After months of liberals quaking in their Birkenstocks about non-existent violence at peaceful Tea Party protests across the country, it bears pointing out what actual violent protest looks like. We just witnessed that at the G-20 protests in Pittsburgh, where anti-capitalist (read: left-wing, socialist) protesters hurled rocks at police and vandalized private property. Police responded by firing tear gas canisters and using pepper spray. Nearly 200 people were arrested.
I'm sure the condemnations of the violent G-20 protesters will be forthcoming from our media and politicos, any day now. It's funny though, because I had a very difficult time sourcing this post. There are so very few stories about the G-20 violence on the web. Hmmm. Maybe our media have all gone on holiday. That's probably it. I can't blame them. They are probably worn out from trying to invent violence at all the Tea Parties over the last six months. It's gotta be hard work trying to invent something out of nothing. It's like alchemy, trying to turn lead into gold. Exhausting and time-consuming work, and after all the effort, you still have lead. The media deserves a rest. I hear Havana is lovely this time of year.
I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and company will be calling the G-20 protesters "extremists," "mobsters," "fearmongers," and "racists," any day now. I'm sure that they will castigate those protesters for inciting other left-wingers to violence. While they are at it, they can throw in some stuff about how filmmaker Michael Moore is calling people to violence and assassination with his new anti-capitalist movie, Capitalism, A Love Story (fun quote from Moore – "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil."). After all, I know how concerned liberals are about this stuff. I've been hearing about it for most of the year.
Oddly enough, when I did some web searches about what happened in Pittsburgh, liberal bloggers, after months of nail-biting about violence breaking out at protests, were not very concerned when actual violence did break out at the G-20 (because THEY were the ones perpetrating the violence). No, no. The liberal bloggers were only concerned about the POLICE BRUTALITY used to stop the protestor violence. I kid you not. Never mind that the police were motivated by the protesters breaking windows out of a dozen businesses. I assume the police weren't overy thrilled with having rocks hurled at them either.
Reading through various braindead comments at a liberal blog called the Democratic Underground (DU), now it seems the far lefties are bitching about the police state we have in America. If only I could find a bottle with a genie in it, so I could make a wish and transport all those clueless libs from their parent's basements to an actual police state for awhile (like any of the socialist utopias liberals dream about), so they could see what it's really like. That would shut them up.
My favorite liberal blog comment at DU came from a guy named Big Dan, who asked plaintively, "Why do only liberal protestors get tear gassed, why don't the Teabaggers ever get it ?"
Gee, I don't know Dan. Maybe it has something to do with the rocks and vandalism. I'm sure you can figure it out if you think REAL hard, for once.
{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
from Counterpunch……
http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley09282009.html
King sez…..And your Ron Paul example was a pretty clear example of a Libertarian distinguishing himself from the Republican party,….." I was against the war so I guess that makes me a libertarian.
no, walter, that makes you a desperate and irrational person who is clinging to any shred of illogic to avoid looking foolish.
You've failed.
Ron Paul is a republican….period. It is asinine to suggest that Paul was being a libertarian when he opposed the war in Iraq. Ron Paul, unlike you, didn't think it was a bad idea He knew that according to the United States Constitution only Congress can declare war. The invasion of Iraq, according to our Founding Fathers, was just flat out illegal.
Understanding and abiding by the Constitution isn't just libertarians…….it should be ALL Americans.
kinda leaves you out
just saying
Fact-challenged as usual, walt.
Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. He then decided he could effect change better in one of the two major parties, and ran for Congress as a Republican. His beliefs never changed.
The invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Congress authorized it, as the Constitution mandates.
The Bosnia war by the Clinton administration was illegal. Congress didn't authorize that one. You could also make the case that bombing Pakistan is illegal. I don't remember any Congressional authorization for that either.
Stick around, I'll teach ya.
King sez…."Congress authorized it, as the Constitution mandates." What Constitution you talking about? Certainly not the U.S. Constitution.
That, by far, is the stupidest thing you have ever said.
"Stick around, I'll teach ya." it WAS the stupidest thing until you said that
this from Reason no less……."The leaders of the world's 20 largest economies and the press covering them came to Pittsburgh last weekend. It's unfortunate that the images that emerged were not of a society that values free expression and constitutional rights, but one that at big events gives its police the sort of power to impose order normally seen in authoritarian states. In all, 190 people were arrested, including at least two journalists. One, a reporter from the left-leaning IndyMedia, says her camera was returned broken, with her footage of the protests and police reaction deleted. "
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/05/scenes-from-a-crackdown
King sez….."Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988"
this from wikipedia…….Political party Republican (1976-1988)
Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election)
Republican (1988-Present)
he was a libertarian what 4 months out of a 33 year career of being a republican?
how stupid can you get?
← Previous Comments