Hardcore Democrats Go Nuts Over Short-Haired Photographer

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's a link to a thread over at the Democrat Underground, a big web forum for nutty dems (at least I hope they don't represent mainstream dems!)

Apparently, there was a protest march for something in DC recently.

Lots of assorted kooks. One kook took offense to a man who was taking photographs and, well, read for yourself:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...89x71258#77549

I promised this guy HIS picture would be on the web:

Mr. NoSheep, in red the sweater in the background, brought to my attention 2 men with military haircuts and no protest signs, badges or anything, taking pictures of a particular group of marchers. This group was near the back of the march, with a wide yellow banner calling for an end to discrimination against Middle Eastern/Islamic peoples and justice for Palestinians.

I remembered a video I watched on the web not too long ago, where cops and other official agents were taking photos of protesters at a march (perhaps in Oregon?) and the cops basically incited a riot and singled out those who they believed to be "leaders" in these activist groups. I wanted to knock the camera out of his hand but this guy was steroid HUGE with an unmistakably deadly vibe. So I put my sign in front of his camera. He turned and literally growled and sneered "BACK OFF!!"

I asked him why he was taking these kids' pictures and he said I was all about "rights" until it came to his.
:eyes: I don't have to tell you what a nonsequitur that was.

Anyway...I yelled at him a little bit because it made me so angry that someone like this even exists. I told him I thought he should leave these people alone. Then I just thought "I need to take this guy's picture!" So I did. I wonder what was going through the mind of his buddy standing there with him. You can see his eyes behind the glasses. Maybe the scenario will make him think for just a split second in the future. Or maybe he has a chip in his head too like the other guy. He felt like Robo-cop or the Terminator or something. Programmed.

Who does he work for I wonder? He was not taking photos for a memento of the march. He was collecting info.

So, a kook sees some well dressed guy with short hair taking pictures and instantly starts hating him, and might have physically assualted the photographer if the kook wasn't such a coward or if the photgrapher was smaller.

They seem to decide that this person is not allowed to take pictures. So much for tolerance, huh?

Of course, in the thread the nuts go wild, calling him a facist, 'nazi scum' (3rd comment), inhuman, etc.

To some people's credit, they did try to calm the hysterics down, but they were in the minority.

CR

[Marshal Murat]

I think he assumed that the photographer was some sort of CIA or FBI agent who was trying to pick out targets to kill because BUSH HATES DEMS!

It's in the eye of the man. The two short haired photographers could have been for the BBC, photographing the march about how America is so Tolerant of marches.

[Xiahou]

If they don't want anyone to see or notice them, you have to wonder why they go out and join a protest march...

and might have physically assualted the photographer if the kook wasn't such a coward or if the photgrapher was smaller.

That part was priceless... "I would've assaulted him, if I wasnt such a wuss".
Also, wasnt this a "peace" protest?

[Del Arroyo]

Well if you ask me, those guys probably were gathering information. Given this likely fact, I don't see anything too unreasonable about the poster's reaction.

He was not offended by their appearance, he reacted because he put two and two together and realized what they were probably up to. This is nothing new folks, it is something that our various intelligence and law enforcement agencies do. It's not like they're looking to snuff anyone, just trying to keep tabs on people.

[Watchman]

Around here it was long a running joke among Greenpeace members that fact alone was enough to earn them a SuPo (the Finnish state intel agency) file...

...waittasec, that'd mean I had one too. Oh well, I'd have achieved something in life then.

[KukriKhan]

Around here it was long a running joke among Greenpeace members that fact alone was enough to earn them a SuPo (the Finnish state intel agency) file...

...waittasec, that'd mean I had one too. Oh well, I'd have achieved something in life then.

Do you guys have a "Freedom of Information" law, where you can request to see what info the gov't has on you? Could make for some fun reading, especially if they've redacted some stuff (blacked out the text, etc), allowing you to fill in the blanks.

o'Course they'll keep track of THAT, too (the request), so use wisely...

:)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well if you ask me, those guys probably were gathering information. Given this likely fact, I don't see anything too unreasonable about the poster's reaction.

He was not offended by their appearance, he reacted because he put two and two together and realized what they were probably up to. This is nothing new folks, it is something that our various intelligence and law enforcement agencies do. It's not like they're looking to snuff anyone, just trying to keep tabs on people.

What they did was immediately judge the man by the clothing he was wearing and his haircut, and then wanted to hurt him, became confrontational, while they were at a 'peace march'. A filthy hipocrite.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

This is the heart of America.

[Goofball]

What they did was immediately judge the man by the clothing he was wearing and his haircut, and then wanted to hurt him, became confrontational, while they were at a 'peace march'. A filthy hipocrite.

Crazed Rabbit

"Filthy hypocrite?"

American police, military, and airport security agents do this thousands of times every day, but you seem to be okay with that...

[Adrian II]

Apparently, there was a protest march for something in DC recently. Lots of assorted kooks.

Speaking of prejudice and judgmental attitudes. Pot, meet kettle.

[Fisherking]

I would say he has some grounds for that assesment if you read the post/posts on the link provided…

The last post I saw on that thread made the most sense thought. "Some guy taking pictures, what's the big deal".

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

"Some guy taking pictures, what's the big deal".

"Just some camera opposite the street, taking pictures of my house, what's the big deal".

Not happening of course...yet.

[Redleg]

"Just some camera opposite the street, taking pictures of my house, what's the big deal".

Not happening of course...yet.

Well if your attempting to sell your house - no big deal.

If it is the tax assesor - its a big deal - but its still legal.

If your house is of historical significance or of an age that makes it a historical artifact - again no big deal.

If its a part of a criminal investigation - still no big deal. Taking pictures regardless of the purpose is not a violation of one's rights unless it is done in conjecture (SP) of another illegal act. For instance being a peeping tom and taking pictures that way.

When one is in the public setting - one can expect that certain things will happen - because why - your in public.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Speaking of prejudice and judgmental attitudes. Pot, meet kettle.

Moi? I daresay I am not prejudiced, but am merely stating facts- one needs only look at the protestors or the persons posting in that thread to know that there were, indeed, a lot of what are known scientifically as 'kooks'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

Moi? I daresay I am not prejudiced (..)

Aye me hearty, I think ye be bein' a bit paranoid yerself.

[Mooks]

Everyone in that thread is a complete wackjob. The thread poster deserves to be in a straightjacket though.

[JimBob]

There is a residual fear in the left of things like Project MINARET from the 60s and 70s. People are still afraid the FBI is photographing marchers and forming FBI files on them. Its not that strange, a friend of mine's mom has/had an FBI file because she was at a number of rallies in the 60s. Their fears are not totally unfounded.