[kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?

[sade1]

Ooh, didnt mean to imply that. I was just reflecting back supposedly "accepted" standards at a POV that hinted at other standards.

On Sun May 29th, 2011 8:04 PM PDT Brendan Quinn wrote:


>The last several administrations in the US have done more to denigrate the

>memory of the forefathers than a bunch of 'dirty whiney hippies' did by

>dancing. 

>

> 

>

>How can you say you have a democracy when you don't get democratic outcomes?

>Who got to vote over the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars spent

>to bail out the banks who created a global Ponzi scheme which dissolved

>around themselves? Was that the will of the people, was it in their best

>interests? Who would have voted for that? 

>

> 

>

>Perhaps the one in seven Americans who use foodstamps.

>

> 

>

>Or the 938 000 people who were turned down for - mainly part time -

>McDonalds jobs.

>

> 

>

> 

>

>From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On

>Behalf Of sade1

>Sent: Monday, 30 May 2011 2:41 p.m.

>To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)

>Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?

>

> 

>

>> ..its just ingrained......   

>

> 

>

>  that, what.. despite the Constitution & the Bill Of Rights (that should be

>ingrained deeper than anything else even police may 'encourage'/'discourage'

>at any given place/moment) stating all unstated rights are the People's

>unless expressly legislated by Congress, that despite such 'quaint' and

>'antiquated' principles (they are 200+ yrs.old, after all) we shouldn't do,

>nay, we are wrong and fuckeen' criminals - outlaws! - in doing!, anything

>that, at most, the police won't like simply because they don't like? 

>Is there a law criminalizing "F[ucking] around and be[ing] 'cute'?" That

>would be THE ONLY decision worthy of defending then, not that (just/only)

>some cops just didn't like it. Right? I mean, LAWS are supposed to be

>defended, not cops' pet-peeves, and not cops just because they're cops and

>our love for Authorit-[attach suffix of choice here]. Right? I guess.. dunno

>anymore. 

>

> 

>

>> ..and were provoking the cops...

>

> 

>

>So, being [only] a smart-ass is now illegally Criminal (redundancy for

>emphasis)? I'm guessing if they would've actually crossed the line (i.e. the

>Law) you wouldn't hesitate a second to say so, so I may assume that you

>meant only a smart-ass? 

>

>I think the comment about that misses the real point, that the cops can

>indeed be provoked (by self or others) over something not rising to the

>legal-&-Constitutional standard of what is sufficient for A COP - not you,

>not me, not even a reasonable citizen-bystander - being provoked over. Or do

>the police now interpret the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, and every

>other prekkin' law out there now, or law-to-be AND set their own thresholds

>for provokation, as opposed to the Law?

>

> 

>

>> ..you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk

>away- that was a walk away 

>

>    instance--those guys got exactly what they knew they had coming... 

>

> 

>

>Since the subject is people's rights (to gather, assemble, dance, not take

>legally unsupportable police policy lying down, and similar) to the dancers'

>decision to dance, then your comment can reasonably be understood as, "you

>gotta know when to hold [your rights], know when to fold [your rights], know

>when to walk away [from your rights], - that was a walk away [from your

>rights] instance-- I'm sure it is - for some.

>

> 

>

>> ..those guys got exactly what they knew they had coming...

>

> 

>

>  According to what law (whether statutory or case), Constitutional

>amendment, or section of the Bill Of Rights? 

>

> 

>

>If we're gonna live acquiescing without question whenever Authorit-[attach

>suffix of choice here] arbitrarily decides it wants from us, well, there's

>plenty of countries already there where that's already existed since

>Forever. If we're gonna live in America, we need to fuckin' show some spine.

>

>

> 

>

>Or else, of course,

>

>"Ich hasse 

>

>   die Masse

>

>     die kleine,

>

>       gemeine,

>        den Nacken 

>

>          gebeugt,

>           die isst und schlaeft 

>

>             und Kinder zeugt .......

>

>   

>

>"The crowd was won/one - Oblivion ran deep

>   A consciousness of cannon fodder walking in its sleep,"  -- Beautiful

>Dead

>

> 

>

>  _____  

>

>From: "Devacor at aol.com" <Devacor at aol.com>

>To: gathering at misera.net

>Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 2:14:31 PM

>Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?

>

>

>I met that guy Adam at a (organized) Rally a few weeks before- the one for

>the Amish farmer the FDA raided...

>

> anyway, well being from the DC area its just ingrained  you don't really go

>and F around and be 'cute' at the monuments and memorials...

>

> 

>

> I'm all for freedom of speech, expression and organizing, and on paper that

>was really F'ed up and totally silly- but at the same time they were being

>smart asses and were provoking the cops- The cops did warn them and warned

>the guy Adam like 2-3 times before they put him down. I didn't see how any

>of that (on Adam) was really excessive, esp since he was resisting- he could

>have got it worse (which I get the feeling, that's what he was hoping for) 

>

> you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk

>away- that was a walk away instance--those guys got exactly what they knew

>they had coming to them after the cops warned them and they started being

>smart asses...

>

> 

>

> 

>

> 

>

> 

>

> 

>

> 

>

> 

>

>In a message dated 5/29/2011 2:33:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>folk.devil at hotmail.com writes:

>

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI

>

> 

>