>> ^Krupo:

Interesting, 3 minutes in the cops push back their cars.
"You can't stop a hurricane."
Oh dear, geniuses.
Hehe, I like how she considers the Black Bloc types Accused Agent Provocateurs... jury is kind of out on that.
AHAHAHA - last two minutes - he arrives from Ottawa, and is self-identifying himself as Black Bloc... and then calls the police brutal. Comedy.


Good catch - that was a hell of a comment. These crazy police maneuvers against the peaceful protestors gets my blood boiling, but so does the crew that uses every G20 as an excuse to light shit on fire.

>> ^Krupo:

There are widespread reports of gross human rights violations in what people are calling "Torontonamo Bay" - way too many independent stories for this to be waved off by anyone. I fear for my Canada.


People are stupid and easily manipulated.

Remember that.

Remember that it's not only the 'man' that exploits that weakness, but also all the opportunists out there, like the black bloc.

The G20/G8 are always magnets for violent groups that want to sow dissension between the people and the government. From all the Toronto coverage it looks like the stereotypical mess. Swarms of peaceful and respectful protesters assemble. A few people wanting to create tension between those protesters and the police start smashing stuff and setting it on fire using the protesters as cover. The police are thus forced into the impossible situation of separating the few bad apples out from the protesters, all the while private property is being destroyed and set ablaze.

It's small scale guerrilla warfare between the violent protesters and the police, with the protesters caught in the middle.

It's never a good idea to ask the citizens to take the law into their own hands. The point of the video and others is that the security was not there to stop the anarchists! They were there to sent a message through the Canadian police about how the countries of the G-20 might deal with opposition to their plans. The police charged peaceful protestors, kidnapped people, and assaulted numerous reporters!

I suggest reading Paul Jay's blog:
http://bit.ly/duSEIR

They utilized this model successfully in US [and throughout history]. Use a boogyman (eg. Al Qaeda) to justify over reaching powers for the authorities and have people's civil rights fade away. Last week CIA chief say that Fewer than 100 Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan, and US has over 100 Thousand troops there. Its the same scenario being played out in Canada now. The anarchist group is so insignificant and containable, but they are being used to fulfill the role of boogyman!

Canadians need to contact their MPPs and MPs to let them know that we won't be scared into giving away our civil rights and tax dollars. We demand a public inquiry into everything that happened.

>> ^cracanata:

Why nobody tries to stop them or investigate and identify these individuals? The genuine protesters should create a security "force" to deal with the black bloc/anarchists if they don't want police to play the coin of repressing violence in the streets.
There must be some counteractions that can be made to stop them.

Why nobody tries to stop them or investigate and identify these individuals? The genuine protesters should create a security "force" to deal with the black bloc/anarchists if they don't want police to play the coin of repressing violence in the streets.
There must be some counteractions that can be made to stop them.

Interesting, 3 minutes in the cops push back their cars.

"You can't stop a hurricane."

Oh dear, geniuses.

Hehe, I like how she considers the Black Bloc types Accused Agent Provocateurs... jury is kind of out on that.

AHAHAHA - last two minutes - he arrives from Ottawa, and is self-identifying himself as Black Bloc... and then calls the police brutal. Comedy.

The Black Bloc

When they arrest a deaf person, and refuse to listen to reason, although I'm unsure of the reason a deaf person would be in a volatile place like that. The refusal to listen to reason is proof enough that they cannot be negotiated with. Perhaps the best step would be a class action lawsuit for millions of dollars in damages. The only way for policy makers to understand is to hit them where it hurts, the god-damned check book. In the US hitting them in the checkbook would mean hitting the Taxpayer too, perhaps that is what it would take to wake the Populi up.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @ghark, Democrats aren't going on TV to effectively say that being a sellout to corporations is a good thing.

As a matter of fact, Democrats who vote with Republicans against their party are almost universally the ones who receive the largest campaign contributions from the industry most affected by the legislation.

In other words, the whole Republican platform is based on the philosophy of empowering corporations to do whatever they want, while the Democratic platform is about protecting people.

Democrats get bribed away from that to be sure, but we're talking about a handful out of the caucus on any given issue. It's only the unanimous pro-corporate Republican bloc that makes their defections significant.

dag, I'm sorry you are trying to justify a wasted $600USD to yourself. It is just a big iPhone with zero improvements in technology.. maybe slightly overclocked processor.

The iPad isn't anything more innovative then an iPhone.

It's like design by committee.... "Hey they like this iPhone thing" "What if it was bigger, they would like it more".


HTC with eventually own this crap as Apple always fails because of locked in stalinistic approach to software. The only thing Apple has going for it is a zombie, fashion fad userbase with expendable income. Apple users are the gays of technology. (And by gay I mean akin to the niche targeted specialized economic buying bloc of consumers)

Personally speaking - if I had my druthers I would make voting in city, state, and national elections a lot more difficult. Sufferage is a priveledge. Too many voters are no more than bench-filling stooges of the political establishment. They gin up these large blocs of dummies and sucker them into voting for the same rats over and over again. An informed electorate of intelligent, competent, discriminating voters who focus on performance and accountability would not allow these dynasties. A good voting public produces churn. But party politics don't work when there is churn. It doesn't allow politicians to sit back and make a career out of politics. So politicians like these big blocs of bad voters. They keep the 'good voters' from taking away their power.

If I was king for a day, voting would go like this...

REQUIRED
1. Notarized photo ID card
2. Voter cannot have filed for bankruptcy (business or personal) in the past 5 years
3. Voter cannot have been convicted of a misdemeanor in the past 6 months or a felony in thier lifetime.
4. Voter must pass a mandatory class in United States civics (Federalist papers, enumerated powers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, checks & balances, etc...)
6. Voter must pass a class college level economics class (covers supply & demand, capitalism, debts/deficits, etc).
7. Parents with unpaid family obligations (deadbeat parents) cannot vote.

Citizens must additionally present any FOUR (or more) of the following...
1. Current, valid voter registration card
2. Proof of employment (at least 6 months)
3. Proof of residence (at least 1 year renting or owning in a specific location)
4. Social Security card
5. A credit rating of at least 650
6. Proof of having maintained a positive bank or savings account for at least 6 months
7. A valid birth certificate

I don't care if a person is a Democrat, or a Republican, or a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-spaghetti-unicorn. They can vote however they want, but more should be required to vote than simply the ability to stumble through a door.

Hm - you're using the term 'neocon' badly in many respects. I'll illuminate...

The problem is their posterchild, George W Bush, spent more during his eight years than any president of any party before him. Therefore their arguments ring insincere because they only became concerned about spending when it wasn't their guy spending it.

In this bit you are not talking about 'neocons'. You are talking about 'fiscal conservatives'. "Neocons" are persons who believe in a strong military. GWB is a 'neocon' only in the sense that he supported the military as opposed to denuding it (ala Clinton). Bush was definitely NOT a fiscal conservative. Believe me they were very much concerned about Bush spending. Fiscal conservatives are also very concerned about Obama tripling Bush's debt in only 9 months - an issue neolibs seem to have no problem with incidentally.

The same goes with the constitutional argument.

In this bit you're talking about constitutional constructionism (CC) which is only related to 'neocons' in the most tangental way possible. People who are CC believe the document is critically important. The constitution supports a strong military. In that sense, a neocon COULD be a CC in regards to the military - but not CC in any number of other respects such as social issues, state's rights, and so forth.

They lie to their constituents when they say they'll fight to end abortion and gay marriage.

Here you are now talking about SOCIAL conservatives (SOcons) who don't give a patoot about the military per se. The are single-issue voters that fixate on social issues like abortion, gay rights, and so forth. Sometimes they latch on to military issues (gays in military) or spending (government paid abortion), but in and of themselves they are dominated by their desire to influence government towards socially conservative issues.

And the entire movement is primarily organized by two ENTERTAINERS (Limbaugh and Beck) who get more money when their viewership goes up.

And here you're just talking about people of all stripes that listen to conservative broadcasting as opposed to getting thier talking points from DailyKOS, Maher, MadCow, or Dolberman. I doubt Limbaugh or Beck spend any time 'organizing' the entire conservative movement. They just harp on whatever news story happens to be circulating around at the time. I don't see them driving issues as much as exploiting what issues are already in the public discourse.

Conservatives honestly could give a rat's ass what happens to America, they just want to be the people in charge

If you said "Republicans" then I would agree with you. But 'conservatives' are not Republicans. They are people who believe in conservative principles who may or may not vote Republican. Certainly the Republican party has stopped being conservative a long time ago. They pay lip service for voting blocs, but (as you say) they govern like liberals when they are in charge.
So there you go - you are mixing your terminology badly. Glad to help you learn how to be more specific.

So you are suggesting moderation then WP? You are.. a moderate?

Depends on what you mean. Both Democrats and Republicans like to co-opt the term 'moderate' when it suits their political purposes. Neither of them are moderate. I am a fiscal conservative, strict constitutional constructionist with libertarian leanings. I think we are in the midst of a "Government Bubble" that badly needs popping. Is that 'moderate'? I doubt a neolib who hears me say that government needs to be reduced in size and scope by about 75% would say that I'm moderate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker

I agree "neocon" has been overused, most of the time as a perjorative, but "Neoconservative" is a more accurate description of a single entity and movement than "Neoliberal." Specifically, "Neoconservatism" in its recent use describes the Republican base mobilization in the 2000 election by Karl Rove.

The problem with "Neoliberal," especially as it relates to President Obama, is that Obama's electorate was much more varied and not centrally mobilized. There isn't a single idealogically-unified bloc in the middle of the electorate as there was in the 2000 or 2004 elections. Most Obama supporters hardly agree on anything, as in the health care debate; the farther-left Obama voters say that Obama should stop trying to be bipartisan and pass single-payer health care reform by the democratic majority alone, and the farther-right Obama voters want health care reform toned down, without even a mandate for everyone to be insured.

Your other points have validity as relating to the way some liberal-minded people think, but I don't see any evidence that there is a unified liberal movement with those ideas as part of its platform. That's how you see it because you conceive of yourself as being opposed to them.

I mean, I hate all of Fox's pundit shows and I think everyone watching them is getting brainwashed through the cultural pressure they exert, but I know that all of Fox's audience doesn't think the same, and they don't all take the same idealogical path to get there. Some of them come from religious backgrounds, others have kind of macho atheist ideas of people fending for themselves, and others just started paying attention to politics at the wrong time and from their perspective it looks like Fox aren't the ones wearing tinted glasses. But if you listen to those pundits, they paint me and anyone that dislikes them with the same brush, we're all zombies for Obama, communists, or "neolibs."

To be honest, you seem a bit too smart to be a Republican, pennypacker

Where on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that I'm a Republican? The Republican party abandoned the concept of small government and strict constitutionalism a long time ago. That's why they haven't been winning elections. They pay lip service to fiscal conservatives, when the reality is that Republicans are just big government liberals who occasionally pander to certain conservative voting blocs at election time. I've got no love for the GOP. If they got a principled fiscal conservative on thier ticket then I'd vote for them.

Only 70,000

That is a number that is being reported by blogs which was based on an ABC report that CLAIMS to have been an estimate from DC firefighters. However, the DCFD has not made any official estimate. There's no official statement from anyone at this point. All we've got are duelling banjos from left wing groups (who want to make us believe it was only a few thousand lunatics) and right wing groups (who go as high as 2 million). I prefer to think that reality is somewhere in-between. It was a big crowd, and 70K seems pretty light. I saw the crowds in DC during the 2003 protests and they didn't seem any bigger - and that protest had well over 200,000. I tend to think that this rally had somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000. That's just a feeling though.

If you look at the crowd here, you'll see something that you don't see at any other capitol event, ground space

You think MadCow or other left leaning folks are going to show anything but what they want you to see? I saw the overhead shots on the news, and they were dense crowds covering a huge area. The dispirate vids of a few of the kook fringe protesters does not convince me that it was a tiny group.

Once one removes 'fear' and 'racism' from conservative playbooks, one removes 90% of what conservatives have to talk about. Mr. Pennypacker and Mr. Quantumushroom are easy examples of this concept.

One should always fear an ideologue who wants to remake America in his bizarre communist image, especially when he has the unquestioning support of state-run media. Anyone with an INKLING of historical perspective knows Obama is a fascist wolf dressed as a centrist lamb.

Bush was booed by taxocrats in '05 for telling the truth during his speech, while Obama was lying through his Teleprompter.

As far as the illegal "controversy" goes, anyone who believes that illegals will somehow be barred from taking advantage of the next round of "free" entitlements deserves a giant F for FOOL branded into their forehead. Illegals are a too-important voting bloc for traitorcrats.

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

Government doesn't care about you directly. Government is there for one reason - to perpetuate itself (re-election). They only 'care' about people insofar as they consider people to be population blocs that generate tax revenue and (occasionally) vote.

Private companies don't care about you directly either. They are there for one reason - to make a profit. They only 'care' about people insofar as they are engines that generate market share.

The THEORY is that both these entities (public/private) will ultimately behave themselves because they can't afford to antagonize the people that their 'market share' attitude so routinely dehumanizes. The real issue here is that government is FAR more insulated from the people than any private company. If you get a bum rap from a company you can sue them, or take your business to a different company, and (best) tell anyone/everyone what happened and cause lots of other people to not patronize the business.

But when you are oppressed by the GOVERNMENT you are far less able to hit them where it hurts. You can't stop paying taxes. You can't throw someone out of office except once every 4/6 years (and even THEN it isn't a given). Even if you do get ONE guy thrown out, there are hundreds or thousands of others still in that government who you have ZERO ability to influence (Senators from other states, cabinet members, appointees, judges).

Right now the polls show athat about 65% to over 70% of the people do NOT want Obamacare. If the Democrats just say, "screw you - you're getting Obamacare like it or not" then there is literally nothing that can be done about it. Even if the Dems lose the house/senate in the midterms it can't be undone. Even if Repubs take the House, PoTUS, and Senate in 2012 it is very unlikely they would repeal it. They'd just want to be the ones 'in charge' of it.

It is a FAR better choice to never let the government take over health care in the first place. They cannot be trusted with that kind of power, because they would never surrender it. American helath care is fine. People who need care get it. The problem is one of disproportionate costs. That problem can be handled far more effectively with a non-public solution that does not give over immense power to a goverment .

Ken Blackwell, Ohio, 2004 Presidential elections. Cut the number of available voting machines to poor urban areas throughout Ohio, resulting in ridiculous lines for Democratic-leaning counties, while rural, Republican-leaning counties had no lack of voting machines, and no lines at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

Iran's most recent election was almost certainly stolen.

Virtually every "election" held in the old Soviet bloc countries was stolen. I don't know if North Korea has ever had a non-stolen election.

Israel's most recent election has been deemed fishy by several pundits (but I haven't researched it at all).