Can you show where anyone on this board has defended the G-20 protestors or claimed they can "use any means necessary to show their opposition?"
The board has been, to its credit(?), silent on the G-20 protests. However, while I was down, I did a lot of channel surfing. My observations -- my personal observations -- prompted my comparison of the two protests. Unfortunately, I wasn't keeping a formal "score" and I kept falling asleep, so my observations are not scientific so much as casual.
Thumbs if you are trying to say that Leftists protestors get preferential treatment than Rightwing protestors I would point out that from first hand experience I've seen the police crackdown Leftist far heavier than anything I've heard about the Tea Parties or other Obama protestors. I'm not saying that Anarchists and others that use violence don't deserve to be arrested but to the point that Leftists protestors have been lumped in with Anarchists has made police more likely to be aggressive.
LOL. Look at the last 100 years of treatment of "left" protestors, starting with labor organizers in the early 20th century and running through the civil rights movement. It's a long way until we hear a song with the refrain "four dead on Glenn Beck's show, four dead on Glenn Beck's show..."
Two thoughts on your reply, rocketsjudoka: 1) why is one side "rightwing" and the other "leftists?" Why are they not rightwing and leftwing or rightists and leftists? Do you see the difference in the core of your approach to the subject? 2)The Tea Party protests were angry but non-violent whereas the "greenie" protests were not only angry but violent. Wouldn't you agree that violence vs. non-violence prompts different reactions by the police?
Judging from their actions, G-20 protesters may well have used them. No sane person condones taking weapons of any kind to a protest, especially in this country.
Wow, if all the Democratic-leaning, Republican-leaning and independent teabaggers could unite into a single party, there really might be political change in this country. Do I hear Jiminy Cricket singing, "If You Wish Upon a Star?"
Arguing semantics is one of the most petty, worthless things you can do and it gives you absolutely no push in your argument. It's a sign of grasping at straws.
Because, although there are radicals in the movement, the Tea Party movement as a whole does not have a radical rightwing agenda. Most are normally apolitical but Obama's policies have them in a state of unrest.
They have no agenda. If this is the case, then the only political affiliation that would fit the tea party movement would be "idiots".
Ahhh. Okay. The verbage indicates a bias in rocketjudoka's thinking. For example, on a news report the other day I heard that Car A collided with Car B. That attributes fault to Car A and "bias" on the side of Car B. It would have been more accurate to say "Car A and Car B collided." No fault then would have been attributed. In the same way, usng the ternm "rightwing" has a negative connotation (especially on this board) as opposed to "leftist." The question is one of "fairness." Is that better?
got that from your hero Beck again? which specific policies? you already stated that Obama is no different than Bush, but you never been in a state of unrest nor protested under Bush. again, can you give us specifics?
