Leftist Thugs

Don't paint all of us with that broad brush of yours.

In doing so, you really couldn't be more wrong.

Where's this acrimony from you when those on the extreme right do similarly shameful things?

First off, he said "leftist thugs", not "leftists." Second, care to come up with some specific instances of rightists doing similar things?

RC: "Second, care to come up with some specific instances of rightists doing similar things?"

Sure:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=115

Sorry..

Here it is in link form

Mark: Oh c'mon. The thugs in New York are mainstream leftists for the most part. None of those nuts you linked to could gather thousands of people for any sort of protest, &c.

Recognizing that motorists were inconvenienced by the demonstrators, I have to confess that I was expecting something a little more heinous when I followed the links. How will you respond if something genuinely nasty and anti-social occurs?

Mainstream? Really? I don't think the mainstream of any ideology advocates and participates in this kind of stuff.

Mike: True, no one was injured, from what I gathered. Maybe it's not as bad as I felt it was initially. What really pissed me off is that these people have no respect for the rule of law, and were surprised that the police would arrest them.

Mark: There were thousands of people involved, and supporters "three blocks deep". That sounds pretty mainstream to me. None of the neo-Nazis and so forth that you linked to could gather a crowd like that.

Mainstream leftist opponents of the RNC? Sure.

Mainstream leftist who commit vandalism and other "thuggery"? No. Those people aren't mainstream leftists.

Wow, Michael, that grabbed me right through my monitor. Not used to seeing something that assertive from you.

Nevertheless, you embody the feeling of a lot of people right now, and that's good.

You know, even the title from the second piece you linked ('Whose streets? Our streets') puts across very well, the arrogant, disrespectful attitude of many on the left.

Note to Mark: Before you wig, re-read the paragraph. I said many, not all.

It's the same attitude shown when Hollywood bigwigs got up at a support Kerry/Edwards event comparing Bush's last name to the female anatomy, and Kerry responding that these weirdo's were the "heart and soul" of America.

Statistically (my own observation only) the right sometimes loses the initiative because they fail to engage the left with these types of mean-spirited tactics, and lose for taking the high ground.

These same cyclists would freak out if someone in a car would counter-assert that cars had a right to the road as well.

As a afterthought, I believe the right to assemble is stated as the right to peacefully assemble. What's peacefull about clogging streets to project the idea that Republicans aren't wanted in New York?

Oops! Screwed the link up. It was supposed to be:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125976,00.html

I think the bombing of abortion clinics definitely qualifies as a shameful act committed by the far right. I know how much I hate being lumped in with those people, so I kind of think Mark is correct here. It's not fair to imply that this is the way leftists behave based on this incident.

Leftists are different from liberals, just as rightwing nuts are different from conservatives. Get it right.

"I think the bombing of abortion clinics definitely qualifies as a shameful act committed by the far right"

You've gotta be kidding with that one. No wonder you didn't put your email address in the post.

Michael,

I think you grossly overreact.

People ought, instead, to be concerned that Bush mislead them into war.

I remember reading stories of the British acting as if Ghandi were a terrorist.

Reminds me also of people who thought that white South Africans were the victims and the oppressed blacks were the troublemakers.

JT: I work with a good number of people from India and they all assure me that Gandhi was not the romantic, angelic figure that many in the west portray him to be. Much of the current Muslim/Hindu violence in Pakistan and India come from his plans to remove the Muslims from the general population and such.

Anyway, even if Bush did mislead us into war, there is a proper way to protest and a proper way to get rid of him. Tying up traffic and endangering lives and vandalising property aren't acceptable.

I've never supported violence and breaking the law in an attempt to make a political, social, economic, or personal statement. It makes no difference to me if it's ALF (Animal Liberation Front) doing it or anti-abortion zealots.

In any case, I'm a little put off that you dismissed the far right as "not able to put that kind of crowd together".... as if to imply that these groups haven't or won't be able to cause any harm to the rest of us. Hate groups aren't measured by the crowds that they can draw. They're measured by their actions. Terrorists, by the way, won't be able to form large crowds of supporters either in this country... but as we all know, what they do is very damaging.

Mark: Don't try to change the argument. I wasn't talking about "dangerous", I was talking about "mainstream". If you want to talk about danger then I'll conclude you concede the first point.

I'm not sure what "first point" you're talking about.

As I said, mainstream people.. regardless of ideology.. don't get violent or destroy property when they protest. (or in any other situation, for that matter).

Your categorization of these people as "mainstream" is incorrect. Do all of the people who were there oppose the RNC? Sure. Did all or even most of them (the three-blocks deep crowd) engage in thuggery? No.

As for changing the argument, I was not doing anything of the kind. The original argument can continue.. along with the additional related issue I raised.. at the same time. I believe that's why there's things like paragraphs and transitional words and phrases.