And THAT'S my point. Protest all you want, I don't care. But when you start breaking the law, I get angry. You can't give anyone an inch these days....


Are you gentlemen just playing Devil's Advocates here, or do you really think what they did was within the boundaries of "the right to PEACEFUL protest"?

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Are you gentlemen just playing Devil's Advocates here, or do you really think what they did was within the boundaries of "the right to PEACEFUL protest"?

Were the actions of Colonists toward British troops on March 5, 1770 peaceful? I'm thinking not. And that helped form this country.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

However, beating up cops and doing the typical "ohhh look at us, we're anarchists" stuff really has to go.

Were they beating up cops? Didnt' the cops have riot gear? Certainly they weren't just taking it.

When you have that many riled up passionate and rowdy folks in one area property damage is inevitable. Still doesn't make it right.

I also think McCain and Palin shouldn't be protested, they're not even elected yet, but the protesters most likely take issue with the Republican party as a whole.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

Were the actions of Colonists toward British troops on March 5, 1770 peaceful? I'm thinking not. And that helped form this country.

Hey brother, I got news for you. Bush ain't taxin our tea yet. LOL. You can't even compare the two governments... Completely different issues, completely different times.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

Were they beating up cops? Didnt' the cops have riot gear? Certainly they weren't just taking it.

They weren't taking it, but if they dish it out, then they get fired and sued by the pus-I mean cat- that got hurt. They can only arrest.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Hey brother, I got news for you. Bush ain't taxin our tea yet. LOL. You can't even compare the two governments... Completely different issues, completely different times.

They weren't taking it, but if they dish it out, then they get fired and sued by the pus-I mean cat- that got hurt. They can only arrest.

Both governments have a disdain for personal privacy... both wanted to keep their subjects safe.

So let them arrest. Coming here and crying about it doesn't do anyone any good.

Two completely different times, again I'll say you CANNOT compare the two.


Who's crying about it? We're simply discussing the differences we've noticed with the two conventions.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

Were they beating up cops? Didnt' the cops have riot gear? Certainly they weren't just taking it.

Happens all the time everywhere.
Cops have riot gear for only one reason: so they can take it with a reduced risk of injury. Needless to say it's very hard to fight wearing that sort of stuff.

And in this day and age, cops can be sued for unnecessary force.

cops can be sued for no force. Cops have a tough job and certain elements of the govt have made it even harder through the years.

Right... Unfortunately.