NationStates Jolt Archive

community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album430&page=1 (http://community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album430&page=1)

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest02.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/07yelling_protester.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/arms2.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/05angry_man_vert.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/08peace_girl_vert.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/02dragging_trio_trucks.jpg


community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/01kneeling_cop.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest04.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/04hair_pull_horz.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/shove.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest07.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest06.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest03.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest01.jpg

Owned.

I'd be pretty pissed if these hippies were in the way of my supplies.

fair play to them

lucky the troops didnt open up, seems to be their standard response in iraq

fair play to them

lucky the troops didnt open up, seems to be their standard response in iraq

These guys didn't pack IEDs in cars it appears....

Where was this taking place? And why would they want to stop the convoy.

Washington.


Because war is baaaaaaaaaaaad! BAaaaaaaaaaaaaad! [insert image of sheep]

What a bunch of dumb-asses. Trying to stop a military convoy. They should be lucky they weren't killed. I bet some of them soldiers and police wanted to beat them something aweful, but held back.

Losers:headbang:

Look at the guy flashing the peace sign. He looks like he's smoked so much pot that his body is roughly 80% weed. They should have just kept moving. Just cause the drugs make em think they can stop a Stryker doesn't mean they actually can.

Washington.

Because war is baaaaaaaaaaaad! BAaaaaaaaaaaaaad! [insert image of sheep]
Someone who always sticks up for the government is hardly in a position to call anyone else a sheep.

http://community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/04hair_pull_horz.jpg

someone must make an "owned" picture out of this

I saw something similar to this in Colorado Springs when I was stationed at Fort Carson. There was an antiwar protest, and when they blocked off Academy Blvd (the main street in the Springs) the police tear gassed them. They have every right to protest, but they should expect something to happen when they try to physically block things.

fair play to them

lucky the troops didnt open up, seems to be their standard response in iraq

Don't be silly. When traveling in the US, troops rarely have ammo for their weapons. Also, US troops wouldn't open fire on US civilians unless they were taking direct fire, and maybe not even then. If a soldier killed a civilian in the US without being under direct fire he would be charged with murder. Despite what TV and the Internet say, the vast majority of US troops are not murderous monsters. I won't say that there aren't a few, but any organization that large will have a few nutjobs in it. Unfortunately ours happen to be at the top, more often than not.


Washington.


Because war is baaaaaaaaaaaad! BAaaaaaaaaaaaaad! [insert image of sheep]

Ummmm.... it is bad. Killing people should only be a matter of last resort. And I say this as an Iraq veteran. Whether or not war was needed in Iraq is a matter for debate, but whether it is needed or not it's never good.

http://community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/04hair_pull_horz.jpg

someone must make an "owned" picture out of this

Just for you my man.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14720080994.jpg&s=f5


http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14714301450.gif&s=f5

I saw something similar to this in Colorado Springs when I was stationed at Fort Carson. There was an antiwar protest, and when they blocked off Academy Blvd (the main street in the Springs) the police tear gassed them. They have every right to protest, but they should expect something to happen when they try to physically block things.



Don't be silly. When traveling in the US, troops rarely have ammo for their weapons. Also, US troops wouldn't open fire on US civilians unless they were taking direct fire, and maybe not even then. If a soldier killed a civilian in the US without being under direct fire he would be charged with murder. Despite what TV and the Internet say, the vast majority of US troops are not murderous monsters. I won't say that there aren't a few, but any organization that large will have a few nutjobs in it. Unfortunately ours happen to be at the top, more often than not.



Ummmm.... it is bad. Killing people should only be a matter of last resort. And I say this as an Iraq veteran. Whether or not war was needed in Iraq is a matter for debate, but whether it is needed or not it's never good.

Killing can be good-for example, the state sponsored execution of a child murderer/rapist. Good. The murder of a woman by her jealous ex boyfriend? Bad.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for the one above, so let me get on my flame suit.

The NG during the Rodney King riots were issued 40 rds of ammo a peice..not much. I would however hazard a guess that they do have SOME sort of loaded weapon with them when traveling in their vehicles.

Killing can be good-for example, the state sponsored execution of a child murderer/rapist. Good. The murder of a woman by her jealous ex boyfriend? Bad.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for the one above, so let me get on my flame suit.

People like you don't even deserve flames, so stop flattering yourself.

People like you don't even deserve flames, so stop flattering yourself.


I'm breathing so much easier now...*whew*

Killing can be good-for example, the state sponsored execution of a child murderer/rapist. Good. The murder of a woman by her jealous ex boyfriend? Bad.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for the one above, so let me get on my flame suit.

I don't think that it's necessarily "good", just "less bad". Killing people isn't good, but sometimes it's better than the other options. That doesn't, however, make it good. The real trick is knowing when that is the case.

The NG during the Rodney King riots were issued 40 rds of ammo a peice..not much. I would however hazard a guess that they do have SOME sort of loaded weapon with them when traveling in their vehicles.

Whenever I convoyed in the US no one in the convoy had live ammo. Since I only got out 2 years ago, I would hazard a guess that that particular procedure hasn't changed.

Just for you my man.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14720080994.jpg&s=f5

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14714301450.gif&s=f5
Yes, the first pic is just perfect. The expression on both their faces. All that's missing is some sort of cutting shears in the soldier's hand.

However, I think that your hippie drill is as useless as those tinfoil-coated pipes they wear on their arms.

http://www.rollins.edu/history/Web%20Pictures/Tiananmen%20Square%202.jpg

community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album430&page=1 (http://community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album430&page=1)

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest02.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/07yelling_protester.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/arms2.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/05angry_man_vert.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/08peace_girl_vert.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/02dragging_trio_trucks.jpg


community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/01kneeling_cop.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest04.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/04hair_pull_horz.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/shove.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest07.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest06.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest03.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest01.jpg

Owned.

I'd be pretty pissed if these hippies were in the way of my supplies.
Fuckin' lil bastards. Wish I had been there! :mad: :mad: :mad:

http://www.rollins.edu/history/Web%20Pictures/Tiananmen%20Square%202.jpg


Oh sh*t!

There's more of them damn hippie rabble-rousers!

:D

Yes, the first pic is just perfect. The expression on both their faces. All that's missing is some sort of cutting shears in the soldier's hand.

However, I think that your hippie drill is as useless as those tinfoil-coated pipes they wear on their arms.

Those are hippie traps:eek: . It makes it easier to taser them to bring them under arrest-taser one and you've got the entire line of hippies rolling on the ground :D

http://www.rollins.edu/history/Web%20Pictures/Tiananmen%20Square%202.jpg
Not EVEN close! That lil guy had more courage in his little toe than those stinkin' bastards do in their entire BODIES!

What a bunch of dumb-asses. Trying to stop a military convoy. They should be lucky they weren't killed. I bet some of them soldiers and police wanted to beat them something aweful, but held back.

Yeah, I bet they really were just horny to bash in the face of an unarmed civilian, 'cause that's the way we're supposed to think of soldiers and cops, right? Like they're trigger-pumping morons who know little else but violence. Yes, they were likely frustrated, but no, I doubt they really wanted to "beat them something aweful [sic]." Grow up, sonny. The world ain't black and white.

Fuckin' lil bastards. Wish I had been there! :mad: :mad: :mad:


Yeah!


How DARE they actually make use of that whole "Freedom" thing that people keep going on about.

Oh sh*t!

There's more of them damn hippie rabble-rousers!

:D

No those were Democracy activists. PIssed me off the gov't of China murdered them all.

Oh sh*t!

There's more of them damn hippie rabble-rousers!

:D
If you can't tell the difference, you're one stoopid motha-f****r!

Yeah!


How DARE they actually make use of that whole "Freedom" thing that people keep going on about.
Go perform an impossible act on yourself, you demented twit.

Not EVEN close! That lil guy had more courage in his little toe than those stinkin' bastards do in their entire BODIES!


Perhaps, but these hippies have more brains than the OP who rediculously claims that they were blocking some urgently required supply convoy.


Didn't know that the forces were under seige.... in Washington.

Yeah!

How DARE they actually make use of that whole "Freedom" thing that people keep going on about.

Don't you know? Eutrusca went to Vietnam to "protect" the freedoms he seems not to like anymore. It is fitting that the "protection" in Vietnam amounted to nothing, ironically.

Not EVEN close! That lil guy had more courage in his little toe than those stinkin' bastards do in their entire BODIES!

No kiddin! With balls that big, how did that guy sit down?

Go perform an impossible act on yourself, you demented twit.


Asking someone to perform the impossible.... AND calling them the one who is demented?


Try applying logic in your statements.


Just this once.

If you can't tell the difference, you're one stoopid motha-f****r!


Oooooh, gettin' all ghetto on my @ss now with your hip little spellings are we?




It's kinda cute to see an old guy try and connect with the younger crowd by adopting their vernacular, but its kinda sad too....

Not EVEN close! That lil guy had more courage in his little toe than those stinkin' bastards do in their entire BODIES!
How the FUCK do you know that? Damn, Eut, you fool me into thinking you're military loyal but reasonable, and then you post this tripe. Get off your high horse and take a look at the fact that it was a peaceful protest, no soldiers were ever in any kind of danger, and that maybe, just maybe, the point being made needed to be made.

I am no fan of the standard hippie boilerplate, but every so often it is A GOOD THING to remind the nation that the citizenry -- who, by the way, makes the military POSSIBLE -- isn't going to lie down as a whole and accept the horseshit coming from Rummy and the M-I Complex. Do I wanna see protests every week at every base? Hell no, but dammit, the occasional reminder that this whole war is horseshit is necessary.

Oh great, is this going to turn into anti-war people vs. ...okay, what should I call the other side? Obviously not pro-war, but... whatever. Is this going to just turn into name calling, or is there going to be intelligent conversation? Or making fun of the people in the pictures?

Oooooh, gettin' all ghetto on my @ss now with your hip little spellings are we?




It's kinda cute to see an old guy try and connect with the younger crowd by adopting their vernacular, but its kinda sad too....
Nope. Completely and irrevocably sad.

If you can't tell the difference, you're one stoopid motha-f****r!If you don't take time to explain that, you're one stoopid motha-f****r!

Oh great, is this going to turn into anti-war people vs. ...okay, what should I call the other side? Obviously not pro-war, but... whatever. Is this going to just turn into name calling, or is there going to be intelligent conversation? Or making fun of the people in the pictures?

Once Eut joins a thread where any sort of freedom of expression is involved that expresses things he is not fond of - it circles the drain in no time. He makes sure of it by going after the posters rather than the subject.


Of course, he was all gleefull when a vet went out of his way to go to a book signing and spat on JAne Fonda. That sort of Freedom of Expression is just Jim-Dandy then! He crowed about it for days.


Of course, he doesn't have a double standard on that particular Constitutionally protected right. At least - not in his own mind....

It's kinda cute to see an old guy try and connect with the younger crowd by adopting their vernacular, but its kinda sad too....

"LOL! ROFL! ROFLMAO FRAK! WTFOVER!?!"

Is it a law that all protesters must look like they have never bathed ?

from what I saw the police handled themselves well ...although they must have wished they had some lysol spray with them . Some of them people looked like they could use a flea collar .

At least they picked a good spot to protest and no one got hurt .

Is it a law that all protesters must look like they have never bathed ?

from what I saw the police handled themselves well ...although they must have wished they had some lysol spray with them . Some of them people looked like they could use a flea collar .

At least they picked a good spot to protest and no one got hurt .

No, it isn't a law, but it's probably true for a number of them.

Once Eut joins a thread where any sort of freedom of expression is involved that expresses things he is not fond of - it circles the drain in no time. He makes sure of it by going after the posters rather than the subject.


Of course, he was all gleefull when a vet went out of his way to go to a book signing and spat on JAne Fonda. That sort of Freedom of Expression is just Jim-Dandy then! He crowed about it for days.


Of course, he doesn't have a double standard on that particular Constitutionally protected right. At least - not in his own mind....

... I don't suppose that I'm going to want to stay here long enough for Eut to respond to this post, am I? :rolleyes:

... I don't suppose that I'm going to want to stay here long enough for Eut to respond to this post, am I? :rolleyes:

Eutrusca actually responding to posts and the points raised in them? No, you won't want to be staying for that, as you'll be waiting a very long time for that never-before-seen event to occur.

"LOL! ROFL! ROFLMAO FRAK! WTFOVER!?!"
Ok, Fass, there goes the last shread of respect I had for you.

Goodbye.

Is it a law that all protesters must look like they have never bathed ?

from what I saw the police handled themselves well ...although they must have wished they had some lysol spray with them . Some of them people looked like they could use a flea collar .

At least they picked a good spot to protest and no one got hurt .
Not a law, per se, more of an ethos. I'm not terribly fond of the uberhippie caste, either. Extremes on either side tend to be pretty damned silly. Some of these hippies believe that rubbing a crystal under your armpit is some kind of deodorant. I can tell you from personal experience that it is most certainly not. Zealots with guns or zealots with peace signs. Both are still zealots.

Ok, Fass, there goes the last shread of respect I had for you.

Goodbye.
If you're going to dismiss someone, at least get the spelling right. :)

Shred.

Ok, Fass, there goes the last shread of respect I had for you.

Goodbye.
What, for painting an accurate portrait? You want to lose respect, check out some of your own posts and gaze in a mirror.

Ok, Fass, there goes the last shread of respect I had for you.

Goodbye.Somehow, I just don't think he'll be crying himself to sleep over that.

What a bunch of dumb-asses. Trying to stop a military convoy. They should be lucky they weren't killed. I bet some of them soldiers and police wanted to beat them something aweful, but held back.

Are you suggesting that the revered police and army of the United States desire violence?

Ok, Fass, there goes the last shread of respect I had for you.

Goodbye.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad021.gif

Are you suggesting that the revered police and army of the United States desire violence?

I think the suggestion was that they would be frustrated like any normal human being, had the self-discipline not to act on it, but if they hadn't, they really weren't the right people to be bothering...

.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? WHy has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,
"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corse to the rampart we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot O'er the grave where out hero was buried."

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corse to the rampart we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot O'er the grave where out hero was buried."


...

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

http://community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album430&id=07yelling_protester

Waldo is a hippy?

Oh great, is this going to turn into anti-war people vs. ...okay, what should I call the other side? Obviously not pro-war, but... whatever. Is this going to just turn into name calling, or is there going to be intelligent conversation? Or making fun of the people in the pictures?
I've tried and tried to hold a reasonably intelligent conversation with these ... people, with totally negative results.

This will be my last post on the subject.

I have never raised my hand to any protestor. They have the absolute right to exercise their freedom of speech anytime they so desire. Should the occasion arise, I would defend them against anyone attacking them. I have, however, expected the same respect in return. The difference is that they never gave it.

I've been spat upon, had things thrown at me, been called some of the most disgusting and awful things imaginable. Why? Becuse I wore the uniform of my Country's armed forces; not because I was doing anything wrong, not because I had been a violent person, not because I was an evil person, but simply because I had the unbelieveabl timerity to disagree with their position.

I hate the bastards, pure and simple. There must be a million ways to protest something your government is doing that you don't like, without resorting to revileing those who wear the uniform, or calling their parents to tell them that you're happy their son is dead, or spitting on people who were just happy to be alive and finally back home, or desecrating their grave, or any of the hundreds of other vile things to which they resort.

No, I will never lift my hand against them. I consider myself better than them in that respect. But I will always hate them.

http://community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album430&id=07yelling_protester

Waldo is a hippy?
Nice, you've still got me laughing.

I've tried and tried to hold a reasonably intelligent conversation with these ... people, with totally negative results.

This will be my last post on the subject.

I have never raised my hand to any protestor. They have the absolute right to exercise their freedom of speech anytime they so desire. Should the occasion arise, I would defend them against anyone attacking them. I have, however, expected the same respect in return. The difference is that they never gave it.

I've been spat upon, had things thrown at me, been called some of the most disgusting and awful things imaginable. Why? Becuse I wore the uniform of my Country's armed forces; not because I was doing anything wrong, not because I had been a violent person, not because I was an evil person, but simply because I had the unbelieveabl timerity to disagree with their position.

I hate the bastards, pure and simple. There must be a million ways to protest something your government is doing that you don't like, without resorting to revileing those who wear the uniform, or calling their parents to tell them that you're happy their son is dead, or spitting on people who where just happy to be alive and finally back home, or desecrating their grave, or any of the hundreds of other vile things to which they resort.

No, I will never lift my hand against them. I consider myself better than them in that respect. But I will always hate them.
And the fact that you STILL haven't gotten over it is quite telling. If you want to let a heap of misguided idiots inform your judgment for the rest of your life, fine, that's your call. But it doesn't stop me from thinking that the problem is not theirs, it's yours.

I've tried and tried to hold a reasonably intelligent conversation with these ... people, with totally negative results.

This will be my last post on the subject.

I have never raised my hand to any protestor. They have the absolute right to exercise their freedom of speech anytime they so desire. Should the occasion arise, I would defend them against anyone attacking them. I have, however, expected the same respect in return. The difference is that they never gave it.

I've been spat upon, had things thrown at me, been called some of the most disgusting and awful things imaginable. Why? Becuse I wore the uniform of my Country's armed forces; not because I was doing anything wrong, not because I had been a violent person, not because I was an evil person, but simply because I had the unbelieveabl timerity to disagree with their position.

I hate the bastards, pure and simple. There must be a million ways to protest something your government is doing that you don't like, without resorting to revileing those who wear the uniform, or calling their parents to tell them that you're happy their son is dead, or spitting on people who where just happy to be alive and finally back home, or desecrating their grave, or any of the hundreds of other vile things to which they resort.

No, I will never lift my hand against them. I consider myself better than them in that respect. But I will always hate them.

I apologize for the misconduct of certain protestors. I'd agree that this group was also out of line due to where they were protesting. Just don't hold the misconduct of certain protestors against other protestors who are doing so properly. :/

And people, please, some of your stuff towards Eut was out of line.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad021.gif
:fluffle:

I've tried and tried to hold a reasonably intelligent conversation with these ... people, with totally negative results.

This will be my last post on the subject.

I have never raised my hand to any protestor. They have the absolute right to exercise their freedom of speech anytime they so desire. Should the occasion arise, I would defend them against anyone attacking them. I have, however, expected the same respect in return. The difference is that they never gave it.

I've been spat upon, had things thrown at me, been called some of the most disgusting and awful things imaginable. Why? Becuse I wore the uniform of my Country's armed forces; not because I was doing anything wrong, not because I had been a violent person, not because I was an evil person, but simply because I had the unbelieveabl timerity to disagree with their position.

I hate the bastards, pure and simple. There must be a million ways to protest something your government is doing that you don't like, without resorting to revileing those who wear the uniform, or calling their parents to tell them that you're happy their son is dead, or spitting on people who were just happy to be alive and finally back home, or desecrating their grave, or any of the hundreds of other vile things to which they resort.

No, I will never lift my hand against them. I consider myself better than them in that respect. But I will always hate them.

Vietnam is over. And to be so petty as to hate people clearly under the age of thirty today for their exercising their rights now in a manner that clearly has no parallel to what you describe - all because of how some people abused you then - frankly it shows a level of deep-seated anger that I think you should really seek professional help for.


Because it has zero basis in current reality.

Nice, you've still got me laughing.
Using smileys.. do you mean that in a :rolleyes: way.. or a :D way?

And people, please, some of your stuff towards Eut was out of line.

No it wasn't. Because his pattern of hurling abuse at those who disagree with him is far too well documented to be ignored.

In effect, his stated notion that he thinks himself above others because people once called him names.... well how does his characterization of people here as "stoopid- motha-f*******" stack up in comparison?


Frankly, he IS what he claims to hate. But he can't see that.

I hate the bastards, pure and simple. There must be a million ways to protest something your government is doing that you don't like, without resorting to revileing those who wear the uniform, or calling their parents to tell them that you're happy their son is dead, or spitting on people who were just happy to be alive and finally back home, or desecrating their grave, or any of the hundreds of other vile things to which they resort.

No, I will never lift my hand against them. I consider myself better than them in that respect. But I will always hate them.

A spectacular example of tarring with the same brush there. Fundamental differences of opinion aside, both the military and the anti-military have those that let their respective sides down.

Are you really claiming that you see all anti-war protestors as bastards?

Man, that guy in the last picture looked like he could take care of some business.

I've tried and tried to hold a reasonably intelligent conversation with these ... people, with totally negative results.

This will be my last post on the subject.

I have never raised my hand to any protestor. They have the absolute right to exercise their freedom of speech anytime they so desire. Should the occasion arise, I would defend them against anyone attacking them. I have, however, expected the same respect in return. The difference is that they never gave it.

I've been spat upon, had things thrown at me, been called some of the most disgusting and awful things imaginable. Why? Becuse I wore the uniform of my Country's armed forces; not because I was doing anything wrong, not because I had been a violent person, not because I was an evil person, but simply because I had the unbelieveabl timerity to disagree with their position.

I hate the bastards, pure and simple. There must be a million ways to protest something your government is doing that you don't like, without resorting to revileing those who wear the uniform, or calling their parents to tell them that you're happy their son is dead, or spitting on people who were just happy to be alive and finally back home, or desecrating their grave, or any of the hundreds of other vile things to which they resort.

No, I will never lift my hand against them. I consider myself better than them in that respect. But I will always hate them.
Lets see-some people in a movement 30 years ago painted all soldiers with one brush for the actions of a few, so the best response is to paint all those people with one brush because of the actions of a few. Nice sound reasoning. If you're six years old.

Eut, they have the right to protest..

A spectacular example of tarring with the same brush there. Fundamental differences of opinion aside, both the military and the anti-military have those that let their respective sides down.

Are you really claiming that you see all anti-war protestors as bastards?
Not at all. I'm saying that once burned, twice wary. "Protestors" have to prove to me that they have the courage of their convictions, and sufficient intelligence to tell the difference between those who set policy and those who are simply trying to do what they see as right. Until they prove to me they're otherwise, they're on my shit-list.

Using smileys.. do you mean that in a :rolleyes: way.. or a :D way?
I hate using smileys, but because you made me laugh, :D

Lets see-some people in a movement 30 years ago painted all soldiers with one brush for the actions of a few, so the best response is to paint all those people with one brush because of the actions of a few. Nice sound reasoning. If you're six years old.
Just for your infomation, there are those today who are doing the same thing, which you would know if you weren't so blinded by your own prejudice.

Eut, they have the right to protest..
What did I just say? Of course they do. But I have the right to choose to wear my Country's uniform ( or at least I use to ), and to disagree with them.

I hate using smileys, but because you made me laugh, :D
Ahh! In that case.. *insert fluffle here*

Not at all. I'm saying that once burned, twice wary. "Protestors" have to prove to me that they have the courage of their convictions, and sufficient intelligence to tell the difference between those who set policy and those who are simply trying to do what they see as right. Until they prove to me they're otherwise, they're on my shit-list.

You'll probably find all Quaker protestors qualify as those who would prove what you'd like, which is a start. Of course, I'd like to find this group...

And the people that did those deeds would have to be about 50, if not older, by now.
Edit: ^ I'm referring to the ones for the Vietnam war...

Not at all. I'm saying that once burned, twice wary. "Protestors" have to prove to me that they have the courage of their convictions, and sufficient intelligence to tell the difference between those who set policy and those who are simply trying to do what they see as right. Until they prove to me they're otherwise, they're on my shit-list.

So on this basis an anti-war protestor would be justified in viewing all members of the military as potential William Calleys, and placing them on their own shitlist?

What did I just say? Of course they do. But I have the right to choose to wear my Country's uniform ( or at least I use to ), and to disagree with them.
So, you don't see them as Country loving people, just like you?

Just for your infomation, there are those today who are doing the same thing, which you would know if you weren't so blinded by your own prejudice.
PROOF, please? Of ANY kind, of people spitting on soldiers in this decade?

You'll probably find all Quaker protestors qualify as those who would prove what you'd like, which is a start. Of course, I'd like to find this group...

And the people that did those deeds would have to be about 50, if not older, by now.
Edit: ^ I'm referring to the ones for the Vietnam war...
I have great respect for the Quakers. They have been consistently anti-war for centuries and, to my knowledge, never resorted to reviling anyone.

Just for your infomation, there are those today who are doing the same thing, which you would know if you weren't so blinded by your own prejudice.
You got anything other than trying to claim Phelps is part of the peace movement? Because it's just as easy to make the case that he's part of the christian movement...

Okay, can we at least reach this agreement?

Protestors who protest in the *proper* time, place, and manner - that is to say, such that they don't harm anyone in the process (this includes spitting) - are perfectly fine people?

So on this basis an anti-war protestor would be justified in viewing all members of the military as potential William Calleys, and placing them on their own shitlist?
And this would be something new??? :rolleyes:

I have great respect for the Quakers. They have been consistently anti-war for centuries and, to my knowledge, never resorted to reviling anyone.

Thank you!

So, you don't see them as Country loving people, just like you?
Some of them may be, but their actions ( and the actions of those they choose to hang out with ) speak so loudly that I can't hear what they are saying.

And this would be something new??? :rolleyes:

Focus on the word 'justified' in my previous post.

You got anything other than trying to claim Phelps is part of the peace movement? Because it's just as easy to make the case that he's part of the christian movement...
I didn't have Phelps in mind when I posted that. Straw man.

I didn't have Phelps in mind when I posted that. Straw man.
It would be a straw man if I hadn't seen you make thread trying to do that very thing.

Not at all. I'm saying that once burned, twice wary. "Protestors" have to prove to me that they have the courage of their convictions, and sufficient intelligence to tell the difference between those who set policy and those who are simply trying to do what they see as right. Until they prove to me they're otherwise, they're on my shit-list.


OF course, given that you won't give them the time of day you have the advantage of never letting them prove anything to you.


VERY convenient.


I am becoming convinced that there are some people on this planet who just need someone to hate in order to validate their superiority.

Some join the Klan. Some come up with other arbitrary targets.


but there isn't a whole lot of difference in their mindsets really.

Okay, can we at least reach this agreement?

Protestors who protest in the *proper* time, place, and manner - that is to say, such that they don't harm anyone in the process (this includes spitting) - are perfectly fine people?
Not to me. Because of my experiences with self-styled "protestors," any who call themselves such have to prove to me they're a cut above their ... associates.

And this would be something new??? :rolleyes:
No more new than the military/police culture assuming every protestor is a hippie-communist-pothead-douchebag.

Some of them may be, but their actions ( and the actions of those they choose to hang out with ) speak so loudly that I can't hear what they are saying.
Not trying to make a point, just understand you..

Actions? Like PETA? Or like pot smoking hippies?

Oh, and, you're stereotyping :p

Okay, can we at least reach this agreement?

Protestors who protest in the *proper* time, place, and manner - that is to say, such that they don't harm anyone in the process (this includes spitting) - are perfectly fine people?

I don't know, about the spitting part I mean it's possible to damage more than one's body.

Not to me. Because of my experiences with self-styled "protestors," any who call themselves such have to prove to me they're a cut above their ... associates.
As you have to prove to me that you're a "cut above" your trigger-happy, mouth breathing, flag-humping, my-country's-never-wrong "associates". (See how silly that sounds?)

Not to me. Because of my experiences with self-styled "protestors," any who call themselves such have to prove to me they're a cut above their ... associates.

I'm afraid I'm not quite following your logic. Please explain?

It would be a straw man if I hadn't seen you make thread trying to do that very thing.
I suspect you're referring to the thread about protestors at the funerals of soldiers. You should go back and read what I posted; your memory of it seems rather vague.

Not trying to make a point, just understand you..

Actions? Like PETA? Or like pot smoking hippies?

Oh, and, you're stereotyping :p
( shrug ) So sue me.

( shrug ) So sue me.
Answer my question :(

They are calling Iraq the 2nd Vietnam you know... I wonder why...

While they have the right to protest, they don't have the right to block the road. Armored Vehicles ALWAYS have the right of way.

PROOF, please? Of ANY kind, of people spitting on soldiers in this decade?

You won't, of course, get an answer. I should also have noted that he is very selective in the posts he responds to. Difficult questions that would force him to justify his mindset in a current and relevant fashion are impossible for him to answer, so he doesn't bother. He just mindlessly applies the actions of a previous generation to the current situation, and assumes that it will all become the same thing.


The fact that it's old soldiers such as himself who do the spitting these days (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154063,00.html) is also not worth mentioning.

After all, he applauded that person's actions.


And yes, that IS his picture under "hypocrite" in Websters.


Saddly, the fact that a Marine group apparently DID just justify such crass language as "baby killers" for the current generation is even more unfortunate. And I'm sure that some a-hole WILL use that term, and that Eutrusca will then use that as the whitewash that he needs.

I suspect you're referring to the thread about protestors at the funerals of soldiers. You should go back and read what I posted; your memory of it seems rather vague.
I remember it, I remember you trying to deny that it was Phelps and that it was 'peace protesters.' I remember your many threads trying to say "This is how it starts..." etc., and each of those cases not being as you painted them.

The fact is, the burdon of proof is on you. You prove that protesters are like they where 'way back when,' it's your claim, your crusade. I believe you'll find that in the instance where you are able to find an example you will also find the majority of the peace minded people condemning them. Something that would be obvious if you wheren't blinded by your prejudice.

I'm afraid I'm not quite following your logic. Please explain?
I've had numerous negative experiences with self-styled protestors. Those experiences have made me very wary of anyone calling themselves a "protestor." Now it seems that there are some of the violent, vituperative sort around. This has made me even more wary. They have to prove to me that they have the courage of their convictions and the sense to separate the "messenger from the message."

They are calling Iraq the 2nd Vietnam you know... I wonder why...

While they have the right to protest, they don't have the right to block the road. Armored Vehicles ALWAYS have the right of way.

*blink* Unless your in a war-zone or facing an imminent attack, don't emergency response vehicles have right of way? Of course, I don't actually know, so this qualifies as a legit question, not rhetorical.

They are calling Iraq the 2nd Vietnam you know... I wonder why...

While they have the right to protest, they don't have the right to block the road. Armored Vehicles ALWAYS have the right of way.
They got arrested, they knew they where going to get arrested, getting arrested was part of the plan. Civil disobedience. You have to make noise to be heard.

I remember it, I remember you trying to deny that it was Phelps and that it was 'peace protesters.' I remember your many threads trying to say "This is how it starts..." etc., and each of those cases not being as you painted them.

The fact is, the burdon of proof is on you. You prove that protesters are like they where 'way back when,' it's your claim, your crusade. I believe you'll find that in the instance where you are able to find an example you will also find the majority of the peace minded people condemning them. Something that would be obvious if you wheren't blinded by your prejudice.
Perhaps I am a bit "blinded." You can call it a "crusade" if you like. But the fact remains that "once burned, twice wary." Where protestors are concerned, I'm from Missori ... I have to be shown.

I've had numerous negative experiences with self-styled protestors. Those experiences have made me very wary of anyone calling themselves a "protestor." Now it seems that there are some of the violent, vituperative sort around. This has made me even more wary. They have to prove to me that they have the courage of their convictions and the sense to separate the "messenger from the message."

Which messenger and message? If you're meaning separating soldiers from why-we're-at-war, that should qualify as *proper* protesting. If you are refering to the protestor and the protest... I'm still not sure I get it.

Perhaps I am a bit "blinded." You can call it a "crusade" if you like. But the fact remains that "once burned, twice wary." Where protestors are concerned, I'm from Missori ... I have to be shown.
Did you just answer a call for proof with "show me?"

Answer my question :(


You mean this part?
Not trying to make a point, just understand you..

Actions? Like PETA? Or like pot smoking hippies?
I'm probably not sufficiently familiar with PETA to use them as an example. I mean rather like being wary of drug users because some of them have become violent from using drugs. Or being wary of pedophiles because many of them become recidivists as soon as they are released from custody.

Did you just answer a call for proof with "show me?"
No. I responded to your question.

*blink* Unless your in a war-zone or facing an imminent attack, don't emergency response vehicles have right of way? Of course, I don't actually know, so this qualifies as a legit question, not rhetorical.
I think Government Convoys have the right of Way also. Since they're Government\Military Vehicles. Are Military Vehicles considered "Law Enforcement" Vehicles?

No. I responded to your question.
Yes, technically you 'responded,' but the question, so to speak, was to ask for proof, and your response was "show me." Which is comical. But yes, technically it was a resonse, not an answer per se, but it was a response...

I think Government Convoys have the right of Way also. Since they're Government\Military Vehicles. Are Military Vehicles considered "Law Enforcement" Vehicles?

Looks like this is actually a good question for Eut.
Except that Eut's having to answer a bunch of other questions. :/

Which messenger and message? If you're meaning separating soldiers from why-we're-at-war, that should qualify as *proper* protesting. If you are refering to the protestor and the protest... I'm still not sure I get it.
I'm referring to them being able to protest without reviling, harrassing, or otherwise discomfiting those who voluntarily join the armed forces. They need to have enough sense to avoid "shooting the messenger" when they don't understand either the message or who actually wrote it. Kapisch?

I think Government Convoys have the right of Way also. Since they're Government\Military Vehicles. Are Military Vehicles considered "Law Enforcement" Vehicles?
I'm pretty sure that everything on the road has to follow the same rules and right of ways that every other vehicle on the road has unless it is an emergency. Convoys can temporarily block roads in the same way a frieght truck or construction truck can, but unless it is an emergency and there are sirens and lights on the vehicle it pretty much has to do what every other vehicle does. The protesters would be just as much in the way and in trouble if they where blocking commuters, but it wouldn't have made as much news.

I'm referring to them being able to protest without reviling, harrassing, or otherwise discomfiting those who voluntarily join the armed forces. They need to have enough sense to avoid "shooting the messenger" when they don't understand either the message or who actually wrote it. Kapisch?

Okay. Yes, this is what I'm referring to as *proper* protesting - that is to say, *proper* protesting doesn't involve reviling, harassing, or otherwise discomforting the soldiers. The protest is against the issue, and those who made it, not those who have to enforce it. In other words, I'm asking if the protestors who know what their doing and are nice about it okay.

I think Government Convoys have the right of Way also. Since they're Government\Military Vehicles. Are Military Vehicles considered "Law Enforcement" Vehicles?
No, military convoys are not considered "Law Enforcement." They are merely trying to get vital supplies and equipment to those who need them. I think there's at least one law on the books about unauthorized delay of a military convoy, but I'm not 100% certain about that.

No, military convoys are not considered "Law Enforcement." They are merely trying to get vital supplies and equipment to those who need them. I think there's at least one law on the books about unauthorized delay of a military convoy, but I'm not 100% certain about that.

Military convoys vs. emergency vehicles, and then military vehicles vs. emergency vehicles - who has right of way when?

Okay. Yes, this is what I'm referring to as *proper* protesting - that is to say, *proper* protesting doesn't involve reviling, harassing, or otherwise discomforting the soldiers. The protest is against the issue, and those who made it, not those who have to enforce it. In other words, I'm asking if the protestors who know what their doing and are nice about it okay.
Yes, but the actions of some have made me wary of all. And I'm definitely not alone in that.

Yes, but the actions of some have made me wary of all. And I'm definitely not alone in that.

Okay. So, you've agreed that protestors who are protesting *properly* are okay and good.

Can everyone else agree with this (you might agree that other protestors are okay and good too - that does not block you from agreeing that protestors who are protesting *properly* are okay and good)?

Military convoys vs. emergency vehicles, and then military vehicles vs. emergency vehicles - who has right of way when?
Maybe it's, in the order of Importance, emergency vehicles\Important Government Convoys\ Everything else(Including Military vehicles by themselves)?

Okay. So, you've agreed that protestors who are protesting *properly* are okay and good.

Can everyone else agree with this (you might agree that other protestors are okay and good too - that does not block you from agreeing that protestors who are protesting *properly* are okay and good)?
What's "properly" and who decides? I posted two things in this thread, the student in Teinaman Square blocking a convoy, and excerpts of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience that relate. Both are similar (I wouldn't say identical by a long shot), but who gets to decide the distinction, where the line between those actions and others is drawn?

Pity one of the protesters didn't deck a cop. Peaceful protest is nice, up until they try to move you. Then it's time to stay where you are. When the Pigs try and break things up, that's when it's time to remind the fascists of what the first ammendmant says.

I hate it when the government oversteps it's own bounds. If they hadn't harmed anyone there was absolutely no reason to move them, period. This sorta nonsense makes me really angry.

Okay. So, you've agreed that protestors who are protesting *properly* are okay and good.

Can everyone else agree with this (you might agree that other protestors are okay and good too - that does not block you from agreeing that protestors who are protesting *properly* are okay and good)?

Everyone else here agrees with that. HE DOESN'T. Which is why he has repeatedly indicated a need for each protester to pass some test of his regarding their motives - a test that he couldn't quantify if he tried nor would he be interested in adminstering if he could. He hates anti-war protesters that much. He has stated his hatred for them all in this thread, as well as his feeling of being better than them.

I recognize that you are trying to cut an old soldier some slack out of respect for his service to country. That is admirable, both of him for his service and of you for this effort.


After a while though, you will grow as tired of his incessant spiteful vitriol as the rest of us. Because his unabashed hatred which he mentioned earlier is what always comes out, even if you HAVE managed to talk him into some moderated language right here.

Everyone else here agrees with that. HE DOESN'T. Which is why he has repeatedly indicated a need for each protester to pass some test of his regarding their motives - a test that he couldn't quantify if he tried nor would he be interested in adminstering if he could. He hates anti-war protesters that much. He has stated his hatred for them all in this thread, as well as his feeling of being better than them.

I recognize that you are trying to cut an old soldier some slack out of respect for his service to country. That is admirable, both of him for his service and of you for this effort.


After a while though, you will grow as tired of his incessant spiteful vitriol as the rest of us. Because his unabashed hatred which he mentioned earlier is what always comes out, even if you HAVE managed to talk him into some moderated language right here.

He just said that he did. Have the courtesy to believe that he knows himself better than you know him.

Anyway, this means that there is common ground, then, so the insults don't have to fly anymore. Common ground is a good place to build an embassy. ;)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and support Eut's postion....or, well, try and explain it better.

In the Constitution, the first amendment allows for the right of the People to peacably assemble and petition to address grievances against the government. Therefore, to "properly" protest, an organized event would take place in Washington, D.C. in front of the Capitol or White House.

However, because there are always those bad apples in the group, people have spit on, defamed, and otherwise commited slander/libel against those of us who wear the uniform.

Eut (and I also) does not like those protesters because of past experiences. I've heard of several examples of similar problems with protesters (from friends who also are in uniform). Therefore, he views these people who are getting in the way of a bunch of people who are just trying to do their job as freaknasties that are not worthy of anything more than contempt, because they have debased themselves so far as to this level. They oppose the war...fine. They don't like people who are supporting the war effort...whatever. The problem is that this is not something that those people who they were protesting against can fix. Its policy, and unfortunately (in some people's minds), we have to go along with it, whether we like it or not.

In the end, the protesters did not allow people to do their jobs, and were being very disrespectful in doing so. If someone came into your office/workplace and said that you suck at life and are a horrible person because you work at [insert your job/career here], and prevented you from doing your job properly, I think you'd be a bit angry at me as well.

Heck, you might even see the other side of the argument.

Maybe it's, in the order of Importance, emergency vehicles\Important Government Convoys\ Everything else(Including Military vehicles by themselves)?
As I understand it, emergency vehicles with their lights flashing always take priority.

What's "properly" and who decides? I posted two things in this thread, the student in Teinaman Square blocking a convoy, and excerpts of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience that relate. Both are similar (I wouldn't say identical by a long shot), but who gets to decide the distinction, where the line between those actions and others is drawn?
The courts.

Pity one of the protesters didn't deck a cop. Peaceful protest is nice, up until they try to move you. Then it's time to stay where you are. When the Pigs try and break things up, that's when it's time to remind the fascists of what the first ammendmant says.

I hate it when the government oversteps it's own bounds. If they hadn't harmed anyone there was absolutely no reason to move them, period. This sorta nonsense makes me really angry.

Except that we're not fascists. I wouldn't support that sort of government. We elect the governement here, and despite your ideas that people "stole" certain elections, it really boils down to the fact that you couldn't rally enough people to your cause, and therefore didn't get the votes to change it.

Sorry. Not my fault.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and support Eut's postion....or, well, try and explain it better.

In the Constitution, the first amendment allows for the right of the People to peacably assemble and petition to address grievances against the government. Therefore, to "properly" protest, an organized event would take place in Washington, D.C. in front of the Capitol or White House.

However, because there are always those bad apples in the group, people have spit on, defamed, and otherwise commited slander/libel against those of us who wear the uniform.

Eut (and I also) does not like those protesters because of past experiences. I've heard of several examples of similar problems with protesters (from friends who also are in uniform). Therefore, he views these people who are getting in the way of a bunch of people who are just trying to do their job as freaknasties that are not worthy of anything more than contempt, because they have debased themselves so far as to this level. They oppose the war...fine. They don't like people who are supporting the war effort...whatever. The problem is that this is not something that those people who they were protesting against can fix. Its policy, and unfortunately (in some people's minds), we have to go along with it, whether we like it or not.

In the end, the protesters did not allow people to do their jobs, and were being very disrespectful in doing so. If someone came into your office/workplace and said that you suck at life and are a horrible person because you work at [insert your job/career here], and prevented you from doing your job properly, I think you'd be a bit angry at me as well.

Heck, you might even see the other side of the argument.
Good exposition, but the feelings in my case go much, much deeper.

Good exposition, but the feelings in my case go much, much deeper.

I know, Eut. I was generalizing in order to make it clearer and better understood for everyone.

I know, Eut. I was generalizing in order to make it clearer and better understood for everyone.
Kewl.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and support Eut's postion....or, well, try and explain it better.

In the Constitution, the first amendment allows for the right of the People to peacably assemble and petition to address grievances against the government. Therefore, to "properly" protest, an organized event would take place in Washington, D.C. in front of the Capitol or White House.


So, unless you can afford to get a group together and travel to the capitol you cannot protest federal decisions?

Sorry - but bullsh*t.

The Constitution certainly puts no constraints on location of such assemblies.



However, because there are always those bad apples in the group, people have spit on, defamed, and otherwise commited slander/libel against those of us who wear the uniform.

Eut (and I also) does not like those protesters because of past experiences. I've heard of several examples of similar problems with protesters (from friends who also are in uniform). Therefore, he views these people who are getting in the way of a bunch of people who are just trying to do their job as freaknasties that are not worthy of anything more than contempt, because they have debased themselves so far as to this level. They oppose the war...fine. They don't like people who are supporting the war effort...whatever. The problem is that this is not something that those people who they were protesting against can fix. Its policy, and unfortunately (in some people's minds), we have to go along with it, whether we like it or not.


Rather shoots down the point of political activism when you advocate defeatism. "Going along with it" does not imply lending tacit consent by maintaining silence. IT simply means following applicable laws. As such I agree that those protesters who blocked traffic deserved to be arrested.

There is no point to having the right to assemble and seek redress when you also state that people must just "go along with policy whether they like it or not".


In the end, the protesters did not allow people to do their jobs, and were being very disrespectful in doing so. If someone came into your office/workplace and said that you suck at life and are a horrible person because you work at [insert your job/career here], and prevented you from doing your job properly, I think you'd be a bit angry at me as well.

Heck, you might even see the other side of the argument.

But once again you stretch this same point. Did the protesters call the soldiers in this instance "horrible people"? Tell them that the "suck at life"?

You jump to the same unjustified conclusions as Eutrusca, without foundation and without merit.

But at least you do not seem to hate them, which puts you a step up on Eutrusca.

Can we please do this without the personal insults?

Can we please do this without the personal insults?

You mean like:

If you can't tell the difference, you're one stoopid motha-f****r!

given as the response to a bit of sarcasm on page 2?


That sort of reponse is textbook for this person, and it is not the first time he has done such things. Indeed, I am pretty sure that Eutrusca hold the record here for most enforced three-day vacations from the board due to his inability to hold his temper.


You want to cut him some slack? Go right ahead. I once thought that it was worth it too to.

You mean like:



given as the response to a bit of sarcasm on page 2?


That sort of reponse is textbook for this person, and it is not the first time he has done such things. Indeed, I am pretty sure that Eutrusca hold the record here for most enforced three-day vacations from the board due to his inability to hold his temper.


You want to cut him some slack? Go right ahead. I once thought that it was worth it too to.

You are insulting him too. There's lots of insults flying. Although Eut did insult, the majority of the insults on this thread did not come from him. In fact, the majority are directed against him.

And that was said to everyone who has been insulting, irregardless of who and towards whom.

You are insulting him too. There's lots of insults flying. Although Eut did insult, the majority of the insults on this thread did not come from him. In fact, the majority are directed against him.



And perhaps the fact that so many long-term posters here hold this person is such ....*ahem* ..... high regard might give pause to stop and consider why he has earned that distaste?

Many of us have a zero-tolerance attitude to his insults because we've seen them to often to let them slide anymore. It may seem like piling on to a new person, but that new person might also just want to consider if there were some historical reason WHY this happens.



At any rate, good luck to you with him. I've said my peace on the matter.

The courts.
Condemns both Thoreau and the student in the square. Nice job.

Except that we're not fascists. I wouldn't support that sort of government. We elect the governement here, and despite your ideas that people "stole" certain elections, it really boils down to the fact that you couldn't rally enough people to your cause, and therefore didn't get the votes to change it.

Sorry. Not my fault.

Good generalization about what I beleive there. You don't know how I feel about any US election that has ever occured, so don't assume (I am, in fact, not sure at all about the outcome of the 2000 election, although I think that Jeb and Katherine Harris did tamper with the felons list.)

Not fascism, eh? There's nothing at all totallitarian about keeping people from protesting? Nothing at all totallitarian about "Free speech" zones? Sorry, I'm not the least bit sore about the Bush "Presidency" (after all, people are, inherantly, pretty fucking dumb, so I always assume they'll pick the worst of two politicians whenever possible), so find a venue of attack that actaully has some basis in reality (shouldn't take much effort, seeing as how there were gaping flaws in my angry response to glorying over the restrictions of the First Ammendmant that both Left and Right like to play with.).

Slug. Utterly beneath contempt.

So, unless you can afford to get a group together and travel to the capitol you cannot protest federal decisions?

Sorry - but bullsh*t.

The Constitution certainly puts no constraints on location of such assemblies.

You're right, it doesn't. But to protest in front of people that are just trying to do their job is probably the stupidest idea that I've ever seen.

Rather shoots down the point of political activism when you advocate defeatism. "Going along with it" does not imply lending tacit consent by maintaining silence. IT simply means following applicable laws. As such I agree that those protesters who blocked traffic deserved to be arrested.

I'm not advocating defeatism. I'm telling them to work harder to convince people (ie, the undecided 80%) to their side. However, because the US is a democracy, they have to do so within the laws governing their nation, state and locality. Blocking traffic, especially a convoy, is against the law in VA. I don't know about...wherever they were, but its not respectful.

There is no point to having the right to assemble and seek redress when you also state that people must just "go along with policy whether they like it or not".

I, as a US citizen, have the right to peaceably assemble. However, I do not agree with the US Military's "DADT" policy. But because it is the US Military's policy, and I am seeking a commission in the US Army, I have to go along with it.

But once again you stretch this same point. Did the protesters call the soldiers in this instance "horrible people"? Tell them that the "suck at life"?

You jump to the same unjustified conclusions as Eutrusca, without foundation and without merit.

But at least you do not seem to hate them, which puts you a step up on Eutrusca.

Since there is no footage of what the protesters said, I'm going to fall back on what I have heard from protesters against the military near me: "Fascists", "Baby killers", "Stormtroopers", "Mindless Automatrons"... you get the picture. Several have been personally leveled at me.

As for hating them: right or wrong, they are fellow citizens. I'm not going to stomp on them for doing what they think is right. However, they do need to do it away from people trying to get a job done.

Condemns both Thoreau and the student in the square. Nice job.
Expecting the public to abide by the Constitution is somehow "condemnatory?" :eek:

Yeah!


How DARE they actually make use of that whole "Freedom" thing that people keep going on about.


Freedom isn't STOPPING a gov't supply convoy-that's interference.

Washington.


Because war is baaaaaaaaaaaad! BAaaaaaaaaaaaaad! [insert image of sheep]
Why would one think war is good? Oh, thats right, because they have never actually been in one, like George Bush.

Washington.


Because war is baaaaaaaaaaaad! BAaaaaaaaaaaaaad! [insert image of sheep]
Why would one think war is good? Oh, thats right, because they have never actually been in one, like George Bush.

Yeah!


How DARE they actually make use of that whole "Freedom" thing that people keep going on about.


Freedom isn't STOPPING a gov't supply convoy-that's interference.

Expecting the public to abide by the Constitution is somehow "condemnatory?" :eek:

You mean like the part of the constitution that expressly forbids restrictions on free expression and assembly to adress a greivance?

Hey, guess what, blocking the road is illegal. Twits.

Hey, guess what, blocking the road is illegal. Twits.

You know what, I think they knew that already.

You mean like the part of the constitution that expressly forbids restrictions on free expression and assembly to adress a greivance?

That's not the problem. The problem is where they chose to address those grievances. In a motorway against LAVs is not the best of ideas. I'm sure they could have secured a parade permit if they really wanted to. And follow the law.

That's not the problem. The problem is where they chose to address those grievances. In a motorway against LAVs is not the best of ideas. I'm sure they could have secured a parade permit if they really wanted to. And follow the law.

Strawman. The law breaks it's own requirements if it fails to follow the constitution. Constitutional law trumps other law. It is the problem.

You mean like the part of the constitution that expressly forbids restrictions on free expression and assembly to adress a greivance?
When in doubt, consult the source:

Amendment I

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.

When in doubt, consult the source:

Amendment I

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.

Yup. Pretty clear, I guess.

Strawman. The law breaks it's own requirements if it fails to follow the constitution. Constitutional law trumps other law. It is the problem.
Specious. The law can be challenged in the courts as to its constitutionality.

Yup. Pretty clear, I guess.
Uh ... blocking a military convoy on a public road is not "peacable assembly."

Specious. The law can be challenged in the courts as to its constitutionality.

And the courts, are, of course, perfect I suppose? I stopped beleiving that years ago, about the same time I realized that the Easter Bunny wasn't real.

Uh ... blocking a military convoy on a public road is not "peacable assembly."

Oh mighty eutrusca, thou giver of logic.......


:D

Uh ... blocking a military convoy on a public road is not "peacable assembly."

It isn't? You mean, peacefully refusing to get out of the way is an act of violence? Wow... The things you learn on this forum. :rolleyes:

Uh ... blocking a military convoy on a public road is not "peacable assembly."

Was it an assembly? Yes.
Was it peaceable? Yes.

It isn't? You mean, peacefully refusing to get out of the way is an act of violence? Wow... The things you learn on this forum. :rolleyes:

I have some friends who were charged with the heinious crime of 'malicious sitting' after a similar incident.

Ahhh, Washington, my home state. Land of the hippies.

I don't know what they hoped to accomplish. Nobody cares, and I didn't see that reported in my local newspapers. They'd be better off writing angry letters to congressmen or something.

That's not the problem. The problem is where they chose to address those grievances. In a motorway against LAVs is not the best of ideas. I'm sure they could have secured a parade permit if they really wanted to. And follow the law.

Disagree. By showing that they we're willing to face jail time, they proved the strength of their conviction.

I have some friends who were charged with the heinious crime of 'malicious sitting' after a similar incident.
DAMN! THOSE SITTERS! DAMN THEM ALL!

I don't think that it's necessarily "good", just "less bad". Killing people isn't good, but sometimes it's better than the other options. That doesn't, however, make it good. The real trick is knowing when that is the case.
I would hazard a guess that DesignatedMarksman has never been faced with a dying person, from multiple shot wounds... Death, for him, is what he sees in the movies while eating popcorns and sipping a soft-drink, hence why Death = good. Right, DM? (hopefully he's not listening :D )

Whenever I convoyed in the US no one in the convoy had live ammo. Since I only got out 2 years ago, I would hazard a guess that that particular procedure hasn't changed.
The US army drives around with no ammo? Now you really broke his heart...

I have some friends who were charged with the heinious crime of 'malicious sitting' after a similar incident.

Sounds more like they sat on somebody or something. :p

Ahhh, Washington, my home state. Land of the hippies.

I don't know what they hoped to accomplish. Nobody cares, and I didn't see that reported in my local newspapers. They'd be better off writing angry letters to congressmen or something.

They come here for all the extra trees to hug, you see. Werehauser is trying to drive them out, though.


Most of them probably did write to their congressman, but we know just how well Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray listen (In my experience, both are skilled in the use of the form letter and 'ignore' function. Cantwell is worse than Murray in that regard, though.).

Was it an assembly? Yes.
Was it peaceable? Yes.

No, it was interfering with a military convoy. Interference with a federal employee in execution of his duties.

That's not peaceable-and then there's resisting arrest....And making those Washington Troopers go through decon because those hippies don't bathe or shave.

They come here for all the extra trees to hug, you see. Werehauser is trying to drive them out, though.


Most of them probably did write to their congressman, but we know just how well Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray listen (In my experience, both are skilled in the use of the form letter and 'ignore' function. Cantwell is worse than Murray in that regard, though.).

Actually, the all the trees is why I like living here, too.

Hmmm... yes. They always give me back the standard automated responses, too. Obviously, they don't have time to answer every letter they get, but I think they get the general sentiment. At least, I hope.

No, it was interfering with a military convoy. Interference with a federal employee in execution of his duties.

That's not peaceable-

It is if it is done in a peaceful manner.

and then there's resisting arrest....

None of the protestors were charged with resisting arrest, so stop pulling things out of your ass.

I think they get the general sentiment. At least, I hope.

That's why they have staffs. They collate the response from their districts.

I would hazard a guess that DesignatedMarksman has never been faced with a dying person, from multiple shot wounds... Death, for him, is what he sees in the movies while eating popcorns and sipping a soft-drink, hence why Death = good. Right, DM? (hopefully he's not listening :D )

The US army drives around with no ammo? Now you really broke his heart...

No way bud. I've seen victims of crime involving weapons-Pistol (9mm, 40, 45) rifle (.22) shotgun, etc. Very messy.

Let's summarize my beleifs on death

Badguy robbing a bank gets shot by a Police officer and dies. Good, one less scumbag.
Towel Headed goat humper about to blow himself up in a crowded baghdad alleyway next to a US soldier who Mozambique's the guy, and as a result the would be bomber dies. Good job.
A rapist rapes and murders a woman. Bad.

You know now my theory on death, and not that death=good.

Actually, the all the trees is why I like living here, too.

Hmmm... yes. They always give me back the standard automated responses, too. Obviously, they don't have time to answer every letter they get, but I think they get the general sentiment. At least, I hope.

Optimism is eternal. Unfortunately, so is the greed of elected officials.

It is if it is done in a peaceful manner.



None of the protestors were charged with resisting arrest, so stop pulling things out of your ass.

It doesn't matter-you are still interfering with a government action. Even if you do it peacefully-it isn't a constitutionally protected activity to interfere with normal gov't activity. Now if they were to line up on the sidewalk and chain themselves together like they did, you would be right because they aren't interfering with anything. Good hippies.

If I went and sat in front of a US postal truck and blocked it from moving, I'd still be charged with something even if I was peaceful about it.

The hippies chained themselves together so that the troopers couldn't haul them off one at a time..oh wait, they did them a favor.

Dude, you could taser the whole line of hippies at one time! Hippie control delux!

Oh mighty eutrusca, thou giver of logic.......

:D
LOL! And that and a dollar might get me a cup of coffe in a decent restaurant. Heh!

I have some friends who were charged with the heinious crime of 'malicious sitting' after a similar incident.
Poor babies. Did they tell their mommies?

Disagree. By showing that they we're willing to face jail time, they proved the strength of their conviction.
Ah. So if I shoot their sorry asses, that will just be proof of the strength of MY convictions? Hmmm.

Towel Headed goat humper ...
ROFLMFAO!!! OMG! LOL!

Ah. So if I shoot their sorry asses, that will just be proof of the strength of MY convictions? Hmmm.

Yep. Of course, you'd just be proving them right, and they'd have very sanctimonial funerals about it.

ROFLMFAO!!! OMG! LOL!

I don't see the humour, myself.

Ah. So if I shoot their sorry asses, that will just be proof of the strength of MY convictions? Hmmm.

No, but it will certainly show your willingness to dogmatically and violently hate "the enemy", and reinforce the steryotype about the military. Do you really want to do that?

And ignoring posts that criticise or attack your position is normally considered bad form and bad debating (but the current administration is quite good at it).

community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album430&page=1 (http://community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album430&page=1)

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest02.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/07yelling_protester.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/arms2.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/05angry_man_vert.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/08peace_girl_vert.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/02dragging_trio_trucks.jpg


community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/01kneeling_cop.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest04.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/04hair_pull_horz.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/shove.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest07.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest06.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest03.jpg

community.theolympian.com/albums/album430/protest01.jpg

Owned.

I'd be pretty pissed if these hippies were in the way of my supplies.


GODDAMN POT SMOKING HIPPIES
:sniper:

It isn't? You mean, peacefully refusing to get out of the way is an act of violence? Wow... The things you learn on this forum. :rolleyes:

The second that they broke the law during their assembly it no longer met the definition of a "peacfull" assembly . it was no longer protected under the constitution . You need not have a degree in law to know this ..I think by six or seventh grade you should be able to figure it out . Something need not turn violent to cease to be peacfull under the law it only needs to create conditions to break the peace and banging a sign on a mans truck " threatens the peace " As does sitting down in front of a lav on a public highway . By confronting the drivers of the LAV's the protesters created a condition to provoke a response from the people they detained , and its in those conditions that the potential for violence exist . Obstructing a highway is against the law in most states . The first ammendment gives you no rights to impose your will on others in the excercise of those rights. Those driving the trucks have the right to travel unrestricted on the highway . The protesters have no right to restrict them from free movement along a public highway.
Explain to me how depriving someone else of their rights is " peacefull " no matter how noble you think the cause ?

No, but it will certainly show your willingness to dogmatically and violently hate "the enemy", and reinforce the steryotype about the military. Do you really want to do that?

And ignoring posts that criticise or attack your position is normally considered bad form and bad debating (but the current administration is quite good at it).
Son, when I get on here there are often so many attacking my position that there's no way I could ever reply to them all. :)

And the fact that you STILL haven't gotten over it is quite telling. If you want to let a heap of misguided idiots inform your judgment for the rest of your life, fine, that's your call. But it doesn't stop me from thinking that the problem is not theirs, it's yours.

Wow, you're one stuck up piece of shit. Words cannot describe how idiotic you are.

If "protesters" are going to follow that route and do what Eut just described in the post you quoted, then yes it is THEIR problem, not his.

GODDAMN POT SMOKING HIPPIES
:sniper:
LMAO!!!

DOWN, boy! DOWN! :D

The second that they broke the law during their assembly it no longer met the definition of a "peacfull" assembly . it was no longer protected under the constitution . You need not have a degree in law to know this ..I think by six or seventh grade you should be able to figure it out . Something need not turn violent to cease to be peacfull under the law it only needs to create conditions to break the peace and banging a sign on a mans truck " threatens the peace " As does sitting down in front of a lav on a public highway . By confronting the drivers of the LAV's the protesters created a condition to provoke a response from the people they detained , and its in those conditions that the potential for violence exist . Obstructing a highway is against the law in most states . The first ammendment gives you no rights to impose your will on others in the excercise of those rights. Those driving the trucks have the right to travel unrestricted on the highway . The protesters have no right to restrict them from free movement along a public highway.
Explain to me how depriving someone else of their rights is " peacefull " no matter how noble you think the cause ?

Where in the constitution are you granted the right to not have people get in your way? K, thx, that's what I thought.

There was no violent action against the troops, just peaceful refusal to move. That's peaceful protest. The problem with your logic above is that it assumes that if a person breaks the law, the law is correct, and the constitution is wrong, rather than vice versa. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's pretty fucking specific.

Son, when I get on here there are often so many attacking my position that there's no way I could ever reply to them all. :)

What, you mean you don't grow extra hands to deal with that kind of problem? Get with the trend, man! :p

GODDAMN POT SMOKING HIPPIES
:sniper:

It'd be nice if you'd snip the quote. I've already read the OP once, thanks.

GODDAMN POT SMOKING HIPPIES
:sniper:
That reminds me.. I'm off to get high.

Where in the constitution are you granted the right to not have people get in your way? K, thx, that's what I thought.

There was no violent action against the troops, just peaceful refusal to move. That's peaceful protest. The problem with your logic above is that it assumes that if a person breaks the law, the law is correct, and the constitution is wrong, rather than vice versa. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's pretty fucking specific.

If I thought it was worth the effort to show you the law I may take the 2 minutes to look it up and link it for you...but by your own argument you have shown yourself to be immune to reason and logic.

You have no clue on the constitution . The constituition gives no one the right to break the law in the excercise of their rights nor does it allow anyone to deny others their rights while excercising their own .

Its that simple .

Where in the constitution are you granted the right to not have people get in your way? K, thx, that's what I thought.

There was no violent action against the troops, just peaceful refusal to move. That's peaceful protest. The problem with your logic above is that it assumes that if a person breaks the law, the law is correct, and the constitution is wrong, rather than vice versa. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's pretty fucking specific.

You're granted those rights by the law that are passed in the legislatures of the several states, most of which if you challenged in a court of law would be dismissed.

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but Congress is granted the power to make all laws that are "necessary and proper" under it. And what are your views on abortion? Because if you say that you support it, then I fail to see how you can be an originalist.

If I thought you were worth thee effort to show you the law I may take the 2 minutes to look it up and link it for you...but by your own argument you have shown yourself to be immune to reason and logic.

You have no clue on the constitution . The constituition gives no one the right to break the law in the excercise of their rights nor does it allow anyone to deny others their rights .

Its that simple .
Actually, quite often you have to break a law and get arrested for it to prove the unconstitutionality of the law.

But this is more a matter of civil disobedience that has been constant in this country. It was unlawful to dump tea in the ocean, for Thoreau to refuse to pay taxes for a war he didn't believe in, etc.

The protestors plan was to get arrested, they knew it was going to happen. Like I said, free speech is all well and good, but you have to make noise to be heard. They where willing to go to jail to make thier point.

It isn't? You mean, peacefully refusing to get out of the way is an act of violence? Wow... The things you learn on this forum. :rolleyes:
Lets consider this another way.

Some guy Really needs to get these supplies in, he has to go home.
An Idiot who hate what the guy does blocks the road for hours.
Guy doesn't get home.
Family gets worried and nervous.
Guy gets home late in bad mood.
Bad mood affects everyone in house.
Next day everyone is cranky.
Sounds like suffering to me.
That's inflicting "Emotional Harm" on someone.

... you have to make noise to be heard. They where willing to go to jail to make thier point.
Yes, heaven forbid they should simply try to persuade people! :rolleyes:

You're granted those rights by the law that are passed in the legislatures of the several states, most of which if you challenged in a court of law would be dismissed.

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but Congress is granted the power to make all laws that are "necessary and proper" under it. And what are your views on abortion? Because if you say that you support it, then I fail to see how you can be an originalist.

Actually, I am an originalist (although I'm less closed-minded about ammendment than are many origionalists), and I am for abortion. I find the legal question of Roe and Casy to be one of interest, and I withhold judgement about the case, because I am unsure of whether or not the logic used is reasonable.

I'm not a big fan of the courts, either, because they've shown over the years that they are politically biased, and prefer to read the law the way they want to see it (I judge each ruling on it's own merit).

My argument is that if it aint in the constitution, and it usurps a constitutional right, it aint a constitutional law, rather than vice versa, which is what you are arguing.

If I thought it was worth the effort to show you the law I may take the 2 minutes to look it up and link it for you...but by your own argument you have shown yourself to be immune to reason and logic.

You have no clue on the constitution . The constituition gives no one the right to break the law in the excercise of their rights nor does it allow anyone to deny others their rights while excercising their own .

Its that simple .

Nope. That's not true in the least. It's a reversal of the order of the law of the land. The rights granted in the constitution are absolutes, and if a law violates them, the law is unconstitutional. Your logic is the reverse of that, and it neuters the constitution.

Actually, quite often you have to break a law and get arrested for it to prove the unconstitutionality of the law.

But this is more a matter of civil disobedience that has been constant in this country. It was unlawful to dump tea in the ocean, for Thoreau to refuse to pay taxes for a war he didn't believe in, etc.

The protestors plan was to get arrested, they knew it was going to happen. Like I said, free speech is all well and good, but you have to make noise to be heard. They where willing to go to jail to make thier point.


Fine they knew they were going to break a law and were willing to take the consequences to make their point .

That is not the definition of " peacefull assembly " and believe it or not you do not have to break a law to challenge its constitutionallity . You need only petition to be heard on your challenge..the ACLU among others is doing it everyday for a variety of dumb ass laws . In fact its better to challenge a suspect law and have it stayed than it is to let it go into effect .

Lets consider this another way.

Some guy Really needs to get these supplies in, he has to go home.
An Idiot who hate what the guy does blocks the road for hours.
Guy doesn't get home.
Family gets worried and nervous.
Guy gets home late in bad mood.
Bad mood affects everyone in house.
Next day everyone is cranky.
Sounds like suffering to me.
That's inflicting "Emotional Harm" on someone.

Emotional harm is not physical harm. Emotional harm is not a crime, and is not a problem. There is no right to not be upset by the things you hear (that's why we have the freedom of speech).

Yes, heaven forbid they should simply try to persuade people! :rolleyes:

Protest is a form of persuasion.

Protest is a form of persuasion.
Not for me it isn't. It's actually more likely to make me disagree than it will make me want to consider the argument on its merits.

Nope. That's not true in the least. It's a reversal of the order of the law of the land. The rights granted in the constitution are absolutes, and if a law violates them, the law is unconstitutional. Your logic is the reverse of that, and it neuters the constitution.

What " law" was violated in this case ? And how did it violate the constitution ? Explain your logic on how closing down a public highway is a "peacefull assembly " . What authority did the protesters have to risk a catastrophy or infringe on the drivers right to free movement along the highway. What right did the protesters have to restrain trade ? What right did the protesters have to restrain anyone ? what right did the protesters have to confront the drivers of those trucks ?

Where in the Constitution do you find these rights ?

Wasn't there a Justice on the Supreme Court that said "My Rights to punch a man in the nose stop where the other man's nose begins"?

Wasn't there a Justice on the Supreme Court that said "My Rights to punch a man in the nose stop where the other man's nose begins"?


The good one .:D

Wasn't there a Justice on the Supreme Court that said "My Rights to punch a man in the nose stop where the other man's nose begins"?
Actually, it was more like: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

What " law" was violated in this case ? And how did it violate the constitution ? Explain your logic on how closing down a public highway is a "peacefull assembly " . What authority did the protesters have to risk a catastrophy or infringe on the drivers right to free movement along the highway. What right did the protesters have to restrain trade ? What right did the protesters have to restrain anyone ? what right did the protesters have to confront the drivers of those trucks ?

Where in the Constitution do you find these rights ?

Please reread your first ammendmant and get back to me. The right to peaceful protest doesn't mean the right to convenient or unoffensive protest, it just means no violence. If they attacked no one, they were well within their rights and any law that violates those rights, is unconstitutional.

Come on Eutrusca, we all know you're getting sleepy (very sleepy)

Wasn't there a Justice on the Supreme Court that said "My Rights to punch a man in the nose stop where the other man's nose begins"?

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., according to a quick google.

Come on Eutrusca, we all know you're getting sleepy (very sleepy)
**THUD!**

Zzzzzzzzzzz! :p

Please reread your first ammendmant and get back to me. The right to peaceful protest doesn't mean the right to convenient or unoffensive protest, it just means no violence. If they attacked no one, they were well within their rights and any law that violates those rights, is unconstitutional.


right and while your at it READ the bill of rights not just the first ammendment..

And pay attention to

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


You starting to get a clue yet .. ?

As far as the rights to make laws..

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

**THUD!**

Zzzzzzzzzzz! :p
Seriously man, how are you staying up so late? It's like 2 A.M. in good old NC.(I'm on a coffee binge)

Not for me it isn't. It's actually more likely to make me disagree than it will make me want to consider the argument on its merits.

Consider NS general. Here we have people who are willing to argue for hours without their opponent without either party ever giving ground. Now, take a topic that's very important to people (like a relative in the armed forces dying in what they perceive to be an unnecessary war) and take it into the real world. There's no way that people are simply going to say "I respect your opinion, so we'll agree to disagree". Not if they've any conviction in what they're saying. Instead they're going to say "This issue is so important to me that I'm going to do anything to change your opinion. I'll block your way on the highway. I'll meet up with my ten thousand friends and scream at you in the street. I'll withdraw my labour and try and collapse. I'll stop following the laws that sustain our society."

Protest is for when people have already made up their minds on an issue. It's a raw display of emotion. And that moves people, on a primal level. Maybe not you, but many others. And it defiantly is effective, if they protestors have the conviction to carry on despite the consequences.

right and while your at it READ the bill of rights not just the first ammendment..

And pay attention to

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


You starting to get a clue yet .. ?

Yes, but those rights in the constitution trump those not implied (because we have instructions regarding them, which are specific) in it.

Maybe this way will get my point across.

Amendment I

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.

Seriously man, how are you staying up so late? It's like 2 A.M. in good old NC.(I'm on a coffee binge)
I made the tactical error of laying down at about 2 PM for "a few moments" and woke up two hours later! Heh!

Seriously man, how are you staying up so late? It's like 2 A.M. in good old NC.(I'm on a coffee binge)
2:12am :p

because we have instructions regarding them, which are specific in it.

Name some, please.

Name some, please.


Amendment I

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.

Specific enough for you?

Amendment I

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.

Specific enough for you?

Nope. Because if you read the signs on the highways, it says that you aren't allowed to walk there, and certain vehicles aren't allowed to drive there. Therefore, you're not allowed to peaceably assemble there.

In most cities, they have a parade license that you have to apply for before marching/whatever. Because roads are public areas, and infringing my right to free travel is against the law, they are in the wrong, and therefore are to be removed by the means necessary.

The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent incitement of lawlessness" before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights. Otherwise, the First Amendment's high purpose can too easily be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency

Break the law and your rights are no longer protected under the first ammendment . Closing a highway is a "imminent incitement of lawlessness " is it not ?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/overview.aspx

Thats why the hippy dudes ...and that girl looking person..got carted off to jail . And it did not interfere with their first ammendment rights to " PEACEFULL ASSEMBLY " .

Nope. Because if you read the signs on the highways, it says that you aren't allowed to walk there, and certain vehicles aren't allowed to drive there. Therefore, you're not allowed to peaceably assemble there.

In most cities, they have a parade license that you have to apply for before marching/whatever. Because roads are public areas, and infringing my right to free travel is against the law, they are in the wrong, and therefore are to be removed by the means necessary.

Parade liscenses are the height of violation of the constitution. It is not unreasonable to ask that people inform a government agency that they are going to march (so that streets can be closed), but it is unreasonable to require that a permit (that can be refused) be given out.

Once again, the law means nothing in the face of constitutional rights. You do not have a constitutional right to free travel. You have a right to assemble where you like.

If a driver hits you while you're protesting in the middle of the highway, its your fault not his, and you're basically screwed, but cars follow the law of inertia, which has the bad habit of being clinically unconstitutional. :p

Break the law and your rights are no longer protected under the first ammendment . Closing a highway is a "imminent incitement of lawlessness " is it not ?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/overview.aspx

Thats why the hippy dudes ...and that girl looking person..got carted off to jail . And it did not interfere with their first ammendment rights to " PEACEFULL ASSEMBLY " .

Yes, the old farts on the SCOTUS are moronic goats. However, that doesn't change the text of the law. Which says "No Laws" not "Some laws, as long as the morons on the Supreme Court like them.".

The SCOTUS was also the group that kept Segregation legal for more than half a century, remember.

Parade liscenses are the height of violation of the constitution. It is not unreasonable to ask that people inform a government agency that they are going to march (so that streets can be closed), but it is unreasonable to require that a permit (that can be refused) be given out.

Once again, the law means nothing in the face of constitutional rights. You do not have a constitutional right to free travel. You have a right to assemble where you like.

If a driver hits you while you're protesting in the middle of the highway, its your fault not his, and you're basically screwed, but cars follow the law of inertia, which has the bad habit of being clinically unconstitutional. :p
[ accelerates ] Zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ backs up ] zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ pulls forward ] zoooom ... thump! thump! ....

[ drives away ] zooooom!

Parade liscenses are the height of violation of the constitution. It is not unreasonable to ask that people inform a government agency that they are going to march (so that streets can be closed), but it is unreasonable to require that a permit (that can be refused) be given out.

So, when some City Hall didn't allow the Nazis to march, that was a bad thing, huh?

Once again, the law means nothing in the face of constitutional rights. You do not have a constitutional right to free travel. You have a right to assemble where you like.

I seem to remember somewhere that not allowing people to move around is unconstitutional...

If a driver hits you while you're protesting in the middle of the highway, its your fault not his, and you're basically screwed, but cars follow the law of inertia, which has the bad habit of being clinically unconstitutional. :p

Exactly why parade permits are required. You represent a hazard to navigation on a road. I'll cite the Revised Code of Washington (state, obviously), which is in line with Amendment X:


RCW 9.66.010
Public nuisance.


A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the state. Every place

(1) Wherein any fighting between people or animals or birds shall be conducted; or,

(2) Wherein any intoxicating liquors are kept for unlawful use, sale or distribution; or,

(3) Where vagrants resort; and

Every act unlawfully done and every omission to perform a duty, which act or omission

(1) Shall annoy, injure or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of persons; or,

(2) Shall offend public decency; or,

(3) Shall unlawfully interfere with, befoul, obstruct, or tend to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or a public park, square, street, alley, highway, or municipal transit vehicle or station; or,

(4) Shall in any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or the use of property;

Shall be a public nuisance.


As for the driver that hit you while you were standing in the road...

...well, McDonald's also thought that it would win that case against the Hot Coffee woman. Or the Tobacco conglomerates would beat out against the people suing them.

[ accelerates ] Zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ backs up ] zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ pulls forward ] zoooom ... thump! thump! ....

[ drives away ] zooooom!

*sighs*

You do realize that obsessive hate of any group is not necessarily a healthy thing to hold, right? There are morons in the peace-nik community, just like there are everywhere else (and you won't hear me patting Cindy "Jew Hater" Sheehan on the back, or glorifying the acts of murder commited by peace protesters against Vietnam, although I understand the desperation that some students must have felt.), but you need to let go of the dogmatic hate, because it reduces your ability to have an effect on the protesters, to make sure that they keep the violent types amongst them calm and under control.

I need to head off to bed, so I'm done debating for the night. Ya'll gave me some good fun. Thanks.

So, when some City Hall didn't allow the Nazis to march, that was a bad thing, huh?

Yup.

I seem to remember somewhere that not allowing people to move around is unconstitutional...

If it is, it aint in the bill of rights. Besides which, the BoR only restricts the power of government, not the power of the people.


Exactly why parade permits are required. You represent a hazard to navigation on a road. I'll cite the Revised Code of Washington (state, obviously), which is in line with Amendment X:

Having forgot Ammedment 14 (or is it 15?). Laws can be wrong too, you know.

As for the driver that hit you while you were standing in the road...

...well, McDonald's also thought that it would win that case against the Hot Coffee woman. Or the Tobacco conglomerates would beat out against the people suing them.

While I agree that the Hot Cofee case is beyond legally shakey, the Tobacco companies did engage in false advertising. Anyone stupid enough to dance in the middle of a highway, given the speed at which cars on teh highway move, isn't going to see any attempts by legal officials to "avenge" them.

[ accelerates ] Zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ backs up ] zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ pulls forward ] zoooom ... thump! thump! ....

[ drives away ] zooooom!

Did you just run over your rabbits?

I knew flemish rabbits were big..but wow! :D

I know you went to bed, but decided to get a last parting shot in.

If it is, it aint in the bill of rights. Besides which, the BoR only restricts the power of government, not the power of the people.

Yeah, that's done in the Constitution itself...where powers are reserved, withheld, etc. etc...

Having forgot Ammedment 14 (or is it 15?). Laws can be wrong too, you know.

So, by that reasoning, the First Amendment could be wrong too, huh?

While I agree that the Hot Cofee case is beyond legally shakey, the Tobacco companies did engage in false advertising. Anyone stupid enough to dance in the middle of a highway, given the speed at which cars on teh highway move, isn't going to see any attempts by legal officials to "avenge" them.

Tobacco (while I dispise it, and think its dumb, yet I engage in smokes every now and then) does put that it will cause cancer on the carton, and the packs.

Suing them for that is like me suing Hustler for giving me Carpal Tunnel syndrome.

(thanks to Larry the Cable Guy for the inspiration for that)

More relevant law re: the first ammendment rights to free and peacefull assembly ...

http://www.rutherford.org/documents/pdf/H01-Abortion%20Protests%20_1_.pdf

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap180.htm

While your at it you might want to read the definition of RULE OF LAW and Rule under law.

Because YOU do not agree with the SCROTUMS in the supreme court does not make their decisions any less valid when you are put in prison .

You are only pissing into the wind .

<snip>
This will be my last post on the subject.

I have never raised my hand to any protestor. They have the absolute right to exercise their freedom of speech anytime they so desire. Should the occasion arise, I would defend them against anyone attacking them. I have, however, expected the same respect in return. The difference is that they never gave it.


<snip>
No, I will never lift my hand against them. I consider myself better than them in that respect. But I will always hate them.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11043520&postcount=52
Fuckin' lil bastards. Wish I had been there! :mad: :mad: :mad:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11043329&postcount=18

Ah. So if I shoot their sorry asses, that will just be proof of the strength of MY convictions? Hmmm.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11044725&postcount=168

[ accelerates ] Zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ backs up ] zoooom ... thump! thump! .... screeech!

[ pulls forward ] zoooom ... thump! thump! ....

[ drives away ] zooooom!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11045173&postcount=212

The violence does not seem to be coming from the protestors, but the person who says he'd never hurt them...

At least put those quotes in context...that last one was sarcasm. The one before that was pin-holing someone else's point.

At least put those quotes in context...that last one was sarcasm. The one before that was pin-holing someone else's point.
Context is why I included the original posts as links. Violence is still violence, and it seems to be a lot coming from the person who is condemning the other sides violence.

Just for you my man.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14720080994.jpg&s=f5


http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14714301450.gif&s=f5


THAT...IS...HILARIOUS. thank you for a brightened day :p

oh and by the way, uve strayed off topic. i think all that matters is this: blocking convoy, bad. if u want to protest, protest at government. but stay away from convoys, they are just following orders.

if ur an anarchist and dont like countries running smoothly through a chain of command, then please, please stand in the way of moving traffic, such as they did in this instance. sadly it was slow traffic

oh and by the way, uve strayed off topic. i think all that matters is this: blocking convoy, bad. if u want to protest, protest at government. but stay away from convoys, they are just following orders.



so were the nazi's...

direct action helped stop one barberous, illegal, immoral and unjust war in vietnam. why not try it again?

interesting to see the right wing keyboard warriors try and find legal split hairs to try and ban protest. is that jackboots i hear?

so were the nazi's...

direct action helped stop one barberous, illegal, immoral and unjust war in vietnam. why not try it again?

interesting to see the right wing keyboard warriors try and find legal split hairs to try and ban protest. is that jackboots i hear?

It's not legal split hairs, it's a whole frakkin tree trunk man. There was an instance where a bunch of hippies got angry over an active bear hunt that was going on. The DNR had set up barriers where they were protesting so they they couldn't interfere with the active bear hunt. Well they crossed those barriers to interfere with the bear hunt and were arrested. In court they claimed that the barriers interefered with their 1st amendment rights. The judge told them to STFU because the first amendment didn't give them the right to interfere with a state sanction hunt, only to protest peacefully (which is, LAW ABIDINGLY).

Next time I see a bunch of hippies crowding around my car I'm going to throw soap at them. That will work, because hippies have an aversion to anything related to bathing. Dude, its so totaly au naturale.

It's not legal split hairs, it's a whole frakkin tree trunk man. There was an instance where a bunch of hippies got angry over an active bear hunt that was going on. The DNR had set up barriers where they were protesting so they they couldn't interfere with the active bear hunt. Well they crossed those barriers to interfere with the bear hunt and were arrested. In court they claimed that the barriers interefered with their 1st amendment rights. The judge told them to STFU because the first amendment didn't give them the right to interfere with a state sanction hunt, only to protest peacefully (which is, LAW ABIDINGLY).

Next time I see a bunch of hippies crowding around my car I'm going to throw soap at them. That will work, because hippies have an aversion to anything related to bathing. Dude, its so totaly au naturale.

so your right to kill things is more important than other americans right to say no to an illegal war? :confused: and their christian duty to try and stop the slaughter of iraqi women and children?

throw soap. hilarious. maybe shampoo has rotted the bit of your brain that allows you to think for yourself?

so your right to kill things is more important than other americans right to say no to an illegal war? :confused: and their christian duty to try and stop the slaughter of iraqi women and children?

throw soap. hilarious. maybe shampoo has rotted the bit of your brain that allows you to think for yourself?

It's our right to kill those who threaten us, one we will exercise inspite of any resolution or demand the UN places upon us. I'm making war my profession so hopefully my children don't have to. Had Bush sr and Clinton taken care of the islamist menace back in the day none of this would be happening and we'd all still be drinking our lattes and drinking the koolaid.

It's my christian duty to protect my country and it's citizens-others come second.



ETA: Say no on the sidewalks.

It's our right to kill those who threaten us, one we will exercise inspite of any resolution or demand the UN places upon us. I'm making war my profession so hopefully my children don't have to. Had Bush sr and Clinton taken care of the islamist menace back in the day none of this would be happening and we'd all still be drinking our lattes and drinking the koolaid.

It's my christian duty to protect my country and it's citizens-others come second.

I didn't know the Iraqi's had threatened the US.

It's my christian duty to protect my country and it's citizens-others come second.
Really 'cause last time I read the bible Jesus gets REALLY pissed by attitudes like that.

Really 'cause last time I read the bible Jesus gets REALLY pissed by attitudes like that.

Obviously not, when he met the Roman soldiers he gave them instructions, and none of it involved sacrificing themselves on the altar of political correctness or hipocrisy.

Obviously not, when he met the Roman soldiers he gave them instructions, and none of it involved sacrificing themselves on the altar of political correctness or hipocrisy.
Things like "Turn the other cheek" and stopping his apostles from attacking the Roman soldiers, even going so far as to put the ear back on...

The most violent thing he did was over turn a bunch of tables.

It's our right to kill those who threaten us, one we will exercise inspite of any resolution or demand the UN places upon us. I'm making war my profession so hopefully my children don't have to. Had Bush sr and Clinton taken care of the islamist menace back in the day none of this would be happening and we'd all still be drinking our lattes and drinking the koolaid.

It's my christian duty to protect my country and it's citizens-others come second.

so do you extend that right to the iraqi insurgents who are threatned by a foreign invading army? they are, after all, protecting their country from an illegal invasion? :sniper:

christian duty to defend your country? find me that bit in the bible :rolleyes:

Islamic Menace?

Things like "Turn the other cheek" and stopping his apostles from attacking the Roman soldiers, even going so far as to put the ear back on...

The most violent thing he did was over turn a bunch of tables.
Damn I was going to reference that...

I'm starting to think all of us peace loving liberals should start buying guns. It's getting awfully unbalanced around here with only far right nutjobs having the boomsticks.

Damn I was going to reference that...
It was sort of a bloopy. Military fetishists are a an odd group to argue with.

What a bunch of dumb-asses. Trying to stop a military convoy. They should be lucky they weren't killed. I bet some of them soldiers and police wanted to beat them something aweful, but held back.

Maybe it was a sacrifice they were willing to make. I'd choose death in a heartbeat if it brought the world closer to peace.

Maybe it was a sacrifice they were willing to make. I'd choose death in a heartbeat if it brought the world closer to peace.
I like you. :)

I like you. :)

Thanks. Most people think I'm crazy.

Thanks. Most people think I'm crazy.
Now you're just trying to make me like you more, aren't you... :p
But it would seem to be a good kind of crazy then, compared to certain other posters here today.

And I did think it was a nice sentiment you expressed.

so do you extend that right to the iraqi insurgents who are threatned by a foreign invading army? they are, after all, protecting their country from an illegal invasion? :sniper:

christian duty to defend your country? find me that bit in the bible :rolleyes:

They aren't protecting their country from anything but it's future as a big rival to the saudis in terms of oil production and wealth, not to mention the benefits of a stable government....

Islamic Menace?


The Islamist menace started long before 9/11. Kobar towers, Cole, Beirut, etc.


Things like "Turn the other cheek" and stopping his apostles from attacking the Roman soldiers, even going so far as to put the ear back on...

The most violent thing he did was over turn a bunch of tables.

And in the OT God had the Israelis wipe out scores of different people. Not to mention when the tribulation ends Christ will lead heaven's armys....

They aren't protecting their country from anything but it's future as a big rival to the saudis in terms of oil production and wealth, not to mention the benefits of a stable government....



or maybe they are shooting at the foreigners who let them down when they rose up in 91, crippled them with sanctions for 15 years, increased by 5,000% the cancer rate with their depleated uranium weapons, bombed their infrastructure and then refused to allow locals to repair it, insisting on expensive and slow foreign contractors, used cluster bombs and phosphorus on civilian areas, soldiers who have routinely killed civilians at road blocks, used torture and sexual humiliation, have disrespected the locals customs and religion, stolen from civilians at checkpoints, allowed 'security contractors', also known as mercinaries set up torture chambers and operate unchecked.

no, you are right, they are shooting marines becasue they really enjoy their recent plunge into abject poverty post saddam. :rolleyes:

the very fact you cant for a second see why people will shoot at ANY foreign troop on their street really shows how indoctrinated you are. shoe on other foot, you are invaded for whatever reason. you going to sit back and take it or do exactly what the iraqis are at; get stuck in?

The Islamist menace started long before 9/11. Kobar towers, Cole, Beirut, etc.




Oh, why not just take it back to the Crusades.

Nice. Seems they didn't even resort to violence when being pulled off. Now that's civil disobedience in action. Good on them.

So they successfully delayed the transport of APCs to the US military in Iraq?

I hope the 'grateful' soldiers won't have their thanks muffled by black plastic.

So they successfully delayed the transport of APCs to the US military in Iraq?

I hope the 'grateful' soldiers won't have their thanks muffled by black plastic.

to repeat, it was an effective tactic in ending the last major, illegal, civilan slaughterfest the US involved itself in, vietnam.

So they successfully delayed the transport of APCs to the US military in Iraq?

I hope the 'grateful' soldiers won't have their thanks muffled by black plastic.
In Washington...