NationStates Jolt Archive

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

Look at the significance of protests in the past.

Without protests, people might think everything was just ducky the way they are.

Protests have been a major part of history and in many cases have shaped the world.

protests are stupid as are those who protest.

Why spam?

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

Soccer games clog up streets and lead to violence too, I dont think they are bad in general

At least at a protest you are letting people know that there are people out there that care about the topic at hand.

When you protest, you voice your opinion to the world on how you feel about something. At the same time, you're telling those who are on the opposite side of your position that they are wrong.

It's largely useless in a practical sense, because going through the red tape of beauracracy would ... well, no, that'd be futile as well.

Protesting is essentially the common man standing up and screaming because he was previously unable to stand or scream.

It's pretty obvious. It highlights a groups dissatisfaction/anger/whatever regarding a particular issue, and the bad publicity it creates for those who are responsible for the situation/in a position to fix it/whatever will pressure them to do so.

So troll, what will you drag out from under your bridge next?

Soccer games clog up streets and lead to violence too, I dont think they are bad in general.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you referring to children playing soccer on a street, thus clogging it up? Or are you referring to soccer played on a field? If it's the latter, I don't see how it clogs up the streets, and it also has the positive effects of youngsters learning teamwork, cooperation, and exercising.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you referring to children playing soccer on a street, thus clogging it up? Or are you referring to soccer played on a field? If it's the latter, I don't see how it clogs up the streets, and it also has the positive effects of youngsters learning teamwork, cooperation, and exercising.

No. He was actually refering to soccer being played on Saturn, but never mind.

It's pretty obvious. It highlights a groups dissatisfaction/anger/whatever regarding a particular issue, and the bad publicity it creates for those who are responsible for the situation/in a position to fix it/whatever will pressure them to do so.

What did any anti-war protest to date achieve? Have we pulled out of Iraq? No -- Bush said that as long as he's president, we'll be in Iraq despite numerous protests. Look at Vietnam -- protests were ubiquitous in those days. Many of them turned violent and there was dissatisfaction everywhere. Did we pull out of Vietnam because of them? No. They are pointless.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you referring to children playing soccer on a street, thus clogging it up? Or are you referring to soccer played on a field? If it's the latter, I don't see how it clogs up the streets, and it also has the positive effects of youngsters learning teamwork, cooperation, and exercising.

A giant stadium game finishes. People get into their cars at the same time (roughly). The outcome is fun on the roads of course

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you referring to children playing soccer on a street, thus clogging it up? Or are you referring to soccer played on a field? If it's the latter, I don't see how it clogs up the streets, and it also has the positive effects of youngsters learning teamwork, cooperation, and exercising.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://newsfromrussia.com/images/newsline/hooligans.JPG&imgrefurl=http://newsfromrussia.com/sport/2005/09/04/62232.html&h=180&w=300&sz=18&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=RWTNQeZIFKd5yM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsoccer%2Briot%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26hs%3DIiO%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN


My point was that just like protest soccor fans have the distinct tendancy to riot too

That does not make the game bad it makes thoes that choose to riot bad

No. He was actually refering to soccer being played on Saturn, but never mind.

I'm missing something here, aren't I?

What did any anti-war protest to date achieve? Have we pulled out of Iraq? No -- Bush said that as long as he's president, we'll be in Iraq despite numerous protests. Look at Vietnam -- protests were ubiquitous in those days. Many of them turned violent and there was dissatisfaction everywhere. Did we pull out of Vietnam because of them? No. They are pointless.

Just because they aren't all 100% effective doesn't mean they are totally pointless. Modern medicine can't cure every known disease, should we abandon it totally?

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

Without protest there'd be no democracy, free health care, free speech, civil rights or voting process for women.

Since we've reached quite a jolly stage of progress in the West, protests have become abstracted into union liberties in Columbia or Indonesia - or human rights abuses in China or Turkey. No more marching for things that we now take for granted. Whittling this down, it means that when something happens that we do give a monkey's hole for, en masse, we march with old-school force. Witness the marches over Iraq. Didn't stop the invasion, but it was the largest single protest march in British history. That will play a bigger part in historical narrative than Tonez'z shimmying - and when the day is done, that's all that matters. Did you recognise that the longest, most tenacious and most damaging episode in New Labour's record has not been over Iraq, but over tuition fees? People couldn't handle all those young folk marching. They thought it was the rapture in Westminster.

So. If you dismiss the thought of peaceful protest then you reduce yourself as a man, I believe.

My point was that just like protest soccor fans have the distinct tendancy to riot too

Ah, got it. Well, first of all, soccer fans who riot usually confine their crimes to the stadium in which the match took place and do not disturb those who did not attend the match. Protests, on the other hand, take place in largely residential areas -- if they took place on a large field in the middle of nowhere, I'd be fine with them. We do need to increase the police presense at soccer games which are likely to evolve into riots, however, so that normal people aren't inconvenienced.

What did any anti-war protest to date achieve? Have we pulled out of Iraq? No -- Bush said that as long as he's president, we'll be in Iraq despite numerous protests. Look at Vietnam -- protests were ubiquitous in those days. Many of them turned violent and there was dissatisfaction everywhere. Did we pull out of Vietnam because of them? No. They are pointless.
You need to study some history, child. Protests in the Vietnam era helped turn the tide of public opinion against the war, just as continued protests in this period have turned the tide of opinion against the Iraq war.

Protests don't work solely on their own--in both cases, the ineptitude of the people in charge and their unwillingness to see the war in terms other than those they'd begun with caused a lot of the loss of support (which is why I wasn't surprised to find out that Kissinger is a quiet but primary adviser of this Presidency--he's still fighting Vietnam). But protests do allow people who are quietly doubting to realize that they're not alone in their beliefs and spurs them to action.

Why Protest?

Because the international socialist movement tells me so.

Just because they aren't all 100% effective doesn't mean they are totally pointless. Modern medicine can't cure every known disease, should we abandon it totally?

No, but we shouldn't prescribe drugs for a disease which they have no effect upon. It would be utterly pointless and it may result in adverse side effects if you do such a thing.

What did any anti-war protest to date achieve? Have we pulled out of Iraq? No -- Bush said that as long as he's president, we'll be in Iraq despite numerous protests. Look at Vietnam -- protests were ubiquitous in those days. Many of them turned violent and there was dissatisfaction everywhere. Did we pull out of Vietnam because of them? No. They are pointless.

Do black people have equal rights to white now?
Do women have the vote?
Is Nelson Mandela in Jail?

I'm missing something here, aren't I?

Yeah, me being a sarky git. Take no notice :p .

Do black people have equal rights to white now?

Not because of protests, however. It was because people realized that blacks should have equal rights as whites, regardless of what the protests achieved. All that the protests did was spark various anti-black groups into violence and get MLK, Jr., shot.

What did any anti-war protest to date achieve? Have we pulled out of Iraq? No -- Bush said that as long as he's president, we'll be in Iraq despite numerous protests. Look at Vietnam -- protests were ubiquitous in those days. Many of them turned violent and there was dissatisfaction everywhere. Did we pull out of Vietnam because of them? No. They are pointless.

Actually, the United States was winning the war in Vietnam when we pulled out to intense domestic pressure following the Tet offensive. (Which we won by the way, but the photos were nasty) The Vietcong was smart. Nixon knew that what he had to do, and he did it because of all the discontent. People where generally sick and tired of watching their people die for something that wasnt helping the United States. Vietnam was a waste as has Iraq been.

Not because of protests, however. It was because people realized that blacks should have equal rights as whites, regardless of what the protests achieved. All that the protests did was spark various anti-black groups into violence and get MLK, Jr., shot.

That is ignorant as they come. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King's protests sparked the Second Civil RIghts Movement, and without them very little progress would have been made. People started to think because of them.

Ah, got it. Well, first of all, soccer fans who riot usually confine their crimes to the stadium in which the match took place and do not disturb those who did not attend the match. Protests, on the other hand, take place in largely residential areas -- if they took place on a large field in the middle of nowhere, I'd be fine with them. We do need to increase the police presense at soccer games which are likely to evolve into riots, however, so that normal people aren't inconvenienced.

Soccer crimes are more likely to happen outside the stadium immediately after the game when the majority of the fans of either team aren't separated by the whole stadium(one is usually seated on one side or the other, depending on which team you are supporting). Protests take place in cities and busy public places because a protest that nobody knows about really is pointless.

Not because of protests, however. It was because people realized that blacks should have equal rights as whites, regardless of what the protests achieved. All that the protests did was spark various anti-black groups into violence and get MLK, Jr., shot.

And what about the other two examples listed?

That is ignorant as they come. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King's protests sparked the Second Civil RIghts Movement, and without them very little progress would have been made. People started to think because of them.

Rosa Parks was a criminal and MLK's protests only brought together a group of disaffected blacks and subjected them to racist violence. They would have won their civil rights in more painfree a manner had they not staged such en masse protests but quietly tried to persuade people in their cause. The tide had been turning against those who did not want to give rights to blacks for some time, and JFK was the ultimate catalyst to action.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://newsfromrussia.com/images/newsline/hooligans.JPG&imgrefurl=http://newsfromrussia.com/sport/2005/09/04/62232.html&h=180&w=300&sz=18&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=RWTNQeZIFKd5yM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsoccer%2Briot%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26hs%3DIiO%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN


My point was that just like protest soccor fans have the distinct tendancy to riot too

That does not make the game bad it makes thoes that choose to riot bad

Yay, Hooligans! :)

Rosa Parks was a criminal + other tripe

What crime?

What crime?

Failure to recognize the glorious superiority of the white race and refusal to get in her proper place!

What crime?

Back in the day, it was illegal for blacks to sit up at the front of the bus. She broke the (unfair) law. What she needed to do was take legal, civil action against the law instead of breaking it wantonly. However, there is a distinction between the black civil rights movement and current protests -- now, everyone has the right to vote. Previously, blacks did not have the right to vote, which narrowed their options.

Back in the day, it was illegal for blacks to sit up at the front of the bus. She broke the (unfair) law. What she needed to do was take legal, civil action against the law instead of breaking it wantonly. However, there is a distinction between the black civil rights movement and current protests -- now, everyone has the right to vote. Previously, blacks did not have the right to vote, which narrowed their options.

Civil disobediance is still disobediance, eh?

Back in the day, it was illegal for blacks to sit up at the front of the bus. She broke the (unfair) law. What she needed to do was take legal, civil action against the law instead of breaking it wantonly. However, there is a distinction between the black civil rights movement and current protests -- now, everyone has the right to vote. Previously, blacks did not have the right to vote, which narrowed their options.

You see, I was being sarcastic. Shame you're not.

Back in the day, it was illegal for blacks to sit up at the front of the bus. She broke the (unfair) law. What she needed to do was take legal, civil action against the law instead of breaking it wantonly. However, there is a distinction between the black civil rights movement and current protests -- now, everyone has the right to vote. Previously, blacks did not have the right to vote, which narrowed their options.

Isn't that more civil disobediance than protesting?

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.
Go tell that to India that protesting never achieves anything.
Likewise the US civil rights movement

While you're at it, go git yourself sum history learnin'.

Ah, got it. Well, first of all, soccer fans who riot usually confine their crimes to the stadium in which the match took place and do not disturb those who did not attend the match. Protests, on the other hand, take place in largely residential areas -- if they took place on a large field in the middle of nowhere, I'd be fine with them. We do need to increase the police presense at soccer games which are likely to evolve into riots, however, so that normal people aren't inconvenienced.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/photos/photo-essay/2002-06-10/pic1.jpg

Really? does not look like a stadium to me

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/photos/photo-essay/2002-06-10/pic1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/photos/photo-essay/2002-06-10/page1.html&h=247&w=400&sz=56&hl=en&start=11&tbnid=p_NmsuF-52vEVM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsoccer%2Briot%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26hs%3DWS4%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

Rosa Parks was a criminal and MLK's protests only brought together a group of disaffected blacks and subjected them to racist violence. They would have won their civil rights in more painfree a manner had they not staged such en masse protests but quietly tried to persuade people in their cause. The tide had been turning against those who did not want to give rights to blacks for some time, and JFK was the ultimate catalyst to action.

Hmph...you are ignorant. Congrats. Rosa Parks and MlK were saints and I don't know what sort of backwash place you live in, but they were saints. I am not usually this mean, but I can not believe you said that.

Back in the day, it was illegal for blacks to sit up at the front of the bus. She broke the (unfair) law. What she needed to do was take legal, civil action against the law instead of breaking it wantonly. However, there is a distinction between the black civil rights movement and current protests -- now, everyone has the right to vote. Previously, blacks did not have the right to vote, which narrowed their options.

I disagree. In a situation where basic rights are taken away based on color, the only way to fight back effectively is to show the rediculousness of said situation by protesting. You think a government that passes those kinds of laws would seriously consider removing them without a huge outcry of the public?

Rosa Parks and MlK were saints and I don't know what sort of backwash place you live in, but they were saints.

I didn't say anything bad about either MLK or Rosa Parks. MLK was a highly intelligent man and Rosa Parks was a brave woman. I only said that Rosa Parks was a criminal, which is an indisputable fact.

You think a government that passes those kinds of laws would seriously consider removing them without a huge outcry of the public?

The situation back then was different than it is currently. Now, a "huge outcry" is not needed. We have a democratic system of government. Thus, we can express our rage via our votes instead of disrupting the lives of ordinary people and blocking traffic. Back then, blacks could not vote, so they had a wider latitude in deciding what methods should be employed in getting the right to vote.

I didn't say anything bad about either MLK or Rosa Parks. MLK was a highly intelligent man and Rosa Parks was a brave woman. I only said that Rosa Parks was a criminal, which is an indisputable fact.

I would not consider her a criminal when she battled an arcane and stupid law. That is utterly ridiculous. Do you consider the Framers criminals?

I didn't say anything bad about either MLK or Rosa Parks. MLK was a highly intelligent man and Rosa Parks was a brave woman. I only said that Rosa Parks was a criminal, which is an indisputable fact.

Good example of why criminal != bad automaticaly

The situation back then was different than it is currently. Now, a "huge outcry" is not needed. We have a democratic system of government. Thus, we can express our rage via our votes instead of disrupting the lives of ordinary people and blocking traffic. Back then, blacks could not vote, so they had a wider latitude in deciding what methods should be employed in getting the right to vote.

They needed to protest because no one was listening. That is why people protest. So that a large mass of people could get together and express the believes. It worked so who can argue.

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

You really don't know anything about France, do you? Protests here work, which is why we keep on doing them.

The situation back then was different than it is currently. Now, a "huge outcry" is not needed. We have a democratic system of government. Thus, we can express our rage via our votes instead of disrupting the lives of ordinary people and blocking traffic. Back then, blacks could not vote, so they had a wider latitude in deciding what methods should be employed in getting the right to vote.

How do we have any more of a "democratic system of government" now then we did during the civil rights movement?

I would not consider her a criminal when she battled an arcane and stupid law. That is utterly ridiculous. Do you consider the Framers criminals?

By defintion, a criminal is somebody who breaks a law, whether that law is practical or ridiculous. If there was a law saying you can't wears jeans on Tuesday and somebody did, he'd be a criminal. I did not intend any negative connotation to be conveyed via "criminal," however.

By defintion, a criminal is somebody who breaks a law, whether that law is practical or ridiculous. If there was a law saying you can't wears jeans on Tuesday and somebody did, he'd be a criminal. I did not intend any negative connotation to be conveyed via "criminal," however.

Then what value did it add to your arguments?

You really don't know anything about France, do you? Protests here work, which is why we keep on doing them.

Yeah, the government surrenders at the fastest possible opportunity. Do all your "protests" involve the destruction of the property of decent, hardworking Frenchmen and a descent into mindless rioting?

I did not intend any negative connotation to be conveyed via "criminal," however.

Then why use the word criminal at all?

How do we have any more of a "democratic system of government" now then we did during the civil rights movement?

Because now more people can vote and nobody is disqualified from voting based on race. Back then, blacks could not change their lot in life politically becuase they couldn't vote. Thus, they had to resort to other means. Those other means are no longer necessary.

You really don't know anything about France, do you? Protests here work, which is why we keep on doing them.

Which protests in particular?

The situation back then was different than it is currently. Now, a "huge outcry" is not needed. We have a democratic system of government. Thus, we can express our rage via our votes instead of disrupting the lives of ordinary people and blocking traffic. Back then, blacks could not vote, so they had a wider latitude in deciding what methods should be employed in getting the right to vote.

I disagree, again. I think the situation today is very bad. We're insulated and content with our personal bubbles. Rarely do we care about what goes on in the government or the world, unless it involves death, and even then we rarely act on it. Apathy is democracy's worst enemy, and protesting can pull those around it out of such a situation.

Yeah, the government surrenders at the fastest possible opportunity. Do all your "protests" involve the destruction of the property of decent, hardworking Frenchmen and a descent into mindless rioting?

Thank you so much for proving my point by proving your extreme and gross ignorance.

Then why use the word criminal at all?

Because she was a criminal -- it is not desirable to be a criminal. She should not have committed criminal acts. She took a brave but misguided course of action when she chose to break the law.

Yeah, the government surrenders at the fastest possible opportunity. Do all your "protests" involve the destruction of the property of decent, hardworking Frenchmen and a descent into mindless rioting?

Uh-oh, France-bash alert!

Because she was a criminal -- it is not desirable to be a criminal. She should not have committed criminal acts. She took a brave but misguided course of action when she chose to break the law.

You know masturbation is a criminal offense in some US states, right? Is pretty much every guy in the US a criminal now? Or are they just going off for brave but misguided adventure, too?

Uh-oh, France-bash alert!

Do you do alerts for America bashing?

Which protests in particular?

It's a very long tradition. Most recently, protests against de Villepin's laws on reforming the work code for young employees continued for six weeks, accompanied by strikes, until the laws were withdrawn. A few years ago, protests against Claude Allègre's reforms of the education system were also successful. In general, when protests are massive enough, they're successful, simply because people are determined enough to go out into the street again and again and again until they're listened to.

Contrary to what ignorant foreign right-wingers and sensationalist foreign media will have you believe, such protests are peaceful. Instances of violence occur when yobs, completely unconnected to the protest movements, make the most of the opportunity to start smashing things during or after the protests.

Unlike those who would like to believe what they're told on tv, I speak from experience. I live in France; I've taken part in such protests. I was there in almost all of the major demos against de Villepin a few months ago. They were peaceful and there was a good atmosphere throughout.

Do you do alerts for America bashing?

Not when it makes sense.

There's a reason we have the freedom to protest, and to think it's a useless freedom is to bash America more than any "pinko commie liberal red bastard" could ever do.

Because she was a criminal -- it is not desirable to be a criminal. She should not have committed criminal acts. She took a brave but misguided course of action when she chose to break the law.

That's just silly talk.

The only reason you would call Rosa Parks a criminal would be to diminish her credibility.

Eh why do anything, why get up in the morning, why put on pants, why go outside, why do we bother with anything? :p

Not when it makes sense.

There's a reason we have the freedom to protest, and to think it's a useless freedom is to bash America more than any "pinko commie liberal red bastard" could ever do.


So your answer is "No. Never."

That's just silly talk.

The only reason you would call Rosa Parks a criminal would be to diminish her credibility.

I can't believe it. Me and R0cka are on the same side of the argument. -_- Never thought I'd see the day.

I can't believe it. Me and R0cka are on the same side of the argument. -_- Never thought I'd see the day.


:fluffle:

Must be a full moon.

Eh why do anything, why get up in the morning, why put on pants, why go outside, why do we bother with anything? :p

Well, I didn't mean it to be that philosophical of a question. Of course, I don't do two of the things you mentioned above. :)

they had a wider latitude

What the fuck is a wider latitude?

Direct action is, without a doubt in my mind, the single most effective political tool available to an individual.

Because now more people can vote and nobody is disqualified from voting based on race. Back then, blacks could not change their lot in life politically becuase they couldn't vote. Thus, they had to resort to other means. Those other means are no longer necessary.

Um I believe during the civil rights era they DID have the right to vote as well

1870 was when the 15th amendment was radified ... rosa parks was considerably after that

I dont think you know your history enough to be arguing the point you are

Well, I didn't mean it to be that philosophical of a question. Of course, I don't do two of the things you mentioned above. :)

Well I hope you're wearing pants!

1870 was when the 15th amendment was radified ... rosa parks was considerably after that


Indeed. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." 1870.

Then why use the word criminal at all?

To piss people off.

Kinda like how MeansToAnEnd argues in defense of a senator who seduces children online, using "free speech" as an excuse. Except in this thread, we see he doesn't give a shit about "free speech" at all. I guess, not enough pedophilia involved with protests?

MTAE is a troll. Pure and simple, his only consistency is in wanting to anger people and get them to pay him attention.

Indeed. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." 1870.

That was my point ... his argument was that we do not need the right to protest now like in Rosa Parks era (which btw her "protest" was on December first 1955)

Was because we were not as "democratic" because African Americans did not have the right to vote.

That is false they DID have the right to vote … so my question still stands how are we more democratic now?

Its not the fact that protests ever accomplish anything. Its just that they voice the opinion of the people. If the government never listens to the people, then the Government becomes a dictatorship.


What is it with you MeansToAnEnd? Why do you constantly espouse that everything our government does is noble and just? When it truly isn't! I have stories from the Government's inside that would make your hair stand on end.


Spooky 8 comes to mind.....*shudders*

That was my point ... his argument was that we do not need the right to protest now like in Rosa Parks era (which btw her "protest" was on December first 1955)

Was because we were not as "democratic" because African Americans did not have the right to vote.

That is false they DID have the right to vote … so my question still stands how are we more democratic now?

Yes, I know what your point was. I was agreeing with you. Protest occurs when the ineffectiveness and limitations of the ballot box in particular circumstances at least occur and are recognised.

You really don't know anything about France, do you? Protests here work, which is why we keep on doing them.

And I'm pretty sure few if any of France's protests are violent.

:fluffle:

Must be a full moon.

*howls*

And I'm pretty sure few if any of France's protests are violent.

I was in Paris during the riots. BBC and CNN deffinately over exaggerated them. I was even in a hotel on the same road that they were occuring on.

Rosa Parks was a criminal and MLK's protests only brought together a group of disaffected blacks and subjected them to racist violence. They would have won their civil rights in more painfree a manner had they not staged such en masse protests but quietly tried to persuade people in their cause. The tide had been turning against those who did not want to give rights to blacks for some time, and JFK was the ultimate catalyst to action.
That may be the most fact-free load of crap you've ever written, and that's saying something.

Then why use the word criminal at all?

Because he's a troll.

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

Ok. I'm not sure of what I'd do:

Those who support protest - If the goverments of our western democracies start oppressing us by way of arms, would you fight violently or peacefully or not at all? Any plans?



(I realise it's bad form to branch off in the middle of a topic like this, but I'd be really very interested in opinions here. Sorry 'bout that.)

I find it to be quite humorous how some of these environmental activists who love to protest cause more damage to Mother Nature than the ones who they protest against....

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1561

I find it to be quite humorous how some of these environmental activists who love to protest cause more damage to Mother Nature than the ones who they protest against....

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1561

Yeah, we'll alot of them aren't quite right in the head. Kinda like MeansToAnEnd and RealAmerica, just on the other end of the political spectrum.

hmmm.......let's see how good some protests are......

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/23/news/france.php

hmmm.......let's see how good some protests are......

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/23/news/france.php

You write like a tired twelve-year old.

hmmm.......let's see how good some protests are......

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/23/news/france.php

That is so overused man. I was there on that day and it wasn't nearly as bad as it was made up to be. Besides, half of that was just people rioting just to riot, not for any specific purpose.

hmmm.......let's see how good some protests are......


What about the many others which have produced results peacefully

You write like a tired twelve-year old.

You win the "Wanderjarian Cookie and Fluffle of the Day!" contest!


*gives Cookie and Fluffle*
:fluffle:

What about the many others which have produced results peacefully

Martin Luther King Jr. Comes to mind....also Ghandi....

Rosa Parks was a criminal and MLK's protests only brought together a group of disaffected blacks and subjected them to racist violence.

And this is where I'm done being able to take you seriously. You're either a troll, someone's alt, or a combination of the two.

And this is where I'm done being able to take you seriously. You're either a troll, someone's alt, or a combination of the two.

Everybody else stopped taking him seriously several days ago. :rolleyes:

Everybody else stopped taking him seriously several days ago. :rolleyes:

No, I believe people can be that totally insane. I don't have much faith in people. But that just... yeah, he can't possibly be real.

Everybody else stopped taking him seriously several days ago. :rolleyes:

Some of us never took him seriously to begin with.

hmmm.......let's see how good some protests are......


What's the point of you posting if you're going to, once again, ignore facts that have already been presented to you?

Ok. I'm not sure of what I'd do:

Those who support protest - If the goverments of our western democracies start oppressing us by way of arms, would you fight violently or peacefully or not at all? Any plans?



(I realise it's bad form to branch off in the middle of a topic like this, but I'd be really very interested in opinions here. Sorry 'bout that.)

I've said it before in another thread that said something along the lines of "What would you do if the government were to round up muslims and put them in camps" - I'd grab arms and revolt in a violent and animal fashion, because that's the only thing you can do in that situation. When a government degenerates into something like that, then so must the people. I would liken myself to a tiger at the throat of congress.

If you couldn't tell, the simple answer is this: I wouldn't put up with that shit.

What's the point of you posting if you're going to, once again, ignore facts that have already been presented to you?

Ignoring facts is a Bushevik tradition, my friend. ;)

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

Whatever it takes to keep the trains running on time, eh MTAE? How sad for you.

What the fuck is a wider latitude?

A greater capacity to do things which are not necessarily "correct." It means you don't have to adhere as strictly to the laws and precepts.

Ignoring facts is a Bushevik tradition, my friend. ;)

So I've come to realise, yes...

No, I believe people can be that totally insane. I don't have much faith in people. But that just... yeah, he can't possibly be real.

It's a fact that Rosa Parks was a criminal. This much is not in dispute. It is also a fact that various anti-black groups, such as the KKK, were infuriated by these black protests and vented their anger via violent means against blacks. What are you trying to debate?

First of all, I did not write the thread to anger people. I thought you don't get mad over facts. What I did post were FACTS.

I would like to thank you for proving my theory correct. I, now, understand that you are not here to face or listen to the FACTS.

So I've come to realise, yes...

On a side note, I wish we Americans were as assertive as the French. You guys aren't passive; rather than take shit, you work to change it. I commend that a lot. :)

It's a fact that Rosa Parks was a criminal. This much is not in dispute. It is also a fact that various anti-black groups, such as the KKK, were infuriated by these black protests and vented their anger via violent means against blacks. What are you trying to debate?

Whether you're just a garden-variety idiot, or clinically insane. Obviously.

Also, take note, as trusting of the law enforcement and other authority figures you claim to be, a lot of these protests that do happen shows total disrespect to the law enforcement agencies and other authority figures.

So, tell me again how trusting of the police you are.

If acts of civil disobedience such as that of Ms. Parks are "criminal," I say, we need more, not less, "criminals."

So you have stopped looking at what was achieved. Many times the most successful protests went through times of significant pain for the participants (ie King, Parks, Ghandi) however the end achieved was worth it. Peaceful protest is the civilized persons alternative to violence. It is the appropriate response to disagreement.

First of all, I did not write the thread to anger people. I thought you don't get mad over facts. What I did post were FACTS.

I would like to thank you for proving my theory correct. I, now, understand that you are not here to face or listen to the FACTS.

What rubbish are you spurting out now? What "facts" are you referring to? I maintain and confirm that I do not get angry over what I read in these fora; if I were to become angry at every idiotic post I read, I would have died of apoplexy a long time ago.

As I recall, you are the one who shirks away from any kind of debate, and ignores challenges and questions to your assertions. You also have a particular talent for accusing people of your own faults. Falsely accusing people of "hating" your country was particularly ironic after your xenophobic generalations regarding France, Europe in general, and Canada.


On a side note, I wish we Americans were as assertive as the French. You guys aren't passive; rather than take shit, you work to change it. I commend that a lot. :)

Thanks! French society isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but we are rather proud of that specific habit. Actually people here tend to be surprised when they find out that people in other countries don't do the same.

Thanks! French society isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but we are rather proud of that specific habit. Actually people here tend to be surprised when they find out that people in other countries don't do the same.

Unlike Busheviks, I highly respect France and her people. I applaud your government's decision not to intervene in Iraq. Bad enough Brits, Australians, Poles, South Koreans, etc. are being slaughtered over Bush's mistake; to add more lives to the body count would be intolerable.

First off, most people would not consider someone or something criminal unless it is particularly heinous. a bank robbery, murder, or rape is a criminal act. However, the majority of people would not call someone who had chewing gum in singapore criminal.

The only reason to call Mrs. Parks criminal is to try and attack her character. An attack against the law is not a crime if the law is unjust.

The only reason to call Mrs. Parks criminal is to try and attack her character. An attack against the law is not a crime if the law is unjust.

Perhaps you need to look up "criminal" in a dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=criminal). It means "guilty of a crime." Was sitting where Rosa Parks sat on the bus a crime? Yes. Is she a criminal? Yes. Does it reflect poorly on her character? No. Did she make the correct choice when she decided to violate the law? No.

Perhaps you need to look up "criminal" in a dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=criminal). It means "guilty of a crime." Was sitting where Rosa Parks sat on the bus a crime? Yes. Is she a criminal? Yes. Does it reflect poorly on her character? No. Did she make the correct choice when she decided to violate the law? No.

I believe you meant that it was the correct choice to violate the law. Because, well, it was the correct choice.

Was sitting where Rosa Parks sat on the bus a crime? Yes. Is she a criminal? Yes. Does it reflect poorly on her character? No. Did she make the correct choice when she decided to violate the law? No.

Are you a troll? Yes. Do you say anything so long as it pisses people off and gets you attention? Yes. Are you bigoted? Yes. Are you a hypocrite? Yes. Is asking questions and answering them before others can fun? Yes. Is it a good debating tactic? No. Does it matter since you're not here for debate but rather for attention? No. Do I rest my case? Yes. Can you suck my balls? Yes.

So, my life's coming to an end. I'm 76 and I achieved nothing. I'd always wanted to write a book, see the sandstone caverns in Nevada, fly in a hot air balloon, feel the love of a woman. But no. Only now do I see where I went so wrong, so young. Oh for one more chance! My life was trite and unstubstantial then, and it is a grey, bleak vignette now. The hooker's dead and I've run out of whisky. One bullet left. I hate you all.

Cheer up!

Are you bigoted? Yes.

I am not bigoted -- in fact, you are far more bigoted than I. I have never disciminated against anyone based on race, gender, etc.

Can you suck my balls? Yes.

Why must you always play the homosexual card? In another topic, you referred to me as "faggot." Now, you are insinuating that I can suck your balls. Can you please not resort to such crude language. It's tiresome.

Cheer up!

Huh? :confused:

Cheer up!

Love!

I am not bigoted

Yeah, you are.

You can play hide the bigotry-salami all you like. Either you're a bigot or you're a lying troll - can't have it both ways.

Now, you are insinuating that I can suck your balls. Can you please not resort to such crude language. It's tiresome.

Are you saying that you are somehow incapable of sucking on someones testicles? If not, what I said is 100% fact.

And really, with you such a fan of Freedom of Speech, you have no right to demand that I stop. Unless that's *another* one of your "values" that you can pick and choose when to, ya know, value.

I applaud your government's decision not to intervene in Iraq.

You know, over the past few years, I've come to think Chirac is comparatively not such a bad president. He's right-wing, yes, but when I see how much further to the right, and how unprincipled, the leaders of some other countries are...

In any case, I'll be watching the 2008 USA elections with great interest. Our own presidential elections are in May 2007.

Perhaps you need to look up "criminal" in a dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=criminal). It means "guilty of a crime." Was sitting where Rosa Parks sat on the bus a crime? Yes. Is she a criminal? Yes. Does it reflect poorly on her character? No. Did she make the correct choice when she decided to violate the law? No.

however, it was obvious from the context of your post that you intended to use the negative connotation of the word "criminal" to reduce the effect of Rosa Park's protest.

And in regard to your earlier posts about not having the vote.

Some might say that between the electoral college, the new electronic voting machines with no paper trail, and the fact that a candidate can win with less votes than his opponent, that we don't really have the vote anymore.

Yeah, you are.

You can play hide the bigotry-salami all you like. Either you're a bigot or you're a lying troll - can't have it both ways.



A lot of biggoted trolls running around lately, eh?

Yeah, you are.

You can play hide the bigotry-salami all you like. Either you're a bigot or you're a lying troll - can't have it both ways.



Are you saying that you are somehow incapable of sucking on someones testicles? If not, what I said is 100% fact.

And really, with you such a fan of Freedom of Speech, you have no right to demand that I stop. Unless that's *another* one of your "values" that you can pick and choose when to, ya know, value.

You get a Szanth Love Token. Exchange at any brothel or 7-11.

Our own presidential elections are in May 2007.

Interesting. Who will you vote for?

Interesting. Who will you vote for?

I'm not entirely sure yet. Do you know how the French electoral system works?

I'm not entirely sure yet. Do you know how the French electoral system works?

Not really, to be honest. :confused:

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

You're right. Freedom of speech was a nice idea, but it's time to get rid of it.

That's the answer you're looking for, right?

You're right. Freedom of speech was a nice idea, but it's time to get rid of it.

That's the answer you're looking for, right?

Exactly. When the government wants your opinion, it'll tell you what it is. :rolleyes:

You're right. Freedom of speech was a nice idea, but it's time to get rid of it.

That's the answer you're looking for, right?

No, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democracy, as I have previously stated. However, people should not be allowed to cause a ruckus and clog the traffic just because they want to make a political point. If they want to protest, they can do it in a park or a field, not on the streets. They must also do it quietly if they are in a residential area, the same way you can't blare music loudly in a residential area.

No, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democracy, as I have previously stated.

Except when its other people calling you fucking names. Or "liberals" making comparisons that you deem "treason."

But Republican senators having cybersex with children? Only freedom-hating freedom-haters could possibly consider that a criminal act!

Because he's a troll.

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg


Musta Krakish?!?

What did any anti-war protest to date achieve? Have we pulled out of Iraq? No -- Bush said that as long as he's president, we'll be in Iraq despite numerous protests. Look at Vietnam -- protests were ubiquitous in those days. Many of them turned violent and there was dissatisfaction everywhere. Did we pull out of Vietnam because of them? No. They are pointless.

Protests may not accomplish anything immediatly but because of protesting Vietnam became a huge issue in the next election. To say protests have no point is simply naive. While they may not immediatly accomplish anything politicians do take not of the feeling of Americans who voice against things in this country. After all it is by the vote of the people they get into office while Bush may ignore them the next presidential canidate wont ignore it. just as nixon said he would pull out of vietnam because of all the protesting againt vietnam.

No, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democracy, as I have previously stated. However, people should not be allowed to cause a ruckus and clog the traffic just because they want to make a political point. If they want to protest, they can do it in a park or a field, not on the streets. They must also do it quietly if they are in a residential area, the same way you can't blare music loudly in a residential area.

I think your confusing protesting with civil disobedience.

I'm not entirely sure yet. Do you know how the French electoral system works?

French electoral system?

I thought the French chose there leaders through rock, paper, scissors?

Best of 3.

No, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democracy, as I have previously stated. However, people should not be allowed to cause a ruckus and clog the traffic just because they want to make a political point. If they want to protest, they can do it in a park or a field, not on the streets. They must also do it quietly if they are in a residential area, the same way you can't blare music loudly in a residential area.

Ah, so it is okay to make a public protest provided that it isn't in public view?
Bearing in mind that the point of a protest is to raise awareness of the feelings of a large group of people, having it in an out of the way place significantly affects its impact.

The extent to which the Republicans tried to play down and marginalise the anti-war protests simply highlights the point.

Interestingly, this simply serves to highlight another point. Your basic misunderstanding of how democracy works in the US.

The extent to which the Republicans tried to play down and marginalise the anti-war riots simply highlights the point.


What riots?

Ah, so it is okay to make a public protest provided that it isn't in public view?

No, it's OK to make a public protest provided that it does not block traffic and that it is quiet enough so that it does not disturb anyone. I'm not allowed to go into a residential area and turn up my speakers at full blast, emitting a disturbing rap "song." The situation with protesters is similar.

No, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democracy, as I have previously stated. However, people should not be allowed to cause a ruckus and clog the traffic just because they want to make a political point. If they want to protest, they can do it in a park or a field, not on the streets. They must also do it quietly if they are in a residential area, the same way you can't blare music loudly in a residential area.

Yay for free speech-zones! Woot! :D

No, it's OK to make a public protest provided that it does not block traffic and that it is quiet enough so that it does not disturb anyone.

It's OK to make it loud and disturbing people too.

Even if freedom of speech and expression are somethings you don't value. I'd be shocked to hear that you didn't value them, of course.

No, it's OK to make a public protest provided that it does not block traffic and that it is quiet enough so that it does not disturb anyone. I'm not allowed to go into a residential area and turn up my speakers at full blast, emitting a disturbing rap "song." The situation with protesters is similar.

No. It isn't. Not at all. Protest, like the second amendment, is a method of maintaining the accountability of the government to the people.

Playing loud rap music is just you being annoying.

Back then, blacks could not vote, so they had a wider latitude in deciding what methods should be employed in getting the right to vote.

Cute. Very cute.

The 15th amendment was passed a wee bit before 1955, where by "a wee bit" I mean "about 85 years." I have a hard time imagining that any semi-literate American over the age of six genuinely doesn't know that.

I have a hard time imagining that any semi-literate American over the age of six genuinely doesn't know that.

While they were legally allowed to vote, practically, they were not. In the South, there was widespread voter suppression and disenfranchisement. There were also voting tests before someone was allowed to vote, which many blacks did not pass. The March on Washington in 1963 has 6 stated goals: "meaningful civil rights laws, a massive federal works program, full and fair employment, decent housing, the right to vote, and adequate integrated education."

No, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democracy, as I have previously stated. However, people should not be allowed to cause a ruckus and clog the traffic just because they want to make a political point. If they want to protest, they can do it in a park or a field, not on the streets. They must also do it quietly if they are in a residential area, the same way you can't blare music loudly in a residential area.

Why not? How is it any more your road then theirs?

Cute. Very cute.

The 15th amendment was passed a wee bit before 1955, where by "a wee bit" I mean "about 85 years." I have a hard time imagining that any semi-literate American over the age of six genuinely doesn't know that.

I'm sorry - do you know what a 'wider latitude' is?

While they were legally allowed to vote, practically, they were not. In the South, there was widespread voter suppression and disenfranchisement. There were also voting tests before someone was allowed to vote, which many blacks did not pass. The March on Washington in 1963 has 6 stated goals: "meaningful civil rights laws, a massive federal works program, full and fair employment, decent housing, the right to vote, and adequate integrated education."

Granted. However, to argue that the only reason the civil rights protests were necessary or useful was because some of the Jim Crow laws made it harder for black people to vote is disingenuous at best. All the votes in the world won't pass "meaningful civil rights laws" if said laws aren't even being proposed, and even once the legislation is on the ballot, all the votes of your faction won't help a bit if the general public doesn't know or care enough about the issue to agree with you. Common sense dictates that if you want people to listen to your point of view, you have to express that point of view. The founding fathers thought the people's right to protest was pretty darned important (many of them were themselves protestors, after all), to the point where it's explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights, and the guaranteed right of the people to peaceably assemble certainly doesn't include an exception stating that protestors need to be actively disenfranchised before they can speak, let alone that they should go hide in a field somewhere and not bother people while protesting. :rolleyes:

Not really, to be honest. :confused:

We have a two-round election. In the first round there are multiple parties. The two candidates with the most votes get through to the second round. Generally, that's the UMP (conservative) and PS (left-of-centre). In the second round, the candidate with the most votes wins. Fairly simple.

The President is elected directly by the citizens, by the way, not via an Electoral College.

So, in the first round, you can vote based on your actual political beliefs, since a vote for a small party is (generally) not wasted: you'll still get to vote for one of the two big parties in the second round.

We have a two-round election. In the first round there are multiple parties. The two candidates with the most votes get through to the second round. Generally, that's the UMP (conservative) and PS (left-of-centre). In the second round, the candidate with the most votes wins. Fairly simple.

The President is elected directly by the citizens, by the way, not via an Electoral College.

So, in the first round, you can vote based on your actual political beliefs, since a vote for a small party is (generally) not wasted: you'll still get to vote for one of the two big parties in the second round.

Thanks. :D

What riots?

Crap, fair point, stupid multi edit posts. I really should proof read more. I should have said 'protests'. Will edit for accuracy.:rolleyes:

Thank you for catching it.:)

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

They're a very good way for society to be able to express itself at the government. However, they have little effect on the government, people in power only respect one thing, more power. And typically they look at a bunch of people protesting and say, "So the F*ck what? they can't do anything" regardless of even elections these days. (example: Amerika.)

What did any anti-war protest to date achieve? Have we pulled out of Iraq? No -- Bush said that as long as he's president, we'll be in Iraq despite numerous protests.

Ah, that's what democracy is all about. Politicians who ignore the will of the people.
Can you smell the freedom?

Look at Vietnam -- protests were ubiquitous in those days. Many of them turned violent and there was dissatisfaction everywhere. Did we pull out of Vietnam because of them?

So why did the US pull out of Vietnam?
Almost every American I have spoken to said that the US was winning.
Surely you think that the US caused all those civillian deaths for a worthy cause?

So, if it wasn't due to a popular movement against the policy of a democratic government which was epxressed through protest, what was it?

So, if it wasn't due to a popular movement against the policy of a democratic government which was epxressed through protest, what was it?

We were "winning" the war, but politically, it was an untenable position to continue fighting. The majority of Americans were against the war, as politicians learned via scientific polling as opposed to inference based on protests. Actual data does much more to sway a politician than a bunch of people screaming their heads off.

What good do protests achieve? As I see it, all they do is clog up the streets, lead to violence, and cause disturbances, without yielding any beneficial results. How do you feel about protests? Poll coming.

Hmm, good point. I think I skip the protest next time and go straight to violent, bloody coup d'etat/revolution.:rolleyes:

What good do protests achieve?

Without protest we would still be dieing in Vietnam. Without protest we will be dieing in Bushnam forever.

Meep.