Photos of anti-war rally in San Francisco

While you might disagree with the sign, what did this guy do to indicate he was racist?

yea im confused too

That officer with the glasses is really cool. Everyone loves him.

I don't, particularly disagree with the sign - I certainly don't disagree with encouraging people to become vegetarian. It's just that particular quotation in the particular context of the march: to claim that the knife and fork are the deadliest weapons at a march to protest, among other things, weapons that have killed 100,000 people in Iraq suggests a certain lack of understanding of the seriousness of the war; an understanding I have a hard time believing would be so lacking if the victims of the war were white.

Admittedly, I'm just guessing that's the case, so 'racist fuckwit' is probably a bit harsh. 'Seriously misguided' is perhaps a more temparate way of putting it.

Whats wrong with these pix...In a city with majority African American there is not (1) one African American in any of these pix of gun hoe cops

Which city would that be?

I find it repulsive and hypocritical for people who want peace, participate so willingly through their eating habits, to vilonce and the horrors of the slaughter house. Eating animal is indisputably cruel, devastating to the environment and it contributes greatly to world hunger, famine and starbation through squandering of the earth. Finally, eating animals also contributes to big oil consumtion! At least half of all the fuel used in the US alone is used to produce dead flesh for humans to devour. I agree with the vegan philosophy to harm no one, human and non-human alike. Does who by choice hurt helpless animals for the sake of their glotony are hypocrites, war is not wage only upon humans. Towards animals, humans are Nazis!

the slaughter of Arabs with the slaughter of livestock.

No wonder they hate us.

they hate us because of our vegetarians

they hate us for promoting the words of one of the world's biggest anti-racist, anti-imperialists in history, and Indian man who also happened to have compassion for animals as well as people

it's not that we're bombing them or occupying their country. it's our hatemongering racist vegetarians. that's why they hate us. mystery solved

okay then

They hate us because, as a nation, and in more individual cases than not, we treat them as less than human. When you tell people their lives, and the lives of their loved ones are worth less than the lives of animals, if they don't hate you, they're not human. When you act like you mean it, they *know* who to hate.

If you don't believe me, go out in the street and ask individuals at random how they feel about their liife being, in your opinion, worth less than the life of a pig. When you get out of the hospital, be sure to report back here about your experience.

first, no one said that someone's life was worth LESS than a pigs. only YOU did. Gandhi said that all life was valuable, pain caused by humans should be reduced on all fronts, and many people believe that on a cultural level the wanton slaughter of animals goes hand in hand with the wanton slaughter of people. it's the exploitation of the less powerful "other." you are free to disagree and say the insensitity toward the suffering of people has absolutely nothing to do with the insensitivity toward the suffering of non-human animals, but many people do see a connection. Gandhi was one of the more famous ones to see that connection. he fought to get the Brits off of the Indians' backs and he fought to get all people off of animals' backs. he fought for a more compassionate world. he was big enough to be able to care about people and animals at the same time, and achieve good for both. because he cared for animals did not make him a racist, nor anti-human, nor does that in and of itself make anyone who sees the world as he did a racist. certainly, those who advocate for a more compassionate world and take Gandhi as a model are NOT going to be FOR a racist, imperialistic war


as for DIRECTLY putting animals ahead of people, maybe you can now answer for us all why you think that your dog is more important than affirmative action for minorities and women AND environmental protection. why is it that you are more concerned about your dog's "right" to run leash-free on the beach than racial and gender equality in this country? why would you use your IMC as a platform to promote a racist, property rights group, just so that your dog can run leash-free on the beach. no one is even suggesting your dog can't go to the beach at all, just some think it should have a leash on if it does so to protect a native species. and so you align your IMC with a right-wing, racist, sexist, anti-environmental group and hide the comments of anyone who dares point that out. if anything is racist, that's clearly it, no ifs, ands, or buts... you, as a white person, comfortably choosing the leisuretime pursuits of your dog over the hopes and aspirations and progress of minorities and women in this country, not to mention supporting the property rights mentality that favors personal property ownership OVER the well being of both people and our environment worldwide.

the hidden truth of SF-IMCs blatantly racist and anti-environmental associations: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719603
those who tell the truth there become the enemy: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719668

the unhidden truth about Ocean Beach DOG and Pacific Legal Foundation: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723.php


you are right about one thing: "as a nation... we treat them as less than human". and yes, it is a racist war. but, that is hardly vegetarians fault. and if *they* are upset about anything with Americans that has to do with animals, it is probably the near-obsessive pandering to our "pets", a multi-billion dollar industry, while we blithely dismiss injustices and inequalities in our own country, not to mention the rest of the world, supposedly radical IMCs hooking up with right-wing lawyers for the sake of the noble and urgent cause of unleashed dogs on a beach

That *sshole with the sign said that the "most violent weapon on earth is the table fork." In his opinion it is, and clearly in the opinions of his supporters. In the world's opinion, that's a patent and offensive absurdity.

This heinous atrocity was not committed with a fork, but a bomb. To tell us that a fork is more violent that a bomb, is a lie.

we kow the war is horrible, and this is not the only graphic photo of it's damage, irregardless of it being your favorite. and the photo still doesn't distract us from the questions that were asked of you and your blatant racism, no interpretation required to come to that conclusion


as for DIRECTLY putting animals ahead of people, maybe you can now answer for us all why you think that your dog is more important than affirmative action for minorities and women AND environmental protection. why is it that you are more concerned about your dog's "right" to run leash-free on the beach than racial and gender equality in this country? why would you use your IMC as a platform to promote a racist, property rights group, just so that your dog can run leash-free on the beach. no one is even suggesting your dog can't go to the beach at all, just some think it should have a leash on if it does so to protect a native species. and so you align your IMC with a right-wing, racist, sexist, anti-environmental group and hide the comments of anyone who dares point that out. if anything is racist, that's clearly it, no ifs, ands, or buts... you, as a white person, comfortably choosing the leisuretime pursuits of your dog over the hopes and aspirations and progress of minorities and women in this country, not to mention supporting the property rights mentality that favors personal property ownership OVER the well being of both people and our environment worldwide.

the hidden truth of SF-IMCs blatantly racist and anti-environmental associations: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719603
those who tell the truth there become the enemy: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719668

the unhidden truth about Ocean Beach DOG and Pacific Legal Foundation: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723.php

Back home in the islands we make the earth oven and barbeque the stray dogs with yams. Puppies are best. No leashes, no problems.

Dogs were here before your immigrant ancestors ever set foot on a boat, you f*cking hypocrite. A case can be made that their ancestors actually evolved on this continent. But even if they didn't, they still got here millennia before you. That makes them more native than you are. And that makes you a hypocrite. Shame on you. What's the matter with you, anyway? Didn't your momma ever teach you right from wrong?

but the question was not love of hate of dogs. it's the difference between dogs on beach with a leash or without.

that's yet another dodge

the question was why do you place your dog being allowed leash-free supecede affirmative action and environmental protection? why does having a leash-free dog justify SF-IMC aligning itself with racist, anti-environmental right-wing groups?

is that not racist to place your own dog directly over the progress of minorities and women in this country? would you align with the KKK if they were pro-dog? would you align with warmongers if they had your back on the leash issue? these are the questions to answer. namecalling is lovely, but does nothing to resolve these questions

odds are, you probably already have aligned yourself and SF-IMC with warmongers, as it is not too hard to imaging the Pacific Legal Foundation being down with the US war in Iraq.

hence you directly have a hand in creating more photos like the one you posted above

I can only hope that not too many other people have followed your links to the right-wing Ocean Beach dog group and become supporters of PLF and/or the war because of your maniacal love for your "pet" over all other living things

>the question was why do you place your dog being allowed leash-free supersede affirmative action and environmental protection?

That's two straw men in a row. I do no such thing. Dogs playing in the surf does not threaten the environment. It is *part* of the environment. Affirmative action is not even an issue here. That's a red herring.


>would you align with the KKK if they were pro-dog?

I align with dogs. Who else aligns with dogs is neither my choice nor my concern. Neither is it relevant. I would hope that *everyone* would align with dogs, and with pets in general. What else they believe is not a factor, nor in this context do i care, or should I.

Have you stopped supporting the anti-war movement because it contains guys like Pat Buchanan and David Duke? I didn't think so.

Love of dogs cuts through society all the way in every direction. Dog lovers come from all political persuasions. People who *hate* each other love dogs. And we stick together. So back off and quit wasting your time.

"Neither is it relevant"

"What else they believe is not a factor, nor in this context do i care"

that's about what I suspected

and it is not at all a straw man to point this out. your website asks people to support Ocean Beach DOG who is closely aligned with the racist, anti-environmental groups Pacific Legal Foundation, who actively fights affirmative action and environmental protection. there is a very direct connection -- it is not support of an idea such as "anti-war" that might have many adherents. this is a direct connection between groups actively working together. supporting Ocean Beach DOG is supporting PLF is supporting right-wing racist property rights activists. no two ways about it

maybe you can compartmentalize it all in YOUR head because it suits you, but most people would find that distasteful to say the least. and it probably wouldn't suit you so much if you were a minority or a woman, or even if you gave a damn about things like the endangered species act and environmental protection

Have you stopped supporting the anti-war movement because it contains guys like Pat Buchanan and David Duke? I didn't think so.

See also:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1771090

I haven't stopped, no. Neither would I recommend people support those who directly work with Pat Buchanan or David Duke, anti-war or not.

But that is not an apt comparison. You are comparing the support of an idea, dog's without leashes or the anti-war movement, with actually directly working with racist anti-environmentalists involved in either cause. That is not the same thing, and as you famously say, that is bunk logic.

one more time: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1771093

I don't support ideas. I support people. Ideas ain't squat. You can't eat 'em, you can't drink 'em, and they wont keep the rain from your head or the jackboot from your neck.

What matters is real life. In real life, the federal government will, if we let it it, dictate to San Franciscans what we can and cannot do on our own beaches. If you think for one minute they'll stop on the beach, you haven't read enough history. They have never stopped on a beach, not once in all of history. They have been stopped. They can be stopped. But they have never stopped on their own, nor will they, nor would they. Give 'em inch, they'll take the whole thing. Ask a Grenadan. Ask a Lakota. Ask an Iraqi.

The men who own the federal government of the United States of America are the most avaricious and acquisitive people on the planet today, and also the richest and best armed. These are very dangerous men. They have demonstrated repeatedly and beyond doubt that they want to control every square inch of this planet and everyone on it. Now we're in their sites. History is abundantly clear what's in store for us if we fail to resist by every means necessary. One day it's our beaches, the next it's our bedrooms, our kitchens, our minds and our children. And you want to *help* these people!?! Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame.

In all of history, the United States government is the most powerful weapon that the forces of evil have ever wielded. You are advocating collaboration. As far as I'm concerned, that makes you evil, too, and to be perfectly frank, not very bright, either.

I advocate total resistance by any means necessary, and not just in the abstract realm of ideas, but in real life, on the ground, in real time, by anyone and everyone with the suss , the courage and the resources to do it. I don't care what else they believe or how (or if) they vote. I don't care what they look like, how they dress, what they eat, what they do in bed or who their favorite pop star is. We're all San Franciscans. In one way or another, we all stand to lose from creeping federal encroachment.

The threat we face is not limited to wings, races, genders, generations, or orientations. It's not even limited to species. We are all at risk, every last one of us, and not just on our beaches, but in every square inch of the city we call our home. Is it really ours, or is it just another colony to be ruled and exploited by greedy and power hungry men who live time zones away and don't give a flying rat's *ss what we who actually live here want for our home? That is the question. Either we answer it or they will.

To summarize, the issue here is who decides what happens in San Francisco, San Franciscans or the federal government. I side with the people who live in this city. You side with the Butchers of Iraq. Ergo, I'm righteous and you're evil. That's all anyone ever needs to know about either of us or about our relationship. That's all on the subject that really needs to be said. Anything else is superfluous.

It took you a day to come up with that?

You are so wrapped up in YOUR dog and YOUR trips to the beach that YOU are happily in league with some of the most evil people in America today, the Pacific Legal Foundation, racist property rights nuts. The PLF are evil, very evil, and you don't care.

By the way, some very dear people to me have had many wonderful experiences with leash-free dogs on the beach, but that is not the only issue involved here. While I would be interested in compromises that could help them, I certainly would never ever shake the devil's hand to fight for it. That's the last thing we need is the PLF to win a case right here in SF that would weaken the endangered species act.

You can try to pump up your defense of leash-free dogs and your collaboration with the PLF as another fight FOR the Global Justive Movement, but it's simply about YOU and YOUR dog. That's really all you care about. If this fight has anything to do with the larger GJM, you are your collaborators are on the WRONG side of it.

Endangered species, bah humbug! Defending affirmative action, fuck it!

Ergo, you're a selfish person and I can see beyond my own petty concerns.

>It took you a day to come up with that?

Sorry. I had to work last night. I got around to it as soon as I could.

Look, this is not about *my* dog. It's not about *any* single dog. It's not really about dogs at all. It's about who decides what happens in San Francisco, the people who live here or the federal government.


>I certainly would never ever shake the devil's hand

That's a bald faced lie. You are siding with the federal government, i.e., the right arm of evil on planet Earth. The blood on its hands now stains your your own. So you have a lot d*mn gall to criticize anyone else's supporters. You're a hypocrite at best. At worst your a tool in the hands of the forces of evil. If we let people like you have their way, the feds will force their will on all of us, You're Quisling, Vichy, Judenrat collaborators of the first order and the highest degree. Shame on you. Go hang your heads.



>Endangered species

Plovers aren't endangered, least of all by dogs.



>Defending affirmative action

This is a lame attempt to change the subject. Affirmative action is not the issue here. The issue is federal encroachment on the right of San Franciscans to decide what happens in our own city. Most San Franciscans oppose federal persecution of dogs and dog lovers. You people don't, but you can't have your way, so you go running to the feds just like you used to go running to daddy when your were little kids and the other little kids didn't want to play by your rules. Grow up. If you don't want dogs to play in the surf, go to the beach and chase them yourselves. Stop running to daddy.

you speak for the world, as you said earlier

now you speak for the citizens of SF, too?

not about your dog? please

if we took a poll today what the citizens of SF think about dogs on the beach, the endangered species act, and affirmative action, I feel pretty sure you'd be on the losing side. but this isn't about populism.

and you're a liar about this not being about your dog. that's exactly why you are so fired up.

yes, I support the endangered species act. I think overall it's one of the few good things our government has done. as for the feds, there's many who would like to kill the endangered species act, almost all of them republican, so that is who you are making your bed with. Pombo anyone? http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1769898.php. all these fucks making the same property rights arguements you are here. you know who would benefit the most from the demise of the ESA? large wealthy property owners, that's who. most of them not your neighbors in SF, but they will buy the land and you will have no say in what they do to OUR environment. and so you are making your bed with them as well. the federal government is a big thing and does a lot of different things and it's really sad if you can't distinguish between park rangers trying to protect what little national public lands we have with "Butchers of Iraq". if the whole country were to take your opinion on this and confuse domestic environmental protection with an unjust war, then we might as well kiss our national parks goodbye -- they will sell to the highest bidders or maybe even just be given away to well-connected political cronies. nice.

and, sorry, but you can't collaborate with, help protect, and encourage support for a group that puts 1/2 of its energy into destroying affirmative action and wash your hands of responsibility in that

speak of running to someone, you are afraid your dog can't run leash-free on the beach, so you go running right up to a right-wing racist group, cuddling them, and then you cover/hide their mission as its an embarrassment to you and your IMC that you align with such foul evil anti-environmental racists

And you side with people who burn babies alive, and not just in Iraq, but right here in the good old US of A. You're disgusting. Have you no shame?

"people who burn babies alive"

park rangers? how many park rangers have you ever met?

I guess that means everyone who supports the endangered species act or government-enforced affirmative action or *any* function of the federal government for that matter supports "people who burn babies alive" in your deluded world?

sure, you go ahead and sign on with racist anti-environmentalists and the whole world as the private property of the wealthy. at least you don't hide your right-wing tendencies and your support of racist/anti-environmental groups any more. you clearly think you have made the righteous choice in working with the right-wing fucks the PLF and Ocean Beach Dog

happy dream world

You know exactly who I mean, the federal government. They burn babies alive. You side with them. What's that make you, besides a moral cripple?

it was you who first brought the park rangers into this discussion

if you need a refresher, go here: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1771097

endangered species act = park rangers = federal government = baby killers

right? all of the above in that formula are equally evil in your mind? or are there shades of grey all of the sudden for you now that you have more time to think about the crap you spewed here?

>endangered species act = park rangers = federal government = baby killers

They're lying. I said no such thing. I said there are two sides to the issue. As in most conflicts, there are unsavory people on both sides. But only on one side are their baby killers.

Personally, I'm educated enough to realize that who is on which side of a conflict is not the substance of the issue it raises, but a distraction being used by people who can't and/or wont address the substance of the issue.

The issue here is who decides what happens on Ocean Beach, San Franciscans or the federal government. The dog haters won't address this, the substance of the issue, because they know it makes them look bad. So they blow smoke.

That's the kind of people they are. These are animal rights fanatics we're dealing with. They have a long, thick, rich history of lying through their teeth, not just about what their real agenda is, but about basic facts on the ground.

See:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/politics/animal-rights/myths/part2/

(snip)

MYTH 2.14 "Animal rights groups' propaganda is truthful."

AR propaganda routinely makes fictitious claims, in order to win
support, and of course money, from people who have no access to
other information.

In the UK material produced by AR groups has repeatedly fallen
foul of the Advertising Standards Authority. Aside from the
examples cited elsewhere in this FAQ, the following AR claims (by
the National Anti Vivisection Society) were found not to meet the
ASA's 'legal, decent, honest, truthful' standard in 1994 (ASA
ref. B93-00281):

"Animal experiments are...misleading and unproductive"

"Animal experiments are bad science"

"They [animals] suffer from different diseases [to humans]"

PETA have also fallen foul of the ASA with their claim that
thalidomide passed animal tests with 'flying colours' (1)

When the group Anti Vivisection Agency placed an advertisement in several UK
newspapers in December 1992. Virtually every sentence was found
to be in breach of ASA standards(2) !

However, first prize for dishonesty has to go to the group Plan 2000. This AR group
produced fund-raising leaflets in which nearly every claim was found not to meet the ASA's
standards(3).

These are all examples of an independent body finding that claims
made by AR groups are dishonest and misleading.

In fact, such misleading material tends to be the rule rather
than the exception, leading to the conclusion that it is a
deliberate tactic rather than an unfortunate accident.

1) ASA Monthly Report no. 65 October 1996

2) ASA Monthly Report no. 19 December 1992

3) ASA Monthly Report no. 43 December 1994

(snip)

yeah, and you do deserve ridicule for the arguements you make

again with the attacking of 20 year-old AR statements? but also write that "who is on which side of a conflict is not the substance of the issue it raises". you reveal your hypocrisy many times over in a single comment. that deserves ridicule

"dog haters won't address this, the substance of the issue" -- really, now? who is trying to deal with the issue of dogs on the beach and the endagngered species act that stands in your way and who is trying to fling mud towards AR activists that have nothing to do with your fight between the PLF and the ESA?

"a distraction being used by people who can't and/or wont address the substance of the issue" -- again, it astounds how absolutely hypocritical you are without even realizing it. your big "AR myths" finale has what to do with dogs on the beach and the endangered species act, or the lawsuit Ocean Beach Dog filed with your friends the PLF?

as for "dog haters," this comes from a guy that thinks it's okay to do home vivisection on dogs without peer review, ethical boards, or any other commonly accepted scientific standards -- http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/1638570_comment.php#1716286. in his book, if you have a dog and psuedo-scientific curiousity, go for it, do with dogs as you please.

"Man is a clever animal who behaves like an imbecile. "
Albert Schweitzer

>again with the attacking of 20 year-old AR statements?

How old they are is irrelevant. Either they are true or not. If they are not, they are lies told by liars. If they are true, they are a threat made by dangerous lunatics to every pet owners everywhere.



>fling mud towards AR activists that have nothing to do with your fight between the PLF and the ESA?

What are you saying here, that the people attacking the valiant effort of San Francisco dog lovers to retain their equal right to beach access are *not* animal rights activists? Is that what you're saying? Yes or no.


>your big "AR myths" finale has what to do with dogs on the beach and the endangered species act, or the lawsuit Ocean Beach Dog filed with your friends the PLF?

It illustrates once again that the people attacking the valiant effort of San Francisco dog lovers to retain their equal right to beach access in the face of federal tyranny are dangerous lunatics who want to take our pets away and stop medical science from saving our lives, and are willing to lie through their teeth to achieve their goals.


>it's okay to do home vivisection on dogs without peer review, ethical boards,

(1.) Point of fact. My friends saved that dog's life. They gave him a loving home where he lived to a ripe old age in luxury. Not only did they save his life, but artificial blood substitute they developed in the course of their research has saved countless human lives.

(2.) Like most people over two and half, I can tell one dog from another. As with all thing, living or not, we must prioritize. People come before animals. Pets come before non pets.

"valiant effort of San Francisco dog lovers"

because you fancy yourself a heroic dog lover, you forget to mention that there are many other "dog lovers" who completely disagree with you. here's a few: Guide Dogs for the Blind, Action for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, PETA, the American Kennel Club, the ASPCA, the American Humane Association, Dogs Deserve Better. those are real groups with hundreds of thousands of members.

on your side on this issue is Ocean Beach Dog (an upper-middle class homeowning crazy lady from Pacifica with too much time on her hands -- see original post at very top here) and the right-wing PLF

don't be so arrogant as to assume that because you have a dog that you are of the only "pro-dog" opinion here. there are countless human friends of dogs who fully support the endangered species act AND affirmative action and DO NOT support property rights nuts like you, SF-IMC, ocean beach dog, and the PLF. they can see a bigger picture and put the interests of others ahead of their own, unlike you


and, yes, I am saying that your fight is between the PLF and the endangered species act on this issue, and frankly the feds don't really care what any AR activists have to say. PLF, in partnership with Ocean Beach Dog, is not suing any animal rights groups over the leash-free issue. if there is a general group you had a fight with beyond the endangered species act itself, it would be those who consider themselves environmentalist, not AR activists. you can go ahead and paste that "myth" thing here a 4th time if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't distract from the very real and active working relationship between your allies Ocean Beach Bog and the Pacific Legal Foundation to weaken the endangered species act while sympathizing with ending affirmative action


yes, indeed, know your enemies people, and in this case it would be extremely selfish people more interested in their own little worlds and property rights than endangered species and affirmative action for millions of minorities

Please show our readers the common human courtesy of not disrupting other thread. Talk about this in the appropriate thread:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1771685

yeah, it should be on the other thread, and yet you commented here how many times yourself in this very thread? how many times did you cut and paste the same clipart here that you did there?

weren't feelin' the dog hero arguement any more? weren't feeling that you alone don't omnipotently have exclusive rights on dog people thoughts?

okay then, I can let that go if you don't make that absurd claim again

aren't you THE editor of another website? I won't even bother to ask why you spend so little time there

and now you think you're THE editor here, too

"our readers"??? LMFAO!

of course, you continue to ignore the last point I made here. fine, but it you are going to ignore that, then, as you would say, STFU and stop pretending you are a moderator here

I am not the topic. Please show some common courtesy and stay on the topic.

the last real topic here was *your* valiant dog heroism

I refuted that you alone do not hold the magic key to the opinions of all "dog lovers"

then, rather than dealing with that, you became a make-believe editor here

show some decency and either deal with the issue at hand or STFU

Click here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1771761

narcissie: "Wrong thread"

translation: "Mommy, make it stop!"

@%<

madening determination that nutty editor from the other site has

refuses to address last real refutation but insists on commenting here over and over still, lots of sound and fury signifying nothing