Los Angeles War Protest

[altair4]

Bush is an idiot fratboy.

[heyholetsgogrant]

:laugh:

So you are comparing this guy to Martin Luther King?:

:doh:

Ok..... so it was ok for the FBI to spy on MLK?

-Grant

[Sarge]

Ok..... so it was ok for the FBI to spy on MLK?

-Grant

THe Democrats thought so

[CaliforniaSkin]

#2, if they are going to hold these anti-government beliefs, then they shouldnt get good government jobs. They should be held accountable.

So if someone doesn't agree with the government he should be punished (by not being eligible for employment)? To me, that idea is far more unamerican than anything these guys are saying.

I may disagree with what they're saying but I certainly believe they have the right to say it.

[PleaseBlitz]

Ok..... so it was ok for the FBI to spy on MLK?

-Grant

I am not following your line of thinking. What does the FBI have to do with these retards, and how is what they are doing similar to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement? You are going to have to connect those for me, because im not seeing it on my own.

So if someone doesn't agree with the government he should be punished (by not being eligible for employment)? To me, that idea is far more unamerican than anything these guys are saying.

I may disagree with what they're saying but I certainly believe they have the right to say it.

They absolutely have the right. I didnt say anything about not having that right. But why cover their faces? They believe in what they are doing so much, why the cowardice? Be proud of your views and actions. Im still not sure how MLK was brought up and compared to this group, but Dr. King didnt give his "i have a dream" speech while wearing a ski-mask. Dr. King had balls. Thats why people listened.

These kids want to effect some kind of change, but are unwilling to accept any kinds of consequences for their actions. That is cowardice. Plain and simple, and it's why this is a big joke.

[CaliforniaSkin]

They absolutely have the right. I didnt say anything about not having that right. But why cover their faces? They believe in what they are doing so much, why the cowardice? Be proud of your views and actions. Im still not sure how MLK was brought up and compared to this group, but Dr. King didnt give his "i have a dream" speech while wearing a ski-mask. Dr. King had balls. Thats why people listened.

These kids want to effect some kind of change, but are unwilling to accept any kinds of consequences for their actions. That is cowardice. Plain and simple, and it's why this is a big joke.

MLK was brought up because he was the object of a lot of government surveilance. As I'm sure you're aware, the vast majority of people at these protests do not cover their faces. I think covering their faces is silly. And worse, it demeans their point. It is ineffective and allows others to casually dismiss them rather than consider what they might have to say. My point is larger than that though.

You state that the protesters are unwilling to accept "consequences for their actions." Further you state that they should be disqualified from government jobs in the future because of views that the hold. I thought that, in America, we had right to assemble peacifully and the right to speak in oposition to our government. Their should NEVER be consequences to those actions. The very thought that they are cowards for not facing the 'consequences' of nonviolent dissent is horrific to me. I have both protested this country and served in the military. REgardless of whether I agree with a man, his views should not be held against him, actions certainly, but not thoughts.

[PleaseBlitz]

MLK was brought up because he was the object of a lot of government surveilance. As I'm sure you're aware, the vast majority of people at these protests do not cover their faces. I think covering their faces is silly. And worse, it demeans their point. It is ineffective and allows others to casually dismiss them rather than consider what they might have to say. My point is larger than that though.

I dont think this is govenment survielance. These pictures look to have been taken by someone with a HandyCam. And I wasnt aware that the vast majority of people at these protests do not cover thier faces. I have been in DC for the past 3 World Bank protests (not participating), and the VAST majority all wore bandanas covering thier faces. But i do agreet that it demeans their point. As does not even knowing what you are protesting, which was my experience with most of the participants of the WB mob. They just wanted to block traffic and wear a mask for the fun of it. I know, i asked several to explain what they were protesting. Sadly, they couldnt.

You state that the protesters are unwilling to accept "consequences for their actions." Further you state that they should be disqualified from government jobs in the future because of views that the hold. I thought that, in America, we had right to assemble peacifully and the right to speak in oposition to our government. Their should NEVER be consequences to those actions. The very thought that they are cowards for not facing the 'consequences' of nonviolent dissent is horrific to me. I have both protested this country and served in the military. REgardless of whether I agree with a man, his views should not be held against him, actions certainly, but not thoughts.

First, i stated that if they hold anti-government beliefs, they shouldnt get government jobs. Thats just common sense. Lots of better candidates for these positions and lord knows I dont want this lot getting paid with my tax dollars.

Second, there should ALWAYS be consequences for peoples actions. Always. Nonviolent dissent is fine, im not advocating we throw them in the gulag. But if they are going to attend a protest, then thier participation should be noted by those around them, and it should effect the way they are viewed. Its part of who they are, you cant just say that some actions should be taken into account, but not others. It all adds up to who someone really is.

Finally, protesting means absolutely nothing if you arent willing to put your reputation behind your protest.

[CaliforniaSkin]

First, i stated that if they hold anti-government beliefs, they shouldnt get government jobs. Thats just common sense. Lots of better candidates for these positions and lord knows I dont want this lot getting paid with my tax dollars.

Common sense? Ok, what qualifies as "anti-government" beliefs? Does anti-administration count? How does agreeing with the government make someone a "better candidtate?" Mike Brown certainly agreed with Bush politically, did this make him a "better candidate" for the director of FEMA than someon with actual experience who disagreed politically with the adminsitration? Who gets to decide which beliefs are acceptable and which are not?

My point here is two-fold. First political beliefs often have little if anything to do with how someone performs their job. Second, and more importantly, the instant we start taking into account people's political beliefs when doling out government priveledges (be they jobs or anything else) we open huge doors to abuse. We should never punish ideas, and make no mistake by denying jobs to people who dissent you are punishing it. There have been many nations in history that require political orthodoxy, I hope that the U.S. will never be one of them.

Second, there should ALWAYS be consequences for peoples actions. Always. Nonviolent dissent is fine, im not advocating we throw them in the gulag. But if they are going to attend a protest, then thier participation should be noted by those around them, and it should effect the way they are viewed. Its part of who they are, you cant just say that some actions should be taken into account, but not others. It all adds up to who someone really is.

Certainly there are consequences for all actions. And no, you are not advocating throwing them in a Gulag. What you are advocating is government punishment for their views (or at least the demonstration of their views). You are arguing for real government sanctions for people's opinions. You are arguing that people should be punished for disagreeing with the government. Sure the punishment is not jail, it is nonetheless real. Is that honestly a precedent you are comfortable with? What happens if the political tides shift and you're the one not agreeing with the government? Should you lose the oportunity to have a public sector job?

Again, I am not arguing that there are not consequences for actions. I am, however, strenously arguing that the government should NEVER punish people because of their political views.

[DoGood28]

Let's all laugh at the useful idiots :doh:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060318HollywoodProtest/?imgIndex=70&autoShow=6

:doh: I would shoot myself:shot: if I wandered in there so as not to have people think I agree with these @#$%$.

:redpunch: :puke: :dunce: :dj: :blahblah: :slap: :hammer: :grouphug: :nutkick:

[Cdowwe]

Wow I cant believe some of those t shirts and signs

[PleaseBlitz]

Certainly there are consequences for all actions. And no, you are not advocating throwing them in a Gulag. What you are advocating is government punishment for their views (or at least the demonstration of their views). You are arguing for real government sanctions for people's opinions. You are arguing that people should be punished for disagreeing with the government.

Where? When?

Sure the punishment is not jail, it is nonetheless real. Is that honestly a precedent you are comfortable with? What happens if the political tides shift and you're the one not agreeing with the government? Should you lose the oportunity to have a public sector job?

Again, I am not arguing that there are not consequences for actions. I am, however, strenously arguing that the government should NEVER punish people because of their political views.

When did I ever say THE GOVERNMENT needs to punish these people? I said they should be held accountable. I said they shouldnt get govenment jobs, and they shouldnt, #1 if they dont agree with the govenment then they shouldnt be trying to get a job with it, (kinda like a vegan landing a job with the USDA) and #2 they are a security risk, and I would hope these actions would turn up in a background check and prevent them from getting a security clearance.

YOU are the one telling me that I am saying THE GOVERNMENT take any kind of action at all, other than trying to hire the best people possible. Im saying that their actions should have consequences and they should be man enough to face them. Never did I say THE GOVERNMENT should do anything to these people. Consequences can take many forms. These people hold beliefs, extreme beliefs, and all im saying is that if they want to participate in a protest like this, they should have the stones to do it openly and publicly.

Fine, you dont think these people are cowards. We disagree.

Really, im ok with that.

[CaliforniaSkin]

Where? When?

When did I ever say THE GOVERNMENT needs to punish these people? I said they should be held accountable.

OK, maybe I misuderstood you. If the government is going to disallow people from getting jobs on the basis of their beliefs, rather than their qualifications, how is this not punishing them for their beliefs?

I said they should be held accountable. I said they shouldnt get govenment jobs, and they shouldnt, #1 if they dont agree with the govenment then they shouldnt be trying to get a job with it, (kinda like a vegan landing a job with the USDA) and #2 they are a security risk, and I would hope these actions would turn up in a background check and prevent them from getting a security clearance.

#1 Many people opposed to the government might want to get government jobs for many reasons. Some simply to pay the bills. Others because they might believe that they have a greater ability to make change from within the system.

#2 Why are they by nature a security risk? What views make someone a security risk? If they have shown by actions that they are, then fine. But how on earth doss simply protesting the war make them a security risk? One thing to always remember is that you can oppose government policies and still be a patriot.

YOU are the one telling me that I am saying THE GOVERNMENT take any kind of action at all, other than trying to hire the best people possible. Im saying that their actions should have consequences and they should be man enough to face them. Never did I say THE GOVERNMENT should do anything to these people. Consequences can take many forms. These people hold beliefs, extreme beliefs, and all im saying is that if they want to participate in a protest like this, they should have the stones to do it openly and publicly.

Aren't you saying the government should take the action of disqualifying people from public sector jobs on the basis of their political beliefs? If not, I apologize.

Or are you saying that their political beliefs is a factor in what makes them "qualified." IN that case what are the acceptable political beliefs? Who gets to decide? You view their beliefs as extreme. Fine. I'm sure they view yours as extreme. I probably don't agree with either. That's not the point. The point is whether or not their views and their legal, political actions should be held against them when getting a public sector job.

Personally, as I stated earlier, I think wearing masks is silly and counterproductive. I think coward is a pretty strong word.

However if you want to use it I won't disqualify you from any job.

[Art Monk Fan]

Can someone explain to me how some of this stuff isn't hate speech?

[PleaseBlitz]

OK, maybe I misuderstood you. If the government is going to disallow people from getting jobs on the basis of their beliefs, rather than their qualifications, how is this not punishing them for their beliefs?

#1 Many people opposed to the government might want to get government jobs for many reasons. Some simply to pay the bills. Others because they might believe that they have a greater ability to make change from within the system.

Unfortunately, making change from within is often exactly what they look for in background checks. Aldrich Ames was trying to "make change from within." Im going to come back to this......

#2 Why are they by nature a security risk? What views make someone a security risk? If they have shown by actions that they are, then fine. But how on earth doss simply protesting the war make them a security risk? One thing to always remember is that you can oppose government policies and still be a patriot.

Sorry, this guy isnt getting a job at Foggy Bottom. At least he isnt wearing a mask.

Aren't you saying the government should take the action of disqualifying people from public sector jobs on the basis of their political beliefs? If not, I apologize.

Not saying that at all. Really, all im saying is that these protesters should be proud enough of their own ideas that they hold so dearly, to protest openly and publicly.

Or are you saying that their political beliefs is a factor in what makes them "qualified." IN that case what are the acceptable political beliefs? Who gets to decide? You view their beliefs as extreme. Fine. I'm sure they view yours as extreme. I probably don't agree with either. That's not the point. The point is whether or not their views and their legal, political actions should be held against them when getting a public sector job.

Political beliefs are fine one way or the other. Extremism is not.

Character IS a qualification.

[CaliforniaSkin]

Not saying that at all. Really, all im saying is that these protesters should be proud enough of their own ideas that they hold so dearly, to protest openly and publicly.

I'm not arguing with you about whether the protesters should or should not wear masks. Frankly I don't care. What I am arguing is whether there should be "consequences" for protesting.

Political beliefs are fine one way or the other. Extremism is not.

Character IS a qualification.

Just to throw this out there, but should pro-life protesters who hold up abortion is murder signs also be disqualified as extremists?

I'm not saying that they are extremists, but that many people think that they are. (And I most certainly do NOT want to get into a debate on abortion) The issue is that one man's extremism is another man's 'reasonable' belief.

Who gets to decide what political views are extreme and therefore disqualifying? If we allow people to decide that some viewpoints are too extreme, how is this different from McCarthy and the house committee on unamerican activities?

I share your distaste for extremist viewpoints. I suspect we may differ a bit on what we would consider extreme. And I think that the difference is important. We need to be able to differ. Hopefully we will be able to engage those with whom we differ in inteligent debate. For the most part I think that the protesters in the photos are the loopy left. (And i'm left of center politically on many issues.) But I don't think that they should be denied government jobs because of their viewpoints.

[Prosperity]

This is beautiful. Our soldiers are dying so we can increase our oil supply. Increasing our oil supply would cause gas prices to drop right? Hmm. I don't know what's happening to prices on the left coast, but they're going up here.

Yes they would cause the price to drop unless a civil war breaks out and the supply is cut all together.

The Bush Administration doesn't care about people's rights. I guess your right to remain ALIVE isn't important to you? Throughout our history, we've made do with sacrificing some of our civil liberties in times of war. (Talk to a Japanese American who lived through WWII to see how far we've come.) It sucks. No question. But it's a necessary evil. And frankly, if the federal government is monitoring INCOMING calls from suspected Al Qaeda members overseas without a warrant...great. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Whether it is a neccessary evil is up for debate. Not everything is neccessary for national defense, and somethings must never be sacrificed for it.

Reading Michael Moore books doesn't make you a terrorist. It just makes you an idiot. :laugh: (j/k, mostly.)

When you think about the Bush Administration, three words come to mind: lies, corruption and incompetence. That's because those are the catch words that the democrats in congress have been using for the last couple of weeks. They figured if they contained it to three simple words, you'd be able to remember them. Where were they when we had Clinton's videotaped lies, videotaped corruption and well-publicized incompetence?

The same place other partisan hacks were. Hypocrisy doesn't excuse incompetence. It is noble of you to point out hypocrisy, but it is a bit less than noble to ignore one mistake because the other "side" didn't point out the other.

BTW, what's the Democrats' plan to better fight the war in Iraq? How bout the war on terrorism? OK, an easy one, to fix Social Security? Still too tough, OK, health care? Right. They got nothing.

And telling the war protesters to "fight the good fight." Well hell. You made the joke. There's nothing else I can do with that. :laugh:

There have been plans presented, none that have really interested me other than the politicians who are in favor of a complete withdrawal of the occupation forces. But just because they don't impress me doesn't mean they don't exist. And for that matter, just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

---

I can tell some of the protesters don't know what they are talking about, but neither do the vast majority of people so I won't hold that too much against them at least they are correct accidently.

[PleaseBlitz]

I'm not arguing with you about whether the protesters should or should not wear masks. Frankly I don't care. What I am arguing is whether there should be "consequences" for protesting.

Just to throw this out there, but should pro-life protesters who hold up abortion is murder signs also be disqualified as extremists?

I'm not saying that they are extremists, but that many people think that they are. (And I most certainly do NOT want to get into a debate on abortion) The issue is that one man's extremism is another man's 'reasonable' belief.

Who gets to decide what political views are extreme and therefore disqualifying? If we allow people to decide that some viewpoints are too extreme, how is this different from McCarthy and the house committee on unamerican activities?

I share your distaste for extremist viewpoints. I suspect we may differ a bit on what we would consider extreme. And I think that the difference is important. We need to be able to differ. Hopefully we will be able to engage those with whom we differ in inteligent debate. For the most part I think that the protesters in the photos are the loopy left. (And i'm left of center politically on many issues.) But I don't think that they should be denied government jobs because of their viewpoints.

I think that many, but not all, government jobs SHOULD be denied to people that attended this "rally." If they dont hire someone they arent HURTING that individual, they just arent HELPING them. Consequences.....sorry. Plenty of other jobs out there commie.

The govenment that would be hiring an individual would make the determination as to what is extreme. Just like any other entity, the government should hire the best people it possibly can and who it feels would be the best possible worker, they owe that to the People that they serve. Some individual that has the proper "credentials" isnt necessary "qualified" if they arent going to play along with the team to serve the public interest.

[brewdogmike]

Time to give it up, granny!

Duh! Good thing they printed up a new banner with a phone number and web address! People might be looking for information about Communism!

[brewdogmike]

He's got to cover his face, because if Daddy recognizes him he'll take away the car keys and the credit card!

So glad these kids are too lazy to vote.

[PleaseBlitz]

I like how they are protesting the war, yet if you look closely, the chick next to middle finger kid is wearing a belt made out of rifle bullets. :doh:

[Prosperity]

I think that many, but not all, government jobs SHOULD be denied to people that attended this "rally." If they dont hire someone they arent HURTING that individual, they just arent HELPING them. Consequences.....sorry. Plenty of other jobs out there commie.

The govenment that would be hiring an individual would make the determination as to what is extreme. Just like any other entity, the government should hire the best people it possibly can and who it feels would be the best possible worker, they owe that to the People that they serve. Some individual that has the proper "credentials" isnt necessary "qualified" if they arent going to play along with the team to serve the public interest.

The government decides what is extreme?

If a person has the proper credentials and they perform the job well they deserve a shot at the job, especially if it is a government job.

Seriously, you aren't trying to make this argument are you?

[PleaseBlitz]

The government decides what is extreme?

If a person has the proper credentials and they perform the job well they deserve a shot at the job, especially if it is a government job.

Seriously, you aren't trying to make this argument are you?

You'll find out in a few years that companies dont just hire the first person they find with the proper credentials. They hire the best person for the job that they can get. For a US government job, that person most likely isnt a communist and its not this guy:

[Destino]

You'll find out in a few years that companies dont just hire the first person they find with the proper credentials. They hire the best person for the job that they can get. For a US government job, that person most likely isnt a communist and its not this guy:

Odds are he'd have a hard time getting a cleared for secure information so he wouldn't be able to go far in the government anyway.

[PleaseBlitz]

I would imagine so. Though, he could always run for office and get a government job that way. The screening process is far less stringent. :laugh:

[Predicto]

You'll find out in a few years that companies dont just hire the first person they find with the proper credentials. They hire the best person for the job that they can get. For a US government job, that person most likely isnt a communist and its not this guy:

But that is not what you said before. You said: "I think that many, but not all, government jobs SHOULD be denied to people that attended this "rally." If they dont hire someone they arent HURTING that individual, they just arent HELPING them. Consequences.....sorry. Plenty of other jobs out there commie."

That is a very different thing.

If you are going to backtrack now, do so honestly. Don't try to pretend that Liberty is unreasonably making up an argument out of the blue and pinning it on you. He is just asking you about your own plain words from earlier posts.