It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Karl Rove and Congressman Erik Paulsen Glitter Bombed at Conference

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Happened Friday, Oct. 7 in Bloomington, Minnesota at the Midwest Leadership Conference

First, Rove kind of gets glittered:


then Paulsen gets a healthier dose:


Apparently, these members of the 'glitterati' are protesting the anti-gay policies of these conservative politicians. It's funny for me because I was going to attend to vote for Ron Paul in the event's straw poll today but bailed out at the thought of sitting through lectures by the likes of Rove, Jason Lewis, etc. AND I personally know the glitter thrower although I didn't know he planned on glitter bombing. I'm not on either side here. What does ATS think?
edit on 8-10-2011 by Moonsouljah because: type O




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think its a clever and harmless way to protest.

Who the hell's right is it anyway to deny Equal Rights to gays. Gays having equal rights harms no one.

I don't understand in America - - a secular government - - how denying rights mostly because of religious belief is allowed.

GO! GLITTER!



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Moonsouljah
 


I think these glitter bombers are only making it more difficult to fight for their cause. They are making themselves look like childish idiots. Instead of glitter bombing, why not meet on the battlefield of ideas and confront their "argument", and I use that word loosely, with there own articulate and well defined points. Ignorance is defeated with knowledge and intelligence, not glitter.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
This type of crap gets to me, Here we have an adult male acting like a 9 year old boy. I would've given the guy a shiner



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I think its a clever and harmless way to protest.

Who the hell's right is it anyway to deny Equal Rights to gays. Gays having equal rights harms no one.

I don't understand in America - - a secular government - - how denying rights mostly because of religious belief is allowed.

GO! GLITTER!


Equal rights?
Everyone in this country can marry the opposite sex, nobody in this country can marry the same sex. Seems pretty "equal" to me. The Homosexual community needs a different argument, nobody listens to the "equal rights" nonsense and it gets them nowhere. They should argue for individual liberty and a smaller gov that has less say in our life choices, jump on the anti gov train and would get SOOOO much more support. It's time to try something new........for the record im in favor of gay marriage.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Moonsouljah
 


I think these glitter bombers are only making it more difficult to fight for their cause. They are making themselves look like childish idiots. Instead of glitter bombing, why not meet on the battlefield of ideas and confront their "argument", and I use that word loosely, with there own articulate and well defined points. Ignorance is defeated with knowledge and intelligence, not glitter.


There is plenty of meeting on the "battlefield". The statistics of gays now holding government office - - both appointed and elected proves success on the "battlefield".

A colorful - harmless way of bringing awareness - - - is only childish to those in opposition.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303

Everyone in this country can marry the opposite sex, nobody in this country can marry the same sex.


Lame.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


have they ever listened to wise words? No. Glitterbomb away!



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Moonsouljah


I'm not on either side here. What does ATS think?

It looks to me like it could get dangerous.

Scenario: Man runs toward a politician carrying something. Bodyguard pulls gun, shoots "possible assailant". Harmless man carrying glitter falls to the floor. Spilt blood mingles with spilt glitter, as body guard and onlookers moan "Oh damn!"

I think unfurling banners or unison chants have much less potential for tragedy, or assault charges.


edit on 8-10-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Moonsouljah


I'm not on either side here. What does ATS think?

It looks to me like it could get dangerous.

Scenario: Man runs toward a politician carrying something. Bodyguard pulls gun, shoots "possible assailant". Harmless man carrying glitter falls to the floor. Spilt blood mingles with spilt glitter, as body guard and onlookers moan "Oh damn!"

I think unfurling banners or unison chants have much less potential for tragedy, or assault charges.


Uh huh - - and unfurling a banner or unison chants make a good news story?

The glitter bombs are to create awareness - - and the media loves it.

My favorite is the NOM booth placed directly under a sky ride at the country fair. The county fair rejected a Gays Right to Marry booth.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee


Uh huh - - and unfurling a banner or unison chants make a good news story?

The glitter bombs are to create awareness - - and the media loves it.

My favorite is the NOM booth placed directly under a sky ride at the country fair. The county fair rejected a Gays Right to Marry booth.

I don't watch any MSM, so I don't know what makes much impact or not. Activists who bring their own cameras seem to be the people putting these clips out. I found the two from this thread were posted here:

Columbus Go Home
BLOOMINGTON, MN — At the Minnesota Faith and Freedom Coalition strategy session about the upcoming ballot measure seeking to re-write the state constitution to ban marriages for same-sex couples, Republican Party hit-man Karl Rove, and congressman Erik Paulsen were showered with glitter in two separate actions by a group of equality advocates who call themselves “The Glitterati.”
. . .
St. Paul, MN — Glitter rained down from the heavens in a “Minnesota Miracle” on the anti-marriage equality booth at the Minnesota state fair. LGBT equality activists showered the booth from a skilift shouting: ”where’s our booth?” and “equality for all” in reference to the strange appearance of the anti-gay booth despite the exclusion of a pro-equality booth on the fairgrounds.
“As LGBT people are excluded from basic rights like marriage, the voices of marriage equality activists in Minnesota were excluded from having a booth at the Minnesota state fair,” said participant Joanna Hirvela, “but we will not be silenced. Wherever there is bigotry, let there be glitter.”

So the people behind the move to change the state constitution seem to have some clout when it comes to State Fair booths. Fair board bias?

edit on 8-10-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena

I don't watch any MSM, so I don't know what makes much impact or not.


Doesn't matter whether you watch MSM or not. The Glitter Bombs are loved by it.

The Glitter Bombs bring more awareness then anything else.

So - - slight risk or not - - when something is effective - - that is what you do.

As far as gay rights - - that is not the subject of the thread. There are many threads debating gay rights.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
So the people behind the move to change the state constitution seem to have some clout when it comes to State Fair booths. Fair board bias?


Screw the public voting on equal rights of a minority.

The #1 reason against gay rights is Religion. Being that we are a secular government - - - its wrong.

Now again - - the subject of this thread is NOT gay rights. There are many threads already on that subject.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee


The #1 reason against gay rights is Religion. Being that we are a secular government - - - its wrong.

The OP seemed rather vague, but the only link supplied was the announcement.

Midwest Leadership Conference
Before the Midwest Leadership Conference

Be sure to join the Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition for their Strategy & Briefing Session on October 7 from 10-11:30 am at the Double Tree by Hilton Hotel in Bloomington, MN (the same location as the Midwest Leadership Conference).

The featured speaker for the conference is Chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, Dr. Ralph Reed. The event will be emceed by Tom Emmer, radio talk show host and former Gubernatorial candidate. Minnesota's Congressional Representatives, Bachmann, Cravaack, Kline and Pauslen will be awared the prestigious 'Friend of the Family' award for their voting in the 2010-2011 legislative session.

So this faith-based group managed to insinuate itself into a GOP function, same place, same announcement, probably sharing the same revenue stream. Political party collusion. From the web site:

About us
Respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, family, and marriage as the foundations of a free society
. . .
Victory in the struggle with terrorism and tyranny while supporting our democratic allies, including Israel
. . .
Mobilize and train people of faith to be effective citizens
. . .
Influence legislation and enact sound public policy at every level of government
. . .
Protest bigotry and discrimination against people of faith

This is all religious stuff. 'Sanctity' is a religious term. Non critical support for Israel (regardless of human rights violations and breech of international law) is religiously motivated. Protesting 'bigotry and discrimination against people of faith' , only Judeo/Christian though.




edit on 8-10-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena

This is all religious stuff. 'Sanctity' is a religious term. Non critical support for Israel (regardless of human rights violations and breech of international law) is religiously motivated. Protesting 'bigotry and discrimination against people of faith' , only Judeo/Christian though.


OK - - I think. Just trying to stick to the Glitter Bomb subject and not clog this thread up with the usual pro/anti - right/wrong gay stuff.

Not completely sure what you are stating. But - I suppose the discussion of fairness in allowing NOM - - but not a LGBT booth might loosely fit into a discussion of types of protests for equality.

If you are saying religion has rights to discriminate against a minority - - we are not in agreement. Secular and Sanctity don't seem to be compatible to me.

I do not support in any way groups such as: Faith and Freedom Coalition
edit on 8-10-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Moonsouljah
 


Good for the protesters, show the fat rats that they matter, they pay taxes they vote and they contribute to societly just like anybody else, nobody have the right to tell other people how to live their lives.

Shame on anybody that try to live other peoples lives.
Only those that have boring lives have the need to live and mind the live of others.

I love the glitter Bomb.

edit on 8-10-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee


If you are saying religion has rights to discriminate against a minority - - we are not in agreement. Secular and Sanctity don't seem to be compatible to me.

I'm all in favor of complete separation of church and state, freedom of religion, including the right to not believe. I understand your point that the very idea of a majority of "the faithful" can decide what rights can be stripped from people is abhorrent.

I can't think of how to strengthen rights though, when even constitutions can be changed with a big enough majority, 3/4, behind the change. So I'm a bit frustrated. The wording used by that faith group sounds an awful lot like the wording of 102nd Congress (1991-1992) H.J.RES.104.ENR I started a thread about it recently in the Conspiracy in Religion forums.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Annee


If you are saying religion has rights to discriminate against a minority - - we are not in agreement. Secular and Sanctity don't seem to be compatible to me.

I'm all in favor of complete separation of church and state, freedom of religion, including the right to not believe. I understand your point that the very idea of a majority of "the faithful" can decide what rights can be stripped from people is abhorrent.

I can't think of how to strengthen rights though, when even constitutions can be changed with a big enough majority, 3/4, behind the change. (1991-1992) H.J.RES.104.ENR[/url] I started a thread about it recently in the Conspiracy in Religion forums.


It is so wrong when its about denying basic equal rights.

I'm sure there was a time/reason in the early formation of states for them to have their own marriage laws.

Well that is now antiquated and its turned into bullying by a religious majority. It is time this state right be yanked.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join