We all know protesting doesn't lead to anything except bad things.
Right. Like such bad things as the end of colonialism, the end of Apartheid, Black people getting to vote in this country, and women getting to vote in this country to name a few better know examples. Hey, I can understand why you might not like the protesters nowdays (although I think most of their problem is that their issues can't really be summed up in a nice one-sentence soundbyte for today's MTV generation), but to generalize by saying "protesting doesn't lead to anything except bad things" is horribly ignorant at best, and pretty scary at worst. Heck, we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen" if it wasn't for protesting. Heard of the Boston Tea Party? Was that not a protest?
To dismiss protesters as "dirty hippies" or "college kids who need to protest something to be cool" just makes you seem like you have no arguement against their issues, so you resort to attacking them. Really, at least go out and meet a few of these guys and have a 15-minute converstion before you think you know their life history and innermost psyche. What if I responded to someone who argues "Capitalism is good" with "I'm so tired of you and your materialistic, parasitic, exploitive gang of lazy miscriants who have never worked a day in your life. You obviosly have nothing better to do than go spend Daddy's trust-fund money on failed businesses and make sure he bails you out of jail with his gold card when you get picked up for Drunken Driving and snorting coke again." Doesn't sound too rational or educated does it?
Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Originally posted by SocksYou know this bothers me. Argh
Freakin protestors.....freakin University kids with some stupid shit to prove. Do they have any fucking idea on why they should be protesting.
I can't speak for all the people there, but that guy with his kid looked old enough to be putting kids through college. And a lot of people that I've met that tend a lot of protests are either out of college or aren't going at all.
What you wanna get real close to the most powerful man in the World?? Well, go on up Mr and Mrs Idiot, George W. would really enjoy that...hell all of you, all five thousand of you...come on over and touch the president.
Isn't that what he does to get elected, and does to throbbing mobs of people that agree with him?
Capitalism is what gave there parents the cash to send them to school!! What the Fuck???
I wish Capitalism would give my parents some money to pay for my school.
Instead of simply dismissing anybody protesting as "some dumb rich kid with too much time," maybe you should combat what they are saying about whatever bugs them. Hell, our founding fathers were basically some rich college educated brats that were sick of what's going on. All the sudden, if anybody else does it, they must be a moron.
And people posting on wrestling message boards should never complain about people with too much time and money.
I suppose you're right. Everyone should just sit back and enjoy the status quo, watch "American Idol" and debate whether or not one pretend wrestler is making another pretend wrestler look bad by making him pretend to lose too many of their pretend fights.
If Georgie wants to send thousands of members of their generation to get killed in Iraq to help his buddies in the oil companies get richer and his colleagues get re-elected, that's certainly no business of theirs.
"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree." ---George Carlin
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." ---Anon.
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardI If Georgie wants to send thousands of members of their generation to get killed in Iraq to help his buddies in the oil companies get richer and his colleagues get re-elected, that's certainly no business of theirs.
OK....here is the rub. If people want to protest I have no qualms about that. Even if most of them have no idea what they're protesting.
If they are going to be violent and loot shit, then we have a problem.
I don't think anybody on this board has too much of a problem with peaceful protest or peaceful civil disobedience. Looting businesses and assualting people(and bringing a child to this fracas which still drives me up the wall) is not resourceful, useful, or a good way to get your message across. Generally, it just pisses people off.
Hoo boy; the PKC is coming to town for another IMF riot. More things to fuck up my commute through DC...
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardYes, except there was no looting or destruction of property in the protest this thread is about - all anyone did was try to leave the stupid "First Ammendment Zone".
OFB, I love you like a complete stranger, but no matter how catchy a phrase "First Amendment Zone" happen to be, in my eyes it's STILL not going to make your interpretation of events more true than the AP's account.
More than 1,000 people turned out to scream anti-Bush slogans, tag buildings with graffiti and challenge police at barricades around the hotel where the president held a fundraiser for Sen. Gordon Smith.
The group blocked buildings, and Republican donors trying to get to the hotel were taunted and jostled...
"Yes, except there was no looting or destruction of property in the protest this thread is about..."
I credit this to Good Police Work. The cops were able to step in and disperse the crowd before they got to hurling Molotov Cocktails and looting the TV store because they hate capitalism. The cops are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they wait too long to disperse the crowd, the crowd gets nasty and tears up the place like they did in Seattle and the cops get harassed for waiting too long or doing nothing. If the cops go in and knock a few heads and spray a little gas to get rid of the crowd that is pushing beyond the borders of its destignated protest area, then they are calling fascist, and Gestapo, and what ever evil sounding buzzwords the leftists are using these days.
do you really believe what you typed? really? That all these protesters hate Capitalism, hate America, and by extension are violent thugs incapable of coherent thought who will loot and kill if given any oppurtunity? I mean, seriously, you guys act as if anybody that dares quesiton a damn thing must be Satan incarnate.
In Seattle, it was a small group of protesters that got violent. In fact, I believe they were probably plants, as they didn't seem to have ties to any other group that was protesting, which is very odd.
And maybe the cops wouldn't be dealing with an unruly crowd if they weren't confined to their designated protest area. Now go ahead and make some crack about how I think we should let protesters in the Oval Office, because that's obviously what I am implying, isn't it?
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81do you really believe what you typed? really? That all these protesters hate Capitalism, hate America, and by extension are violent thugs incapable of coherent thought who will loot and kill if given any oppurtunity? I mean, seriously, you guys act as if anybody that dares quesiton a damn thing must be Satan incarnate.
Well I am certain that most of them hate capitalism. They protest such high concepts as free trade, low taxes, progress, etc.
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81In Seattle, it was a small group of protesters that got violent. In fact, I believe they were probably plants, as they didn't seem to have ties to any other group that was protesting, which is very odd.
You made a funny. Besides, most of these groups don't seem to have ties to what anybody else was protesting because some of them, like it or not, are professional troublemakers
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81And maybe the cops wouldn't be dealing with an unruly crowd if they weren't confined to their designated protest area. Now go ahead and make some crack about how I think we should let protesters in the Oval Office, because that's obviously what I am implying, isn't it?
No, but if people didn't start shit and draw all sorts of bad attention to themselves maybe the rest of us would have sympathy if the police got violent. Instead, I see troublemakers like them get their head beat in by a mag light and laugh.
Surely it is understandable why things need to be kept organized for safety and to keep the given event (and city traffic) moving along. Now if you add the President into the mix, there will always be ultra-concern for safety. Add the fact that it only takes a few bad apples to turn a peaceful protest into a potentially dangerous situation, and it makes sense that police and secret service would want to designate protest areas so that they can more easily keep control of the situation. (And the secret service takes this protection business very seriously, probably a little too much so. I attended an event as a Boy Scout, what was suppose to be a event honoring veterans but turned into a political rally for Lloyd Bensen, a Democratic VP candidate. Anyway, even in my uniform, I was chased off from approximately 50 yards from the stage, approximately 3 hours before Lloyd ever showed up, by secret service. You know, as if I was going to plant a bomb or something. But if they are going to do that to me, as a kid who couldn't even vote, who really could care less about Mr. Bensen, then it is not hard to imagine keeping protesters with an ax to grind outside a certain parameter.)
And sorry, I just can't equate having to stay in a designated protest area with being unruly. I mean, how many events have any of us been where there wasn't some designations, such as lines and seats. It's not that hard for mature adults to follow rules, especially those that are not that unreasonable (in fact, I would dare say that more often than not, protests DO go without a hitch because the protesters follow the rules) How close do you have to be to make your point? Does it really matter much whether your 5 yards from the building or 100 yards? You are voicing your opinion, those who want to hear you will, those who don't, will not.
I would like to add too that there are extremist groups who purposely entice a confortation with police to create publicity for their group (usually small groups which can not get publicity any other way). I'm sure these groups are the exception, not the rule, but they are out there.
Oh, and CRZ, why doubt OFB? I mean his source was obviously completely unbiased and has no agenda whatsoever. I'm sure they wouldn't stretch the truth. I mean, if you can't trust his source, who CAN you trust?
It's not that people have to listen, it's that people with something to say are being shoved to the side where nobody can hear them unless they are shoved over there as well. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, it happens on both sides. Read this. Yes, I wrote it, but I think it sums up some very good points that would take just as much space to elaborate on here. The ghettoization of dissenting voice in this country is absolutely disgusting, as democracy is based on the free exchange of ideas. If you are only allowed to freely exchange ideas in one place, is that really democracy?
The middle part of my essay does not apply so much, but, whatever.
The entire concept of democracy is NOT the free exchange of ideas. The exchange of ideas is nice, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a.) you have an inalienable right to speak in a public forum or b.) that others have to listen. In the case of most any political cause these days, the message is out there. If people want to listen, they will. Liberal or conservative opinion journalists rise to popularity because there is a wide market for their ideas. This is not the case for fringe movements; that's probably why we call them fringe movements.
No one is being "shoved." People simply don't care. You can debate whether people should care all you want, but to use the term "shoved to the side" is, I think, misleading. In the free market of ideas, extremist ideologies simply don't fare well.
You make what I think are a lot of valid points in your essay, suggesting that people should judge arguments on their merits, more or less, and not on their extremist label. But, again, I think you're missing the point when you suggest, in the conclusion, that "our system [encourages]" violent behavior from extremist groups. Really, it's the equivalent of a child throwing a temper tantrum when it doesn't get its way. Extremists* aren't being marganalized by some sort of evil totalitarian power; they're being marganalized by their general lack of anythign worthwhile to say.
*(I'm going to define extremists here as "people who want to blow up other people who don't listen to them")
Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
"The entire concept of democracy is NOT the free exchange of ideas"
What is it then?
"nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a.) you have an inalienable right to speak in a public forum "
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" - Constitution.
People are being shoved aside, and quite literally so, when they're are told that they can only protest in certain areas. In a non-literal sense, groups that raise valid criticisms of the government are being shoved aside when they are barred from participation in mainstream politics. A perfect example is Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader not being allowed in the presidential debates.
The act of replacing income and wealth-based taxes with levees upon the purchase of goods and services, which is a notion currently very popular in "conservative" circles in certain extremely wealthy countries, would be the most severe shift of ...