By restricting these "evil" regimes, you just hurt the people...
It transpires from the above statement (the quotes around "evil" in particular), that you don't really dispute the effectiveness of the sanctions in principle. You just disagree with their application to the particular regimes listed, because you think, they aren't evil.
The ruling class have enough money to buy servers in other places and proxy them, or just rent blocks of ips from foreign companies and have them rerouted etc...
And as long as they have to do this, they have fewer resources for something outright nasty. But, again, that's not the root of our disagreement...
So you really think that giving credit to the idea of expecting money for a work nobody asked you nor promised compensation for is not puerile?
That's how most businesses operate. They bake bread, for example, that nobody has ordered yet, for example. Your (and QuantumG's) illogic, would suggest, it is Ok to steal such bread, because it was not requested by anyone...
That's an increasingly dangerous pastime of late... Freedom of speech is not what it used to be now that the fighters for tolerance are increasingly intolerant and opponents of hate overwhelmingly hateful. Even speaking out against gay "marriage" will cost you...
The old sentiment of "I disagree with your opinion, but I shall fight for your right to express it," — is long gone... Consider, for example, the opening sentence of this highly moderated posting.
Not in Iran or Syria, but in North Korea the only people with any Internet access to begin with are the Shining Kim himself and, maybe, a handful of lieutenants. Inconveniencing these assholes as much as possible has a point...
hopefully everyone will switch to something non commercial like Jabber and the only ones to suffer will be Microsoft.
Hopefully, all of the Instant Messaging providers in the US (and thus — in the world) will implement the same set of restrictions on traffic originating in evil regimes...
It is good to see people getting good and passionate legal representation — and even bona-fide criminals deserve it.
But lost behind it all is the primary problem — "Thou shalt not steal". Because, if the 10 Commandments were a "living and breathing document", the "Thou shalt not copy content without owner's permission" would've been found in it long ago.
So, you refused to answer the challenge... I guess, you just did not realize (because the newspapers have failed in their duty to keep you informed) before, just how much of a disaster your choice of Vice President really is. As a penance, you are required to vote straight Republican in whatever the next elections you vote in...
The "proportion", huh? That's a rather transparent and silly attempt at sophistry, isn't it?
Not at all... When comparing politicians and officials, keeping in mind the number of their subjects is absolutely necessary.
Based on motivation, goals, and results it's not even close.
The evil of Che's motivation and goals surely exceeded those of Hitler's. Even if Hitler succeeded in exterminating all of the world's Jewry (and the hapless Gypsies), Che's success — a Communist regime world-wide would've been worse. Hitler aimed to genocide about 12 million Jews, plus a few more million of other "untermensh" peoples. Che's hero Stalin has killed over 30 million of USSR's citizens (through labor camps, deliberate starvation, and mass executions) even before his war with Hitler started...
If Hitler were to prevail in imposing a Fascist regime world-wide (which, BTW, does not seem to have been his goal), it would still have been better, than a similarly all-encompassing Communist regime. Because Fascism is Communism-lite. Hitler's personal bent on genocide was an aberration — neither the rest of prominent Nazis, nor allied Fascist leaders, like Mussolini or Franco, shared it. Franco's Spain was the safest place in Europe for Jews, in fact, during the WW2. Romania — a Fascist ally of Germany — would not participate in the genocide either, and Jews living on territories occupied by Romanians have largely survived the war. On the other hand, there is no Communist regime in history without mass-murder: North Korea, China, USSR, Cuba, Cambodia have all experienced it... And Che promised to continue:
I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
For that reason alone (and there are others), aiming for world-wide Communism, as did Che, is worse, than aiming for world-wide Fascism, as, maybe, did Hitler...
Like I said, he was a hard man, in many ways a bad man, and a misguided man but he did have an interesting life.
Well, if their having "an interesting life" is all, that's needed for you to put somebody's portrait on your body, you can, indeed, cover yourself with faces of tyrants and criminals... Peaceful hard work and honesty "are for suckers" and tend to be boring (witness Hollywood's obsession with Mafia, lesser criminals, and, indeed, Che Guevara). But it would still be major turn-off for me, to know a girl has done this...
You could make an argument he was a bad man, though comparing him to Hitler is laughable.
Why? The proportion of Cubans killed per day because of him was far larger, than that of Germans under Hitler — before the big war... Hitler (and Stalin) started wars, yes, but Che Guevarra wanted the same — his desire to blow up New York, for example, and other American cities is well known to people, who pay attention.
On very careful examination, we may still find Hitler to be more evil, but it is by no means certain...
Mexico and many third world nations are the best capitalist nations in the world because they don't have a middle class. The middle class in general is bad for capitalism, you can outsource their jobs to foreign countries or import cheaper labor here.
I don't have any idea, why you've decided to change the topic to "middle class". I did not mention it...
People actually died due to air pollutions
People also die due to car-accidents (number one killer, AFAIK) and what not. I don't know, why you brought this up either.
It's odd that you equate the Government to only the federal government
I don't, but the current Administration does: obey our rules, or be denied piece of the tax-pie, that you've contributed to and/or will be contributing to (paying off deficits). As for my "mistake" — this discussion grew out of NPR-sponsorhip, which is currently done by the federal government (plus "viewers like you")...
You're making me seem like a far more liberal person than I truly am.
Your "dream" of a "smart government investing in our future" is perfectly inline with the Illiberal position... I did not mean to insult you, but you may wish to double check, what is it, that you wish for... As for your claim to be a Libertarian, I'm doubtful — your position is that of a NIMBY — you'd like a limited government, but still want it to "invest" in things you like. Including, apparently, some entertainment...
But letting the government run TV or radio
Am I being trolled?
You said, you'd prefer Sesame Street without McDonalds commercials. I would too, but there are only two ways to get there: make it into a subscription channel, or have government fully sponsor it. The two other — commercial ads and charity solicitations aren't exactly distinct and neither of us likes it very much. I wouldn't mind the commercials, and I wouldn't mind paying for a subscription explicitly (rather than through taxes).
More importantly, though, we don't have to do anything. Capitalism will sort it out, unless we — starry-eyed from our dreams of smart government doing investments on our behalf — allow it to be taken over by Socialism. All governments naturally tend to grow and expand their reach. If we (the people) don't stop them, the government will control more and more aspects of our lives. It will not necessarily lead to labor camps, but it will certainly slow down humanity's progress.
Look at the internet and how we're communicated right now... We should have waited for Fox News to create the internet for us.
The Internet protocols were created as a Defense project. It was thus within the government's mandate to make them. Most of the actual hardware and most of the cables are privately-owned (otherwise, it would've stopped working long ago, and haven't had porn). But, for all we know, a private entity could well have designed a better alternative, had it not faced the government-sponsored competition... Somehow railroads did get built in the 19th century without "smart government investing" in them.
Rupert loves his Fox News and has plenty of assets to support this no matter what happens.
Fox News needs no such support, for it is gaining viewership and turning profit — unlike the other outfits, which have exposed themselves as liars last year.
Sesame Street is better WITHOUT McDonald's commercials in my humble opinion.
I don't appreciate NPR's constant begging for donations "from listeners like you" any more, than I like commercials.
But letting the government run TV or radio (and thus free us from all solicitations) is gravely dangerous and may lead to totalitarianism within a generation. After a short thaw, for example, Putin's Russia has retaken control of all TV stations — it is not a pleasant place. Similarly, Chavez will soon eliminate the last dissenting TV channel. Do you, seriously, want an "official" government channel to be controlled by the Executive?
Capitalism is great, but we needn't prostrate ourselves to it. Nor should we have blind allegiance to it.
For you, evidently, Capitalism exists to provide us with great things (and be discarded, if it fails — or appears to). In fact, its existence derives from Human Rights — those, with which we are endowed by our creator. It is my right to bake pizza, write software, issue stock and buy it. The society is not suposed to allow me to do it merely for fear of not having pizza — it must allow me to bake it, because it is my right as a free man to do so, or anything I please (which is not actively harming others).
Sadly, this view is getting eroded over the years, and we are worse off because of it. But that's why the US is Capitalist to begin with — it is not written anywhere in the Constitution, that we must be such, we just are. China, for a counter-example, became Capitalist deliberately, because they've decided (correctly), that it is the most efficient way of running an economy...
yet a smart government that is investing in our future is my dream.
The better term is "utopia". Whether it is nice or not, the Government, however smart, is simply not allowed by the Constitution to "invest in our future". There is a fairly limited number of things they are allowed to do, while all other power are left to States and the individuals. If you like the idea so much, push for a Constitutional Amendment — until then, you — and your President — are "shredding the Constitution"...
Would you really have preferred a Vice President that doesn't even understand the First Amendment?
In her quote, she does not seem to threaten the First Amendment, does she? Nothing she was saying went any further, than did attempts by many Illiberal Congressmen, for example, in their push for "Fairness Doctrine".
She is hardly the first politician from "the boondocks" to flabbergasted by the media's ire and stream of falsehoods directed at them (while burying any negatives about competition). Mark Twain wrote about it in "Running For Governor". To experience this first hand and not to wonder, how could inventing and repeating such libels be legal is to be inhuman...
she continues to believe that private citizens can somehow deny other private citizens the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment
Written as if you've never heard of anti-libel laws... Or of Al Sharpton — who did try to make a government agency punish New York Post for a cartoon... For another example, I refer you to your fellow Palin-hater brkello below, who has just declared, that Palin is "obviously" a moron, and only people "with mental issues" could possibly disagree. brkello does not appeal to authority, but what's to stop a person with the same line of thinking from prescribing forcible "treatment" to dissenters?
From legal point of view she was wrong, of course — one only needs to recall things said by Illiberals about Bush to realize, that no speech is illegal, when directed against a public official. But as a human being, I don't blame her... If elected, she would've grown a thicker skin in two weeks — it is not like we were electing a judge.
Biden, on the other hand, was picked, supposedly, for his much touted "foreign policy expertise" (because Obama does not have any) — and proved to be a complete phony right away...
There were obviously gaps in Palin's knowledge, but she never came off as "a moron" and was well aware of her limitations. Biden, on the other hand, is as sure of himself, as a peacock — an arrogance of the decades in the US Senate without any substance behind it. Worse than an empty suit...
I challenge you to explain away the following quote as a mere "mistake":
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
There, I dare you — change the above sentence to make sense. Make sure, your new version is fewer than 3 sentences...
No, she is dumb. It is obvious to everyone other than those with mental issues.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the perfect example of Illiberal rhetoric: their point is obvious to "normal" people, and whoever disagrees, has "mental issues".
Well, so was Reagan to be honest. Or Lenin, or JFK...
Your point about all heads of notable states being responsible for some deaths is taken, but you missed the bigger picture. Although he was never a head of any state (his highest position was head of Cuba's secret police), Che Guevara exceeded all of those people you listed by personally executing scores of people — and enjoying it. Contrary to the GP-posting, he was not a "cold-blooded" killer. He was perfectly hot-blooded and passionate in his killing of people, whose only fault was disagreeing with him and Castro.
That passion is what, likely, keeps him so attractive to the youth (and the old idiots, who should know better by the time they are 25). They hate Bush and Obama for trying accused foreigners in "military commissions" rather than regular courts, but remain fond of Che Guevara, who said: "I don't need proof to execute a man — I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him." And, indeed, signed thousands of execution orders without any hearings...
You mean kind of like exposing the identity of an active duty undercover CIA agent?
Plame being a CIA agent was an open secret. Also, leaking her name was — whether legal or illegal — a deliberate act. Whoever did it, knew, what they were doing. On contrast, Biden did not mean to reveal the secret. He simply has demonstrated himself to be a fool again, who does not know, what he is doing or saying... His plagiarist prime is decades behind him — he is simply an old fool now, whose mind has long deteriorated either from health decline or just arrogance...
Its been clear since the vice-presidential debates last fall, that having Sarah Palin be "within heartbeat from presidency" would've been a lot safer for the US and the world... But hey, how much was spent on her clothing was deemed more important, than the giant errors in his foreign policy "experience" and other problems.
Fox News will be going strong for a long, long time; regardless of their bias. NPR could be hurt if the government cut off all their funds, because of their bias.
There, fixed it for you. A good idea can survive on its own. A bad one needs government's help (can't remember, who said this...)
Saying that capitalism will save the day overly simplistic.
Nothing else is as good at "saving the day" as Capitalism.
Now as far is Loomis is concerned, I will hold a strongly negative opinion of the company until they have either made a statement that the employees were not following policy, or that they have changed their policies about photography and treating "bystanders".
If I had more time, I'd try to organize a campaign against Loomis. Instead of idiotic "anti-war" protests, how about people went to the Loomis-serviced ATMs nationwide and waited — armed with single-use cheapo cameras (ones you wouldn't regret getting broken by a pig "accidentally") — until the servicemen arrived.
Once they arrive, take as many snapshots as you'd like and slowly walk away. Don't run. Consider walking directly towards a photo-processing shop (such as those inside many pharmacies) to get the pictures developed/printed/e-mailed... Extra points for pre-arranging with ACLU — get those bums to spend our donations working on real violations of civil liberties.
associated with leftist politicos. The cops watched us in a very similar manner, though I'm sure your situation was different.
As appalled as I am about some of the American cops well deserving of the "pig" moniker, I have to remind the audience, that in the country held by those "leftist politicos" as the shining beacon of humanity, the harassment would've gone much further. I personally know some people, who were arrested and sent to labor camps on false or nonsensical charges, and one woman, who managed to avoid the same fate — only because the KGB did not want to get her three young children on their hands...
Slashdot Mirror
It transpires from the above statement (the quotes around "evil" in particular), that you don't really dispute the effectiveness of the sanctions in principle. You just disagree with their application to the particular regimes listed, because you think, they aren't evil.
And as long as they have to do this, they have fewer resources for something outright nasty. But, again, that's not the root of our disagreement...
That's how most businesses operate. They bake bread, for example, that nobody has ordered yet, for example. Your (and QuantumG's) illogic, would suggest, it is Ok to steal such bread, because it was not requested by anyone...
That's an increasingly dangerous pastime of late... Freedom of speech is not what it used to be now that the fighters for tolerance are increasingly intolerant and opponents of hate overwhelmingly hateful. Even speaking out against gay "marriage" will cost you...
The old sentiment of "I disagree with your opinion, but I shall fight for your right to express it," — is long gone... Consider, for example, the opening sentence of this highly moderated posting.
Could you elaborate?..
Not in Iran or Syria, but in North Korea the only people with any Internet access to begin with are the Shining Kim himself and, maybe, a handful of lieutenants. Inconveniencing these assholes as much as possible has a point...
Hopefully, all of the Instant Messaging providers in the US (and thus — in the world) will implement the same set of restrictions on traffic originating in evil regimes...
And the owner of the content loses... Ergo, somebody lost something, when you "shared" their song — contrary to your original, incorrect, assertion.
Wow! If that's not an insightful response, I don't know, what would be!
Even the copyright on GPL-licensed content? Ooopsie...
Bzzzzz, wrong. Thanks for playing...
It is good to see people getting good and passionate legal representation — and even bona-fide criminals deserve it.
But lost behind it all is the primary problem — "Thou shalt not steal". Because, if the 10 Commandments were a "living and breathing document", the "Thou shalt not copy content without owner's permission" would've been found in it long ago.
For "file sharing" is much closer to actual theft (of tangible things), than the Freedom of Speech is to selling pornography, for example.
So, you refused to answer the challenge... I guess, you just did not realize (because the newspapers have failed in their duty to keep you informed) before, just how much of a disaster your choice of Vice President really is. As a penance, you are required to vote straight Republican in whatever the next elections you vote in...
Not at all... When comparing politicians and officials, keeping in mind the number of their subjects is absolutely necessary.
The evil of Che's motivation and goals surely exceeded those of Hitler's. Even if Hitler succeeded in exterminating all of the world's Jewry (and the hapless Gypsies), Che's success — a Communist regime world-wide would've been worse. Hitler aimed to genocide about 12 million Jews, plus a few more million of other "untermensh" peoples. Che's hero Stalin has killed over 30 million of USSR's citizens (through labor camps, deliberate starvation, and mass executions) even before his war with Hitler started...
If Hitler were to prevail in imposing a Fascist regime world-wide (which, BTW, does not seem to have been his goal), it would still have been better, than a similarly all-encompassing Communist regime. Because Fascism is Communism-lite . Hitler's personal bent on genocide was an aberration — neither the rest of prominent Nazis, nor allied Fascist leaders, like Mussolini or Franco, shared it. Franco's Spain was the safest place in Europe for Jews, in fact, during the WW2. Romania — a Fascist ally of Germany — would not participate in the genocide either, and Jews living on territories occupied by Romanians have largely survived the war. On the other hand, there is no Communist regime in history without mass-murder: North Korea, China, USSR, Cuba, Cambodia have all experienced it... And Che promised to continue:
For that reason alone (and there are others), aiming for world-wide Communism, as did Che, is worse, than aiming for world-wide Fascism, as, maybe, did Hitler...
Well, if their having "an interesting life" is all, that's needed for you to put somebody's portrait on your body, you can, indeed, cover yourself with faces of tyrants and criminals... Peaceful hard work and honesty "are for suckers" and tend to be boring (witness Hollywood's obsession with Mafia, lesser criminals, and, indeed, Che Guevara). But it would still be major turn-off for me, to know a girl has done this...
Why? The proportion of Cubans killed per day because of him was far larger, than that of Germans under Hitler — before the big war... Hitler (and Stalin) started wars, yes, but Che Guevarra wanted the same — his desire to blow up New York, for example, and other American cities is well known to people, who pay attention.
On very careful examination, we may still find Hitler to be more evil, but it is by no means certain...
Of course not. Which is exactly why the term, I used for brkello, was: "Illiberal".
I don't have any idea, why you've decided to change the topic to "middle class". I did not mention it...
People also die due to car-accidents (number one killer, AFAIK) and what not. I don't know, why you brought this up either.
I don't, but the current Administration does: obey our rules, or be denied piece of the tax-pie, that you've contributed to and/or will be contributing to (paying off deficits). As for my "mistake" — this discussion grew out of NPR-sponsorhip, which is currently done by the federal government (plus "viewers like you")...
Your "dream" of a "smart government investing in our future" is perfectly inline with the Illiberal position... I did not mean to insult you, but you may wish to double check, what is it, that you wish for... As for your claim to be a Libertarian, I'm doubtful — your position is that of a NIMBY — you'd like a limited government, but still want it to "invest" in things you like. Including, apparently, some entertainment...
You said, you'd prefer Sesame Street without McDonalds commercials. I would too, but there are only two ways to get there: make it into a subscription channel, or have government fully sponsor it. The two other — commercial ads and charity solicitations aren't exactly distinct and neither of us likes it very much. I wouldn't mind the commercials, and I wouldn't mind paying for a subscription explicitly (rather than through taxes).
More importantly, though, we don't have to do anything. Capitalism will sort it out, unless we — starry-eyed from our dreams of smart government doing investments on our behalf — allow it to be taken over by Socialism. All governments naturally tend to grow and expand their reach. If we (the people) don't stop them, the government will control more and more aspects of our lives. It will not necessarily lead to labor camps, but it will certainly slow down humanity's progress.
The Internet protocols were created as a Defense project. It was thus within the government's mandate to make them. Most of the actual hardware and most of the cables are privately-owned (otherwise, it would've stopped working long ago, and haven't had porn). But, for all we know, a private entity could well have designed a better alternative, had it not faced the government-sponsored competition... Somehow railroads did get built in the 19th century without "smart government investing" in them.
Fox News needs no such support, for it is gaining viewership and turning profit — unlike the other outfits, which have exposed themselves as liars last year.
I don't appreciate NPR's constant begging for donations "from listeners like you" any more, than I like commercials.
But letting the government run TV or radio (and thus free us from all solicitations) is gravely dangerous and may lead to totalitarianism within a generation. After a short thaw, for example, Putin's Russia has retaken control of all TV stations — it is not a pleasant place. Similarly, Chavez will soon eliminate the last dissenting TV channel. Do you, seriously, want an "official" government channel to be controlled by the Executive?
For you, evidently, Capitalism exists to provide us with great things (and be discarded, if it fails — or appears to). In fact, its existence derives from Human Rights — those, with which we are endowed by our creator. It is my right to bake pizza, write software, issue stock and buy it. The society is not suposed to allow me to do it merely for fear of not having pizza — it must allow me to bake it, because it is my right as a free man to do so, or anything I please (which is not actively harming others).
Sadly, this view is getting eroded over the years, and we are worse off because of it. But that's why the US is Capitalist to begin with — it is not written anywhere in the Constitution, that we must be such, we just are. China, for a counter-example, became Capitalist deliberately, because they've decided (correctly), that it is the most efficient way of running an economy...
The better term is "utopia". Whether it is nice or not, the Government, however smart, is simply not allowed by the Constitution to "invest in our future". There is a fairly limited number of things they are allowed to do, while all other power are left to States and the individuals. If you like the idea so much, push for a Constitutional Amendment — until then, you — and your President — are "shredding the Constitution"...
When one disagrees, one is supposed to reply — with a counter-argument. Using moderation system instead is poor style and, uh, lack of class...
In her quote, she does not seem to threaten the First Amendment, does she? Nothing she was saying went any further, than did attempts by many Illiberal Congressmen, for example, in their push for "Fairness Doctrine".
She is hardly the first politician from "the boondocks" to flabbergasted by the media's ire and stream of falsehoods directed at them (while burying any negatives about competition). Mark Twain wrote about it in "Running For Governor". To experience this first hand and not to wonder, how could inventing and repeating such libels be legal is to be inhuman...
Written as if you've never heard of anti-libel laws... Or of Al Sharpton — who did try to make a government agency punish New York Post for a cartoon... For another example, I refer you to your fellow Palin-hater brkello below, who has just declared, that Palin is "obviously" a moron, and only people "with mental issues" could possibly disagree. brkello does not appeal to authority, but what's to stop a person with the same line of thinking from prescribing forcible "treatment" to dissenters?
From legal point of view she was wrong, of course — one only needs to recall things said by Illiberals about Bush to realize, that no speech is illegal, when directed against a public official. But as a human being, I don't blame her... If elected, she would've grown a thicker skin in two weeks — it is not like we were electing a judge.
Biden, on the other hand, was picked, supposedly, for his much touted "foreign policy expertise" (because Obama does not have any) — and proved to be a complete phony right away...
There were obviously gaps in Palin's knowledge, but she never came off as "a moron" and was well aware of her limitations. Biden, on the other hand, is as sure of himself, as a peacock — an arrogance of the decades in the US Senate without any substance behind it. Worse than an empty suit...
I challenge you to explain away the following quote as a mere "mistake":
There, I dare you — change the above sentence to make sense. Make sure, your new version is fewer than 3 sentences...
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the perfect example of Illiberal rhetoric: their point is obvious to "normal" people, and whoever disagrees, has "mental issues".
Your point about all heads of notable states being responsible for some deaths is taken, but you missed the bigger picture. Although he was never a head of any state (his highest position was head of Cuba's secret police), Che Guevara exceeded all of those people you listed by personally executing scores of people — and enjoying it. Contrary to the GP-posting, he was not a "cold-blooded" killer. He was perfectly hot-blooded and passionate in his killing of people, whose only fault was disagreeing with him and Castro.
That passion is what, likely, keeps him so attractive to the youth (and the old idiots, who should know better by the time they are 25). They hate Bush and Obama for trying accused foreigners in "military commissions" rather than regular courts, but remain fond of Che Guevara, who said: "I don't need proof to execute a man — I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him." And, indeed, signed thousands of execution orders without any hearings...
Plame being a CIA agent was an open secret. Also, leaking her name was — whether legal or illegal — a deliberate act. Whoever did it, knew, what they were doing. On contrast, Biden did not mean to reveal the secret. He simply has demonstrated himself to be a fool again, who does not know, what he is doing or saying... His plagiarist prime is decades behind him — he is simply an old fool now, whose mind has long deteriorated either from health decline or just arrogance...
Its been clear since the vice-presidential debates last fall, that having Sarah Palin be "within heartbeat from presidency" would've been a lot safer for the US and the world... But hey, how much was spent on her clothing was deemed more important, than the giant errors in his foreign policy "experience" and other problems.
I thought, Angelina was hot, until I learned, she has a Che Guevara tattoo... Eeeewww...
There, fixed it for you. A good idea can survive on its own. A bad one needs government's help (can't remember, who said this...)
Nothing else is as good at "saving the day" as Capitalism.
If I had more time, I'd try to organize a campaign against Loomis. Instead of idiotic "anti-war" protests, how about people went to the Loomis-serviced ATMs nationwide and waited — armed with single-use cheapo cameras (ones you wouldn't regret getting broken by a pig "accidentally") — until the servicemen arrived.
Once they arrive, take as many snapshots as you'd like and slowly walk away. Don't run. Consider walking directly towards a photo-processing shop (such as those inside many pharmacies) to get the pictures developed/printed/e-mailed... Extra points for pre-arranging with ACLU — get those bums to spend our donations working on real violations of civil liberties.
As appalled as I am about some of the American cops well deserving of the "pig" moniker, I have to remind the audience, that in the country held by those "leftist politicos" as the shining beacon of humanity, the harassment would've gone much further. I personally know some people, who were arrested and sent to labor camps on false or nonsensical charges, and one woman, who managed to avoid the same fate — only because the KGB did not want to get her three young children on their hands...