portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation dnc & rnc actions

Bill Maher says RIOT!

Take it for what it's worth...  http://dc.indymedia.org/media/all/display/20793/index.php
Bill Maher wants to see protesters riot at the RNC in NYC!
 http://dc.indymedia.org/media/all/display/20793/index.php

homepage: homepage: http://dc.indymedia.org/media/all/display/20793/index.php

go bill ! 30.Aug.2004 04:04

! ! !

It's for real.

"I'm talking about good old-fashioned rioting, the kind that made whitey move to the suburbs! I want to see you light that giant papier-mache Dick Cheney mask on fire and torch the nearest Gap store!"

Maher's still pissed about losing his old broadcast TV job for saying "the wrong thing" after Sept. 11, 2001. He doesn't give a fuck what anybody thinks now. This is a great three-minute speech.

It's too bad stuff like this can only get on TV if it's labeled "comedy." It's fucking medieval. A thousand years ago the only guy in the country who was allowed to criticize the king was the court jester.

RealVideo sucks of course.

Yeah, but it's still satire 30.Aug.2004 07:54

Pacifist Activist

Watching the clip and interpreting Mahar's tones during various parts, I come to the conclusion that he's dead serious when he says he wants to see serious protests, but he's satirizing and having some fun at the expense of all us left-wing do-gooders when he talks about rioting and other violent acts. He's using us for laughs in exactly the same way he uses the imperialists.

Yeah, he's a liberal, and gets the conservatives all riled up. Lost his network slot because conservatives don't know how to laugh at themselves. Let's not make the same mistake they did and take his satirical look at violence literally. We CAN get our messages accross loud and clear without resorting to unprovoked and unwarrented violence - which often has the effect of negating our message, whether we started it or the cops do.


That's the problem 30.Aug.2004 11:30

Josh

The proiblem is that there are times when "getting our message out" isn't enough. We have 400,000 people in New York being largely ignored by mainstream media and changing very few peoples minds. If those same 400,000 people were really willing to challenge this system in the way Bill is suggesting there is almost nothing we could not accomplish. The message sent by 400,000 people walking through the streets is, "We don't like Bush, but we aren't willing to do anything about it." The message that would be sent by 400,000 rioters is, "Kill children overseas under false pretenses and suffer the penalty here at home." Huey Newton pointed out that the ONLY weapon the poor in this country have is the power of being a potentially desturctive force, and I think that all the aging hippies and pacifists need to start understanding that.

Small minds think alike 30.Aug.2004 16:43

ynot

According to Josh:

"The message that would be sent by 400,000 rioters is, "Kill children overseas under false pretenses and suffer the penalty here at home." Huey Newton pointed out that the ONLY weapon the poor in this country have is the power of being a potentially desturctive force, and I think that all the aging hippies and pacifists need to start understanding that."

Sure this idea points to someone who cannot spell or for that matter think for himself. Damaging some innocent persons property is going to do nothing for the cause but will most certainly turn people off. The power is the buck, voice and the vote, Josh get off your ass and go out, earn some money for a goiod cause and get people to vote. I know it is much harder than throwing a rock through some small store owners window but good things come to those who work hard and use the system. Dont be a lemming, think for yourself.

are you saying the founding fathers have "small mind" 30.Aug.2004 16:50

patriot

"Damaging some innocent persons property is going to do nothing for the cause but will most certainly turn people off."

Hmmm, yet all successful social justice movements have relied on property destruction and theft. Read some history and being to understand how change comes about. Hint: it's not through voting.

Not exactly true ... 30.Aug.2004 18:26

Jody Paulson

The problem with most violent revolutions is that the country ends up being led by violent people. I understand where you're coming from, Patriot, but you're forgetting Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the nonviolent revolution in South Africa, to name a few. I know it's frustrating because we all know that while peaceful marching sends a message, it's just not enough. We need to take direct action -- *intelligent* direct action. Like what those folks in Oakland did at the docks. Throwing rocks through windows pisses off the little guy. Hit the REAL fat cats where it hurts -- their pocketbook. Sometimes I think that all it would take to bring the whole "New World Order" to its knees is for everyone to stop going to work.

who's advocating violence 30.Aug.2004 18:45

patriot

You need to read a little more carefully. Did I say anything about violence or revolution? No I pointed out this simple fact: "all successful social justice movements have relied on property destruction and theft." Yes, this includes the Indian independence movement, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, and the Civil Rights movement in the United States. And I agree, general strikes are very effective as are many other forms of direct action. Voting, however, does not seem to have a historical precedent for instituting change. Nor does raising lots of money for a cause, to the best of my knowledge. Is it really so wrong to look to history for what has actually worked in promoting social justice?

Direct action gets the goods. 30.Aug.2004 23:10

Sons of Liberty

Again for those who conflate property destruction or general disobedience (strikes, etc.) with violence, here's what good old Mahatma Gandhi had to say about it:

When asked if blowing up a train used for the British occupation of India was violence, Gandhi asked if it was a passenger train or an ammunition/supply train. If it was a passenger train and people were killed or injured, it would be violent. If it was a train filled with guns and ammunition and someone destroyed it without harming any living thing, it would not be violent.

In the United States, the American Revolution simmered for over a decade in the 1760's and 1770's with property destruction, riots, etc. against the Stamp Act, Sugar Act and Quartering Act before finally overflowing in 1774 and 1775 into open revolt.

Visualize the Revolution of 2012!

Yep, nonviolent resistance is affective, gov'nr 31.Aug.2004 03:36

Violet Dawn

You seem to fail to see the state of India today with child sex labor, the filled prisons with black men with even Howard Zinn saying that if the present state continues that we will have all black people imprisoned for free corporate labor in the US, and the still esculated situation in South Africa. Your advocates for nonviolent resistance are poor ones indeed. In fact to continue your logic I would add the Jews during WWII, the indians who fed the pilgrims, and slavery as an example of nonviolent resistance that worked out in the end.

silly 31.Aug.2004 06:35

me

As interesting as this conversation is, it's completly pointless. These same issues get argued over and over. Violence/non-violence, direct action/horrible interpretations of history, property destruction/violence.
Read. Read something a white dude did not write. Bobby Seal, Bell Hooks, or John Afrika are great authors to start with. If anyone thinks "Martin Luther King's non-violent movement" did anything but allow a few new kinds of folks into the middle/upper classes, you should check out some prison stats, anything you can find about the MOVE organization, the COINTELPRO program, or anything about the American Indian Movement.
Yeah, India is a real neat place to be if your not slobbering fuckin' rich, huh?
Voting? Now, that's just laughable. Clinton? Columbia? Drug war?
READ, RESEARCH, DON'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU READ IN "NATION"

Ps.Tons of people can't fucking spell should they not be able to say what think about a post on here. It's a real damn silly thing to look down on folks for.

Obsolete 31.Aug.2004 07:14

me again

Oh, and the whole "violence alienates people" arguement is also silly. consitering the lifestyle of most Americans (or the global north/economicly "advanced" nations in general) in and of it's self is violent. Not in a direct physical way often, but the atrocities and oppression that happen every minute to give them the cheap products, the precious natural resources, state sanctioned murder, war, violent entertainment, etc. it seems as though most folks in this kind of society are are turned ON by violence, not the other way around. Think.

enough already 31.Aug.2004 17:59

had it with you liberal peace nazis

"which often has the effect of negating our message"

This is bullshit. Bull fuckin' shit, and I'm tired of it.

The mainstream media devoted lots of time and space to explaining what the WTO was and why people had problems with it after N30 -- at LEAST as much time and space as they would have if there'd been no nasty, horrible, evil window breaking. If there'd been no window breaking, the Man would have called the street blockades "violent" and accused the blockaders of (*) potentially blocking hypothetical ambulances and (*) attacking the cops with various entirely fictional objects such as rocks and bottles. If there'd been no civil disobedience at all there would have been hardly any coverage of the protests and NO detailed explanation of why everybody was so riled up.

why do i even read this shit 31.Aug.2004 18:03

barf barf barf barf barf

How the fuck does "ynot" know how "hard" Josh works?

And what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

BACK TO WORK, TROGLODYTE! KNOW YOUR PLACE!

Fuck your one-dollar-one-vote world and your smug assumption that you "earned" what you have by yourself.

WTF? 31.Aug.2004 18:08

wow

The "revolution" in South Africa was not nonviolent.

Those of us who haven't been living in plastic pods until last week will remember that Mandela was often criticized in America for NOT preaching nonviolence or presiding over a nonviolent movement. The ANC WAS engaged in armed struggle. That the Gandhiheads would seek so blatantly to retroactively co-opt such recent history boggles my mind.