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

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.