May 08 2008
Thugs Terrorize City With Media Assistance
The picture above is from the New York Daily News and is a nice tight shot of some of the protestors who threatened (and failed) to shut down the city yesterday. Led by the insufferable race baiting douchebag, Al Sharpton, hundreds of people appeared at each of a few strategic locations around the city. They had no intention of protesting. Their stated intention, and they made this loud and clear from minute one, was to “shut down the city.” When people reacted negatively, Sharpton changed his tune to call it a “pray-in,” but in the end, the locations were chosen because they could do the most damage to the city (or at least they could if you’re a complete idiot, but I’m not talking about execution; I’m talking about intent).
My question is a simple one.
If Osama bin Laden and his scumbags had made a threat to shut down the city, how long do you think we would have put up with it?
My guess is not very long.
But in this case, Al Sharpton and his band of merry goons incited the city into a frenzy (or at least the succeptible idiots that showed up for the “pray-ins”) and announced the locations he would be protesting in. Following suit like good little soldiers, the media echoed every single press release from Sharpton’s organization and actually helped to organize the rallies for him. For the mere price of a fax, the National Action Network had the stupid NYC media eating out of the palms of its hands and organizing the rally for him.
How insane is that?
That we allowed this to happen is ridiculous. That we allowed the media to organize it for him is even more ridiculous.
That it’ll probably happen again at some point and there probably won’t be any repurcussions or outcry over it is unacceptable.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
It’s funny, when I was a kid, I thought the news just reported what happened, unbiasedly. Now I realize they shape opinions based on their bias. They always report on how society is changing for the worse, but the reality is, that’s where they direct us.
And this is stupid. You want to have a sit-in or a pray-in, fine go ahead, I’ll just step over you. You want to “shut the city down”, and I say we call in the rubber bullets and tear gas. That just sounds like a threat to me, and one that doesn’t rule out violence. So if you’re amassing a group that size at strategic locations and that is your goal, I’m sorry, but in order to protect the city (that you want to shut down), something needs to be done.
They act like they are The Beatles and Martin Luther King Jr, when they’re more like… well, like Vin says… more like street thugs. Thugs who think they don’t have to respect the law. In my book, you don’t like the law, fight to have them changed. Write to your congressman. Become a politician. There are lots of ways you can become involved (even if it’s for a stupid cause like this one). But the minute you advocate “shutting the city down”, you position yourself not as adversarial, but as a terrorist in nature. Plus you look like a dumbass.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
You don’t even need a job to get things done.
Just ask Al Sharpton. He’s a millionaire and doesn’t even have a job
May 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“like street thugs. Thugs who think they don’t have to respect the law.”
John Locke believed that, by adhering to a law with which you disagree, you are giving tacit consent to the validity of the law.
I think this issue potentially has some philosophical roots.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Sure, it does have philosophical weight. But see, I can argue many things philosophically that do not work in practice. If everyone reacted this way to every verdict, we’d have anarchy.
Laws and social norms are all just made up. Everything that we do on a daily basis is random and forced upon us. But the alternative is Mad Max. As a kid, I wanted that. In reality, not so much.
So I’ve got your back philosophically and conceptually, but reality is a whole different thing.