They talked about this on O'Reilly last week. Even Bill said 25 years was over the top. I would like to see the fines jacked up for people who shut down streets. Pay for the extra cops that are need for them.
Originally posted by The Vile1Is this more overkill than the anti-war protestors that are calling Bush Hitler and the antichrist? Just checking.
Apples and friggin' oranges. Engaging in hyperbole, even wildly inaccurate and foolish hyperbole like that is a HUGELY different situation than calling people who block traffic TERRORISTS. That's damn close to just saying they're committing TREASON, and that's just ridiculous.
Fuck, if blocking traffic is a form of terrorist activity, I can think of thousands of blue-haired old ladies who are in very, very big trouble.
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka
"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
if you're blocking traffic, you're breaking the law. And if these large amount of protestors think this war will just cause more terrorist attacks, then get the hell out of the street and stop distracting our domestic security.
"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god." -Darkseid
The people that block streets are taking police away from real situations that they need to be attending to. If there is a terrorist attack that occurs because our forces are worrying about hippies blocking streets, i would consider that aiding and abetting terrorism. I think they should just fine them.
With that logic, I guess I could say if the military wasn't at Iraq, these "hippies" wouldn't be on the street protesting and the police would be able to go back fighting terrorism of every waking moment of the day and night, 24/7
Oh no George W. aiding and abetting terrorism
(edited by Net Hack Slasher on 3.4.03 0158) cause there's limits to our liberties. 'Least I hope and pray that there are, cause those liberal freaks go too far.
I'll crush all opposition to me And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay
Net Hack Slasher, but I was going on the logic of the protestors. Many protestors against this war have said that it will only breed and cause more terrorism, so by THEIR logic, they are distracting domestic security from these attacks that this war will cause.
"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god." -Darkseid
The coyote goes...Luckily, I live in DC, where there are many good blocked off streets where people can get their protests one. Pennsylvania Ave. is blocked off in front of the White House, there's no road directly in front of the Capitol, so most all the protesting gets done in these locations.
The thing I don't get, however, is how blocking traffic will get their message across. Rather, I would think that it would create a sense of revile to anybody in a car who can't get by. After all, if NOW is against Bladdablah, and protests Bladdablah in the middle of the road, and I can't get to where I'm going because some protestors are in my way, it tells me that A. NOW is against Bladdablah, B. NOW is against me making it home quickly, C. NOW is in effect against me, D. Bladdablah is not against me getting home, IE, what I want, and E. Bladdablah is on my side.
25 years is too much.....BUT I want to make sure that if, for example, these clowns block an ambulance on the way to pick up a patient or on the way to the hopsital and the patient dies, that every last one of them get charged with involuntary manslaughter.
25 years is so harsh. I'm sure I'll be crying them a river of tears. I'm glad that someone is FINALLY trying to do something to deal with these assholes that do nothing but disrupt the lives of everyone around them. How many thousands of people are affected and how many millions of dollars are lost when these clowns block major roadways in major cities?
"They talked about this on O'Reilly last week. Even Bill said 25 years was over the top."
Another example of why Bill is the Moderate he claims to be.
'But if one is struck by me only a little, that is far different, the stroke is a sharp thing and suddenly lays him lifeless, and that man's wife goes with cheeks torn in lamentation, and his children are fatherless, while he, staining the soil with his red blood, rots away, and there are more birds than women swarming about him.' Diomedes, The Iliad of Homer
Originally posted by Bizzle IzzleI'm glad that someone is FINALLY trying to do something to deal with these assholes that do nothing but disrupt the lives of everyone around them.
Oddly, that's what the protestors are trying to do -- do something to deal with Bush and the assholes in his inner circle that do nothing but disrupt the lives of anyone they choose to.
Another example of why Bill is the Moderate he claims to be.
If O'Reilly is "moderate," then the "center" has moved so far to the right that it can't even _see_ the old location from there.
"Let me put it another way. In support of our troops, I recently offered one of my angry correspondents on this issue a bet: I will try my damnedest to keep her son out of combat in the Gulf, and she will continue to support the president's war drive. Whoever keeps her son alive longest, wins." -- Ben Tripp, CounterPunch
As I said, there are already laws that deal with these situations, if they have the guts to enforce them. This new law is unneccesary (and probably an replacement for actually doing something about the protestors who are breaking the law).
vsp, I didn't agree with this war, but I fail to see what these unlawful protests will accomplish. Do you really think this is the "something" that will deal with Bush in anyway? Or do these tactics (the street blocking and city disruption) simply just piss off the people who are trying to go to work and live their own lives, many of who I suppose that the protestors are trying to convince to see things there way? I guess I fail to see the logic of how this is suppose to work.
Originally posted by ges7184vsp, I didn't agree with this war, but I fail to see what these unlawful protests will accomplish. Do you really think this is the "something" that will deal with Bush in anyway? Or do these tactics (the street blocking and city disruption) simply just piss off the people who are trying to go to work and live their own lives, many of who I suppose that the protestors are trying to convince to see things there way? I guess I fail to see the logic of how this is suppose to work.
Hey, I'm not saying that aggressive street protests are the BEST way of handling the situation. Like going out on a ledge and threatening to jump, it's a crude but often-effective way of gaining media attention and attempting to get the urgency of their message across. It's not exactly a "wait until 2004 and vote Bush out peacefully" situation when the war is happening _now_; it's more of a "this isn't perfect, but we have to do SOMETHING" motivation, from my perspective. If they had a better way, they'd probably be doing it instead.
If protestors break existing laws, they should be willing to abide by the consequences. (Keyword == EXISTING laws.) That's how civil disobedience is supposed to work.
"Let me put it another way. In support of our troops, I recently offered one of my angry correspondents on this issue a bet: I will try my damnedest to keep her son out of combat in the Gulf, and she will continue to support the president's war drive. Whoever keeps her son alive longest, wins." -- Ben Tripp, CounterPunch
Well if the goal is to get "media attention", then yes, it is effective. But since the goal is supposedly to stop the war, then I just don't see how this works. Media attention alone is not going to accomplish anything. And since this would generally be regarded as a negative thing, I just don't see anybody changing their mind due to protestor actions, or if they do, it will be against the protestors. (it's not like people don't know the messages, the oil thing and the like)
But I believe the true goal IS media attention. Which makes these guys nothing more than media whores, no better than the people who appear on reality TV.
IF they really wanted to change public opinion, they would attempt to do just that, and make a grass roots campaign. Then they could attract media attention the other way, the more meaningful way, with large numbers.
The "we've got to do something" is not a very sound basis for action.(Let's all jump off a bridge, we have to do something!) Quite frankly, I look at this option and the "Do Nothing" option, and find the "Do Nothing" option more appealing on a risk and reward basis. I think it's much more likely to turn opinion PRO-war, which is exactly the opposite reaction they want to achieve. Best case, you go to jail and are otherwise ignored.
Anyway, they are going to do what they are going to do. The reality is the only thing that will end the war at this point is the defeat of Iraq. But I guess I'm a realist.
I can't believe she or anyone else thinks this would be a good move if she did intend to run for President. Gotta believe it's something scandal wise that's making her step down, or major radio/tv/book deals.