the very ideas you're trying to promote.

You and your ilk (on both sides of the isle) are worse for America than any corporation ever could be.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They are having it in Minneapolis for the same reason the Democrats are holding theirs in Denver, to try and reach out to the other side.

Doesn't seem to make much sense and I doubt it changes many votes either.

One thing these groups should keep in mind that going too far could cause a backlash or give Republicans a chance to score political points. They could also piss of every day Republicans and get them a little more fired up about the election. Of course the anarchists don't care about this all they want to do is break things in a way that allows them to get away with it.

i thought denver itself was fairly liberal?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You're equating an Anarchist, who's as far from "left leaning" as possible, to "left leaners"? That's a pretty bad comparison.

2. Free speech is your ability to say what you want without government intervention. Whether that "hurts" other people with words, then that's their problem, not the government's.

3. Even if things were violent, violence against the RNC doesn't go counter to what they believe. The violence the RNC started in Iraq is completely different from protests. Would you compare violence for Britain during the French/Indian war to violence against Britain during the Revolutionary War?

4. Nothing should hinder free speech and expression unless they are causing bodily harm to people or property. "Free Speech Zones" are nothing more than temporary concentration camps for malcontents, used by tyrranical regimes to limit free speech, protest, and the god given right of people to display their displeasure over the abrogation of rights and/or political viewpoints.

It's a cowards way of limiting opposition and should be declared unconstitutional.

I forgot you had a libertarian side LK.

:thumbsup:

I moderate my opinion on many things.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They are having it in Minneapolis for the same reason the Democrats are holding theirs in Denver, to try and reach out to the other side.

Doesn't seem to make much sense and I doubt it changes many votes either.

One thing these groups should keep in mind that going too far could cause a backlash or give Republicans a chance to score political points. They could also piss of every day Republicans and get them a little more fired up about the election. Of course the anarchists don't care about this all they want to do is break things in a way that allows them to get away with it.

i thought denver itself was fairly liberal?

It is the Western states from the plains up until the coastal states that they are attempting to play to. CO is smack dab in the middle of all of them.

 

[sandorski]

The Violence of War and Violence of Protest are very different things. Not that I support Violent Protests, but to say that violent Anti-War Protestors are somehow hypocritical is a very long stretch.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You're equating an Anarchist, who's as far from "left leaning" as possible, to "left leaners"? That's a pretty bad comparison.

2. Free speech is your ability to say what you want without government intervention. Whether that "hurts" other people with words, then that's their problem, not the government's.

3. Even if things were violent, violence against the RNC doesn't go counter to what they believe. The violence the RNC started in Iraq is completely different from protests. Would you compare violence for Britain during the French/Indian war to violence against Britain during the Revolutionary War?

4. Nothing should hinder free speech and expression unless they are causing bodily harm to people or property. "Free Speech Zones" are nothing more than temporary concentration camps for malcontents, used by tyrranical regimes to limit free speech, protest, and the god given right of people to display their displeasure over the abrogation of rights and/or political viewpoints.

It's a cowards way of limiting opposition and should be declared unconstitutional.

#1, please point out in my unedited original post where I equated anarchists to "left leaners"? I equated a majority of AT P&N posters as "left leaning" - which is not a rip so much as a truthful observation, however I specifically identified the Anarchist groups in question as militant IN A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH... not left/right leaning. Nice try though...

#2, I agree with you regarding the "words hurt, boo hoo" concept - people have the right to express themselves even if it offends someone else - just as people have the right to ignore what other people have to say. This is why political correctness / hatespeech legislation, etc.. is so idiotic. The point I was making is that at what point does one group's use of force or violence (not just words) cross the line of free speech. I may think the concept of man causing climate change is idiotic but that does not give me the right to storm into a GW rally, bash a presenter over the head and steal his microphone.

#3, bullshit... Violence being exercised by one group of citizens against another to purposefully limit that group's ability to convene and exercise their free speech is tyranny, period... The violence in Iraq justifies nothing, period - war powers were granted to the president by a bi-partisan majority - fact. Just because you don't like where we are now as a result (and I'm not a fan either, by the way) does not remove the shared responsibility that BOTH parties in our government have.

#4, Temporary concentration camps for malcontents, seriously? Where did I leave my shitkickers, the hyperbole is getting deep. There's nothing wrong with protesting or expressing a given viewpoint, thank God we live in a country that protects this right. The key is that attending a protest does not give you the right to infringe on the freedoms of others who either don't care or don't share your viewpoint to go about their business. Having 10,000 protesters shut down a major metropolitan area so that 150,000 people who work in the area can't effectively do their jobs or commute is a case of one group taking away the rights of another. Thus the concept of a "free speech zone" - allow people to express themselves but do it in a way that doesn't shut down a city or present a danger by limiting access to emergency vehicles or public roadways, etc...

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Violence of War and Violence of Protest are very different things. Not that I support Violent Protests, but to say that violent Anti-War Protestors are somehow hypocritical is a very long stretch.

Interesting viewpoint, I'd love to hear you justify how someone protesting war violence by exercising violence in protest is not in fact a HUGE example of hypocrisy in action. I'd say the same to anyone who blows up a clinic that performs abortion in order to save unborn babies - can you say hypocrite?

Help me understand how exercising violence in protest to force your point of view on another potentially unwilling group is any different than an invading army using military power to force their will on an unwilling population or government? As I see it, it's the same method of achieving a goal - using violence or the threat therof to force a viewpoint or project power over another. I don't care if you're using a rifle or tipping cars over in front of a convention center and vandalizing public buildings, it's the same basic behavior that man has exercised on man since one cave man clubbed another over the head to steal the other's wife.