Can you say Abby Hoffman? He had violent run-ins with the cops in *every*
protest. And he always managed to get into the news.


Abbie Hoffman provoked the violent confrontations, just like your Bush voter
did.


I bet you didn't denounce *him* at the time.

You wouldn't know. I think you were two yeras old at the time. I guess that
explains how you can be educated and still be a radical conservative- you
haven't seen it fail before. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Can you say Abby Hoffman? He had violent run-ins with the cops in
*every*
protest. And he always managed to get into the news.


Abbie Hoffman provoked the violent confrontations, just like your Bush
voter
did.

That was only half of my point. The other half of my point was that
liberals seem to only side with protesters when those protesters are not
liberals.



I bet you didn't denounce *him* at the time.

You wouldn't know.

Sure I would. You admitted in the past to being quite the hippie, no?



I think you were two yeras old at the time. I guess that
explains how you can be educated and still be a radical conservative- you
haven't seen it fail before. :-)


I can go along with that. But we won't *let* it fail this time.

Sure I would. You admitted in the past to being quite the hippie, no?

I never, in my whole life, met anybody who described themselves as a "hippie",
(except maybe some kids from the burbs who thought hanging a peace symbol off
the rear view mirror of the car Daddy gave them made them one).

The Weathermen, the SDS, etc, etc, etc
were a different group than the folks the press would have traditionally called
"hipppies" in the 60's. I used to laugh when
there would news about a "hippie demonstration" or "hippie riot"- the folks I
knew and who I believe the press must have been referring to, in general, when
they remarked about "hippies" were generally apolitical and not at all inclined
to "riot" about anything. Who gives a rip who runs the country when the "real"
world stops at the edge of the communal farm?

You youngsters can't be blamed for not appreciating the distinction. All you
can hope to rely on when trying to understand
the 60's is a series of sensationalized press reports.

About 15 years ago, a younger business associate came to me with what turned
out to be a funny story. It seems that I had po'd a competitor by quickly
snatching up a lucrative deal he had been attempting to close for quite some
time. This competitor was also acquainted with my business associate, and he
called him, in a furious mood, to ask if I was in the office. He told my
associate that he was going to come over and beat the sh*t out of me for
"stealing" his customer.

My younger friend dissuaded him by remarking, "I wouldn't do that. Everybody
knows Gould used to be a hippie- so he'll beat your ass to a pulp!" (What a
laugh!)

Obviously my younger associate and my competitor shared a common image of
"hippies" as some sort of Hell's Angel group, or something. (Maybe lucky for me
that they were so misinformed and so quick to assign me to a stereotype- saved
me a fight.)

You seem to associate "hippies" with Abbie Hoffman, the SDS, Charles Manson, or
the Symbionese Liberation Army.
I guess you had to be there, or you'll never
really understand. :-)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:24:18 -0400, NOYB wrote:


That was only half of my point. The other half of my point was that
liberals seem to only side with protesters when those protesters are not
liberals.

I'm assuming you didn't want to use *not* above? I haven't heard of Kerry
asking people to sign "oaths of support" before being allowed to hear him
speak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep9.html