NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, I would like to let it be known that I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the war in Iraq. I don't want this thread to become an argument against the war. I'll probably get flamed by a bunch of people, but...oh well.

Protesters have gotten increasingly stupid. I remember, during the RNC, how people would get out in the street and block traffic. I have a question to those protestors: do you honestly think you're helping your cause?? Tell me, how many people do you know who were stuck in traffic and thought, "Gee, these protesters sure have a point! I never thought about it that way! Sure, I'll be late to work, but hey...it's worth it." NO ONE! People simply think that the protestors are morons.

A note to anti-war protestors: as in the above example, civil disobedience doesn't work!!! It makes people angry and causes them to hate you and your cause. So please, in the interest of someone who's REALLY antiwar, STOP HURTING THE CAUSE, MORONS!!!

I might add that lewd and crude displays don't work either. Nor do violent displays. Seeing some of these actually swung my vote against Kerry (who I had supported during the summer, but my sympathies changed by mid-september)

Firstly, I would like to let it be known that I'm a liberal.

I stopped reading there.....lol


No seriosly, good point. Protesters have become increasingly stupid.

I might add that lewd and crude displays don't work either. Nor do violent displays. Seeing some of these actually swung my vote against Kerry (who I had supported during the summer, but my sympathies changed by mid-september)

I totally agree. I don't know if you've ever seen Free Speech Television, but it's a stupid underground network that rants about "corporate domination of the media." You know the type. Anyway, they always glorify violent protests and, when rock-throwing protestors are subdued by police, whine about government oppression. That's the kind of attitude I hate.

Reminds me of an anti war protest the kids at my school had a while ago (before the Iraq war). About 400 of us walked out at lunchtime and went into town, chanting anti war songs. However, half the kids that went along didn't have a clue what we were marching for and ended up trampling flowerbeds and yelling at old ladies. Idiots. Any excuse to get out of school at lunchtime...

The difference between this war and 'Nam is that most people still remember the towers collapsing. (I know, Iraq allegedly had nothing to do with it.)

It's cool to be anti-war, someone needs to tell Osama and his boys that as well.

I also agree. What the f-ck is up with protesting the RNC and bush's innaugaration? If you don't like Republicans don't vote for them-- it is a democracy. If you don't like the Republican party tell people why they shouldn't vote for them don't yell Bush sucks with a giant bullhorn in people's faces.

As for protesting the war that is a different matter.

Reminds me of an anti war protest the kids at my school had a while ago (before the Iraq war). About 400 of us walked out at lunchtime and went into town, chanting anti war songs. However, half the kids that went along didn't have a clue what we were marching for and ended up trampling flowerbeds and yelling at old ladies. Idiots. Any excuse to get out of school at lunchtime...

I'm fine with people who just go out and do nonviolent, non-disruptive protest, like what your's was intended to be. But the second that people start yelling at people, attacking cops, blocking traffic, pooping on the sidewalk, etc., I think it hurts the anti-war movement more than it helps it.

Plus, what's up with the naked people? Some protestors seem to think that lying naked in a field or standing naked in the middle of the city will help sway someone's opinion. If it were Tyra Banks or something, sure. But, as you can't help but notice, the people who take part in these protests....well, let's just say that all the wrong parts are jiggling.

...sounds like a California thing! :)

I really dissaprove of their behavoir, but unfortunately, it works. It influences people a lot more than simple protests, similar to how negative campaign ads are more effective than positive campaign ads.

Firstly, I would like to let it be known that I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the war in Iraq. I don't want this thread to become an argument against the war. I'll probably get flamed by a bunch of people, but...oh well.

Protesters have gotten increasingly stupid. I remember, during the RNC, how people would get out in the street and block traffic. I have a question to those protestors: do you honestly think you're helping your cause?? Tell me, how many people do you know who were stuck in traffic and thought, "Gee, these protesters sure have a point! I never thought about it that way! Sure, I'll be late to work, but hey...it's worth it." NO ONE! People simply think that the protestors are morons.

A note to protestors: as in the above example, civil disobedience doesn't work!!! It makes people angry and causes them to hate you and your cause. So please, in the interest of someone who's REALLY antiwar, STOP HURTING THE CAUSE, MORONS!!!

It's going a bit too far to say point blank that civil disobedience does not work. However, what many people don't realize, is that the only way to make it work is to be passive about it.

The protestor that got the most press and helped her point the most (I believe) was the woman who stood up during one of Laura Bush's speeches and yelled that Bush's decisions had led to the death of her son and she wanted to know why. The minute she was aksed to leave, she did so. She walked straight out the door and was immediately surrounded by press. She was answering their questions when several police officers walked up and began to arrest her. More than once she asked why she was being arrested and was never answered - all on camera. That, more than anything, made her point.

civil disobedience doesn't work!!!

It worked for Ghandi.

It woked in Poland, to remove the Communist government, through the actions of "Soliarity".

It worked in Indonesia, to rid the country of its military government.

It worked in the Phillipines, to rid the country of Marcos.

It worked in the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

And, most recently it woked in the Ukraine, where "people power" again proved the required force for change.

Or didn't you notice?

[IMG]


This from some of us Active Duty who just want to express how feel about the valued opinion of the liberal community.

I'm fine with people who just go out and do nonviolent, non-disruptive protest, like what your's was intended to be. But the second that people start yelling at people, attacking cops, blocking traffic, pooping on the sidewalk, etc., I think it hurts the anti-war movement more than it helps it.


It wasn't violent, but we passed several old ladies on the way, who got yelled at by overexcited 13 year olds. To be honest, it would have been a little scary for me if I was in their position, seeing 400 schoolchildren marching towards me, chanting incoherently. The day after, we got told that anyone who leaves school for a protest will be expelled temporarily.

My theory is that the people who yell and attack people for a cause are the ones who don't quite understand it all, which they make up for by yelling and attacking people.

First day of the war I watched a miriad(sp) of channels. They all covered the operations as they unfolded, lots of green images. Finally I wore down and flipped to a non-news channel, MTV-it was TRL Live and outside the window the streets where crowded with protest forcing MTV to acknowledge it. Without the specticle, the average TV viewer would have been left with the illusion that there is no desent.

It wasn't until the protesters in San Francisco started disrupting flow that they made the news at all.

You have to become news before you get on the news. It's the way it works.

This from some of us Active Duty who just want to express how feel about the valued opinion of the liberal community.

Yes, obviously if you are fighting for freedom and democracy, then you would wish to silence dissent.

Peculiar, twisted logic.

Actually it means the liberals should shut the hell up and let us do our damn job

Actually it means the liberals should shut the hell up and let us do our damn job

umm if we didn't voice our dissent, the military would have unlimited power. if you actually think that would be good, then i'm sorry.

It worked for Ghandi.

It woked in Poland, to remove the Communist government, through the actions of "Soliarity".

It worked in Indonesia, to rid the country of its military government.

It worked in the Phillipines, to rid the country of Marcos.

It worked in the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

And, most recently it woked in the Ukraine, where "people power" again proved the required force for change.

Or didn't you notice?


Civil disobedience works when one is trying to gain civil or political freedoms. When one is trying to debunk an unpopular foreign policy, however, civil disobedience just pisses people off.


http://img104.exs.cx/img104/2772/liberals5pq.png


This from some of us Active Duty who just want to express how feel about the valued opinion of the liberal community.


Douchebag. You know, it was Reagan who started military cutbacks. Plus, the freedom to express an opinion is a central tenet of democracy

Actually it means the liberals should shut the hell up and let us do our damn job

You have done little except quote slogans.

If you really believe that "liberals should shut the hell up and let us do our damn job" then please explain why.

Or is rational and logical discussion not the preferred manner of the military?

Firstly, I would like to let it be known that I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the war in Iraq. I don't want this thread to become an argument against the war. I'll probably get flamed by a bunch of people, but...oh well.

Protesters have gotten increasingly stupid. I remember, during the RNC, how people would get out in the street and block traffic. I have a question to those protestors: do you honestly think you're helping your cause?? Tell me, how many people do you know who were stuck in traffic and thought, "Gee, these protesters sure have a point! I never thought about it that way! Sure, I'll be late to work, but hey...it's worth it." NO ONE! People simply think that the protestors are morons.

A note to protestors: as in the above example, civil disobedience doesn't work!!! It makes people angry and causes them to hate you and your cause. So please, in the interest of someone who's REALLY antiwar, STOP HURTING THE CAUSE, MORONS!!!

Yes, because we always hear about those protesters who have quiet conversations with their friends how they dislike the government.

Kidding. You do have a point, but civil disobediance does work in some forms (see the above post) say McDonald's workers all wanted more pay, and NONE of them showed up tomorrow to work. Sure, you'd be pissed about not getting your breakfast burrito, but you'd be pissed at McDonald's for not paying their employees enough to work there. The media would be all over it too. The point would be made.

It's going a bit too far to say point blank that civil disobedience does not work. However, what many people don't realize, is that the only way to make it work is to be passive about it.

The protestor that got the most press and helped her point the most (I believe) was the woman who stood up during one of Laura Bush's speeches and yelled that Bush's decisions had led to the death of her son and she wanted to know why. The minute she was aksed to leave, she did so. She walked straight out the door and was immediately surrounded by press. She was answering their questions when several police officers walked up and began to arrest her. More than once she asked why she was being arrested and was never answered - all on camera. That, more than anything, made her point.

I agree. When I said civil disobedience, I was talking about the people who throw rocks at police and block roads. This woman did what she did not for selfish reasons, but to raise an honest point. When asked to leave, she did. Now, if she stood up and started screaming about how Bush is in the pocket of corporations, I wouldn't be happy. She had a valid reason to stand up. When she was asked to leave, she did. When she was asked to submit to police, she did that as well. If she had kicked one of them in the nuts and taken off her top, then I would strongly condemn her.

Yes, because we always hear about those protesters who have quiet conversations with their friends how they dislike the government.

Kidding. You do have a point, but civil disobediance does work in some forms (see the above post) say McDonald's workers all wanted more pay, and NONE of them showed up tomorrow to work. Sure, you'd be pissed about not getting your breakfast burrito, but you'd be pissed at McDonald's for not paying their employees enough to work there. The media would be all over it too. The point would be made.

True, that is one instance in which civil disobedience would work. As I said before, it works in situations in which civil rights are being violated. However, when protesting a foriegn policy issue, it doesn't.

I agree. When I said civil disobedience, I was talking about the people who throw rocks at police and block roads. This woman did what she did not for selfish reasons, but to raise an honest point. When asked to leave, she did. Now, if she stood up and started screaming about how Bush is in the pocket of corporations, I wouldn't be happy. She had a valid reason to stand up. When she was asked to leave, she did. When she was asked to submit to police, she did that as well. If she had kicked one of them in the nuts and taken off her top, then I would strongly condemn her.

Technically, throwing rocks wouldn't really qualify as civil disobedience - it would just be violence with no real point to it.

Blocking traffic might be civil disobedience if you were, for instance, trying to get more bicycle lanes put in or raise awareness about public transportation.

This from some of us Active Duty who just want to express how feel about the valued opinion of the liberal community.[/QUOTE]
Agreed!

This from some of us Active Duty who just want to express how feel about the valued opinion of the liberal community.

So people should blindly accept everything the gov't does and go along with whatever conflict it decides to get into? Well, I'll start setting up the concentration camps, better get an early start.

This from some of us Active Duty who just want to express how feel about the valued opinion of the liberal community.


Posting images such as that is against the rules of this forum. Consider this a formal warning.
Future infractions may lead to a forumban.

Hell yeah Spectral, show 'em how it is!!

Yes, because liberals hate the troops?

I would think you would be happy there's people back home who are trying to stand up for your rights. You did know that liberals are trying to help you, right?

Posting images such as that is against the rules of this forum. Consider this a formal warning.
Future infractions may lead to a forumban.
Just so I don't fall into the same trap, I was wondering what part was against the rules.

Was it the profanity? The image size? Intent? (there was a bit of a double irony there, as it seemed that that poster belonged to the ironic parody propoganda posters that then Spectral was taking at face value. Kind of amusing, really.) Which is what I'm getting at with intent, that s/he was posting it's surface intent, but as it's authored intent of parody would it be still inappropriate? I'm a little sarcastic and have managed a long time without a warning, so being clear on this would help me keep my record clean.

It worked for Ghandi.

It woked in Poland, to remove the Communist government, through the actions of "Soliarity".

It worked in Indonesia, to rid the country of its military government.

It worked in the Phillipines, to rid the country of Marcos.

It worked in the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

And, most recently it woked in the Ukraine, where "people power" again proved the required force for change.

Or didn't you notice?


Yes this is beginning to sound like the Cancervative noise machine is gearing up for Bush's 2nd terminal. "Oh don't use civil disobedience it hurts the cause." and "Don't protest it hurts the cause". Yeah, it hurts Bush's cause.

If you want to protest, protest. If the cops try to misuse the Patriot Act to take away your civil liberties make sure you have lots of digital cameras in the crowd so you can sue the City, County, State, and Federal Governments later.

In the work a day world we all live in, the only thing that supposedly separates living in the US from living in a less than free country is the right to protest. If we loose that you might as well go live in Saudi Arabia.

[IMG]


This from some of us Active Duty who just want to express how feel about the valued opinion of the liberal community.


Are you sure that wasn't lifted from an email to the White House when Bush extended the tours.

What I think hurt the anti-war sentiment was the anarchists being against the war, so the right-wing media would imply anarchists were anyone that was against the war... If you say you're against the war, someone instantly thinks "hard left", its part of the mind control the NWO has shown, they want to make war "normal".

Firstly, I would like to let it be known that I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the war in Iraq. I don't want this thread to become an argument against the war. I'll probably get flamed by a bunch of people, but...oh well.

Protesters have gotten increasingly stupid. I remember, during the RNC, how people would get out in the street and block traffic. I have a question to those protestors: do you honestly think you're helping your cause?? Tell me, how many people do you know who were stuck in traffic and thought, "Gee, these protesters sure have a point! I never thought about it that way! Sure, I'll be late to work, but hey...it's worth it." NO ONE! People simply think that the protestors are morons.

A note to anti-war protestors: as in the above example, civil disobedience doesn't work!!! It makes people angry and causes them to hate you and your cause. So please, in the interest of someone who's REALLY antiwar, STOP HURTING THE CAUSE, MORONS!!!

Why don't you go protest that.

Protestors on both sides of the political spectrum have lost their minds; from the ones in the streets to those writing blogs.

Each thinks that their POV is superior to the others and no one sees the flaws or the leaps in logic.

Sad thing is more rational and fair voices are going to get lost in the screaming of the extremes.

EDIT:

BTW protesting is not in itself evil, truly its the opposite. It's just the noisier more extreme morons who make it look bad.

Where are the Hell's Angels when you need them?

Yes this is beginning to sound like the Cancervative noise machine is gearing up for Bush's 2nd terminal. "Oh don't use civil disobedience it hurts the cause." and "Don't protest it hurts the cause". Yeah, it hurts Bush's cause.

If you want to protest, protest. If the cops try to misuse the Patriot Act to take away your civil liberties make sure you have lots of digital cameras in the crowd so you can sue the City, County, State, and Federal Governments later.

In the work a day world we all live in, the only thing that supposedly separates living in the US from living in a less than free country is the right to protest. If we loose that you might as well go live in Saudi Arabia.
I totally agree with a group's right to protest. However, I hate the groups who throw rocks at police, block traffic, and perform activities that hurt other people. If you want to protest, then, by all means, protest. But don't throw a rock at my car.

Why don't you go protest that.
Protest what? Violent protestors? That's what I'm doing.

I totally agree with a group's right to protest. However, I hate the groups who throw rocks at police, block traffic, and perform activities that hurt other people. If you want to protest, then, by all means, protest. But don't throw a rock at my car.


Protest what? Violent protestors? That's what I'm doing.
It seems more like you just don't like protesters full stop. Stopping traffic isn't violent darlin.

It seems more like you just don't like protesters full stop. Stopping traffic isn't violent darlin.

It may not be violent, but it horribly inconveniences other people. You may have heard the phrase "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." The same is true in this case. Stopping traffic pisses people off and makes them hate your cause.

It seems more like you just don't like protesters full stop. Stopping traffic isn't violent darlin.

Willingly and intentionally disrupting someone’s right to travel, a constitutional right, might be worse than violence. Nevermind illegal.

Willingly and intentionally disrupting someone’s right to travel, a constitutional right, might be worse than violence. Nevermind illegal.

Exactly. Couldn't have put it better myself.

EDIT: Perhaps I was a bit too harsh.

Willingly and intentionally disrupting someone’s right to travel, a constitutional right, might be worse than violence. Nevermind illegal.

Man you must really hate ghandi.

Man you must really hate ghandi.

Civil disobedience such as traffic-blocking is only acceptable when protesting civil rights issues, not protesting foreign policy.

Civil disobedience such as traffic-blocking is only acceptable when protesting civil rights issues, not protesting foreign policy.

Maybe there protesting others rights. Some people do actually think about others sometimes.

Man you must really hate ghandi.

I would of gotten out of my car, decked the man, dragged him out of the way of my car and kept on driving. Assuming he was protesting Bush's forgein policy by blocking my car.

Hell if people started blocking my car as a act of civil disobedience I'd of simply put the car in neutral and let it move through the crowd, if they don't get out of the way...

Maybe there protesting others rights. Some people do actually think about others sometimes.

Right, because protesting someone who started a war over chemical/biological weapons and peoples freedom is protesting for the rights of others.

I would of gotten out of my car, decked the man, dragged him out of the way of my car and kept on driving. Assuming he was protesting Bush's forgein policy by blocking my car.

Hell if people started blocking my car as a act of civil disobedience I'd of simply put the car in neutral and let it move through the crowd, if they don't get out of the way...

And then you'd go to jail, or get the death sentence. I love how you people just "flip flop" between when YOUR right to drive is defeated by someone elses right to protest but ya can't fight you when it's your problem you wanna nag about. I mean choose, do you want freedom of speech or what?

And then you'd go to jail, or get the death sentence. I love how you people just "flip flop" between when YOUR right to drive is defeated by someone elses right to protest but ya can't fight you when it's your problem you wanna nag about. I mean choose, do you want freedom of speech or what?

Because they do not have a right to protest in such a way that blocks my right to travel. That is not a peaceful assembly of the people, that is violence. Nevermind that freedom of speech has nothing to do with stopping traffic.

Besides which I sincerely doubt I would get the death sentence for idling at around 1mph through a crowd illegaly gathered in a roadway.

Okay, people, don't vote for or against politicians based on the actions of their idiot fan clubs. That is, needless to say, nothing short of imbecilic.

Kahta: Anarchy? Hard Left? Since which level of Hell froze over? Anarchism is a more extreme incarnation of libertarianism, and the only thing that distinguishes libertarians from traditional American conservatives is that libertarians are more right-winged.

Protesting generally doesn't do much directly to sway people over to a cause. Its main purpose is to energize those who already support it or are likely to support it. It works rather well if a positive atmosphere is created. By energizing supporters and getting them talking and writing, a cause is helped, just through a circuitous route.

In the Australian election I was a swinging vote, I could have voted for Latham and protesters did swing my vote.. towards Howard, after I was late for work, got a dented car and threatened to be sued after trying to get to work one morning. I found my car surrounded and damaged by protesters shouting slogans that made no sence. I couldnt be assosiated with such stupidity

wow, i'm actually astonished - it seems like not one single person here actually grasps the primary purpose of protest and civil disobedience, and even property destruction, after 4 whole pages of discussion.

I am a peaceful and intellectual Libertarian Socialist, Anarchist, Anarcho-Syndicalist, Advocate of Direct Democracy, Freedom Fighter, Trouble Maker... whatever you might want to call it. I'm probably as familiar with political ideals and tactics as any college professor on the subject, and I have been fighting for freedom, justice, and democracy for almost a decade now (prior to which I was a child). My tactics for doing so have spanned from Mass Mobilization protest, to Civil Disobedience, to Direct Action, to targetted and thought-out Property Destruction. And I do not regret any of it. Another tactic which is of the same nature is the Strike, General Strike, or School walkout.

The whole point of any of these types of resistant act is fairly simple - TO MAKE THE CURRENT SITUATION WHICH IS UNDESIRABLE LESS PROFITABLE OR MORE UNBEARABLE THAN THE SOUGHT ALTERNATIVE. Period.

The reason why a school walkout works to change the policies of the school administration is because hundreds of student absences literally costs the school thousands of dollars in funding.

The reason why a group of 500,000 people protesting the RNC is effective is not because Buish will hear them shouting and think "gosh, I really don't want to hear them anymore - I should change my policies." No. Such an action derives its effectiveness from the fact that IT SHUT THE WHOLE CITY DOWN. Cars were unable to move, stores were unable to draw customers, and the economy as a whole took a serious hit from the massive instability. Actions like these are designed and intended to be obnoxious to the systems of power who have control over the issue(s) that the protestors want to correct. It is essentially the act of holding profits and order hostage, until the demands of the protestors are given in to.

This may seem terrible, selfish, and anti-democratic in many ways. And I would be the very first one to agree with those assessments. But they are effective. And because they are more effective when widely supported, they are also, generally, democratic.

Protest, Civil Disobedience, Direct Action, and Property Destruction are NOT primarily about "getting a message out" - although that is a desired alternate purpose. They are about disrupting a society which is viewed to be flawed. Want the disruption to stop? Then listen to their demands. It's that simple.

Of course, these actions also serve two other purposes, generally - but neither is primary.

The first such alternate purpose is to, as I've already said, "get the message out." That is, to educate or otherwise inform the general public about the nature of an issue with which a grievance is taken. This is best exemplified by forms of disruption such as a high-visibilty banner drop, or "culture jamming," as in the modification of large billboards, etc. to project a political message. It is also fulfilled through the use of protest signs and media coverage - although the corporate media LOVES to focus not on the actual grievances of the demonstrators, but rather on their violent rawcusness and the number of arrests (because, after all, their own profit margins are threatened by most of these same groups. Additionally, through decades of projecting what is essentially propaganda against such political tactics, their viewers actually WANT to see this kind of coverage - the average American desires to see protestors projected poorly, and so it has now become good for ratings).

The second such alternate purpose is one that has already been raised in this thread - morale. Mass gatherings and actions like the ones described do a great deal for the morale of those involved, and build a tremendous culture of solidarity throughout the movement as a whole. As a political activist, I can think of no greater feeling than angrily marching in protest alongside thousands of other people whom I know feel just the same way that I do - and that if someone tries to stop one of us, we will all either keep them safe or take their place if they fail. THAT is what solidarity is all about. And it's an absolutely marvelous sensation. Additionally, simply in terms of practical organizing, demonstrations and actions provide an excellent opportunity for networking and mingling between individuals and groups. It's a great way to meet people who one can collaborate with in the future on various projects. Every time I've gone to jail during a political action, I've emerged from the cell with a handful of phone numbers and many new allies who I can count on to support me in the future - and they I.

But as I've said, all of this is secondary. Fighting for political change is essentially about one thing - disruption of the status quo. Because, after all, it is the status quo that we are attempting to change - and what better way to do this than to make such a status harder to live with?

Is this the ideal way to promote social change in any society? Absolutely not. It is harmful to innocent people, it is not representative of all people's wills, and it endangers those who partake in the acts. But it is one of the only truly feasible means that are provided to us in this supposedly "democratic" society for enacting change. I would much rather prefer that none of this was necessary, but unfortunately, the highly limited avenues we are given in the U.S. and many other states for actual democratic processes are of disappointingly (and deliberately) little efficacy. If we could've won an 8-hour workday by writing our congressmen, we would've. If we could've given women the right to vote by electing a president, we would've. If we could end imperialism and constant global war, as well as the economic exploitation of poor countries through "free trade" and oppressive international lending practices by electing John Kerry, we would. But these options are insufficient to nonexistant, and therefore, the heavily repressed and deliberately limited "democracy" we are afforded in this country and others must be supplimented with radical political action.

I'd love to make omellettes without breaking eggs, but this system simply doesn't give us any other choice.

wow, i'm actually astonished - it seems like not one single person here actually grasps the primary purpose of protest and civil disobedience, and even property destruction, after 4 whole pages of discussion.
Sorry but anyone who thinks property destruction and blocking the streets is fine should be locked up. You are playing with other peoples lives, some people that are late to work, get fired. Damaging other peoples and indeed governement property is wrong purhaps you would like to pay for the dent in my cars hood.

were I to dent your car, and were you to confront me about it, I gladly would pay for it. Seriously.

I made quite careful consideration to use the term "targetted and thought-out Property Destruction." Random, spite-driven or other kinds of property destruction are politically worthless and damaging to any cause. Denting an honest worker's car is beyond reprehensible - but destroying a corrupt bank's front window does in fact reflect a potent and applicable message.

Any time that I see some dumbass punk kid smash some shit just for the hell of it, i *GRAB* them, sometimes throw them to the ground even, and SCREAM at them for exactly this reason. Such acts are NOT helpful to our cause, and are quite simply immoral.

It is important to understand that the kind of acts that we both despise are not the product of a political agenda, but rather the latent, universal angst and outrage that is endemic in our society, especially among youth.

If I could kick the ass of the idiot who dented your car, I'd probably be happier than you to do it.

:)

Right, because protesting someone who started a war over chemical/biological weapons and peoples freedom is protesting for the rights of others.
Oh your kidding me, don't you dare use that WMD bulshit. The whole world knows that was a lie.

Sorry but anyone who thinks property destruction and blocking the streets is fine should be locked up. You are playing with other peoples lives, some people that are late to work, get fired. Damaging other peoples and indeed governement property is wrong purhaps you would like to pay for the dent in my cars hood.

Don't drive into a demonstration, duh.

Just remember Bush is a first class Duffus, as the economy and the war continue to go south you or a family member may be in that demonstration.

Hey I live in Central Florida, ground zero for economic refugees. Yeah we have our winos, but we've been getting a lot of just plain American citizens who have come down at the end of their financial rope. They've lost their jobs, houses, cars and have gone through all their savings.

Kind of sad to see them making the circuit between the homeless shelters, the day labor offices, and the Salvation Army. If they're lucky they may eventually save enough to put deposit down on an apartment and get a phone, then they'll have their pick of $6.00 an hour jobs. There but for the grace of God my friends walk any of you.

Walks up to the constitution
pulls down fly
takes a piss on the constitution and all it stands for


Fixed.

a cause is helped, just through a circuitous route.
I find that the cause is harmed by turning peoples attention away from what your message is and towards your rebellious and sometimes dangerous behaviour.

Don't drive into a demonstration, duh.

They were in the streets, you know where cars drive

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooploogie
"Walks up to the constitution
pulls down fly
takes a piss on the constitution and all it stands for"

Fixed.

right, because it's not like the guys who wrote it dumped valuable tea into a harbor or anything, or commanded troops to open fire on colonizing law enforcers...

Oh your kidding me, don't you dare use that WMD bulshit. The whole world knows that was a lie.

Note I didn't use WMDs, seeing as calling worthless chemical/biological weaposn WMDs was a beautiful propaganda invention and nothing else. I said what he started it over, not what is there.

were I to dent your car, and were you to confront me about it, I gladly would pay for it. Seriously.

I made quite careful consideration to use the term "targetted and thought-out Property Destruction." Random, spite-driven or other kinds of property destruction are politically worthless and damaging to any cause. Denting an honest worker's car is beyond reprehensible - but destroying a corrupt bank's front window does in fact reflect a potent and applicable message.

Any time that I see some dumbass punk kid smash some shit just for the hell of it, i *GRAB* them, sometimes throw them to the ground even, and SCREAM at them for exactly this reason. Such acts are NOT helpful to our cause, and are quite simply immoral.

It is important to understand that the kind of acts that we both despise are not the product of a political agenda, but rather the latent, universal angst and outrage that is endemic in our society, especially among youth.

If I could kick the ass of the idiot who dented your car, I'd probably be happier than you to do it.

:)
Thank you, you have restored some of my faith in humanity, the person who dented my car then threatened to sue me for hitting his sign.

Civil disobedience such as traffic-blocking is only acceptable when protesting civil rights issues, not protesting foreign policy.
Civil Disobedience, the essay, was written to document a protest to a war.

right, because it's not like the guys who wrote it dumped valuable tea into a harbor or anything, or commanded troops to open fire on colonizing law enforcers...

They used acts of violence in a system where the constitution and its rights did not exist. The constitution exists and any acts of violence you commit is the equivalent to taking it out and pissing on the rights it guarantees.

They used acts of violence in a system where the constitution and its rights did not exist. The constitution exists and any acts of violence you commit is the equivalent to taking it out and pissing on the rights it guarantees.

That is an incredibly insular outlook. The US constitution holds no greater validity now than the British did then.

At the time of the revolution, the legal authority was the British. They DID have a constitution, and legal rights WERE recognised. The British had an elected parliament, rule of law, and rights such as "Habeus Corpus" (one which, sadly, the present day Americans have binned as being inconvenient).

The American nation is built on dissent, civil disobedience, bloody revolution, and what some would today define as "illegal combatants".

Kindly read some history.

They used acts of violence in a system where the constitution and its rights did not exist. The constitution exists and any acts of violence you commit is the equivalent to taking it out and pissing on the rights it guarantees.

not sure i understand what you mean, exactly.

and as i've already made clear - i do NOT prefer to use such tactics. if equivelant change was feasible or even possible under legal and constitutionally-provided means, i'd be quite happy working within those frames.

however, as history quite clearly demonstrates (as I pointed out in my examples of the 8-hour workday, et al), such means are far from sufficient.

Additionally, perhaps you're not very familiar with the ideas of our country's founding documents and fathers. Many of them, most vocally Jefferson, understood quite clearly that this new experiment they were undertaking had quite a bit of potential to be flawed. Jefferson in fact advocated violent revolution on a near continual basis, every few decades or so, until the true ideal of what they had in mind was achieved. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

further quotes on this subject are in abundance.

In fact, the constitution itself acknowledges this necessity, and expresses it in the Second Ammendment - the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, for use in a revolution against the republican government should the people perceive it to have descended into tyranny (which I do indeed perceive - although I by no means see violent revolt as a practical or desirable tactic). If anything, people partaking in these actions that you so condemn are in fact doing a better job of adhering to the word of that magnificent founding document than you are for bashing them.

I honestly do believe that if the U.S. government today actually followed the word and intent of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, there would be no need for the radical change I advocate, or for the tactics which all of us would rather not be used, but in our perception, must be used. An activist friend of mine once said to a crowd, "The revolution that we are fighting today has already been fought and won, over 200 years ago." It is simply a shame that that revolution's effects were not blessed with suitable permanence.

That is an incredibly insular outlook. The US constitution holds no greater validity now than the British did then.

Indeed it is. But then again we are talking about a constitution that most of these protestors claim they are upholding and believe in. The Americans clearly did not believe in the British system of law or representation and did not claim to.

actually, colonial americans were quite fond of the provisions of the Magna Carta and of british democracy - which is why the Constitution and our government resemble those things so closely.

Their grievances, like ours today, were to specific things that were (if only in spirit) actually opposed to the ideals of those british documents and systems.

Indeed it is. But then again we are talking about a constitution that most of these protestors claim they are upholding and believe in. The Americans clearly did not believe in the British system of law or representation and did not claim to.

And protestors obviously do not believe that their interests are being served by their government.

The "Constitution" in this case is irrelevant. Particularly as it guarantees some rights to freedom of speech. Does this not include the right to protest????

not sure i understand what you mean, exactly.

and as i've already made clear - i do NOT prefer to use such tactics. if equivelant change was feasible or even possible under legal and constitutionally-provided means, i'd be quite happy working within those frames.

however, as history quite clearly demonstrates (as I pointed out in my examples of the 8-hour workday, et al), such means are far from sufficient.

Additionally, perhaps you're not very familiar with the ideas of our country's founding documents and fathers. Many of them, most vocally Jefferson, understood quite clearly that this new experiment they were undertaking had quite a bit of potential to be flawed. Jefferson in fact advocated violent revolution on a near continual basis, every few decades or so, until the true ideal of what they had in mind was achieved. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

further quotes on this subject are in abundance.

-paragraph remove and delt with below-

I honestly do believe that if the U.S. government today actually followed the word and intent of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, there would be no need for the radical change I advocate, or for the tactics which all of us would rather not be used, but in our perception, must be used. An activist friend of mine once said to a crowd, "The revolution that we are fighting today has already been fought and won, over 200 years ago." It is simply a shame that that revolution's effects were not blessed with suitable permanence.

Yes, and you have a view that the government has descended into tyranney while I do not have that view. You wish to go ahead and change something that I view as reasonably fine as it exists with the only changes needed capably down within the system as it exists.

In fact, the constitution itself acknowledges this necessity, and expresses it in the Second Ammendment - the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, for use in a revolution against the republican government should the people perceive it to have descended into tyranny (which I do indeed perceive - although I by no means see violent revolt as a practical or desirable tactic). If anything, people partaking in these actions that you so condemn are in fact doing a better job of adhering to the word of that magnificent founding document than you are for bashing them.

Right. People who run around and bash windows, burn police buildings to the ground, stop traffic etc... all in the name of civil rights are upholding the constituion. Right.

actually, colonial americans were quite fond of the provisions of the Magna Carta and of british democracy - which is why the Constitution and our government resemble those things so closely.

Their grievances, like ours today, were to specific things that were (if only in spirit) actually opposed to the ideals of those british documents and systems.

And yet they still engaged in a bloody and violent revolution against the British government - rather proving my point that Constitutions are irrelevant to protest.

actually, colonial americans were quite fond of the provisions of the Magna Carta and of british democracy - which is why the Constitution and our government resemble those things so closely.

Their grievances, like ours today, were to specific things that were (if only in spirit) actually opposed to the ideals of those british documents and systems.

Um, you just said they were opposed to specific things that were opposed to the ideals of the british documents. You just repeated what I said. If you made a typo somewhere please correct it.

And protestors obviously do not believe that their interests are being served by their government.

The "Constitution" in this case is irrelevant. Particularly as it guarantees some rights to freedom of speech. Does this not include the right to protest????

The constitution guarentees the right to a peaceful assembley and protest as well as the freedom of speech. The protestors we are talking about decided to get "violent."

Yes, and you have a view that the government has descended into tyranney while I do not have that view. You wish to go ahead and change something that I view as reasonably fine as it exists with the only changes needed capably down within the system as it exists.



Right. People who run around and bash windows, burn police buildings to the ground, stop traffic etc... all in the name of civil rights are upholding the constituion. Right.


Right! Now you've got it!

haha.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Right! Now you've got it!

haha.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

:shrug: I suppose. If they are willing to accept their own internal self-contradiction, good for them. I've got a few changes I'd like to make to the government and would happily violently enforce them if I had the manpower to do it, but I wouldn't run around claiming that my actions are protected inside the constitution.

Firstly, I would like to let it be known that I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the war in Iraq. I don't want this thread to become an argument against the war. I'll probably get flamed by a bunch of people, but...oh well.

Protesters have gotten increasingly stupid. I remember, during the RNC, how people would get out in the street and block traffic. I have a question to those protestors: do you honestly think you're helping your cause?? Tell me, how many people do you know who were stuck in traffic and thought, "Gee, these protesters sure have a point! I never thought about it that way! Sure, I'll be late to work, but hey...it's worth it." NO ONE! People simply think that the protestors are morons.

A note to anti-war protestors: as in the above example, civil disobedience doesn't work!!! It makes people angry and causes them to hate you and your cause. So please, in the interest of someone who's REALLY antiwar, STOP HURTING THE CAUSE, MORONS!!!

Well I'm no fan of senseless violence, but that said, how do you propose to show your opposition to an unjust war without some sort of visible protest?

Oh I've got it! Maybe we should all write a tersely worded letter to Bush telling him that we are ever so miffed about the state of world affairs...because after all, you know that George Bush lives for nothing more in the world than reading the pious letters of us anti war folk!! Now why didn't I think of that......

Um, you just said they were opposed to specific things that were opposed to the ideals of the british documents. You just repeated what I said. If you made a typo somewhere please correct it.

indeed, i misunderstood what you meant by "laws and representation" to mean the founding documents and processes as a whole. noted.

The constitution guarentees the right to a peaceful assembley and protest as well as the freedom of speech. The protestors we are talking about decided to get "violent."

well, this does indeed pose an intriguing dilemma. The founders of our country essentially laid out two conditions - protest and reolvution. In protest, the people should assemble peacefully. In revolution, they are more or less permitted to use any means necessary. So the question is, where is the line drawn? Is it even possible to draw such a line? Does this line even actually exist?

Also, when the effects of peaceful assembly are diminished tremendously as they are today, is it still a practical tactic? What about when police officers brutally assault people when they have not even violated any laws, and are in fact assembled peacefully? This happens a great deal more than you might think - in fact it's probably the most common misconception i've encountered among people who have never attended a protest. It is in fact so common that I can confidently say that the vast majority (upwards of 80 or 90 per cent) of police-protestor clashes are in fact not justified by actions of the protestors, or are in fact spawned by police officers acting as undercover provocateurs within the protest crowd itself, as an excuse to repress dissent and also for their own interest - police departments and officers profit quite handsomely from mass arrests at demonstrations.

If people wish for us to use peaceful assembly exclusively, then they should work toward actually guaranteeing its protection under the law, in reality, instead of just having it on paper.

well, this does indeed pose an intriguing dilemma. The founders of our country essentially laid out two conditions - protest and reolvution. In protest, the people should assemble peacefully. In revolution, they are more or less permitted to use any means necessary. So the question is, where is the line drawn? Is it even possible to draw such a line? Does this line even actually exist?

It is very easy. When you assemble an army and kick down the doors to the Congress and start shooting, thats a revolution. Attending the RNC and bitching about Bush and then blocking traffic is not a revolution.

Also, when the effects of peaceful assembly are diminished tremendously as they are today, is it still a practical tactic? What about when police officers brutally assault people when they have not even violated any laws, and are in fact assembled peacefully? This happens a great deal more than you might think - in fact it's probably the most common misconception i've encountered among people who have never attended a protest. It is in fact so common that I can confidently say that the vast majority (upwards of 80 or 90 per cent) of police-protestor clashes are in fact not justified by actions of the protestors, or are in fact spawned by police officers acting as undercover provocateurs within the protest crowd itself, as an excuse to repress dissent and also for their own interest - police departments and officers profit quite handsomely from mass arrests at demonstrations.

In which case we need to deal with police tactics and methods, not the system of government.

If people wish for us to use peaceful assembly exclusively, then they should work toward actually guaranteeing its protection under the law, in reality, instead of just having it on paper.

In which case we need to deal with the people inside the police departments, not the system of government. Besides the case we are talking about is a case where they were not peacefully assembled.

Well I'm no fan of senseless violence, but that said, how do you propose to show your opposition to an unjust war without some sort of visible protest?

Oh I've got it! Maybe we should all write a tersely worded letter to Bush telling him that we are ever so miffed about the state of world affairs...because after all, you know that George Bush lives for nothing more in the world than reading the pious letters of us anti war folk!! Now why didn't I think of that......
Or maybe, and this is just a crazy thought, you could peacfully protest without the tinfoil hat slogans like "no blood for oil" and not engage in violence.

I might add that lewd and crude displays don't work either. Nor do violent displays. Seeing some of these actually swung my vote against Kerry (who I had supported during the summer, but my sympathies changed by mid-september)

If naughty does not win you elections...HOW COME BUSH WON ??

Want to stop the war?

No I dont want the war to stop.
I say we need 500.000 more mexican marines...and I want the Draft too.

4 more years!...4 more years!...I want 4 more years!...
Change the Constitution...I want 4 more!

Well I'm no fan of senseless violence, but that said, how do you propose to show your opposition to an unjust war without some sort of visible protest?

Oh I've got it! Maybe we should all write a tersely worded letter to Bush telling him that we are ever so miffed about the state of world affairs...because after all, you know that George Bush lives for nothing more in the world than reading the pious letters of us anti war folk!! Now why didn't I think of that......
I agree with a citizen's right to protest. However, I think that breaking windows, pelting police with heavy objects, and stopping traffic does more to hurt your cause than help it. If you want to have a peaceful demonstration, then go right ahead.