These Recreate68 fools are a joke

[ben_meyers]

They dragged out the "big guns" today, Sheehan, Kovic even Ward Churchill and all they could attract is about 1000 people most of whom seemed to be the media. For this Denver built prisons and spent millions?

DNC: Recreate ’68 Rally Has Impassioned Speeches, Media Ruckus

Staff Reports
The bomb throwing—certainly in a figurative sense—began this morning on the west steps of the Capitol Building in Denver.

One of the most visible and vociferous of the protest groups planning to make its presence felt at the Democratic National Convention, Recreate ’68, held its opening protest and rally.

The rally included impassioned anti-war speeches and a ruckus caused, in part, by the media.

"We're going to the Pepsi Center and tell them we've had enough of the f***ing war," said Glenn Spagnuolo, co-founder of Recreate ’68.

Mark Cohen, also a co-founder of the group, told the crowd of a few hundred that he had been on the steps of the capitol before protesting the first Gulf War. Sunday morning, he was there again.

http://www.fortcollinsnow.com/article/20080824/MISC12/1306618/1062&ParentProfile=1054

Too bad Limbaugh, your dream ain't coming true.

[Richardo]

1. Attention Recreate'68 Idiots: You're doing it wrong.

You're supposed to be protesting the INCUMBENTS - they're in Minneapolis this year. :eyes:

[Hekate]

2. Oh crap. nt

[Junkdrawer]

3. What did I tell ya...

More provocateurs than protesters = joke

[EFerrari]

8. So, do we have real numbers on the crowd? Or just this report?

[Junkdrawer]

13. Another report...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/chicago-1968-it.html

[EFerrari]

17. I'm going to wait for pix. They may be right.

I have no reason to trust them, especially when they refused to cover our actions here that involved easily more than a thousand people. It just doesn't make sense to me. We weren't Denver and we easily had that number. :shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

19. My gut says people are more disappointed than angry with Democrats...

now the Republican Convention will be a different story....

[EFerrari]

20. Most people just want Republicans the hell out of office.

Agreed.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. Anyone who remembers '68

doesn't want to see it recreated. Those antics - and that's all they were, Hoffman and Rubin seeking the spotlight - handed the election to Nixon.

These people sound remarkably uninformed and misguided.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. This is historical revisionism at its

absolute worst. Who are you, some Strom Thurmond 1948 throwback?

Daley's pigs engaged in a police riot. And Humphrey's refusal to break with LBJ over Vietnam allowed Nixon to offer his "secret plan" to end the war (basically, by expanding it to Cambodia and Laos) and hoodwink the American people.

Shame on you!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

75. You bought the line

That was ostensibly the reasoning behind the demonstrations, but, in fact, it was a colossal freak show, the young kids with sincere beliefs used as pawns by the Rubin-Hoffmann bunch. It was a mess, Daly's thugs made it worse, and everyone provoked everyone else.

It got us Richard Nixon.

Shame on your for not knowing your country's recent history.

[coalition_unwilling]

76. What's next? Are you going to blame the four slain at

Kent State U. on May 4, 1970 for throwing the '72 election to Nixon?

Rather than waste my time documenting the fact that the '68 election WAS NOT thrown to Nixon in Nov. '68 by Hoffman and Rubin, but instead was lost by Humphrey's remaining tied to LBJ's Vietnam policy until 3 weeks before the election, I have decided it is more efficient and productive simply to place you and all your future unsourced slurs on Ignore.

[Hangingon]

79. The '68 antics made Repubs out of a lot of Democrats

[coalition_unwilling]

80. Substantial numbers of 'Murkins

(as many as 80%) supported the "antics" of Daley's pigs, that's for sure.

But there's scant evidence that many people changed party affiiliation as a result of Daley's police riot.

Unless you have evidence no historian has yet uncovered?

[Meeker Morgan]

5. IIRC, the 1968 riot was a police riot, right?

Jackasses.

I expect the Denver police will not be so cooperative to recreate it.

[Richardo]

6. Maybe we can have a media riot instead

:D

[KharmaTrain]

57. Not For Such Small Numbers...

The estimates were upwards of 20,000 people were camped out in Grant Park during the '68 convention...many had arrived a week ahead of time and baiting the cops from the moment many arrived. I remember reports that said on that Thursday night, there were over 50,000 in the park...and that only a handful were really involved in the riot. Most were there to party.

By the time of the riot...and, yes, it was a Police riot, it was the end product of a week of confrontation, demonstrations, street theater and a ton of media coverage. The Democratic party handled it poorly...ignored the anti-war movement; especially the non-violent leaders, who frustrated and pissed off a lot who were there.

[leveymg]

7. Abbie and Jerry, they ain't.

[goodgd_yall]

43. There's our Abbie! n/t

[hlthe2b]

9. About 25 of them rode through Cheeseman Park on scooters

about an hour ago...heh, heh They must have rented them, as several of them (a wee bit older) didn't seem to know how to ride them....

Yeah, I don't quite see them as the National threat they are being portrayed...:rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Bravo for them!

And, to hell with the "Free Speech" cages.

[EFerrari]

11. You know, these people are anti-war protestors.

And here is a different report.



http://www.denverpost.com/ci_10291402?source=rss

And there will likely be more, out of Denver, that are spun by the presstitutes.

[ben_meyers]

16. Must have been time for their naps!

Officials estimate up to 1,500 protesters took part. Despite taunts and threats made to police, no one was arrested and the marchers disbanded 30 minutes after arriving on Auraria Parkway.

Earlier today, at a speech at the Capitol rally, anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan urged a crowd of 500 people to support alternative candidates.

[EFerrari]

18. Well, thank GOD those inconvenient anti-war protesters

aren't gaining any traction!

Whew! I thought we might not have to blow money on killing Iraqis or on boxing up our dead service people for the trip home.

What a relief.

:sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Yeah!! We sure wouldn't want the politicans to stop funding the glorious war!!

Those ingrates don't realize that funding the carnage is "smart politics" and necessary to pander to the beloved middle!!

[tjwash]

60. Let's just herd 'em in to free speech zones and be done with it.

:sarcasm:
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything here as in the OP? :wtf:

These are anti-war protesters. They are there because the dem congress has had several chances to pull the funding on this illegal sham of a war and has not done a damn thing but bow to his majesty the frat boy; and pencil whip everything through that he has asked for. Not to mention Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi letting this criminal organization of his run the country just like he still has a repug majority.

What's next? Start questioning the patriotism of anyone who does not bow down and except the war(s) in the middle east as necessary and good? :eyes:

Oh well...I guess some dems can patriot-bait those who dare question things too.

[bluestateguy]

12. I guess they are waiting for the acid flashback to the good old days in '68.

Sheehan is a whining, self-promoting pill. Churchill is a fraud and a hack.

[EFerrari]

14. Edit: I apologize, bluestateguy. That was rude. n/t

[mmonk]

69. Maybe if you lost a son because of lies, you might think differently.

She's a patriot willing to walk the walk.

[AndyTiedye]

15. Any of These People?

[ben_meyers]

22. Nope, just the usual attention..um, ah..seekers

and "Fox News" trying to stir them up.

[EFerrari]

28. If you truly believe that, you are very much mistaken.

There is a reason that this Congress has single digit approval ratings.

Good grief.

[TexasObserver]

21. 1000 people. 900 of them undercover agents trying to bust each other.

[Junkdrawer]

23. There was a scene from an old 60s comedy movie...

where there's a big bust and everyone was either CIA, MI6 or FBI...

[ben_meyers]

24. Back in '68 we could always spot the undercover guys

They were the ones who smoked all our dope, drank all our Boones Farm and Ripple and tried to screw all our women.

[rebel with a cause]

26. In 1968 a Democrat (Johnson) was in office

and had taken us into a war. It was fitting perhaps to demonstrate against the war during that convention. This time it it a republican president that took us in and is destoying our country, so they should keep their protests focused on them. Hurting the Democratic party now only helps the republicans. So you have to wonder about their brain power and how much they are interested in changing the course this country is taking, or are they too much focused on their own personal ambitions.

[EFerrari]

27. Because we should never question the Democratic Congressional leadership

on their complicity?

Please.

It's one thing to support our candidates. It's another thing to lay down and accept policy that is bad for us all.

[rebel with a cause]

30. Did they demonstrate in 1968 at the republican convention?

sfexpat, you have your opinion on this and I have mine. I have demonstrated against this war, but I would not do so at this convention where a candidate who has opposed this war from the beginning is being named (hopefully). I am not asking anyone to accept policy that is bad for us all, but to cause problems at the Democratic convention this time around seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. There is a time to fight and there is a time to stand down. In my opinion this is one time when they should stand down. The media will have enough fun when the "Clinton" supporters protest and act out, I don't think we need another group of protesters at this time to add on to Obama's problems with the press coverage there in Denver. I dread this coming week and do not expect a good outcome. This beginning just makes me worry that much more about it. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

32. I hear you and I share your worry.

But, two thoughts.

One, someone needs to anchor the left or the easy slide is to the right.

Two, no matter what happens, the corporate media will find a way to make trouble.

[ben_meyers]

39. Some of us tried, but because the convention was in

Miami Beach they were able to control access to the Convention Center. (It's basically an Island). Many of the delegates and other attendees stayed on cruise ships and the local police controlled the bridges. I think orders went out not to have a repeat of Chicago.

[rebel with a cause]

46. And they will do the same this year as they have for the last eight.

So it leaves the Democratic party looking broken while the repubicans will be so organized and together. Makes you think about what the voters will be thinking in November? Forget the war, forget the scandals, forget the economic mess we are in. If the Democrats (Obama) can't control their (his) own party how will they (he) control the government and get anything done. I know the rest of what they will say but don't feel like writing it out for them here.

[noamnety]

78. Amen.

The idea that we should shut up and smile nice so long as the democrats are the ones funding the war, so long as the democrats are the ones deciding FISA is good, so long as the democrats are the ones deciding it's not good for the country to hold the president accountable for his actions ... it's appalling.

Personally I think it's MORE important to protest the democrats, tactically, because we already know the republicans have no chance of listening to the antiwar message. The democrats are the ones we need to sway, and they are the only ones threatened electorally by pissing off the left.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. With the complicity and approval of Democratic politicians.

Most of whom continue to fund Bush's war.

But, of course, their "our" warmongers...just like LBJ and Humpty were.

[rebel with a cause]

31. LBJ started the war just like bush did.

Obama has not. "Their funding of this war" is a bit funny, because what are they going to do, leave the troops without funding while bush leaves them in the battlefield. If they did that, the protesters would be out there for that. Yes, I don't like that the Democrats voted to give bush the power to go to war, and I don't like that they continue to not stand up to him like I think they should. My Senator did not vote for it and does stand up to bush, and that is Dick Durbin. My other Senator is Obama and he has spoken out against the war from the beginning.

I have nothing against anti-war protesting, have done it myself. But I think this is not the time or the place for it. This convention will have enough problems without this. JMHO which I have a right to the same as you have a right to yours.

[EFerrari]

37. LBJ did not start that war just like Bush did.

Not at all.

[ben_meyers]

44. JFK expanded our presence in South Viet Nam and

LBJ escalated it based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". Don't sugar coat 60,000 dead.

[rebel with a cause]

53. I am not sugar coating anything.

Eisenhower sent our "advisor's" in to Nam, JFK expanded their presence there but was planning on pulling them out when he was killed. Two weeks after his death, Johnson changed that plan and expanded our presence more. He then lied about and used the Dominican Republic civil war to train our troops to fight in guerrilla warfare before he expanded the Vietnam War into a full blown conflict.

I hated Johnson and I hated Nixon because of Vietnam! That was back when it was happening. A few years ago I research the USA's actions during the DR civil war and saw how Johnson lied about it and how it was connected to Vietnam. I disliked him even more than I did back then, if that is even possible. When bush took us to Afghanistan, I warned people that he was going into Iraq next and that we would be involved in a war comparable to Vietnam. How did I know this? Because he followed in Johnson's footsteps all the way. I knew what he was going to do before he did it, because I knew what Johnson did.

I was told in the sixties/seventies and in 2001/02 to "love it or leave it". I have come full circle and see things clear and do not like what I see. My time here is limited but I worry about those I leave behind.

Edited to add: sorry, I thought you were posting to me and then I see it was to someone else, but this goes to answer their post. So I will leave it here.

[rebel with a cause]

56. Yes he did.

Do a bit of research and you will see he did just that. Also see my post below and that explains it a bit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. No funding, no war.

The argument that not funding the war is going to leave the troops without bootlaces and toothpaste is nonsense. Congress's only power to end the war is to stop paying for it. Those that continue to fund it are playing politics, not "supporting the troops".

As far as I'm concerned the time to protest war and imperialism is always.

And, you certainly have a right to your opinion. So do the protesters at the convention.

[rebel with a cause]

64. I personally agree with you about the funding but

I was not speaking about my personal opinion. I was speaking about the masses. And yes, it is politics and that is what they all play and feel like they have to in order to stay in office. With this administration especially, politics is all that matters because rove has been calling the shots. bush, cheney and rove's roles are all plotted out in political lines. This whole eight years has been ran as a political game and people in congress have given in to the idea that they have to out think and out play them in order to defeat them.

I understand how this happens because I was married to a man who played mind games for his own entertainment and to control those around him. After a while you lose sight of what is important and begin to just try to figure out how to not be used and how to get out of their power. I know I became consumed with just trying to figure out how to counteract him, and to stop his plots before they became full blown and harmful to me and mine, all the time trying to get people to see him for what he was. His game involved isolating me and turning everyone against me, and this is how I kind of see what rove and company has tried to do with the Democratic party.

About the protesters, they do have their right to protest, but I wish they would have sit it aside just this once because of the things mentioned. Sometimes we have to consider the rights of others and what is best for the country. If I didn't think this election was important, defeating mccain was not important, and getting back control of this country from the right wingers was not important, then I would be gung ho with their protesting. Unfortunately, I feel this election is the most important thing right at the moment and that is what I am concerned with. Perhaps I feel so strongly because we are bombarded with mccain tv political ads that are lies upon lies. :grr:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. I respect your opinion and your concerns.

There is no doubt in my mind that the protest at the DNC will be exploited by the right. Just as the protests in '68 were.

However, just as in '68, I'm weary of being exploited by politicians of either party. A lot of us on the left have been rather disgusted with the idea of holding our noses and voting for yet another "not as bad" candidate for too long. Watching "our" politicians pander to the right for sake of political expediency. I'm sure that Obama will be a far president than McCain, but if we don't hold his feet to the fire, then when shall we?

They say "work within the system". This IS the system. Putting pressure on politicians is working within the system and I consider a responsibility of the citizenry to do so.

I've watched, over the years, the Democratic Party move from being a moderately "left" party to a moderately "right" party all in the name of political expediency. I'm not a "moderate" of any stripe.

If not now, when?

[rebel with a cause]

67. "If not now, when?"

After we win a presidental election!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. We "won" a presidential election in '92.

And, the party turned (or, should I say "triangulated"?) to the right.

[Richardo]

34. I don't wonder about their brain power

They're idiots.

[Puregonzo1188]

33. This is an odd day at DU--people trying to minimize antiwar protests.

I would of thought I was at Free Republic, or do we only like antiwar protest when they're politically convenient?

[Richardo]

35. No - only when it makes sense.

Protesting against one of the only voices consistently against the war is stupid.

[Puregonzo1188]

38. And what would be wrong with having a strong show of antiwar support by

citizens at the Democratic National Convention? Wouldn't it remind them of our opinion?

[EFerrari]

41. A demonstration might remind them that we aren't Republicans.

[Richardo]

48. What?

OK I guess.
i still think the targets of your discontent are in Minneapolis.

[ben_meyers]

49. GET IT F'ing RIGHT!!!

The Democratic National Convention is in ST. PAUL, not Minneapolis, and they are not the same thing!

I had to put up with that for almost 50 years before we moved.

[Richardo]

51. You mean the Republican National Convention

:D


(OK I stand corrected - St Paul it is.) :hi:

[ben_meyers]

58. Ya that's what I meant, I was just spitting feathers and couldn't

type straight at mixing up Mpls and St. Paul again!

Actually not, but I love to do that to people, being a St. Paul native.

[Richardo]

45. I don't get the point - but whatever

1) I think the party is pretty much aware of public sentiment against the war, and
2) The Recreate68 marchers marginalize the message by being characatures, starting with their idiotic name. (Because who DOESN'T want riots in the streets and police brutality? :thumbsup: )

[XOKCowboy]

73. I have to agree with you Ricardo

'68 was a LOT different than now. I could very well see them protesting at the RNC but then their name wouldn't make sense.

[EFerrari]

40. Who is that only consistent voice?

It would be stupid to do that.

Last I heard from Pelosi's senior staffer here, they were waiting for the Petreaus report.

What ever happened to that?

[Richardo]

47. I think his name is Barack something.

[EFerrari]

50. LOL! Well, that's selective memory for you.

:)

[Richardo]

54. ..

:pals:

[EFerrari]

55. Let's just not hurt anybody, okay?

lol

:pals:

[EFerrari]

36. There is a concern that Recreate 68 is compromised

by troublemakers / fed ops and that may be very right. :shrug:

But it's no reason to toss the baby with the bathwater.

[Puregonzo1188]

42. I'm aware of that sentiment, but it didn't seem to be based on any hard evidence.

It seemed to be attempts to marginalize the protesters. I mean I will agree Recreate 68 is a really poor choice of a name, but the group seemed to me to mostly be a front for the Workers World Party, not the federal government. Plus, I have a difficult time believing the FBI is sitting around thinking of ways to muck up the Democratic National Convention. Not that I like the FBI, but going after powered elites really isn't their thing (not that I'm sure they're aren't a few exceptions).

[EFerrari]

52. The FBI is working out of the Bush Justice Department.

You bet there will be all kinds of crap going on.

We have much more to be worried about in that direction, imho, than in the direction of just plain old liberals exercising their First Amendment rights. But, DU doesn't always do the nuance.

[johnfunk]

59. My motto: "86 Recreate68"

'Nuff said.

[tjwash]

61. yeah...4 MORE YEARS in Iraq...and soon to be Iran.

nuff said

[mdmc]

62. Of course they will be to blame if we don't beat McCain this year

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

65. sounds like a handful of forgotten people like Cindy Me-han.

Is she still around clowning for the nearest camera?

[donco6]

72. It wasn't that long ago, one couldn't mention C.S. in anything . . .

. . . but hallowed terms.

I got roasted once over that very thing.

Seems like times have changed.

[MilesColtrane]

68. Nobody seems to have told them that this time...

...the Democratic nominee didn't support the war and wants to end it.

But, why should that stand in the way of some good old-fashioned running at the cops?

[ColbertWatcher]

74. You're always welcome to take your frustrations out on the Truthiness Encyclopedia ...

... I started a page a while back to "counter" the Recreate 68 morans, here.

Everyone is welcome to post their own jokes, etc.

[coalition_unwilling]

77. I have decided to use this thread and its

condemnation of those exercising their First Amendments rights to update my Ignore list.

For the record, you are the jerk and all your words are now on Ignore.

[otherlander]

81. Recreate insane police brutality?

*shakes head in confusion* This is all very confusing.
1. I love anarchists.
2. I hate violent protesters. (The middle class ones, that is. Priveledged people like me have no excuse to be violent. If you're living in a ghetto war zone or impoverished third world slum, however, I would consider violent protest on your part to be misguided but forgivable.)

Maybe...

I don't know.