I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America

damn you, daimoni!! I was going to post this but didn't get to it

I must say it's about the funniest thing I've read in weeks. I laughed so hard I peed a little bit.

.

I had someone I worked with tell me i wasn't allowed to criticize this war while it was underway.
to that I said: well, if I come upon a fight outside a bar where a man is beating another man with a crowbar....If I'm opposed to that action, do i have to wait until he's done beating up the other guy or killing him to object?

You don't have to stop criticizing the war or anything else while it's going on. It's your right.

What I don't like is how people like the Dixie Chicks and Martin Sheen have complained that people no longer buying their products after they've weighed in being an attack on their "free speech." They act like there shouldn't be any effect to them having an opinion.

Maybe they should ask Trent Lott if expressing yourself has an effect.

Some people getting together and steamrolling Dixie Chicks CDs has nothing to do with the 1st Ammendment, except that both the Chicks and the people who bulldoze their stuff are expressing themselves freely.

Now, if the United States Government were to jail the Dixie Chicks and order their CDs burned, I would be the first one to speak up.

The problem I see is that people speak out and expect there to be no reaction. They try to make a martyr out of themselves and say "free speech!"

I'd agree with you.

Althought there has been far too much attempts at censure from government officials, wouldn't you agree? FAR too much. I think the article aims at that rather than about simply pissing off your neighbors or the local Elks Lodge.

What your neighbors think of what you say or what some angry mob in the midwest might think is more a symptom of the breakdown of civil society rather than a breakdown of democratic society. That's another topic. Some people sure do hate other people's liberty.

One of the principles upon which the United States of America was founded is free speech. What gets said may well be in extremely poor taste sometimes but it remains a basic freedom. Just be aware that you will have to live with the consequences of your statements.

speech. (sorry, a pet peeve of mine)

Normal consequences are fine. out of proportion consequences are not fine. At least with me.

As an example, a local radio station had people to call in whether they would be more likely to be war protestors or more likely to run over war protestors with a humvee on their way to work.

yes, meant to be funny, but obviously a more mean-spirited threat implied.

My problem is more and more people threatening people who oppose war with violence, or expulsion for excercising their rights to peaceably assemble in protest.

That underscores my point that the level of confrontation and beligerence shown by both sides demonstrates something is wrong with the social fabric, not necessarily with the government or Liberty.

I'm shocked that people can't find a way of dealing with differences of opinion other than resorting to the kind of crap we've seen (like your radio show example). What's wrong with people when they resort to that kind of crap?

I think we should be worried about government infringing on our Liberty (Patriot Acts I & II), but perhaps I'm more concerned with what's happening to Americans themselves.

That essay is funny as hell. We're out of Afghanistan? She kept me in stitches. April Glasbie!

I hope that she keeps her day job. She obviously has some paranoia/authority issues, and maybe delusions -- this is America, she can find help for that.

Hey: It's the Onion. It's a joke. Sheesh.

I'm not sure what kind of 'both sides' argument you're making here.

Lying in the middle of a road blocking traffic= one of the absolute DUMBEST ways anyone could possibly come up with to get a point across and has nothing what-so-ever to do with 'freedom of speech.

Joking about wanting to run some nitwit over who is laying in front of your car as you're perhaps trying to get to work (or maybe even taking your sick kid to a doctor, who knows)= not only free speech, but normal human nature. No, not actually hammering down on that gas pedal for real, but joking about wanting to do so? Some idiot laying in the road? Are you kidding me? Absolute fair game for ridicule.

Anyone (and I do mean ANYONE) who's going to sit here and pretend they wouldn't be a bit pissed to be late for whatever they are doing by some bunch of jackasses laying in the road, and that the thought of said idiot getting run over wouldn't cross their minds -I don't care what the cause- is simply lying. Straight up.

How anyone could even make the comparison as being the same level of 'mean spiritedness' is beyond me.

Ehm... laying on the road blocking traffic vs. (only thinking about...?) running over someone: big, big conceptual difference! In the first case, someone tries to get your attention about a specific problem - in the second case, someone just seems to "think" in an egomaniacal way.

The real tragedy of much of today's "life" is that it's more and more "me (and "my" family) against everyone" - and not, as it should be (IMHO), "let's try to (radically) resolve our common problems together"...

HAHAHA!

That's the strangest excuse for stupidity in the name of 'protest' I've seen in a long time!

I love these tactics the anti-war crowd resorts to, then justifies despite all logic.

"I can lay in a road, and block traffic to 'get your attention' and my (ACTUAL)harmful, disruptive, spiteful DEEDS are my 'freedom of speech'.

You can't even think about running me over and your (JOKING) about it is 'egomaniacal'.





And people that think like this wonder why they are correctly called out as being self-righteous PRICKWADS? Go figure.

Wait, so are any of you claiming that it is OK to lay in the middle of roads in major downtown metro areas because of "freedom of speech"?

Personally, I think it's certainly not the best thing to do (lying on the road for "protesting") - but people could try to understand why some do these things, instead of bitching and moaning about whether it's "legal" or not!

What happened with solidarity, BTW...?

I'm not going to sit there wondering why people do things all the time.

Stand on the sidewalk with a sign. But don't obstruct other people's lives.

Would you complain if it were a cause with which you agreed?

There's a long history of this concept in the US... it is called Civil Disobedience.

Was it wrong for marchers to block streets in Alabama in the 60s? Just an example, mind.

How true. It's just a good idea, every day. I was doing it *before* the war; what were you doing for the cause?

Heck yeah, I'd complain! For two reasons: 1) If I did agree with their cause, they are giving ME a bad name and it definitely is not winning opposition over 2) I wouldn't lie in the streets because I don't want to block emergency vehicles, mainly. Plus, it also doesn't win to my cause anybody trying to get to work. If anything, it turns them off.

Just doesn't seem like a good way to get your point across. And if they were doing it for a cause I agreed with I'd still disagree big-time.

Worked for that little guy in India. What was his name now? Ah - that's right - Gandhi.

Mayhap you've heard of him.

Used (with enormous success this and other similar non-violent tactics to get his own way.

That�s even funnier! Now protestors doing stupid, disruptive, very potentially harmful to others things(and completly at random, not against anyone actually responcible) has somehow reached a level of parity with Gandhi! HAHAHA!

I won�t even get into the fact that people marching for Civil Rights in the 50�s and 60�s conducted themselves with the utmost of dignity as far as all records show. And �As-If� in either of these bizzaro comparisons the actual causes involved carry the same weight or are in any way on the same level of importance. Puh-lease. (Reality check on aisle 13 please.)

It seems some people will excuse *anything* rather than just admit, (ala the example given my Kitschy) that there are often things done in the name of a �cause� that do nothing to further it.

I don�t think anyone defending (beyond all logic) the protestors has any room to call up the �because you agree with them� argument. That�s of course the ONLY reason anyone would defend obvious stupidity in this case. "Because you agree with them." What�s the deal with trying to turn that around?

Gandhi even!

Too damn funny!

evidently you know very little about Gandhi.

Hi protest of pouring out the processed salt the british were forcing the indians to do did a little more than tie up traffic for a few hours.

btw: I've had my traffic tied up while Dubya was in the area. Does that mean I get to run him over? (/joke)

Will someone with a SHRED of intellectual honesty tell me how blocking people AT RANDOM in traffic -people who�ve done absolutely nothing against you, who you have no idea who they are or weather or not they even oppose you or even agree with you, weather they are on their way to a hospital or any emergency (or anything else that's no one's friggen business to disrupt), in ANY way compares to anything ever done by Gandhi against an identified foe?

Is this really how intellectually BANKROUPT the left has become?

If so, it's amazingly, stunningly, breathtakingly, SAD.

You just made a joke about doing so.

"Obviously a more mean-spirited threat implied."

Er, wasn't Gandhi protesting the fact that his country was occupied by a foreign power that subjugated his people to second-class status in their own country?

Now, I know the left is still upset by Florida, but really . . .

You only answered half the question. There were two parts in there.

As for changing people's minds- the public's minds, well, that isn't going to happen and I am pretty sure that is not the general aim.

I guess my comments about lack of civility in both sides didn't register as being about both sides clearly enough.

I think they have a right to protest. I think they have a right to civil disobedience. That doesn't mean I think it's very effective or productive. I live near the Federal building in LA so every single protest (whether it's for a cause I support or not) impacts me in a very real way. Westwood traffic is horrible even when there aren't people in the streets.

I feel like I've spoken out many times on this board about the need to get past sloganeering to actually get to some useful dialouge. That goes for protesters. I'm glad when I see people passionate enough to actually do something, but I've never been convinced that protesting is a particularly effective method of achieving dialouge or resolving conflict.

Civil disobedience only gets attention. Once you have people's attention, you'd better have a real message. Not many protesters (pro or anti) do.

Blocking traffic is arguable a hostile act. Expressing the sentiment that you'd like to run them over is fairly hostile (even if you feel justified).

Sounds like both sides need to find a way of reaching out to create meaningful dialouge. This is what I was trying to say.

You're sidetracking, my point was the dynamic nature of the protest and its effects on normal operations. I was not addressing the nature of the REASON for the protest. Obviously, they are different reasons.

I think you realize that.

I was parroting the example to make a point, sort of a "how do you like your own medicine" sort of thing. Obviously it flew over your head.

buzzzz! go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars

The interesting thing is, even if you disagree with their method of protest, it IS effective in generating discussion, much more so than merely holding placards has done.

as we see evidenced on this board, for example.

Crash, I am not fronting the agree disagree thing to pull a partisan point. What I am saying is- if you agree with their point and are fairly adamant about it, you're like as not to lessen your critique of their methods. If you are hard on the other side, you'll poke at what they say and what they do to promote it. That's all.
You have to hand them this- it gets people talking about it.
Again- stupidity is in the perception.

My point is the appropriateness of a method is to some extent connected to the reason and the availability of alternative means. When you have the vote and representation in government (e.g. in Congress) you don't get to cloak yourself in the mantle of people who have neither.

I'm perfectly comfortable justifying civil disobedience and even rioting in some circumstances. But not when a simple letter to a congressman, peaceful protest, or letter to the editor are available.

But wait. Are we discussing a hypothetical situation here? I rescanned the thread and I cannot seem to find any specific circumstance of what you're describing.

If you're talking about some Joe running out onto Mass Ave at noon, lying down in the street with a "stop war" sign held high, well, then, yeah, I'd say that is a little tweaked. Not sure that would accomplish much.
If you are talking about a slew of organized protesters marching down Mass Ave, well, that is somethig different.

yes, yes, but like I said, that was a sidetrack to my point. Simply because you bring up a separate point does not invalidate mine.
I brought up mine because someone said gandhi would never have blocked traffic (or intent to that effect) I was merely pointing out that Gandhi was not beyond protesting OUTSIDE the accepted forms of protest allowable, or of impeding normal day to day operations to make a point.

That does not mean I'm defending the protest, per se, but pointing out that there are indeed some similarities in method. (that of disruption)

It's a valid point, but I'm sure most of this action is born of the feeling that they are completely unrepresented. That their interests are completely ignored.

I certainly hope they show the same organizing power and conviction during the next election. As far as I'm concerned, an election that doesn't have more than 70% participation isn't even democracy.

Serbia declared their last election invalid because voter turnout was below 50%. Serbia!?!

I've seen a lot of analysts saying that this war has finally gotten Generation Apathy involved and interested. Hopefully they will stay that way even when their protests are completely ignored. I hope the futility of those actions doesn't make them sink into even greater apathy, but the cynic in me says they probably will.

Whether they think that they are unrepresented is irrelevant. The fact is they are represented.

It may be that they are simply are outnumbered by people that disagree with them. In a democracy, there are always people who are on the minority end of any issue. Or they may have put themselves in the position of not being heard because they failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to vote. But who is to blame for that?

Or maybe they feel that even voting against a candidate in majority is not enough to prevent him from being president.
Heck, Simey, I feel disenfranchised in this country, and I'm not out protesting. But I do NOT harbor the tinkerbell hope that writing to my congressman at this point is going to change the war juggernaut.....do you honestly think so? If so, you're more naive than I thought.

You're suggesting letters to congressman precisely BECAUSE you know it would be completely ineffectual, which is precisely where you want protestors to be relegated to.

But voting doesn't mean your interests are represented, especially if your candidates don't win.

I'm sure a lot of the protest crowd are people with dodgy voting participation, but I've voted all my life and I often feel completely and totally unrepresented

Standing in the street isn't going to "stop the war juggernaut" either. But that isn't really the point of such a protest, is it?

In a representative democracy you get your main voice at election time. Between those elections it is up to the representatives to run the government. They may even run it in a way that a substantial minority disagree with. In fact that is almost certainly going to be the case. Or for that matter, they may even run it in a way that the majority disagree with. But when that happens, that majority gets to toss them out at the next election. What doesn't happen though is the minority don't get to break the law just because they are frustrated that they are in the minority. They can still protest and organize, but generally only by lawful means.

Now, as I said before there is an exception when a minority simply has no voice. For example, a minority that is discriminated against or legally disenfranchised. But that isn't the case here and any talk about disenfranchisement is self-indulgant claptrap.

I live in DC. My candidates USUALLY don't win. And when they do it is only because I sometimes cross party lines.

Living in a democracy has little to do with being in the cozy position of having your candidate win. It's nice when it happens, but it often doesn't. If you want 100% representation of your views, you need to find yourself a nice deserted island so you can be your own emperor. No, really living in a democracy is about gracefully accepting the fact that you are in the minority for now, but you will try to change that through peaceful persuasion.

Amen. I hear you. There are eight Democrats for every one Republican here in Hartford. My representative in the US Congress is a Democrat and a Democrat has held that seat since before I was born.

The people inconvenienced are not the target of the protest. ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are. We (sadly) live in an age where more publicity can be gained, more quickly, than ever before. Attract a newsman, and *bing* there you are on local, and if you are lucky, national, TV. I do not condone these protesters (or any other cynical media manipulators, like politicians of all colours) but I do understand their objective, and their success is evidenced by, among other things, this thread.

It was compared to Gandhi because someone said that lying down in front of vehicles was pointless and ineffective, but Gandhi proved it isn't, even before the TV age.

Stunning.

What on earth has this thread to do with the left?

If you need to demonise the left, I guess that any excuse'll do.

I guess when it comes down to it, go for it. You CAN lay down in the street...you'll be arrested too (probably).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can just imagine the rage the lefties would be expressing if it were pro-lifers blocking the streets of major cities. I would be PO'ed if it were pro-lifers too.

Maybe I am naive, Lerk, but I would say making phone calls and writing letters to local papers, congressmen, representatives businesses and whoever else could remotely impact the sitation, are a lot more effective than getting a bunch of friends and laying in a street with a sign that says "no blood for oil (and free Palestine)." (excuse the run-on sentence)

On a semi-sidenote: Seems that a lot (not all) of the anti-war protests are just big parties...hippies, singing, drinking, partying, dancing, smoking, an almost celebratory atmosphere. Chanting slogans that support what you are protesting is one thing, but the party atmosphere does make me wonder...

I don't fully understand the party system in the US (even having lived there), but in the UK you never find a politician who totally represents your views, you are lucky to find someone that you agree with some of the time. Democracy is the art of living with this, knowing that there is nothing that you can do about it. For every gain you may make (e.g. finding a pol. that agrees with your views on war) is likely to be balanced by a loss (e.g. he doesn't agree with your views on taxation).

Of course in the US there may only be two types of people, and everyone either totally agrees with the Democrats or totally agrees with the Republicans. If this is true, you are welcome to your system.

Nope. Not true. I usually support Republicans but they often drive me even more crazy than do the Dems.

No.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...lo_wews/1551125

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...war_protests_15

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...23/lo_kpix/6151

Are people trying to pretend they really didn't know that one of the tactics of late was protestors PURPOSELY blocking traffic? We're not just talking about some rally where people may have happened to spill into the streets, we're talking about specific acts of deliberate traffic blocking.





Go back over it again. Lerk and Thunderous were sort of doing the pretend thing- 'Gee, how terrible, joking that you'd want to run over a protestor... why, whereever did that idea ever come from? People are just being little angelsSome mean spirited people just thought of if off the top of their heads... gee whiz, why would someone make a joke about running the protestors over? Couldn't be because they were laying down in the streets or anything. NAHHH.



Bingo!


No, but I think that's what all the Gandhi-wannabes are pretending this is about.

Ahh once more, the left doesn't exist as soon as it gets busted for doing something retarded. Typical.

Right, all the protestors are right-wingers. Suuuure.

Several here have made the statement that if pro-lifers pulled the same stunt, they'd call them on it too. So would I. Be honest, so would you.

This is what I'm saying about the stunning intelectual dishonesty on display here. You're telling me, any of you taking up the protestor side of this would say a bunch of Bible-thumping religious zealots who took to laying down in the street and preaching at everyone- you'd be here making the idiotic 'Gandhi' defense on their behalf?

PUH-LEASE.