Dude, it sounds to me like both sides were heated Digger, and no one deserves to be pepper sprayed unless they were reacting violently.
Comeon man, I expect more than that from you.
And you know me well enough to know that if people are acting a dick, it does not matter who they are going to vote for. And as with the Parlock story, I am simply pointing out that it is hypocrisy to condemn one act of violence agains peacefull protestors, while supporting another. There were allegedly children in the crowd in Oregon too.

"We don't believe it's an honest movie. Doesn't honestly state the positions of what he did."

This says it all though. How in the hell do they know what John Kerry did in Vietnam? His fellow soldiers have all spoken. They are the only ones that know what John Kerry did in Vietnam.

It is also my impression that the only part of the film that Kerry is even mentioned is in his anti-war days. We all should know what John Kerry did.

Heh. I'm sorry David, but not knowing that there is some other sort of violence doesn't make you a hypocrit. Not covering something doesn't make you a hypocrit and that doesn't mean you support another act of violence as well.

Chad I agree.
That is not what I meant.
What I meant was there is enough bad stuff happening on both sides. I try to be as balanced as I can in covering both, rather than just saying, geeze look at the Evil Republicans.

I am a liberal, but I can tell you right now that I do not support violence at all. It is not a solution, has never been a solution, and humankind should be far enough advanced at this point that it shouldn't even be in our vocabularies, let alone our actions.

As for Stolen Honor, I think that anyone has a right to see it. I would like to see it as well. I have actually read Kerry's testimony back in 1971 and I don't think it matches ... of course, this is my perception from soundbites from Stolen Honor and their website.

I think that Sinclair should show it, as well. Though, I do believe that equal time should be given to a documentary from the other side.

I agree on the Sinclair thing Rogue, except I don't think there needs to be equal time. Newspapers routinely endorse a candidate why can't TV stations?

I really wish CBS would just come out with it already and endorse Kerry as they have already all but endorsed him with their actions throught this campaign season.

I personally wouldn't care if ABC, CBS and NBC all showed Fahrenheit 9/11 the night before the election, but that's just me. It's already been so thoroughly debunked that it's purely an entertainment piece for those who hate the administration.

As for you David, look through history and see which activists are the violence filled hatemongers. The police simply go overboard at times containing them, but that's to be expected. If you see some hippie run up and punch your buddy who's just trying to maintain order you may whack him with a nightstick to get him off.

There's protests and then there's simple wanton rioting in the name of a cause, which is not the same thing and is a criminal act. Besides, according to Kerry all the police unions endorse him, why would they attack his supporters?

Equal time. See, that's the thing though. John Kerry was offered by Sinclair to rebutt the movie and the rebuttal was to be aired after the movie was. He declined.

I do not agree with the airing of Stolen Honor on television because it preempts national broadcasting, but this story is more about reactions from some loony people; sort of like the loony people on the right with Fahrenheit 911. People should not comment and of course should not resort to violence for a movie they have never seen. There's no telling what's in it.

"People should not comment and of course should not resort to violence for a movie they have never seen."

I agree, they should only resort to violence AFTER they've seen it.

;)

Or during, but never before. It's just not proper protocal.

Digger, if these people were violent, they deserved to be put down. I see no indication of that so far. So are you saying just the act of protesting deserves a boot in your ass, becuase if you are, you are not the person I thought you were.

The funniest part of this whole entry is that my banners seem to be running ads for Fahrenheit 9/11.

As for violence and movies I'll quote Eddie Murphy "Never get in the way of an Italian guy after he's just watched Rocky..." or something to that effect.

No David, but all too often these "protests" by the left turn into hatefests of violence. It's one thing to display your disagreement with something and it's quite another to deliberately take on the police, damage someone's business or property or assault a person.

What you're telling me is the cops went out there with the intention of deliberately shooting everyone with pepper balls? I mean come on my man I know you're smarter than that.

No, what I am saying is I dont know.

What I gathered from the article I posted and made further links to, made zero mention of the protestors in Oregon exhibiting any violence. Throwing objects, pushing or hitting people or destroying private or public property is violence. Yelling slogans is not violence.

Of course violence should be suppressed no matter what the political affiliation of the perpetrators are, but over reactions by the police or the people who are giving them orders deserves equal suppression.

As far as the Sinclair issue, the free speech problem is not that they wanted to run a film that casts Kerry in poor light, the problem is both that they wanted force the affliates to run it overriding the affiliates free speech rights and the fact that Sinclair is abusing the public airwaves by turning the film into a piece of propaganda by using subterfuge of calling it "news", which it clearly is not.

I have to agree with cul on the piece he posted (and I got from him). As for Sinclair, cul brings up some good points as well. But, Digger I honestly do not think that giving Kerry time to debunk the documentary is fair. Yeah, it is something, but it isn't fair. Debunking something is not the same as getting to show your own documentary of propaganda. And, as I have said, I haven't seen Stolen Honor ... but, from what the site quotes ... they are seriously trying to take him out of context. I would really like to see it, just so I could see what all they actually say on the documentary. I would like to compare it to the actual testimony that has never fit the spin that has been put on it.

Rogue, Chad was the one going for the equal time rebuttal, not me.

I also believe everyone that appears in the movie is a Vietnam P.O.W., so it would be hard to refute them claiming that John Kerrys testimony was used against them, in their cell, while they were being held.

I'm about sick of the whole thing myself. John Kerry is the one who brought up his Vietnam record and put it front and center and now when people speak about it the liberals claim they're just smear tactics. He shoulda just left well enough alone and not done the "reporting for duty" bullshit, all the ads with him in uniform and making his initial platform his hero days in Vietnam.

It was a mistake and now he's paying for it. Such is life.

Myself, I can't wait til it all goes away, I wasn't even born until the last year of the war and all I really know of it is Platoon and a host of other movies that have both glorified and propagandized it.

Being a vet myself, I could really care about either one of their records this far on in their life. I know that nearly 15 years on from my days in the Navy that I am a totally different person and 1000 times more responsible than I was then, and I'm nowhere near their age.

You are right, Digger, and I apologize. I knew it when I wrote it too, but I was thinking about what you said about the tv stations and your name got thrown in instead. Which, btw, I agree with you on that too. All the stations have decided who they are backing, regardless of what they say. I don't know why they won't come out and declare it publically either.

The thing about the whole Swift Boat/Kerry/Vietnam thing is that I don't understand how anyone can blame Kerry for what the Vietnamese did to POWs. 150 veterans testified in Detroit (Winter Soldier Investigation) and Kerry talks for two minutes about that testimony a couple of months later. The rest of his testimony was primarily about how we shouldn't be in Vietnam and how to get out of Vietnam. He was trying to get our soldiers out of there. Yet, he is blamed for the torture that happened after his testimony. Who was to blame for the reasons for the torture POWs received before his testimony?

It doesn't make sense to me for a group of people to hate one man for what he said 33 years ago in an attempt to get us out of a country where so many of our men were dying. Especially, considering he wasn't the only one saying it. Many, many, many people protested the war. Kerry wasn't the first to protest it and he wasn't the last to do so either.

And, for me ... the same holds for Bush. I see no reason for anyone to have issues with Bush for what he said or did while in the military ... even though the allegations against him are much different. Honestly, I don't blame any man from trying to get out of serving in Vietnam, if (and I stress IF) that is what Bush did.

Hell, to be honest, I don't give a crap what either of them did back then either. That was back then. It is not now. And, for me, honestly ... is has nothing to do with now. It is just something both sides use to slam the opposing candidate.

But, I did like Platoon. That was a good movie. :)

Last comment and it is gone with me too. Rogue, let's just assume that Stolen Honor calls John Kerry a yellow dragon. Now a yellow dragon is a horrible thing to be of course. They may have several facts in the movie but they twist it a bit and they "cut and paste" bits of Kerry's testimony all around and place this yellow dragon at places he was never at. They put words in his mouth and paint this yellow dragon as Satan's spawn.

This is wrong right? Of course it is. This is also exactly what Fahrenheit 911 did (and I have seen that) but Michael Moore didn't offer time for a rebuttal. Sinclair offered this.

Assuming the above is true concerning the movie, both the directors of Stolen Honor and Michael Moore are equally wrong in their portrayel of the candidate they do not agree with. Both stretch facts and play loose with numbers. Both "documentaries" are either completely fabrications or mostly fabricated to pursue their ideology.

Sinclair at least has the conscience to offer 30 minutes following the hour and a half movie for Kerry to explain how things went from his side. Bush was never given anything other than the hatred and vile language from those that believed everything Moore displayed.

Is it fair? No, but it's as far as a partisan movie can be. Sinclair offered to present opposing arguments to Stolen Honor by the man that supposedly (again I haven't seen Stolen Honor so I'm guessing here) was defamed in the movie because they called him a yellow dragon.

It is still an issue of Freedom of Speech and it is still an issue where some protestors caused a serious enough threat for the movie patrons to feel unsafe and the movie theatre to cancel the showing. This is not acceptable as well all agree in a democratic society.

Now on the issue of whether or not it matters if Kerry was this yellow dragon or not. To me, it doesn't matter. I personally could care less whether he was a hero or a yellow dragon. It was a long time ago and just like everyone else, they mature with age. I have argued many times that any type of digging into someone's past that brings questionable material out in the open and presented to the world damages the credibility of the Office of the President, no matter who that man is.

P.S. Yellow dragon is a made up term that I'm inserting as a derogatory stance in relation to what we believe Stolen Honor portrays John Kerry to be and has nothing to do with my actual opinions thereof.

Chad, I agree with almost everything you wrote. First, let me say that I have never seen F 9/11. I would like to see it too, for the same reasons I want to see Stolen Honor. I cannot even say that I am a fan of Michael Moore, either.

But, I think it is apples and oranges to compare Moore to Sinclair on one basis. Moore put his documentary in theaters. No one was made to show the movie. Sinclair is wanting to make it's affiliates (or whatever you call them) show the documentary on television.

Now, if Stolen Honor was released in theaters, I would say that NO ONE could say squat about it. Not even if it was shown every dang day before election.

And, if it was the other way around ... Stolen Honor in theaters and Sinclair wanting to broadcast F 9/11 on tv ... I would feel the same way. I feel that equal air time to candidates should apply on tv. I also feel that Sinclair should not be able to make anyone broadcast the documentary.

I believe that both the makers of Stolen Honor and Michael Moore have the right to make any documentary/movie they choose and twist, turn, spin, and lie all through them. We have the right to watch, not to watch, to debate their bull or believe it blindly. And, honestly, it seems that too many Americans (liberal, conservative, independent, libertarian, etc.) do the latter most often.

Only I know how drunk Digger got in the Navy! His history lives with me! Email me for all the dirt! Just kidding. I won't tell you about that Italian-Australian woman in Townsville for any amount of money!

Fact is that both movies WILL end up on TV eventually, so what's the difference?

But the fact people were threatened for going to a movie they were going to willingly, paying for willingly and would watch in an enclosed area where others weren't forced to watch it is a travesty and the leaders of your party should tell these radicals to cool it because it reflects on everyone in your party.

They're hurting your party more than you know and on a national scale. All for what? To stop a handful of people from watching a movie.

Ridiculous.

Anyone has a right to see anything they want at anytime, without intimidation. Freedom of choice requires freedom of information in order to choose freely. Left or Right, THAT must be safeguarded by all.

OK, from an old guy . . . And a Vet . . Mahatma Ghandi made non-violent protest a form of rebellion . . He was the "Hippie's Hero" till about 1965. They had protests about the government clear back to the early 60's . . It was always about something the Government was gonna (or not gonna) do . .

Then From Berkely, CA came the SDS and many other radical protest groups . . And the '69 democratic Convention was the worst, and they did abet the Communists in N.vietnam, the political implications both here and there were greatly affected by those protests and the testimony made public by a small number of vets.

Seemingly nowadays protest demonstrations (and even sports victory celebrations) almost always end in a violent display. It seems this last generation doesn't get it! "We Gotta kick out windows and Burn something!" They seem to have forgotten the "Non-Violent" part!

So, a violent demonstration by people who have actually no knowledge or information about the object of their protest doesn't surprise me in the least. Doesn't matter what it was about! Face it . . IF just half of the voting bloc knew of John Kerry's actual Congressional record, they would not only refuse to vote for him, they would probably tar and feather him and try him for Fraud!

But that would be asking the average citizen to "Go read something!" and not to exist on sound bites generated by the Media who is in a complete conflict of interest by reporting what they choose to on one hand and accepting over 300 million dollars for political ads on the other!

Very few of the younger, emotional, Hate Bush or Hate Kerry people even know who their candidate is and where he's from . . let alone anything that might qualify either one for a position of leadership

Of the two movies made mention of here, Michael Moore's piece is probably the worst of the two, but then that's not saying much either! Both are kinda like watching one of those bad reality shows . . You have to be REALLY out of anything to do, and really Fucking Stupid to sit through any of them!

OK, Ok I'll go get back on my Prozac now . . .

Never mind

"Well if the below story shows how the liberals were acting then they fucking deserved it. I'm getting fed up with this violent protest crap, it's an election, not the end of the world. You want to act like a vicious criminal and think that's the way to get out your message then bend over and take it and don't whine about how you were "mistreated" in the papers."

You are misinformed. The majority of the protests have been peaceful. Many, many people have been mistreated or wrongly imprisoned. Do you know that a judge here in NY released hundreds of protest prisoners due to the fact that they were either wrongly arrested, kept without arraignment or access to an attorney, compounded with the squalid conditions found at the Chelsea Piers "wharehouse" where people were kept? Did you know that the police threw huge orange nets over entire crowds of people and took them to jail, including legal observers and casual bystanders? You don't really know anything about what really happens during protests do you? You just search for the first rebuttal and condemnation with the belief that the protestors are always wrong to begin with, because the very act of protesting the Bush administration is a traitorous act which demeans the bravery and lays assault to the morale of our troops in war. Right? But you forget that half of this country and much of this world does not approve of the subterfuge and machinations undertaken by this administration. You forget that there are those who refuse to be stifled, for they have the right to object, vocally, passively, resistively, to what they percieve as an administration that threatens democracy and integrity in this country.

As for Jacksonville, Oregon. I was born not but a few miles from there. It is a small, VERY peaceful town. It is a very historical area with little shops and peaceful tree lined streets where disruptions are almost unheard of. That has always been a pretty conservative area, though there is a good balance of liberals as well. The people that came out to voice their support for John Kerry with their children and friends and to protest George Bush and his war on everything were residents and locals who were doing nothing except observing their constitutional right to free speech. It is very sad to me that you don't recognize the oppression and violence that was perpetrated by law enforcement (and by order of the president) that day and the stark reality that Bush supporters were not treated even remotely in the same way. It's even worse that you believe they "deserved what they got." No child, or peaceful protester deserves to be shot with a stinging pellet from the rifle of some asshole clad in riot gear. They fired shots into crowds on the sidewalk to get people to "move" so that Bush would not have to witness the dissent. (Do they do this during parades or other events where the sidewalks may get crowded? No. I guarantee you they do not.) And it wasn't done this time due to violence, it was done to make an impact, to frighten people into silence, to assert power and control.

To shield your president from the thing he dispises most; being confronted by protestors the same way he was on the day that he was inaugurated in the White House. Because he believes himself to be a ruler, not a leader. Not one of us: someone who needs to rise up to the trust that we've placed in him - but ABOVE us.

We are the people. We have the right to protest. We have the right to express our dissent against a tyranical government. You can kid yourself that everyone who is mistreated during protests is "whining" or "deserved it," but all it does is reveal how pathetically misinformed and how readily willing you are to live in comfortable denial of reality. You have no concept of what occurred here in NY during the RNC and you're clueless about the reality of what took place in Jacksonville, Oregon during your president's visit. But I guess it's easier to tell yourself that regular U.S. citizens peacefully observing their given right to protest deserve to be oppressed by a militant order because they shouldn't be protesting in the first place. They should shut up and trust the totalitarian administration to do what's best for them. Well sorry for you that everyone else in this country isn't as complacent and happily ignorant as you.

Damn Digger. You sure know how to bring out the moonbats. You too are misinformed Digger. We live in a tyranical government with a ruler, not a leader. Bush is evil! I spit on the man that we voted into office. He's only your president Digger. He's not the protestor's president. Despite what the cameras recorded with the physical confrontations, it was peaceful and it was in a peaceful town. Bush manipulated the cameras and the news coverage. He is evil! You are just dumb Digger.

Peace out.

Maria, I do understand your position.

"As for Jacksonville, Oregon. I was born not but a few miles from there. It is a small, VERY peaceful town. ... The people that came out to voice their support for John Kerry with their children and friends and to protest George Bush and his war on everything were residents and locals who were doing nothing except observing their constitutional right to free speech. It is very sad to me that you don't recognize the oppression and violence that was perpetrated by law enforcement (and by order of the president)"

You do realize that the police in that area ARE ALSO RESIDENTS AND LOCALS. One minute you're talking how the town is "Pleasantville" and the next you are calling a portion of their residents "violent and oppressive".

"... being confronted by protestors the same way he was on the day that he was inaugurated in the White House."

You seal any argument of rationality when you protest someone before they've even done anything. What were they crying about at his inauguration?

Let's take a rational thought on this for a second, if Gore had been declared the president after the recount would you see a bunch of violent and massively disruptive protests from the Republicans? No you wouldn't and you know it. We'd suck it up and go on with our life as best we could until our next chance.

Time and time again we see how your protests get out of hand and then you expect the right to give you the benefit of the doubt when a situation occurs? I'm sorry, but I'll agree with law enforcement before some guy out there calling the cops pigs, our country a disgrace and tossing stuff at those just trying to do their jobs.

You know, I am dissapointed in both of you, Chad and Digger. First off, the Republicans do NOT just move on, they tried for 8 years to get rid of Clinton and failed.
Secondly, I have seen the video, and I did not see ANYONE get out of line in that protest. Third, the police involved were State Police, who could have come from anywhere, what the hell is up with you guys when our patriotic right to protest is being violated and you think its okay because it is in contrary to YOUR guy. And dont be a hypocrit, under the standards you have just outlined I was right about Parlock and his kids, Anyone who protest deserves to have their clock cleaned.
The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental one in this country. I thought Conservatives above all would support this.

Well FUCK you liberal cunts anyway. Anyone who got in MY face over a movie would come up nine teeth short.