Democrats want to destroy Central Park

[Rudey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/ny...24protest.html

Judge Rejects One Bid for a Central Park Protest
By DIANE CARDWELL

Published: August 24, 2004

A federal judge in Manhattan refused yesterday to force the city to allow a rally on Saturday on the Great Lawn in Central Park, after the Bloomberg administration and protest organizers failed to reach a compromise during a sudden round of weekend negotiations.

But city officials argued that since the $18.2 million restoration of the Great Lawn in the late 1990's, they have strictly limited large-scale events there with careful crowd control policies and plans to cancel events in wet weather. Without a way to guarantee a limit on the size of the crowd, an acceptable contingency plan and a bond to pay for damage, officials said, they could not agree to the rally.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Those people have no place in the civilized discussion of ideas. It's just become a recreation culture of its own. People that yearn for a return to the simple life of the 60's.. drugs, sex, and extremist politics.

[Rudey]

Seriously now with all these protests, who foots the bill on cleanup and damages?

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Rudey
Seriously now with all these protests, who foots the bill on cleanup and damages?

-Rudey

They need to send the bill to Soros.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I'm glad that they cannot protest on the Great Lawn in Central Park. If 75,000 to 250,00 people marched there, it would either be destroyed or at the least unusable for the rest of the summer. I don't know any New Yorkers, Democrats or Republicans, who want to see that happen.

There are plenty of alternate places for a protest rally. They will figure something out.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Peaches-n-Cream
I'm glad that they cannot protest on the Great Lawn in Central Park. If 75,000 to 250,00 people marched there, it would either be destroyed or at the least unusable for the rest of the summer. I don't know any New Yorkers, Democrats or Republicans, who want to see that happen.

There are plenty of alternate places for a protest rally. They will figure something out.

New Jersey sounds good to me...or in the Hudson.

-Rudey
--Not floating on the Hudson...you know?

[The1calledTKE]

Wow by the misleading title I thought hoosier had posted this. Just because the Democrats wanted to protest there doesn't mean they want to destroy the park. Democrats are usually known on their strong stance on environmental issues. Why do you think some people call them tree hugging liberal hippies? I am sure the protesters don't think they crowd will be to big or they would have gone elsewhere.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Wow by the misleading title I thought hoosier had posted this. Just because the Democrats wanted to protest there doesn't mean they want to destroy the park. Democrats are usually known on their strong stance on environmental issues. Why do you think some people call them tree hugging liberal hippies? I am sure the protesters don't think they crowd will be to big or they would have gone elsewhere.

Listen 75,000 protestors on a grass lawn that cost almost $20 million is quite a bit. If they didn't think it was too much they would be willing to pay the bond.

I don't think this is a misleading article title at all. I didn't say the environment but specifically pointed out Central Park. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these protesters fully understand that their gathering would do harm to the park and while they aren't out to harm the park, they are more than willing to accept that consequence.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Funny, I didn't notice the word "Democrats" anywhere in the linked to story.

"In denying the request, by the National Council of Arab Americans and the Answer Coalition, United States District Judge William H. Pauley III cited security concerns, the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the lawsuit, and the potential for damage from a rally of 75,000 people just two days before the start of the Republican National Convention."

If this group is "Democrats," is it also safe to say at the demonstrators at the Democratic Convention earlier were "Republicans?"

Grasping.

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by Rudey
Listen 75,000 protestors on a grass lawn that cost almost $20 million is quite a bit. If they didn't think it was too much they would be willing to pay the bond.

I don't think this is a misleading article title at all. I didn't say the environment but specifically pointed out Central Park. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these protesters fully understand that their gathering would do harm to the park and while they aren't out to harm the park, they are more than willing to accept that consequence.

-Rudey

It is the word want really. I doubt they want to. Something like protesters could have damaged Central Park could get across the same point. I do understand what your saying and why you posted the title. One could assume because the know the possible consequences , that they want to destroy central park. I would look at it as they thought they had to take to risk of damaging central park. They should have paid the bond. Oh well.

Plus the article did not mention Democrats. The protestors could be from any party. Most the protestors at the Democrat convention were anarchist or from other splinter political groups.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Funny, I didn't notice the word "Democrats" anywhere in the linked to story.

"In denying the request, by the National Council of Arab Americans and the Answer Coalition, United States District Judge William H. Pauley III cited security concerns, the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the lawsuit, and the potential for damage from a rally of 75,000 people just two days before the start of the Republican National Convention."

If this group is "Democrats," is it also safe to say at the demonstrators at the Democratic Convention earlier were "Republicans?"

Grasping.

It's safe to say that a large number in these groups are Democrats. The protests aren't organized by the Democrat party, but then again the title of this thread did not say Democrat party wants to destroy Central Park...does it?

-Rudey
--Keep trying

[Rudey]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
It is the word want really. I doubt they want to. Something like protesters could have damaged Central Park could get across the same point. I do understand what your saying and why you posted the title. One could assume because the know the possible consequences , that they want to destroy central park. I would look at it as they thought they had to take to risk of damaging central park. They should have paid the bond. Oh well.

Plus the article did not mention Democrats. The protestors could be from any party. Most the protestors at the Democrat convention were anarchist or from other splinter political groups.

There were quite a few Republicans at the Dem convention. But then again this title wasn't Democrat party but Democrats.

As for want to...their main goal isn't to destroy the Park, I give you that. But they are willing to accept that the park will be damaged, in exchange for getting their message across. And really who will their message get across to?? Will the Republicans decide oh yeah maybe I should switch my views?

Hoosier will post something ridiculous. He will have this type of headline: Kerry shows he is unreliable with Park protests and none of that will make sense.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
It's safe to say that a large number in these groups are Democrats. The protests aren't organized by the Democrat party, but then again the title of this thread did not say Democrat party wants to destroy Central Park...does it?

-Rudey
--Keep trying

OK. It was the same group, The Answer Coalition, who organized the demonstrations at the Democratic Convention. I guess that was the Republication wing of the organization.

Whatever, the topic of the thread is misleading. Unless someone can prove that the two groups (The Answer Coalition and The National Council of Arab Americans) asking for the permit are predominately made of up Democrats and that their aim is, in fact, to destroy Central Park.

By the way, there might even be some Republicans -- maybe even a lot -- in the groups, too. Somehow I doubt that they are predominately either, though. I did notice though that the Green Party is listed as one of their supporters. I wonder what that means?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
OK. It was the same group, The Answer Coalition, who organized the demonstrations at the Democratic Convention. I guess that was the Republication wing of the organization.

Whatever, the topic of the thread is misleading. Unless someone can prove that the two groups (The Answer Coalition and The National Council of Arab Americans) asking for the permit are predominately made of up Democrats and that their aim is, in fact, to destroy Central Park.

By the way, there might even be some Republicans -- maybe even a lot -- in the groups, too. Somehow I doubt that they are predominately either, though. I did notice though that the Green Party is listed as one of their supporters. I wonder what that means?

Do you have proof that they aren't in these parties?

The topic isn't misleading and again they understand fully well that they will be damaging the park, don't want to pay the bond, and still want to protest.

-Rudey

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by Rudey
New Jersey sounds good to me...or in the Hudson.

-Rudey
--Not floating on the Hudson...you know?

Better yet... give 'em a designated protest zone... Rikers Island! (For those not native or resident New Yorkers, it's the city jail.)