Chicago: You've made me ashamed to call myself American

[coalition_unwilling]

Tonight, as the blood of our patriots flows down the drains of Chicago streets, I must say that I am deeply ashamed to call myself American. I am deeply ashamed that I once called myself a Democrat. I am deeply ashamed that I once saw Obama as representing any kind of substantive change to all the horrors of the years that preceded him.

To the heroes and heroines of today's protest in Chicago, I tip my hat to you. You represent the best that humanity has to offer and I hereby resolve that your bloodshed shall not have been in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[still_one]

1. and how is this the fault of the Democrats that you are ashamed to call yourself? I can see someone

criticizing the police, or some politicians, or even some in the crowd, but how that extrapolates to "all" Democrats, or for that matter all American, I fail to see.

[coalition_unwilling]

2. Um, Rahm Emmanuel (mayor of Chicago) was Obama's first

Chief of Staff.

I did not say it was the fault of all Democrats, just that I feel ashamed to call myself one tonight.

I defy you to feel anything other than ashamed after you view pictures in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710303

Any Democrat who does not forcefully and unequivocally condemn this blatant police violence is complicit with it. That includes Obama and you.

[still_one]

4. Then blame Emmanuel, that is all my point is /nt

[coalition_unwilling]

6. Where did blame come into this thread? I said I 'feel ashamed'. But, since

you mention it, if you or Obama or any Democrat fails to condemn this police violence, why then you're complicit with it.

[skepticscott]

32. Uh, YOU brought blame into this thread in #2

saying that every Democrat who didn't condemn this should be held to blame.

[demgrrrll]

5. I agree with you. Seems overwrought.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. I defy you to feel anything other than ashamed after you view pictures in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710303

Any Democrat who does not forcefully and unequivocally condemn this blatant police violence is complicit with it. That includes Obama and you.

[cstanleytech]

12. Now where I have heard something like that before......oh I know!!!

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." George W. Bush

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Great, now I'm being compared to a murderous sociopath. I guess

that's an improvement from being dismissed as 'overwrought.'

Dude, if you stay silent in the face of this, you are complicit with it. It's really that simple. Wake the fuck up!

[cstanleytech]

18. That would be because your using a similar argument that he used.

The fact is not everyone who isnt with you supports what happened in Chicago just like not everyone who wasnt with Bush was for the terrorists.

[coalition_unwilling]

19. Gawd, would you please use apostrophes correctly and avoid excessive

use of double negatives? Both are hallmarks of sloppy thinking and encourage same.

Speaking of 'argument'.

Thanks.

[cstanleytech]

22. "Both are hallmarks of sloppy thinking and encourage same."

Kinda like Bush when he made that statement you mean?

[joeglow3]

60. And the winner of this round is......

cstanleytech

I love it when people can no longer argue the merits of their point, so they turn into grammar police. Sadly, I think they honestly believe they are the victor when doing this. Sad.

[HiPointDem]

62. the double negatives keep people from seeing the false comparison. so it's not a mere grammar

point.

and the comparison is false.

[HiPointDem]

48. you've misstated the comparison.

[cstanleytech]

53. No, its an apt comparison to make as Bush did tell everyone that if they werent with him they were

with the terrorists and that is in essence what coalition_unwilling was saying about anyone who didnt jump on the train of forcefully and unequivocally condemning the police.
Now do I believe the police may have over reacted? Sure, its possible and if they were then hopefully they will be held accountable but until then condemning them for something that has yet to be proven is reckless.

[HiPointDem]

58. your comparison was between:

"not everyone who isnt with you supports what happened in Chicago just like not everyone who wasnt with Bush was for the terrorists," or in positive terms,

"everyone who isn't with you supports what happened in chicago"

but that's not what the poster said. what the poster said was:

"Any Democrat who does not forcefully and unequivocally condemn this blatant police violence is complicit with it."

to put a point on it, the poster didn't say: "if you're not with the protestors, you're with the police," he said "if *Democrats* don't condemn the police brutality (of Rahm's *Democratic* administration), they're complicit with it."

[Dragonfli]

63. HiPointDem is absolutely correct, you can't just re-write the posters words

to make them what you want them to be, It was NOT a you are with us or against us argument at all.

It was rather clearly expressed in English that if one does not condemn this violence then one is complicit, that is quite different than what you would place in his mouth and is also a true statement unlike what you tried to have us infer.

Com·plic·it? [kuhm-plis-it]

adjective
choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others; having complicity.


Example Sentences
They would have to be truly complacent and complicit if they do nothing to clean up the sport.
First, our hiring practices make us complicit in the problem.
What matters is that government not be either complicit or co-opted into the blowing of bubbles.

[cstanleytech]

67. I do not agree with your opinion but I do respect you for speaking your mind.

[sabrina 1]

97. With him on what? I have already asked and am waiting for a reply.

How is asking our elected officials to stand up for the Constitutional rights of US Citizens in any way comparable to Bush asking for the exact opposite?

I will await your reply.

[cstanleytech]

103. You posted it 3 minutes before this one, show some patience. nt

[sabrina 1]

96. Excuse me? When Bush said that, because it seems you forget the context,

he was talking about supporting his lies about the Iraq War, about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, of supporting torture, of supporting destroying the Constitution. Of supporting war criminals like Dick Cheney and Wolfowitz and Michael Ledeen, and Rumsfeld and the torturer lawyers. Of a 'crusade' in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Can you show me how condemning police brutality towards peaceful protests is in any way comparable to all of that? How asking that our government, our elected officials support our Constitutional rights to protest peacefully, our 1st Amendment rights, is in any way, whatsoever, comparable to what Bush was asking for support for?

I am amazed at the 'comparison' and to be honest, very sad to see it here. We USED to condemn Bush's uses of the police to suppress protesters. What happened?

[cstanleytech]

106. Now what I was discussing was not the post that started the topic but rather the one

here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=710382

"Any Democrat who does not forcefully and unequivocally condemn this blatant police violence is complicit with it. That includes Obama and you."

Thats the with us or against us area or in this case his argument is we must condemn "this" instance where as the truth is unless we were there ourselves to witness it how can we say with any certainty if there was true blatant police violence or if they used the force necessary for the situation?
If it happened though then sure by all means it was wrong but right here and now its just to early to really be sure whats going on let alone to be condemning anything or for that matter to be demanding people condemn something.

[sabrina 1]

108. Again, how is asking our Party to stand up for Constitutional rights in any way equivalent to Bush

demanding that we all support his criminal wars and torture and lies? I see nothing wrong with expecting Democrats to do what is right. Unless you think that Protesters no longer have the right to exercise their rights without being nearly killed by the police. I do not see your point at all, your analogy does not work.

[cstanleytech]

111. Because they both in essence demand that people do x and if they dont then they are the enemy

and in this case the demand is we condemn the police now rather than wait for more information which is related to the Bush demand yet again in that if people had stood up to him and demanded more information alot of the problems with that war and other things might have been avoided.

[sabrina 1]

112. Still not seeing a remote connection between asking that your Party do what is right, and an elected

official basically threatening the population if they do not support his criminal activities. Not even close, sorry.

The OP is a Democrat. He has every right to question the party he has devoted so much time and effort to when they are not acting according to their principles.

Do you think it is a Democratic principle to spend nearly a million dollars on police equipment to 'protect' them from peaceful protesters over one weekend, while shutting down six hospitals that care for the mentally ill, claiming you have no money to keep them open?

Sorry, as I said, your analogy does not work at all.

[cstanleytech]

113. Then I apologize for being unable

to explain it better.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. You're deeply ashamed that you ONCE called yourself a Democrat? So, what are you now?

You DO know you're on the Democratic Underground, right?

The actions of the police has nothing to do with Democrats. Why blame the Democratic Party or the Democratic President for what the police did in Chicago?

[coalition_unwilling]

7. Um, you do know that Rahm Emmanuel is Mayor of Chicago and was

Obama's first Chief of Staff?

I don't know what I am now, but 'Democrat' tonight carries a strange stench to it.

I thought about writing and posting words to get myself banned from DU, but Mrs. C_U talked me out of it for now.

[pinboy3niner]

20. Thank God that the lovely Alma's wiser head prevailed :)

We need you here. And I'm proud to be with you, both here and in the streets of L.A. in our Occupy actions.

And don't give up on Dems. I'm strongly and proudly Dem--working for them, and working to influence them to be more progressive when they fall short.

For additional context, you'll understand my meaning very well when I tell you that my congressman is...Buck McKeon.

[sabrina 1]

98. I am proud also, to be with Coalition and with you and all the other Democrats who have not suddenly

flip flopped on what it was we fought so hard to get in 2002, 2004, 2006 and finally, victory, in 2008 and are now asking only that those we elected now stand up for us. And somehow someone in this thread conflated that with Bush demanding the exact opposite, that we be with him when he lied to the American people. When he tortured people, when he and his rightwing cabal, used the Police to quash dissent.

Something is very wrong, a few people here seem to have forgotten what being a Democrat means.

[Dragonfli]

99. "Something is very wrong, a few people here seem to have forgotten what being a Democrat means."

What so many would rather we never talk about, and we seldom do, is that the Republican purges have resulted in many of those Republicans simply registering as Democrats and trying to shape our party in their image.

So, some have never known what being a Democrat means, instead they are trying to change the party to be what being a Republican used to mean ten years ago.

There are also right wing politicians that Register as Democrats and then spend our parties time and resources getting Republicans elected as "blue dog" Democrats, it is no accident that Rahm was a leader in that field, every one knows it, that may explain why as a mayor he is acting like a particularly nasty Republican authoritarian when it comes to his police and the policy regarding actual Democrats fair protestations.

[sabrina 1]

109. The actions of the Chicago police have everthing to do with the Democratic mayor who

just spent nearly a million dollars on 'equipment' to prepare them for these peaceful protests. At the same time, he could not find the money to keep open six hospitals that took care of the mentally ill.

Unless Rahm Emanuel is not a Democrat, this certainly does have something to do with Democrats. And yes, we should be ashamed that any Democrat would shut down hospitals, claiming the city cannot afford to take care of some of the most vulnerable among us, while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on 'equipment' to 'deal' with what are mostly Democrats, exercising their Constitutional rights.

That was the reason for the Nurses Union's presence at the protest, to stand up for the mentally ill. Is this a Democratic issue or not?

I am a Democrat. I do not support Rightwing policies. How about you?

[FirstLight]

8. thank you

...I have stayed way from the news today, and the reason why is shit like this...Democrats/Repubs...neither side cares about WE THE PEOPLE and it upsets me more than I can bear

[coalition_unwilling]

10. I am so upset. My friends from Los Angeles were there today and could easily

have been among the casualties. As far as I know, they were not.

I have now been dismissed as 'overwrought,' among other perjoratives. So it may be time for me to exile myself from DU for a time.

[FirstLight]

11. ...

thank you for at least trying to share something VERY profound...
I just commented on another thread that as much as I know that Obama is better than the alternative, we have MUCH work to do towards true equality and freedom here in our country, god/dess help us all

[Dragonfli]

66. You get used to being disparaged by unthoughtful people that think this is a sporting event

Rather than the quixotic pursuit of good governance in an environment that has as it's only left party a center right one, and as it's opposition a fully fascist one.

They call people like me purists and/or "bashers" (I find it funny how they like teenage words the best) even though it is they that would have complete unquestioning loyalty and view all Democrats and all Republicans as white and black.

I prefer ideas from the left because those are the ones that work, I dislike ideas from the right because we keep trying them and they keep making things even worse.

Sometimes people register as a Democrat and propose nothing but right wing ideas, people like Rahm, I will not cheer such GOP actions and policies just because the politician found it useful to register in the party that he considers his opposition.

Judge them by their works and let the loyalty oath takers sit in a circle on the floor giving naked handshakes to each other.

They are usually not worth your time if you prefer good policy to blind unquestioning loyalty.

Don't exile yourself, let them prove something that is not true instead, such a task is not as easy as they would have you believe, they can call you names but you can post here all you want if you follow the rules.

[U4ikLefty]

107. I have friends from L.A. in Chicago as well.. Wish I was there myself.

Worked with them closely during M1GS & they are awesome people.

I hope they are safe.

[The Wizard]

14. Remembering 68

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Back then the media was more honest and called it for what it was, a

"police riot".

Listening\watching the Chicago ABC7 affiliate's blithely dismissive coverage of the protesters and continual fellating of the Chicago PD today was quite a contrast from those days when the media actually told the truth.

[Smarmie Doofus]

33. Good point. nt

[The Wizard]

55. Real news and honest journalism

doesn't exist. All we get is propaganda. Somewhere Goebbels is smiling. In a just world Rupert Murdoch would be swinging from a lamp post.

[jambo101]

16. Alternatives

If you really think this was caused by the Democrats there are many Republican options when it comes to forums.
I agree it seems the cops came down heavy on the protesters but i dont blame the Democrat party for what transpired i blame the type of protester that arrives at a peaceful protest equipped with mask and a backpack full of projectiles whose only motivation is to cause the type of chaos that ensued .
Unfortunate that many innocent protesters were caught up in the result of their hooliganism that seems to transpire at every event similar to this one.
These days they are having a daily field day up here in Montreal as gangs of masked hoodlums prowl the streets looking for peaceful protests to infiltrate so they can play their usual cat and mouse game with the police.

[jambo101]

23. Holding oneself to a higher standard

coalition_unwilling After starting an interesting topic you just lost all credibility with your juvenile uncalled for hateful response in post 17 ,

[pinboy3niner]

28. It should be pointed out...

...that coalition_unwilling is no juvenile, but a veteran of social justice protests going back decades.

His over-reaction (and I agree that it was that) doesn't affect his credibility one whit.

I've ben proud to march in the streets of L.A. protesting with coalition_unwilling and his lovely wife.

Yes, he went over the top in his comment, and it's a shame that he is now locked out and we are deprived of his further discussion in the thread.

[Mc Mike]

30. I'm sorry he is locked out, he is obviously hurting from the atrocities.

I hope he can come back and post on this site.

[jambo101]

31. Learning about the forum

I'm new here and didnt realize reporting a post got the person locked out .
sorry coalition_unwilling it wasnt my intent to get you locked out..

[skepticscott]

34. You did the right thing

His comment was totally uncalled for and he deserved what he got. And in any case, I doubt he would have done more than simply repeat the same rant that every single Democrat in the country was to blame for this.

It's the same type of inability to protest peacefully without lashing out with hostility and violence that turns events like Chicago ugly, time after time.

[pinboy3niner]

37. Nah. Coalition could easily have restrained himself.

He simply chose not to.

[skepticscott]

46. Well, it usually IS the case

that people could restrain their impulses, but choose not to. Hence the problem.

Certainly there are a small number of protestors who are eager to provoke physical confrontations with the police, as well as those who are at no great pains to avoid them, probably because they like getting pictures like these on the news, or because a bloodied scalp and a face full of pepper spray are more of a badge of honor to them than actually achieving the stated goal of their protest (whatever that may be). But if someone launched an unwarranted physical assault on a police officer with the same unrestrained hostility as the verbal assault Coalition launched here, they should count themselves lucky if all they get for their troubles is a bloody nose and a night in jail.

Are some of the physical altercations caused or provoked by the police? Certainly. All of them? Not a chance.

[Dragonfli]

68. Why do you keep claiming peacefull protestors are the aggressors here?

Perhaps you are blind or simply refuse to follow the story and videos that show the opposite, out of control militarized police are the ones provoking confrontation, If I didn't know better I would think you work for a Chicago police PR firm.

Wake up and watch all the videos and first hand accounts!!

[randome]

71. And don't forget to take a look at this thread, either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002712548

[Dragonfli]

78. I see cops pushing into people trying to get them to use their poster sticks

A tactic that failed to work as no cops appear to have been bloodied by it, It is fine if you believe the level of non-reciprocal violence by cops is what those dirty freaks deserve, I am sure such is the popular view among the police and the mayors office.

I disagree strongly however, we are not talking about an eye for an eye here, but rather an eye for an eyelash, concussions for words, blood for daring to exercise ones right to protest.

I disagree entirely with such an authoritarian mindset.

You are very unlikely to convince me that storm trooper assault and battery of citizens is in any way deserved, no matter how many "feelings" are hurt or how many feel these people should know their place if they wish to avoid injury.

Come on Randome, this isn't you, you have some centrists ideas that I disagree with but you were never an apologist for institutionalized violence against citizens, that is not how I remember you even if we have disagreed on economic approaches.

[skepticscott]

80. I'm sure that will be ignored

or discounted as a lie, despite the presence of many "eyewitnesses", since it doesn't fit into the preconceived notions of how the police behave, and damages their attempt to paint this as a "police state". And seriously, if the people using that term here had ever lived their lives in an actual police state, they'd be deeply ashamed to have applied it

[Dragonfli]

85. It feels like a police state when it is your ribs being broken and they steal your camera

for trying to document it.

I imagine life is much different for those that live in gated communities where one is in no personal danger from the police state.
I imagine such a person meets police that are polite and respectful, not ones trying to kill you because you carry a sign.

[skepticscott]

89. When you've lived for decades

in fear of the police every day, in fear of your friends and neighbors reporting you to the police for the most trivial of offenses, in fear of disappearing and never being seen or heard from again, when you keep a packed suitcase by the door in case the knock comes in the middle of the night, when you have no freedom to publicly report what happens to you (as you are doing here), when you're surrounded by millions of other people with the same fear, then come talk to me about a "police state".

[Dragonfli]

93. So in your opinion, only stage four cancer is REAL cancer.

I and others do have to live in fear of the police, they have in fact assaulted and framed some of us, they are in fact "above the law" and always walk from committing crimes by simply lying in their reports.

People do live in fear of cops knocking on their doors in the middle of the night and do worry about friends and neighbors reporting you for trivial offenses.

Cancer is cancer, your view that some have it worse does not make it less of a police state, we are stage 2 working on stages 3 and 4 right at this moment with the patriot act and the NDAA, they are adding the last parts right now that you feel we are still spoiled about, taking us away without warrant or public proof and placed somewhere with no legal rights whatsoever, they have even made killing us on secret evidence "legal".

What you fail to realize is that most of what you claim does not happen, actually happens every day, just not to the "middle class suburbanites" or richer.

I grew up poor, we had no rights and were beaten often and I was a "lucky one" because I was white trash rather than black, they did not jail me for a decade or two for being black, but I have seen it happen to others for being stopped over weed, getting their assess kicked (and this is the fun part) acquiring whatever felonies are necessary in the report to justify the ass kicking, even tho purely fictional.

I would say you have your head in the sand, but perhaps in all fairness you are in a nice neighborhood and don't have to deal with the same reality as blue collar and poor white trash or minorities from poor neighborhoods do.

You need to get out more, start with Chicago by protesting peacefully, I imagine that will open your eyes to the reality that so many of us actually face regardless of your denial.

[skepticscott]

115. No, in my opinion

you have no idea what it's like to live in a real police state. By your logic, any society where there is the slightest corruption or misconduct in the police forces qualifies as a "police state".

[randome]

117. Some of us acknowlege we know enough to not know enough.

I'll take you at your word that you know what a real police state is.

[skepticscott]

72. Where did I ever say

that "peaceful" protestors were the aggressors? Nowhere. You just made that up. I quite clearly stated that a small number of protestors were not content to be peaceful. And if I were working for a Chicago Police PR firm, would I have acknowledged explicitly that some confrontations ARE caused or provoked by the police? Of course not. Just something else you made up. But the irony that you would try to instigate disagreement here where none exists probably escapes you.

Do you agree or disagree, that in a few cases, protestors are the instigators of physical confrontations in these situations?

[Dragonfli]

76. You implied in a few threads that the police rioting was because

"a small number of protestors who are eager to provoke physical confrontations with the police, as well as those who are at no great pains to avoid them, probably because they like getting pictures like these on the news"

Clearly from what I have seen from streaming video, allowing me to be an actual witness, the opposite of what you claim is true.

Also from personal experience I can tell you that it is the police that typically instigate 99% of the violence, I have 30 year old scars to prove it.

The incidents you describe as typical are in fact extremely rare, rare enough to make your accusations more than a little suspicious to me, you would have to look really hard to find examples to back your claim, even then, I have yet to see violence committed against the storm troopers that harmed them physically, or is it hurt feelings that warrant the bashing of heads and the attempt to steal cameras that would document such actions?

It is fine if you believe something obviously false from eyewitness accounts, some believe "four horseman" will be riding around starting the end of the world, absurd beliefs are a fact of life, but you can't deny what you claim is your belief just because very few are blind enough to agree with you. You very clearly claimed what you are attempting to deny now.

Nothing personal, I just am curious as to why you feel you must characterize police violence as being caused by protesters when the evidence clearly shows the exact opposite.

[skepticscott]

79. Funny the trouble you went to

to avoid giving a direct answer to a simple question:

Do you agree or disagree, that in a few cases, protestors are the instigators of physical confrontations in these situations?

That's what I've said, so if you're going to continue the lie that I'm believing something "obviously false from eyewitness accounts" (and of course you mean only accounts from those strongly inclined to blame the police, or to believe the worst of them, regardless of the actual facts), then you're going to have to disagree, and maintain that protestors have never, in any known cases, been the instigators of violence in such situations. So which is it?

Oh, and BTW, scars from 30 years ago don't qualify you to make categorical statements about "99% of the violence". You haven't seen or experienced "99% of the violence", and you seriously have no idea what caused or instigated "99% of the violence".

[Dragonfli]

84. I do not agree no, such cases are rare enough as to be negligable, I did answer, you just need

it would appear, to find a way to blame the victims of systematic violence, why it is so important to you to do so, I have no clue.

[skepticscott]

91. You seem to need to

agree and disagree at the same time. Wonder why? I have no clue. You say you don't agree that there are a few such cases, then you say there are such cases. Rare, few, you seem to need wiggle room for something or other.

And do you acknowledge that both sides are biased, and have a strong need and compulsion to blame the other disproportionately for these incidents, regardless of the facts?

[Dragonfli]

95. I think you need to be on the ground, there is much to learn /nt

[U4ikLefty]

101. It is easier to throw out accusations over a keyboard

than to do the hard work.

Many of us know the truth about these protests because we are involved & see the lies afterward.

People who repeat the lies & misconceptions are tools of the 1%.

[skepticscott]

114. You seem to have a strong need

to avoid simple and direct questions. Whenever I get to that point in a discussion, it's always a strong hint that the person is going to cling to their preconceived notions no matter what contrary evidence is presented.

Do you acknowledge that both sides are biased, and have a strong need and compulsion to blame the other disproportionately for these incidents, regardless of the facts? Or are you going to continue with the same head-in-the-sand denialism that you keep accusing me of?

[Dragonfli]

123. For the third fucking time, No, I do not agree with your false equivalency!

How many times must I answer?

There are no two sides the way you describe at all, there are citizens on the one side trying to be heard and hoping to avoid being beaten, and there are the militarized storm troopers that use tactics like kettling with the specific intent to create a riot, they seldom get the riot they want, so they just start clubbing people anyway.

You need to get out there if you want to understand what it is like, you sound like a talking head on TV that is told by producers that there are always two sides and both sides are ALWAYS equal when in fact more often than not one side is lying and the other is not.

The reality is not at all what you describe, and I keep telling you the answer is "NO it is not even remotely the way you describe".

If I answer you ten times in a row, will you stop pretending I did not answer just because I will not lie and equate equal bias where such does not exist?

[skepticscott]

126. Except that you didn't answer the question I asked

You answered one I didn't ask, and it's pretty clear now why.

I said or asked nothing about "equal bias" or that both sides are "always equal". That's just more crap that you made up and tried to attribute to me, to avoid facing the real issue..that neither side is pure here. I asked whether you agreed that both sides show bias in SOME cases. You are obviously in deep denial that it happens. I have no such illusions about the purity and objectivity of EITHER side.

Since your own biases seem too deeply rooted to allow clear and objective thinking, I'll relieve you of the burden.

[skepticscott]

127. BTW, see post 122

Watch the video, then get back to us with your honest, objective evaluation. And don't forget, we are ALL eyewitnesses.

[skepticscott]

128. Oh, and here's the link

in case you or anyone else is having trouble finding it. Do get back to us.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/21/1093454/-The-full-context-of-the-police-beating-at-the-top-of-the-rec-list-

[Dragonfli]

129. You are still full of shit, I answered you, but you will only be happy if I

give you the scripted answer that will back your extremely weak attempt to make the aggressors and victims equal and somehow equally wrong.

Such is not the case and you shall have to re-create reality without my help.

I simply won't lie just to make you happy.
So, how long have you been a cop anyway? Was it different when you started or have you always felt hippies need punching by professional thugs?

Were you one of the cops that kicked the shit out of me in Cali in '71? Or perhaps in New York city in '75 when you told me to get a haircut or leave NY and kicked the shit out of me to make a point?

Would you like me to claim I was equally at fault for having long hair and thius instigating your beat down?

[skepticscott]

130. Nice last ditch effort

but lousy psych profile. I'm not a cop, have never been a cop, never wanted to be a cop, am not married to a cop and don't know any cops as friends. So where does that leave you? Lying about my using the word "equal" to apply to any of this, basically. Oh yeah... and in a tizzy about the photos and videos you were linked to. They just frustrated the hell out of you, didn't they?

[TBF]

35. That "newbie" also attacked Mr. Scorpio in another thread. nt

[HiPointDem]

61. democratics? too cute. you're not fooling anyone.

[jambo101]

69. Fooling?

Who am i fooling and what am i supposedly fooling them about?

[randome]

70. You're only fooling those with an agenda, apparently.

Welcome to DU! We're not all biters!

[HiPointDem]

73. yes, calling the democratic party the "democrat party" shows no agenda whatsoever.

[randome]

74. Maybe he didn't get the memo. He is new, after all.

I wouldn't pre-judge anyone's agenda until a few more threads, at least.

[HiPointDem]

75. no one calls the democratic party the "democrat party" but wingnuts. and then when corrected

on it, he says the "democratics", all cutsey innocence.

they do it on *purpose,* & it's a long-standing thing.

sure, give him a chance.....uh-huh.

not sure why a democrat such as yourself would think there was a special "memo" you had to get to know to call the Democratic Party by its traditional and legal name, a name that no one seems to have trouble remembering but right-wing assholes.

[socialist_n_TN]

86. Socialist leanings????????..........

[jambo101]

116. Quasi socialist

I'm not a total socialist but do support many government funded social programs such as healthcare,old age pensions, unemployment insurance,free education etc.
Maybe if socialist leaning isnt the correct terminology maybe you could put the phraseology in the right context.
thanks

[socialist_n_TN]

118. Quasi Kenyesian.........

Maybe.

[jambo101]

119. Kenysian leaning..

Yup i can agree to a degree with much of that..


Definition of 'Keynesian Economics'
An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.
'Keynesian Economics'
A supporter of Keynesian economics believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation.

[socialist_n_TN]

131. Keynes was NOT a socialist UNLESS..........

you use the Faux Noise scale of "socialism".

I'm a socialist. I want to get rid of the WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM! Not "smooth out the bumps in business cycles." I want to get RID of "business cycles" and make sure EVERYBODY has enough by distributing the wealth that the working class ACTUALLY makes TO the working class. And bypass the capitalist leeches who DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRODUCTIVE BUT SUCK THE BLOOD FROM THE WORKERS.

That's socialism.

[Rhiannon12866]

24. I have no doubt that there are infiltrators who attempt to cause trouble in any large protest.

And they're there to cause trouble, so aren't on the side of the protesters, but just there to make them look bad.

[cyberswede]

38. ...by the way, it's "Democratic Party" not "Democrat" party.

Right wing types use "Democrat party" as a pejorative.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. 51 posts and you are telling long time DUers to go to a Republican site?

That's just naff and as uncalled for as the comment which followed.

[HiPointDem]

52. that poster also speaks of "the democrat party". hmm, where have i heard *that* codespeak before?

[HiPointDem]

49. the claim that the chicago police busted heads because of protesters with masks and projectiles

is, of course, the standard load of horseshit.

[ananda]

21. Link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/21/chicago-police-nato-summit-protesters

It's very upsetting and disturbing to see protesters set up as terrorists.

Our city police forces are acting like our own enemies in every military and spy sense.

This is a very bad business.

[cstanleytech]

25. I think its to early to make rash judgement calls on

whos to blame and instead I recommend taking the approach of waiting for a bit.

[ananda]

26. What is not rash ...

... is seeing the fascist police state for what it is.

The only solution is to continue coming out in enough numbers
to render police action ineffective and financially unsustainable.

[cstanleytech]

27. Thats not the only solution.

There is also the one where you help elect better people.

[U4ikLefty]

102. Yeah, that really works when both "sides" use the police

to trample us

[Mc Mike]

29. There are still a ton of good rank-and-file Dems out there, c_u.

You're right. Those protestors are patriots and heroic. There is nothing 'overwrought' about your reaction to the ultraviolence against them. But that huge crowd wouldn't have been nearly so big without the participation of tons of progressive Dems.

Daley's machine 'Dems' have been bad for decades. They should be ashamed to call themselves Democrats and Americans, you shouldn't.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. REC!

[LynneSin]

39. Really?

[randome]

40. The Chicago protest was ineffective.

The story now is 'Protesters versus Police' and no one remembers anything about NATO or any of the other half dozen subjects that were being protested.

Some of the police appear to have behaved abominably, no doubt about it. But you know what? They also stopped 3 out-of-towners from going through with their plans for violence. They also, AS A GROUP, showed remarkable restraint.

When 2 large groups of people are in conflicting positions, shit will happen. If you want to run away from all that you listed simply because Chicago wasn't a perfect enough example for you, then...well, see ya. But I'd prefer that you not give up on any of those things.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Wow. All the extreme proclaimations as to 'no one' remembering 'anything' will not alter

the fact that last time Chicago did this sort of thing, it put a long lasting imprint on the Democratic Party, I saw it as a child, I remember it every convention, every election, every primary is 68. My parents, my uncles and aunts, all Democrats, they became much more liberal, came to the side of the protesters, and many devoted Democrats became cynical and remained that way.
So I guess hoping that 'no one' will remember 'anything' two days later is a great idea, because 68 was 44 years ago.....

[randome]

44. Since I can't see 44 years into the future, I was referring to what the story has become today.

Even on DU, no one is talking about the problems with NATO, only the fact that police and protesters tangled.

[socialist_n_TN]

81. The NATO protest IS about income inequality.........

As long as we're blowing up shit in the third world in order to maintain the imperialism of the 1%, we (apparently) don't have money to have full employment. Or take care of the hungry. Or house the homeless. Or have single payer healthcare. Or any of the other MYRIAD of things that we need for the rest of us.

It's ALL interconnected in the system called capitalism.

[pinboy3niner]

45. More accurately: "When randome posts, shit will happen"

Because we can always count on you to chime in with the anti-Occupy propaganda. It's the same tired old song, every time.

Thankyou for your concern.

[Rex]

47. You notice that too?

EVERY protest is a failure...you would think it would get old after so many months.

[randome]

56. I have always advocated MORE mass protests.

But I had no idea that now OWS has expanded to be against NATO. I wish the message would stay on just one thing -income inequality.

But that's just me.

[socialist_n_TN]

83. Protesting NATO IS about income inequality..........

In capitalism, it's ALL interconnected.

[HiPointDem]

50. gee, i didn't realize there'd already been a trial. and if "no one remembers anything about nato,"

it's because a complicit media has made the story entirely about "violent protestors," just like you are trying to do.

[randome]

57. I'm not trying to put OWS down. I want MORE protests, not fewer.

And where did I say the people arrested should already be declared guilty? I'm just going by the court documents, which indicate they actually WERE planning violence.

Everything in perspective.

[Dragonfli]

82. You do realize those documents were written by those that are simply making that claim.

It reminds me of when a cop beat the shit out of me in '75, because he thought my hair needed cutting.

I also remember 4 pages of pure fiction he wrote in his report that had me foaming at the mouth and trying to cause him great physical harm. They write what they must to cover asses, in some cases they plant evidence or ideas to justify after the fact whatever they do.

You know what? They do this so often that the last word I would ever take at face value are words written in a police report where they have broken some bones, I would also add that DA's lie just to get elected as tough on crime.

When one does not live a sheltered life, one learns the truth of these things and how fictitious those just acting police on "law and Order" really are, they are perhaps the most notorious of liars because they are never questioned and they have to justify their brutality in their fictitious reports.

[datasuspect]

120. it was very effective in terms of facebook updates

all i saw were cops and cameras.

i wonder how many people were taking pictures of themselves.

now they can go back to their suburban homelands, flush with street cred, full of stories to impress their college classmates about Chicago 2012.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

42. Your complaints will fall on deaf ears...

It's election year, you know. We can't be criticizing anything members of the party do. It's all there in the useful idiot handbook.

[KamaAina]

51. Hey, Rahm! 1968 called.

It wants its fascism back.

[Bake]

54. I'm just glad I don't live there.

Bake

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

64. we went through BushCo 2x...

And you weren't already ashamed?

Sounds like you have a petty grievance against Chicago.

[alarimer]

65. Don't you know police states are okay as long as a Democrat is in charge?

I am really sick of the police state myself.

I am deeply ashamed of this country and have been for years.

[Zax2me]

77. This has nothing to do with Obama or Dems

period.

[Dragonfli]

87. I agree, Rahm has never been a Democrat, he simply registered as one. /nt

[socialist_n_TN]

90. It does if they don't condemn these bullshit.......

assaults with deadly weapons against people who are merely exercising their Constitutional rights to assemble. Chicago is not the first time shit like this has happened this year and I've not heard a PEEP of protest against it from Obama or the Democratic Party.

As coalition_unwilling said above, if they don't condemn it, they're complicit in it.

[HarveyDarkey]

88. Happened to me there in '68

Nothing has changed in Chitown.

[Dragonfli]

100. I would like to thank you for your service

I was only 14 in '68, but quite aware and as such shocked by the actions of the Daley thugs.

I didn't get personally active and beaten until '71, that is when I learned how much courage it takes to exercise ones rights when the Gov't doesn't want you to.

They have a new mayor now, one that appears to wish to give his predecessors a run for their money when it comes to hippy punching.
He wants them punched literally, I believe he calls us morons among other things.

Some Democrat huh?

[Neue Regel]

92. So it wasn't the assassination of 2 American citizens in Yemen last year?

One of them a 16 year old boy? Or had you forgotten about that?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/brennan-defends-drone-strikes-pakistan-protestor-object/story?id=16244896

Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born radical cleric and leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, died in a drone strike in Yemen last September. His 16-year-old son Abdulrahman died less than three weeks later in a separate drone strike.

Two American citizens (one of them a 16 year old child) are executed without a trial, without a shred of evidence released to the American public after the fact even, and you're fine. The cops punch a few people in the nose in Chicago, however, and it makes you ashamed to call yourself an American?

[treestar]

94. So now we're not going to just broad brush the cops but all of a city

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

105. No, not "we"

Just the usual suspects.

[Odin2005]

104. Rahm is the worst excuse of a Democrat I've ever seen.

He is just another RW fascist POS. A tool of the 1%.

[cstanleytech]

110. No, that was Lieberman though thankfully he will soon be out of office.

Hopefully we can get a decent Democrat to take his seat in the next election though.

[datasuspect]

121. rahm is a shitstain

union busting carpetbagging maidservant to the 1%

[cliffordu]

122. .......And what part of the video over at KOS of the"Black Bloc"

charging police lines is fuzzy to you?

The cops were at a complete standstill, and things had been peaceful until the Black Bloc charged police lines with sticks and bottles.

Blood of patriots my ass.

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. +1

[heaven knows]

125. This was written by Andy Thayer, right? Are you Andy?

Wow, hyperbole much? I hate to say it, but I am wondering if there is a certain segment longing for 1968...