Republican bullies

dustdrvr · Post by **dustdrvr** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:13 pm

I have attended Bman since 1999 and would like to continue attending far into the future. :)

My concern is about the Republicans using Bman to inflict policital harm on Sen. H. Reid (D-Nev), the current Democratic minority leader in the Senate. Senator Reid is a Democrat in a state that voted for Bush in 2004. The Republicans consider his seat vulnerable.

The Republicans (through their media outlets like Rush, Sean, etc.) would claim that 30,000 half-naked people are running around high on on drugs on BLM land. (Republicans rarely use any subtlely or nuance when getting out the "facts". They might even point to this website as evidence of nudity and drug use, [color=blue]poll-what is your favorite drug while attending [/color][color=blue]Bman[/color]?) Republicans could also argue that children under the age of 18 (even if they are in the accompaniment of their parents) are being subjected to abuse and endangerment by being in the indecent environment.

Their intention would be to force the Senator to defend Bman and thereby embarass him in front of the voters of the state of Nevada. They would want to know why the Senator is allowing this kind of indency to continue in his state on government land. Would the Senator, a moderate Democrat and a Mormon, be willing to do that? He is not up for re-election until 2010, so Republicans could wait and begin their campaign just prior to his re-election (assuming Sen. Reid runs again), but will they?

The Republicans could also use Bman right now to take attention away from Tom DeLay. They might pressure the BLM to recind its decision allowing Bman on BLM land. Do you think the Republicans have any second thoughts about pressuring low level BLM administrators to recind their decision? If that didn't work, wouldn't they just remove the BLM administrators and replace them with people that would make the decisions they wanted?

If the BLM were to recind their decision, Larry would have to go to court to argue the decision be stayed. Wouldn't this battle take resouces and attention away from day to day activities? Do burners want to argue about the decency of Bman in the court of public opinion?

If the Republicans win, get Bman moved to private property, they offer further proof that they are the party of decency (as well as embarrassing the Senator from Nevada and maybe picking up another Republican Senator in 2010) and the Democrats are not. If the Republicans lose, the BLM decision is stayed, then they point to the judiciary again as not making moral decisions. But wouldn't the damage have already been done?

How would burners feel about having their event in the Republican media spotlight? Would there be religious protesters outside the entrance scolding sinners? Could burners count on the main stream media to cover the event and be "objective"? Who among elected officals is willing to step up and defend "30,000 half-naked people high on drugs"? Wouldn't that be the end of their elected career? Remember the Republican media machine cares little about nuance, just large generalizations taken from small facts.

What sort of compromises might Larry have to make to continue on BLM land? Would there be a greater law enforcement presence? Would everyone have to remain covered up? Would there be law enforcement officers using "probable cause" to search Bman camps? Would burners come back the next year if such activity occured? If they did come back, would they bring their lawyers with them?

Am I being to paranoid when it comes to Republican zeal for power, their willingness to get involved in low level state decisions and their willingness to bully whomever gets in their way?

Do I ask too many questions?

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:00 am

There are more conservatives that attend Burning man than you might think. Libertarians, Republicans, ex military of all sorts as well as active military people. Radical self reliance fits right in with conservative core values. I don't happen to be one of them. But the presents of all kinds of people is what first attracted me to Burning Man where else can you see hard core survivalists and candy kid ravers all pretty much getting along.

Of course the Republicans that attend tend to be thinking people so the Neo- con's might consider them RINOs

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:58 am

Troll

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:18 am

Joel, normally I'd agree with you. But starting next week when Frist and Reid get into their nuclear exchange over the filibuster rules, this might not be so far fetched. While the post is a bit over the top, there are some kernels of fact in there that very well could happen. And a few of the questions are ones I've wondered about for at least 2 years or longer.

The poster might be a troll...but perhaps a little feeding might serve a purpose.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:10 am

Kinetic IV wrote:The poster might be a troll...but perhaps a little feeding might serve a purpose.

might i suggest a letter to your Senators and congress-person?

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:34 am

Already done....en masse followed up by phone calls. Next?

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:15 am

convince others to do the same...

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:24 pm

My first thought was, "Let's cross that bridge when we come to it." If we dwell on "coulds" and "might bes," we'll drive ourselves straight up a wall and halfway across the ceiling.

But, it's never a bad idea to keep a weather eye out.

Let's also keep in mind that about half the country voted <i>against</i> the Republicans in the last Presidential election. I'm closely watching the selection of the next Pope; if he turns out to be a conservative like J2P2, that'll be an ego-boo to the conservative side.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:41 pm

Bush
(Incumbent)
62,040,606 51% 286

Kerry
59,028,109 48% 252

Nader
411,304 1% 0

i guess you could say 48% is about half... too bad they weren't voting FOR someone, as opposed to voting AGAINST someone.

personally, beyond what i have already said... prepare for the '06 congressional elections, then '08.

the journey of a thousand steps begins with the first one.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:19 am

how many ifs in that OP?

GamBoozer · Post by **GamBoozer** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:25 pm

I really dont think that BM could become a target in the Neo-fascist republican strategy. While yes, enough debauchery, illegal "immoral" behavior goes on there to make a neo-conservative instantly rapture to hell, they cant imagine what goes on there cuz they will never be there.

That is what is cool about the inconvience of dust storms and camping in the extremes and the psuedo underground reputation of burningman, neo-conservatives wrapped up in their everyday life of wallmart and mega churches will never get a taste or glimpse of what goes on in small isolated sections of the US. It's just too much trouble... too isolated, and occurs too infrequently to be targeted.

Fat Americans just dont even know of BMs existence, and this secrecy is what will keep it going on for decades to come.

ThePikey · Post by **ThePikey** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:40 pm

GamBoozer wrote:Fat Americans just dont even know of BMs existence, and this secrecy is what will keep it going on for decades to come.

From your lips to God's ears my friend.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:48 pm

Fat Americans just dont even know of BMs existence, and this secrecy is what will keep it going on for decades to come.

You are naive.

To the nth degree.

GamBoozer · Post by **GamBoozer** » Mon May 02, 2005 12:12 pm

ya probably, there is alot i dont know about.

But i do know in a nation approaching 300 million, a localized event like BM will not warrent any significant media attention, and hopefully stay out of the sights for any "moral" political agenda.

BTW, "Fat Americans" is a sterotype I used to describe the typical, ignorant, rude, politically unaware, american. Sorry to offend if you happen to be a fatty.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 02, 2005 12:16 pm

<plonk>

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Mon May 02, 2005 12:22 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:<plonk>

i'll see your <plonk> and raise it <PLONK>

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Mon May 02, 2005 12:23 pm

GamBoozer wrote:BTW, "Fat Americans" is a sterotype I used to describe the typical, ignorant, rude, politically unaware, american.

This country is a cosmopolitan one. I prefer to use the Sanskrit word "avidya" in reference to people like that ("avidya" means "unseeing" — it refers to people who don't know and don't want to know).
I once met a guy from Germany who assumed that since our educational system here is so screwed up, that Americans don't know bugger-all about the world. I expounded on the Silk Road, the countries it goes through, and its history...he came away with his head spinning

GamBoozer · Post by **GamBoozer** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:13 pm

Wow, the 2nd post I ever put out and I get Plonked twice for trying to contribute to the discussion.

Hopefully I will run into you plonk people at the Burn and offend you on a higher level.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:37 am

Let's not, and say you did.

hunter S · Post by **hunter S** » Tue May 03, 2005 8:53 am

I can't help it ...as a nevada resident (Reno) I have to respond Troll or not. Harry Reid, Republicans, Whoever ! the economic relivance to northern NV via Burning Man is huge. let the locals sort it out! if anyone (I.E. Republicans) want a target don't you think leaglized prostitution would come first? I'm not going to loose sleep over some parinoid, far fetched, idea. remember follow the $$$ and sleep well.

GamBoozer · Post by **GamBoozer** » Tue May 03, 2005 9:08 am

ya, your absolutely right, they wont attack a viable source of revenue that probably is tied politically to the state.

Reminds me that the christo evangelicals or republicans never seem to attack the glorious porn industry, a multi billion dollar industry.

No paranoia here... just thinking about stupid stuff fueled by my hatred of republicans.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue May 03, 2005 9:55 am

GamBoozer wrote:ya, your absolutely right, they wont attack a viable source of revenue that probably is tied politically to the state.

Reminds me that the christo evangelicals or republicans never seem to attack the glorious porn industry, a multi billion dollar industry.

No paranoia here... just thinking about stupid stuff fueled by my hatred of republicans.

and from where i am sitting... your hatred of republicans IS stupid stuff.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Tue May 03, 2005 10:19 am

They would want to know why the Senator is allowing this kind of indency to continue in his state on government land.

Senators have absolutely no authority over the administration of public lands in the state. Political hay may indeed be made over Burningman, but this is not the tactic that right wing nutjobs would use.

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Tue May 03, 2005 7:36 pm

Hmmmm, this "blyslv" fella hails from New Mexico. I'll bet he's some kind of a hippie or something.

Hi elielieli!

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue May 03, 2005 10:48 pm

GamBoozer wrote:Hopefully I will run into you plonk people at the Burn and offend you on a higher level.

People on the board have a tendency to irritate and say things they would not in person, especially where politics are concerned around b-man. Its usually a heated topic, and there are always those who look for conflict.

falk · Post by **falk** » Wed May 04, 2005 10:51 am

blyslv wrote:... this is not the tactic that right wing nutjobs would use.

I'm convinced there is no tactic too slimy for right wing nutjobs to use. Examples abound.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed May 04, 2005 10:57 am

blyslv wrote: Senators have absolutely no authority over the administration of public lands in the state.

It's federal land, not state land. US senators would have some sort of juristiction over the BLM as a federal agency. They wouldn't have any juristiction over Nevada State Land. There is barely any Nevada State land--80% is federal with state, county and private making up the other 20.

And I'm really , really stupid to be posting in this thread.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Wed May 04, 2005 11:06 am

spectabillis wrote:
GamBoozer wrote:Hopefully I will run into you plonk people at the Burn and offend you on a higher level.
People on the board have a tendency to irritate and say things they would not in person, especially where politics are concerned around b-man. Its usually a heated topic, and there are always those who look for conflict.

beg your pardon.

i am far worse in person than on the boards.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Wed May 04, 2005 11:21 am

falk wrote:
blyslv wrote:... this is not the tactic that right wing nutjobs would use.
I'm convinced there is no tactic too slimy for right wing nutjobs to use. Examples abound.

sliminess knows no party affiliation...

why do you think they called him "slick willie"

or the lady of the house, Barney Frank... or better yet...

Massachusetts favored son Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy

personally, i don't think most liberals could lead themselves out of open field... and that is a shame.

GamBoozer · Post by **GamBoozer** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:45 pm

Poliltics is slimey. So what is your point?