This group wil be in Denver. They're good people, and we need to make sure they WON'T be hassled

[Ken Burch]

by the cops or the Secret Service:

http://recreate68.org/

They represent what our party SHOULD stand for.

And we need to take a firm "no arrests for nonviolent protest" stance as a party.

In fact, we should start a dialog with this group and tell the Secret Service to stay the hell OUT of Denver, since the SS will try to create police state conditions.

Remember, it ALWAYS hurts Democrats when protests are suppressed or restricted to "free speech zones".

[shifting_sands]

1. Are you kidding

They've been the subject of many a talk show and news production. The police are on alert for them.

[Ken Burch]

5. The police are always against any protesters. The police are always wrong to arrest the nonviolent.

This group is pledged to nonviolence and nothing they would do can hurt us.

People who hate protests never vote Democratic anyway.

[librechik]

10. why do they choose such a provocative name if they are non violent?

I know cops in Denver who would kick their asses just because of their name, no matter what the intent. Sure it's stupid. Cops can be like that sometimes.

[Ken Burch]

42. Well, the cops are wrong. 1968 NEEDS to be recreated, at least in some form.

If we repudiate for all the time the values of 1968, we're giving up all hope.

Nothing short of that is worth settling for, at least not forever.

The police need to be taught to be politically neutral.

And remember, in Chicago, almost ALL the violence came from the cops. The protesters did virtually nothing to deserve it.

[EFerrari]

47. Because 1968 was not about violence.

The violence didn't come FROM THE PEOPLE, for f@ck's sake, it came from people in uniform with weapons firing on civilians.

[mopinko]

125. it was mostly nightsticks, and those big assed, 5 d-cell flashlights,

although they did fire tear gas. that is one of the really appalling things- most of the injuries were up close and personal.
and yes, even a government commission acknowledged that it was the cops beating up peaceful hippies who were well within their 1st amendment rights.
as i have said in some of the bill ayers threads, tho- the people in those days had the strength of their convictions that they had to use whatever means necessary to stop the meat grinder. it's not like those nightsticks were a surprise. nor was the trial of the chicago 7. 1 billion polite people in the free speech pens will never stop this war.

[newmajority]

11. Maybe they can tie up the crews from FAUX Noize?

No, I don't mean literally with ropes or anything like that. Just occupy the assholes, so some other video crews can get in there. Assuming there are any left that are trustworthy? MSNBC seems the best of the lot, at least if Keith and Rachel are there.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newmajority]

135. Welcome to DU, Freeper

Your pizza will be here in 30 minutes or less. Enjoy your visit. :hi:

[cliffordu]

2. Tell them to fix thier fucking front page so it's not scrambled like

so many Hillary spinmeisters,

If you can't do basic website design you don't belong on the web.

[sandnsea]

3. That's the last thing we need

We're on the verge of really making some progressive movement in this country - and you want to scare the piss out of people with riots. What the hell kind of sense does that make?

[Ken Burch]

6. They aren't going to riot. They're pledged to nonviolence.

If any riots occur, it will be the police. We need to take a "no arrests" stance. Arresting protestors always hurts Democrats.

[4themind]

118. The problem is, the police decide who to arrest.

So the effect (the appearance of riots) could be the same as could be the cause (the police in 1968. Hopefully the protesters are prepared for that possibility, because it may not be under their control. So even if the people don't start anything (like you mentioned they didn't start anything in 1968) doesn't mean that the police won't start something now, personally I don't trust these police, and that really would recreate 1968, personally I fear that situation could derail us from the closest thing we've had to people financed and powered candidates (as others realize the power of the internet fund raising example),especially with MSM framing of "riots", I hope they have a legitamate plan in place to counteract that sentiment that will be pushed, because the majority of the voting populace (I'm betting) will not be eye witnesses to the event.

[sandnsea]

4. Well, it was worth saying twice n/t

[Ken Burch]

7. They aren't going to be protesting against Obama.

And people who hate protests wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

I'm just saying it always hurts us when dissent is stifled at the conventions. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that?

[99th_Monkey]

13. I'm all for dissent when it's clear what I'm dissenting against. What needs dissenting from? ~nt~

[EFerrari]

22. For one thing, they are holding open a space where dissent is possible.

For another, there are a LOT of people who are sick of this dysfunctional two party system.

They're not just being negative. They are holding a festival that week for democracy. Grassroots booths on many issues, how - to training, networking and advocacy. This is what democracy looks like.

[99th_Monkey]

51. "Sick of the two-party system"? What would be the alternative, Nader?

Not JUST being negaative? Oh good, so there's SOME positives? and what were those again? like in 2000?

[Ken Burch]

57. The alternative would be electoral reform, which would help OUR party too.

It would be to the good of Democratic politics to have smaller parties that could introduce new progressive ideas that we would then pass. Like in the '30s.

Clearly the existing political structure is nothing Democrats should defend.

[99th_Monkey]

81. Again, I'm all for free speech & electoral reform, but I'm not for distracting spectacles

suggesting that the Democrats are "out of touch" with the electorate, when we've got Obama as a front-running
nominee-apparent. It makes NO sense to me whatsoever, any which way.. so I can't support it at this time.

If Clinton pulls nasty back-room tactics to steal the nomination, well that's another story.

Should this demonstration be allowed to occur -- whether I support it or not -- free from any unprovoked police
harassment? Absolutely.

[Ken Burch]

84. I'm an Obama supporter.

But for an Obama victory to matter, we need to establish that an Obama Administration is one(unlike a conservative HRC administration) where activists will be heard. There's nothing to fear in establishing that. The last Democratic administration failed because activists had NO say in it.

[99th_Monkey]

98. Activists are not only being "heard", they are being welcomed, celebrated & empowered ...

... at your nearest Obama for President Headquarters.

[EFerrari]

74. Nader wasn't on the Supreme Court in 2000, no matter the hype.

And, in case you haven't noticed, our representation sucks. 80% of the electorate thinks this country is going to hell in a hand basket.

You'd think if this system was functional, we wouldn't have to get to EIGHTY PER CENT.

I love how some "Democrats" are all for free speech until they don't agree with the speakers.

lol

[99th_Monkey]

112. I'm making a distinction between your constitutional right to dissent & the wisdom of the dissent

so is that totally lost on you?

I support your right to dissent without police harassment or abuse, but I still question the wisdom
of this particular "action".

What part of that don't you understand?

[sandnsea]

19. Attention seeking anarchy is not dissent n/t

[Ken Burch]

21. This isn't about "attention getting" in the mental health sense

They're trying to raise the issues we believe in. What they're doing is to the good. The only candidate they'd be protesting against is HRC. Our campaign has no reason to fear them.

[sandnsea]

30. They know the laws

Get a permit. If they didn't get one, too bad. They wouldn't have a name like "recreate 68" if they weren't looking for trouble.

[EFerrari]

43. Tear down that wall, sandnsea.

This is a non-violent group dedicated to free speech.

Geezus. Sometimes I swear I'm reading Free Republic.

[Ken Burch]

45. I can't understand why sandnsea fears the people.

It's not very Obama-like of him.

[EFerrari]

53. 1968 has been demonized.

People forget that populist leaders and their followers were ASSASSINATED wholesale by our government.

Isn't that sad?

[sandnsea]

56. They wouldn't have supported disruptive gatherings

And would have expected people to do everything in their power to live within the law.

[EFerrari]

62. Disruptive gatherings?

LOL!

What a strange little edited authoritarian world you live in.

Have your ever heard of the Selma march to Montgomery?

:rofl:

[sandnsea]

67. If some other group were allowed to march peacefully

MLK would have stepped aside and let them. That's the point. These people don't care about anybody but themselves. Every 'protester' isn't the same, and many of them are specifically out there to make everybody look bad. That's what this 'recreate 68' is all about, don't kid yourself and don't think calling me names is going to change anything either.

[EFerrari]

71. You obviously know nothing about Martin or about this group. n/t

[sandnsea]

80. No, actually, you don't

You think destruction is the only answer. That is not what Dr King was about. If there were a legal option available, he'd have been happy to take it. Unlike the "peaceful" anarchists in this country, who do everything they can to encite a riot, and then act shocked and indignant when they get exactly what they want.

[EFerrari]

90. "You think destruction is the only answer."

There is nothing destructive about what this non-violent group is doing. That's a straw man that you keep repeating.

I wonder why you need to keep imputing violence to other people.

[Ken Burch]

75. Everyone else that got a permit was bland and apolitical.

Nobody that got a permit was standing for anything. They were just centrist sellouts.

[bobbert]

79. We can't let the apolitical people around!

That should be illegal. You should only be around the Pepsi Center if you plan on protesting. Right....

[Ken Burch]

82. There's no good reason for anything bland and apolitical to happen in Denver

There's no good reason to just have a "welcome to Denver" table.

Why give apolitical groups a permit at all?

They have no reason to be in the park.

Is there a reason you fear politics?

[bobbert]

87. like the DNC happening right next door won't cause apolitical people to talk politics?

[Ken Burch]

99. They'd be limited to what the DNC will ALLOW them to talk about.

We can assume nothing real will be permitted at that shindig. It will be nothing but blandness and "talking points".

[intheflow]

130. Unfortunately, Denver cops have a history

of spying on peaceful, law-abiding protests and groups, and keeping secret dossiers of those groups. I myself, a woman with two degrees in Peace Studies, was on the list at one time (they say we're off now, but who really knows). The files were developed around peaceful, legal, and permitted protests and rallies. I mean, these people kept files on the Quakers, for goodness sake! The concern that the Denver police will provoke violence (even in self-defense) and/or trump up charges against peaceful protesters is very real, no matter the name of the group assembling peaceably and legally. :(

[EFerrari]

40. Spoken like a true Puritan.

I guess the First Amendment can only be accessed by people you understand. lol

[sandnsea]

54. Hey, burn Denver down for all I care

But don't be surprised when we get 30 more years of Republicanism.

[EFerrari]

55. Wtf are you talking about? This is a group dedicated to non violence

and free speech?

How cowed are you that you can't open your mind to that?

[sandnsea]

59. Suuure they are

That's why they didn't comply with the process to get a permit and non-violently assemble. That's why they're looking at problems with the police 6 months in advance. Don't be naive.

[Ken Burch]

64. They're looking at problems with police because police are always unfair to protesters.

This was even true in "liberal" Seattle in 1998, when antiglobalization protesters were beaten in the streets for no reason.

Why would ANY Obama supporter take the side of the "law and order" crowd?

People who hate protest are certain to vote against Obama anyway. Don't you get that?

[bobbert]

66. no, it's because they plan on reaking the law

They agreed that the permit lottery was fair before the drawing. Now they say it's not fair because it didn't go their way. Wait, I've heard this one before....

[Ken Burch]

70. Why would you EVER take the side of those who want to restrict protest?

It's right-wing to oppose Recreate 68 being allowed to do what they want in Denver.

The only people who want them stopped are straight-ticket Republicans. No one else hates protest that much.

[EFerrari]

91. They plan on exercising their Constitutional rights.

And you would have a problem with that why?

[EFerrari]

68. You're joking, right?

Or, are you just hopeless? This is the same group that discovered that the Denver PD had them under surviellance and had a bunch of illegal files on them, lol, just like peace groups all over the country have come under surveillance since the war began.

Good God.

[sandnsea]

73. Then I was right, attention seeking anarchists

They know full well they're going to have problems and they just dont' give a shit - it's all about them, at the expense of changing the course of the country. There's a time and a place for everything and the Dem convention is not the time to create a friggin' riot.

[Ken Burch]

76. A bland convention can't give us a progressive country.

And Boston in 2004 proved that a bland convention means defeat.

[EFerrari]

77. There's not a time and a place for the First Amendment.

It's pretty much on all the time.

lol

[bobbert]

85. There's also a time and place to determine if you are doing something for your own ego

or for the proper intentions. It seems to me that the guy running recreate 68 is planning on encountering police resistance to satisfy his own ego. He doesn't give a shit about anything else except his protest anymore just to satisfy his own ego. I'm sure if he got this date but not one of the others, he would be planning on causing a disturbance that day instead. The guy sounds like a jackass, his ideas may be good but his intentions sound selfish.

[EFerrari]

94. And you may be right. And he and that group still has the right

to assemble.

[sandnsea]

88. Well no, it pretty much isn't

If I could afford it, I'd love to hire somebody to follow you around for the next year and simple scream in your face every time you stepped foot on a public sidewalk. I wonder how long you'd appreciate their free speech.

There are reasons there are reasonable permits for demonstrations, these people didn't get one. They need to grow up and join some group who did get a permit.

[EFerrari]

97. So, you equate free speech with assault.

That explains a lot.

This group will be allowed to assemble and to have their democracy festival. Because they are grown ups,they know their rights and they already have the ACLU working on this case. They saw the oppression coming.

So sorry!

lol

[EFerrari]

78. dupe

[Ken Burch]

89. Why DOESN'T it bother you that the police have files on nonviolent activists?

What's driving your fear, here?

The police aren't on OUR side, anyway. They only represent the rich.

[bobbert]

93. When the leader makes this comment, I hope the police have files on the group

He said Thursday that he would not respect the host committee's permit and would occupy the park, even if it forced police to intervene.

Referring to the $50 million in federal security money slated for the convention, Spagnuolo said Denver police would need "$25 million to protect the Pepsi Center and $25 million to protect Civic Center."

[EFerrari]

100. There is no lawful reason the people have to take a back seat

to the corporati.

The police do happen to have files on this group and the department is under investigation for spying on them illegally.

But, hey, maybe we need MORE files on peace grannies and vegans to win the War on Terra!

lol

[bobbert]

103. But intentionally leading '50,000' followers to do something illegal?

That is something MLK NEVER did, he always respected the law and would never ask people to do something illegal. Like I said earlier, this guy's intentions seem fishy.

[EFerrari]

104. There is nothing fishy in peaceful assembly.

These people have zero history of violence.

And MLK spent time in jail on fake charges because what he was doing seemed "fishy" as well.

[Ken Burch]

124. That's what the Selma to Montgomery march was.

And civil disobedience was illegal where it was practiced. Why obsess with the letter of the law when the law is always right wing?

[Heathen57]

109. So we should only protest (march)

when the powers that be tell us when we can and what we can protest against? If we went along with your ideals, all the government (or whoever) would have to do is not allow any permits, and then there would never be any protests. A final straw to break the Constitution and bring in the fascism that Bush and the GOP are praying for.

I don't give a damn who these people are. If they are non-violent, then they are guaranteed the right to assembly and to redress the government. It is the principal of the thing, and it was so important to the framers of the Constitution that they specifically included it.

BTW I was in the names that the Colorado Springs and Denver Police put together for the FBI. My crime was to attend an anti-war rally in 2002. The same one where they tear-gassed everybody. Guess what? The organizers had that precious "permit" but the police decided the crowd wasn't moving fast enough.

[here_is_to_hope]

126. A permit isnt whats needed, no one should need a permit for freespeech...

EVER.

[Ken Burch]

61. It can't help Obama for there to be NO protests in Denver.

The Obama movement comes out of protest culture. The Obama campaign honors it. Obama can't be on the side of restricting demonstrations and still be different than McCain.

[sandnsea]

69. Protests really aren't necessary every blessed day

You just like to stir up shit, you always have.

[Ken Burch]

72. Change ONLY comes through protest. It's never done by politicians by themselves

And I don't like to "stir up shit". I believe in free speech and the idea that politics should be bottom-up, not top down.

Why does that scare you?

We back the same candidate. I guess I back the movement and you just back the man. Without the movement, Obama would be no different than anyone else.

[Ken Burch]

92. Nobody's going to burn Denver down.

But we can't JUST say "shut up and trust Obama". You can't expect anyone to just quietly settle for what a politician gives them.

I support the Obama movement as well as the campaign. You should, as well.

Protest and street activism are positive. Without them, nothing progressive ever happens.

[still_one]

8. they may be good people, but they aren't too smart. It's the republicans

that are the immediate problem, but hey, let them divert attention in a negative way, let the corporate media exploit it, and just maybe they might get what they want, mccain in the white house

[Ken Burch]

9. They way to avoid that is not to have our convention be a "politics-free zone"

We must NEVER again have a convention like we had in Boston, where every act of suppression and restriction of speech cost us votes.

These people won't be there to sabotauge us, they'll be there to make sure we stand for something.

History proves that blandness doesn't work for us.

[still_one]

115. We won't be bland. I gave you my opinion. The Democrats AREN'T the problem

IT IS THE REPUBLICANS

[SwampG8r]

12. yes

if they want to help the democrats they need to stage this at the republican convention

[Ken Burch]

25. There will be protests there too. But this is a Denver-based group.

We can't defend protest in St. Paul and oppose it in Denver.

[still_one]

117. Absolutely. I also do not necessarily agree with the premise of the OP

that they are solely peaceful. What happened in 1968 was not solely peaceful, and it wasn't just the Chicago police who were causing the problems.

Invoking the Chicago event tells me that their agenda isn't necesarrily non-violent

[Ken Burch]

14. Why do you assume they're going to harm us?

They're just going to raise issues that haven't been dealt with. Our party was wrong to take the issues their talking about(like imperialism).

If you're a Democrat, you have a moral obligation to oppose arresting protesters. Arresting protesters only ever helps the right wing. It never helps us.

We have to keep the Secret Service out of Denver.

[99th_Monkey]

15. Dissent is great when there's a reason: What's the reasoning here? What's being dissented against?

[EFerrari]

16. The 1st Amendment has no caveat for a reason you agree with. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

52. Well, since I still haven't been given a reason, I guess I can't say if I "agree" or not.

But excuse me if I'm a little weary when no reason is being even offered in the first place, so I know
if I agree or not.

[EFerrari]

58. You don't know if American citizens should enjoy free speech?

Wow.

[99th_Monkey]

63. Your "free speech" mantra appears to be a red herring named Ralph Nader.. ~nt~

[EFerrari]

83. Ralph is your red herring to oppose free speech.

You blame him for the deterioration of the party that happened over the course of thirty years. Cool.

The answer to that debilitation is not oppression, it's engagement. Which you are reflexively opposing.

[99th_Monkey]

96. I don't blame Nader personally, but I DO try to learn from my/our mistakes.

and it's a mistake at this point in time to beat the drums of "down with the 2 party system"
when the Democratic wing of that very system is about to nominate Obama.

If this were a demonstration to "insure the nomination reflects the people's will", then that's
one thing, but that's not how it is being pitched, esp. on the website link.

[Ken Burch]

101. What hurts us more than protests are arrests of protesters.

That's why we have to keep the Secret Service out of Denver, because, as Republican tools, they will try to provoke arrests and trouble by making the conditions as repressive as possible. The Secret Service is on the other side and so are the police. Neither has humane values.

[99th_Monkey]

110. You want the secret service that's protecting candidate Obama "out of Denver"?

Fine with me, as long as Obama can have his home boys fully armed and on-the-ready, surrounding him at all times.

I'm no fan of the SS, but also know that Denver could become dicey for nominee-apparent Obama in challenging the
Bush/Clinton Dynasty, so I DO want him protected, really protected from harm.

[EFerrari]

102. I don't know how to break this to you, but even people who disagree with you

have Constitutional rights.

[99th_Monkey]

111. I've never said dissidents don't have rights, even when dissent is misguided and ill-conceived

I challenge you to show me where I've ever suggested otherwise.

[EFerrari]

127. Here you go:

I'm all for dissent when it's clear what I'm dissenting against. What needs dissenting from? ~nt~

[99th_Monkey]

131. When I'm participating in dissent, I like knowing what I'm dissenting from.

that's NOT saying I'm opposed to dissent silly.

Did you miss this one?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5614238&mesg_id=5614666

I'm making a distinction between your constitutional right to dissent & the wisdom of the dissent

so is that totally lost on you?

I support your right to dissent without police harassment or abuse, but I still question the wisdom
of this particular "action".

What part of that don't you understand?

[EFerrari]

132. Did you read your own statement?

It's conditional, and no matter how hard you try to condescend to me, it's still conditional.

The First Amendment is not limited by the condition of speech you agree with.

And if you were in fact making a distinction between what is legal and what is wise, you failed to do that in words.

[99th_Monkey]

136. Please stop putting words in my mouth. You're not winning anyone over by doing that.

You have failed IMHO to make any kind of rational or coherent case for your demonstration, maybe
because you aren't sure of what it is yourself, or maybe because you are being evasive.

Whichever it is, I'm now even more suspicious of the intent of the demonstration, because you've not
made a clear case for it, so I PERSONALLY will not be cheering it on. But it's a free country, or
at least it would be if we followed our Constitution. So I feel you have every right to speak out
about whatever it is you're trying to say.

For the record, I've never said I'm opposed to dissent or that
"The First Amendment is limited" in anyway "by the condition of speech I agree with." .. unless it's
a classic proverbial case of yelling "FIRE!" for no reason in a crowded theater and causing others
harm.

HINT: The right of free speech & thought works both ways, just so you know.
I'm exercising this right in questioning the motives and wisdom of your demonstration; but I'll
never question your right to non-violently dissent against whatever you wish.

[Ken Burch]

24. Corporate limitations on political discussion. Suppression of free speech.

The persecution of the poor that has been committed by both the GOP and the Clinton wing of our party.

[99th_Monkey]

60. Sounds like this demonstration belongs in front of the ABC Headquarters, not in Denver

The Dems actually HAVE a nominee-apparent named Obama who is the current standard-bearer for
any hope we the people have of reclaiming America.

I don't want to rain on your parade or demonstration or whatever it is, but WHY DENVER?

[Ken Burch]

65. Well, you're assuming the conservative second-place candidate doesn't steal it.

If she does, she'll ORDER the cops to break heads.

[99th_Monkey]

86. LOL - please see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5614238&mesg_id=5614485

I hear you loud and clear, but if this is to support Obama, the winner of most delegates, caucuses, primaries and
the popular vote, then why not just say so out front?

[bobbert]

17. If you saw that video about the park permits

you would have seen that they did not get a permit the day of the convention. They will not be allowed to be there those days, and even if they are non-violent they will be breaking the law by invading the space of people who rightfully reserved the park space. At the end of said video, they interviewed people from recreate 68 and the plan on causing a disturbance, so if they are arrested, which some will be, it will be because they are doing something illegal and were notified so. They are not ignorant of the laws, they will choose to break them. If they are arrested for protesting I will have no sympathy for them, as they should have no regrets for doing so because they stood up for what they think is right.

[bobbert]

28. This reply is to add a link

They will interact police, it is a non-violent protest, but that does not what they will be doing won't be illegal.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/park-permit-lottery-success-unless.html

[Ken Burch]

32. Why does "legality" matter more to you than anything else?

Most of Dr. King's protests weren't "legal" in the eyes of Southern authorities.

These kinds of laws only serve the rich. No Democratic voters benefit from protests being suppressed.

[bobbert]

38. I did not say I don't support them

I just said I expect them to have police resistance and they should expect it. Just because they have possibly more followers than the people who have the park permit, why should they be allowed to bully them around? It's a touchy subject, but it is these laws that keep everything from becoming one big clusterfuck.

[Ken Burch]

39. The "host city" has the park permit. No political groups are going to be allowed by the host city.

Didn't you read your link?

There was one permit, and it went to the host city, who will use it to keep the park protest-free.

A convention without protests can't be worth having. Such a convention can have no passion and no life.

[EFerrari]

18. Amy did a great segment with them today. Link:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/21/recreate_68_democrats_to_face_protests

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

20. That's where I heard of them.

Look, if the party wants to keep things from getting out of hand, it should start a dialogue with these people and make sure that they aren't denied any permits to be where they want. There's no reason for the party to object to anyone having the right to peaceful protest. The only people who hate protesters are straight right wing. None of those people would EVER vote for us.

[bobbert]

26. Here's what I mentioned earlier

They had a chance to get permits, and even registered for the lottery under many different names and didn't get the permits they wanted. Tough luck, I say.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/park-permit-lottery-success-unless.html

[Ken Burch]

31. So you support the suppression of free speech?

Even though there was no reason to deny them their permits?

And even though the permits were denied at the behest of the Secret Service, who will only be in Denver to help McCain get elected and don't care if HRC or Obama get shot.

[bobbert]

33. nobody denied them permits

It was a random drawing and they did not win. That means there will be activists for other organizations already using that space who have a right to be there without being bullied by recreate 68 who entered the same drawing with the same chances at getting a permit. I'm not suppressing the right to free speech which does not cause a disturbance to law-abiding citizens. Are you denying the right to speech by the other organization which could get dumped on by recreate 68?

[Ken Burch]

36. According to your link, no political organizations got permits.

The permit was one by the "host city". Which means nothing worthwhile will happen in the space. They'll just be handing out discount coupons for restaurants and shit like that.

Democrats are NEVER supposed to favor restrictions on protests.

[EFerrari]

37. Because setting people against each other is so progressive.

LOL

They will be out there. If that in fact is how the permits were issued, it's unconstitutional. They'll go to court and they'll be fine.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

35. I read the link, and Recreate 68 had to fight to get their name INTO the lottery.

And the whole thing was made meaningless when the permit went to the host city, which means nothing worthwhile will happen in that space, since the host city doesn't want politics and free speech during a convention.

The lottery was obviously rigged. And suppressing protests CAN'T lead to anything positive. It certainly would mean that no one we elected could be progressive in power if he or she was nominated in a climate of repression. You can't govern good if you win ugly.

[bobbert]

50. They got permits 2 out of 4 days

not bad, they are just pissed that they didn't get the day that they had already scheduled a 50,000 member march and they don't want to change their plans. Basically they don't give a shit about who got the permit, even if it wasn't the host committee.

The asshole that runs recreate 68 doesn't care about security either, his quote:
Referring to the $50 million in federal security money slated for the convention, Spagnuolo said Denver police would need "$25 million to protect the Pepsi Center and $25 million to protect Civic Center."

If they were truly nonviolent, they would stop at blockades and not push people around, which would not require $50 million of security money.

Also, their 'fight' for inclusion in the lottery was a spreadsheet error, where certain people were left off certain days, which was fixed before the official lottery took place.

[Ken Burch]

49. Why do you hate them, anyway?

They stand for what we SHOULD stand for as a party.

And it's never helped us to silence activists and idealists.

[EFerrari]

29. I'm one of "those people" and I just switched my reg back.

I can't speak for them. But, in this repressive climate, what they're doing is very important.

We have to stop allowing our voices to be smothered in service of career politicians. That way lies the end of real representation.

[2rth2pwr]

44. Do what these guys want and nobody gets hurt.

Anyone who threatens to make a fool of themselves and disrupt the convention should be able to have a dialogue or else.

ok.

[Ken Burch]

46. What's wrong with dialogue?

Only right-wing conservatives hate protesters. Why not admit they're basically right about things and start talking with them?

You can't think it would help us to have the cops break heads?

Only Republicans love that kind of suppression.

[2rth2pwr]

107. You're a parody.

[Ken Burch]

121. That's not an answer. What's wrong with dialogue?

You can insult me all you want, but why shouldn't power run from the bottom up, rather than top down?

[rodeodance]

23. umm...tell the sec. service that??

[Ken Burch]

27. Said the supporter of the conservative second-place Democratic candidate.

Free speech isn't our enemy. Neither are idealists or activists. You HRC people have got to accept that.

We're guaranteed to lose if our next convention is like Boston.

[rodeodance]

105. oh stop making ASSumptions about me. and

what makes you think i am against free speech--or that other HRC supporters are? You are arrogant in thinking so.

I listened to amy this am for your information. The caging and putting protectors a mile away is stupid!! and HRC will say the same. I know of NONE that would not say the same.

Get a grip and stop insulting HRC supporters!! We are NOT your enemy just because we support HRC!!

[Ken Burch]

122. You are hurting the party by keeping your candidate in the race

And it's not healthy to have a Democrat attacking our frontrunner from the right.

[Ken Burch]

41. The Secret Service is the enemy. It never protects any decent people, only villains.

The Secret Service only serves the Republicans. It's our enemy and should be banned from Denver.

[rodeodance]

106. Yeah--try banning the Sec. Serv. from Denver. That's a non starter and I

hope you know that.

[Ken Burch]

123. They have no positive role. They only protect the right wing.

They stopped being politically neutral years ago. They want us to lose, don't you understand?

[donheld]

48. Their meetings are 5 blocks from me

maybe I'll spy on them :D

[EFerrari]

95. If they have cool t-shirts, maybe you can score some for us.

lol

[2rth2pwr]

108. Let me know if there are any hot chicks.

[AllentownJake]

114. Fuck that

They want to protest go to the Rethug convention.

I worry about the saftey of our nominee so Secret Service do what you have to.

[grantcart]

116. "They are good people" - why do you say that.

[Ken Burch]

120. Because their ideals are positive.

Because protest and open discussion are healthy.

[madrchsod]

119. the police are going to riot?

i wonder how many informants and instigators there will be in that group....

[mopinko]

128. in this webbie world, plenty

i gotta presume.

[PetraPooh]

129. "...and tell the Secret Service to stay the hell OUT of Denver" SORRY, but

they need to be there to protect the candidates. I can just see the SS being told to stay away and an assassin then pretends to be part of this group and shoots Obama or Clinton. Not a good scenario. You seem really to be in a dreamland if you think no security for the candidates and delegates is the best choice.

[Ken Burch]

137. It would be different if it were politically neutral security that we could trust.

The Party should provide the security details, and make sure none of them are RW.

[PetraPooh]

138. Perhaps, but you are indicating that none is better than some, and

you concerns seem to be more centered around protecting protesters rather than the candidates. Since protesters can be infiltrated, I disagree with your premise that SS should be banned.

[cbayer]

133. I was in Chicago in 1968.

I was 14, both of my parents were arrested. Many of our friends and political colleagues were beaten and tear gassed. I attended some of the events.

We had a mission and it was to stop the war and change the way government was being run. We felt that the people were being left out of the equation and needed to be heard. Just as it is now, we were going into the Democratic convention without a peace candidate. Unlike today, we thought we had one, but he had been shot.

While I support any group's right to non-violent protest, I don't see from their website what they are protesting.

It saddens me that the goal of ending this war is not the main issue on the table. I am all in favor recreating 1968 but not without a very clear goal in mind.

[otohara]

134. HEY- Here's The Deal

Here's what's happening in Denver last I read - Civic Center Park will serve as the protest area during convention. There will be no fences or cages - Everyone protesting will be required to smoke pot!

The first two sentences are true.