Stu Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Burgold Actually, the Boston Tea Party was well before the actual revolution and most of those involved in the action wanted to jar the Brittish Crown into changing their taxation practices. Very few of those involved were advocating out and out revolt at that time. Understand. My point is do we have to go "nuclear" with all protests? Are we at the point with our current government that this kind of behavior is necessary. I just don't think so. Don't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Oldskool Don’t be a tool and even try that stupidity on me. It's not stupidity. Your statement was too broad and I called you on it. Don't accuse me of being stupid because you haven't learned to communicate your thoughts clearly. Originally posted by Oldskool HOWEVER, you cross the line when you start acting like animals and lose all human decency. Swearing at convention goers? Physical assault? If you cant express yourself in an intelligent manner and act civil, perhaps you should forfeit your ability to protest. I mean if you don’t have the mental capacity to express yourself without acting like a chimp, im sure you cant wrap your brain around the issues, now can you? Well I'd give right wingers more credit if it wasn't for the deafening silence I'm confronted with when I discuss pro-life protesters. They sit there and shout baby killer at women who are going into planned parenthood without the least bit of info as to why they are there. However when the shoe is on the other foot right wingers can't say enough about the mean tactics of those 'leftists' out there causing trouble. I agree with you buddy, I think violence only weakens your cause no matter what it is. I've called these fools in new york whackos in this very thread. The difference is I don't try to paint over the issue with smart @ss remarks about who these things really just show they are intolerent. What this stuff shows is that all of the people there are outraged over something and some of them are violent thugs that should be jailed immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Well I'd give right wingers more credit if it wasn't for the deafening silence I'm confronted with when I discuss pro-life protesters. They sit there and shout baby killer at women who are going into planned parenthood without the least bit of info as to why they are there. I believe I had mentioned pro-lifers earlier but, if you didn't catch that, I agree with you. Pro-lifers are generally some of the most evil, "Christian" people I have ever met. I consider myself to be a Christian, just not one of their kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Stu, I think this is the line that made me write my bit... "Protesters drive me crazy, yeah they should have the right to do it, but do they ever accomlish anything?" I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech on both sides and believe this country was birthed via the product of protest. There is healthy protest and counter productive. The idiots who were out physically trying to hurt someone belong to the latter group. On the other hand, free speech zones, fbi checks of anyone with a counter-mainstream belief, wiretaps, email invasion, etc. is also counter to the spirit of the nation as I was taught it. Moreover, there is always a question of whether the poor element in these protests were prophetic or were they encouraged by the attempt to stifle opposing viewpoints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Well I'd give right wingers more credit if it wasn't for the deafening silence I'm confronted with when I discuss pro-life protesters. They sit there and shout baby killer at women who are going into planned parenthood without the least bit of info as to why they are there. However when the shoe is on the other foot right wingers can't say enough about the mean tactics of those 'leftists' out there causing trouble. I agree with you buddy, I think violence only weakens your cause no matter what it is. I've called these fools in new york whackos in this very thread. The difference is I don't try to paint over the issue with smart @ss remarks about who these things really just show they are intolerent. What this stuff shows is that all of the people there are outraged over something and some of them are violent thugs that should be jailed immediately. I'll be happy to agree there are types like this on both sides and both should be condemned accordingly. I absolutely hate when someone in the Pro-Life movement acts in the manner described. They actually hurt the cause in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by herrmag Well, like you said, they're "wackos". Do we want a president that thinks and falls into line with them? Falls in line? Of course not. However I do wonder about a man that is able to anger so many people. He's been able to motivate more people to leave their homes just to convey that they don't like him then any President I can remember reading about. No matter how you look at it that's troubling, especially from a guy that won the white house pretending to be a uniter. I don't like seeing my country divided this way. And you can blame the reaction all you want but the cause is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'm gald that most of us on this forum can agree that protesting is fine but violence and verbal assault are not. Seriously it's good to see that while we differ on issues we can agree on behavior. Sadly I'd bet most of the folks in New York marching around proudly under a sign organizers made for them, are peaceful people. They are angry, there is no denying that, but their voice is drowned out by the few (or not so few) that aim to cause trouble. It's to bad the police that arrest these jerks will be accused of all sorts of unpleasent things for their trouble. That's another side effect of protests so large in scope, they are dangerous and the people in there doing their job get blasted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Falls in line? Of course not. However I do wonder about a man that is able to anger so many people. It was the election that angered, so he is taking the brunt, as well they don't agree with the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Burgold Stu, I think this is the line that made me write my bit... "Protesters drive me crazy, yeah they should have the right to do it, but do they ever accomlish anything?" I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech on both sides and believe this country was birthed via the product of protest. There is healthy protest and counter productive. The idiots who were out physically trying to hurt someone belong to the latter group. On the other hand, free speech zones, fbi checks of anyone with a counter-mainstream belief, wiretaps, email invasion, etc. is also counter to the spirit of the nation as I was taught it. Moreover, there is always a question of whether the poor element in these protests were prophetic or were they encouraged by the attempt to stifle opposing viewpoints? I think we agree. Protest is great if done properly and can really serve to improve the product. Just like posting here serves to sharpen your overall views and at time change them. While the "checks" on protesting that you noted in total should be questioned and kept in mind, I think the current state of affairs if fueling that. We as a country are still skiddish and I don't think that will change for a awhile. Interesting "chicken or the egg" question. I would add that the "poor element" could have led to the increased oversight as well. I think most in this thread probably agree that the violence and mob like tactics used by protestors of all persuasions is good for noone. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red zone Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Of course a war time president is going to bring out the protestors. I think George W. is willing to trade the great uniter lable for increased national security any day. I get the feeling people protest because it makes them feel good, not because they really intend to accomplish anything. I wise man once said, "Lead, follow or get out of the way!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docdru Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Stu The Boston Tea Party was part of the Revolution in which we used force to throw the existing government out and set up our own current government. Are you advocating another revolution of that magnitude? If not, I think civil protest will suffice don't you? The Boston Tea Party took place on Dec 16, 1773 in response to Parliament granting the east India company the exlcusive privilege of selling tea in America. At this stage many colonists were still uncomfortable with the idea of Independence. parliament responded to the tea party with the coercive acts passed in 1774 between the end of march and mid june. At the First continental congress which convened in Philadelphia in september 1774 the delegates were hesitant to outright declare independence. The vote on independence failed. Even at the second continental congress, in May of 1775, a month after the battles of Lexington and Concord, the colonists attempted to pursue a policy of resolves and reconciliation. In July they passed the olive Branch Petition, which claimed loyalty to the king and humbly aske dhim to break with his "artufl and cruel" ministers, whom Congress blamed for the oppressive measures like the coercive acts. This took place even as the British government was already preparing for military action. It wasnt until 1776 after nearly a year of fighting and an open rejection by the King of the petition that we finally declared and accepted independence as our goal. In short, you are wrong and the reference to the Boston tea party made by Burgold made sense, despite your lack of knowledge of American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 IMO the reason Bush has so many people protesting him is You Know what He stands for,whereas most politicians will nver make a firm commitment to anything[Other than getting reelected] I may not agree with all his stands But I don't have to guess how he feels.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by docdru In short, you are wrong and the reference to the Boston tea party made by Burgold made sense, despite your lack of knowledge of American history. See my response to BURGOLD ceding this point but using it as an example for a larger point. Note how we used civil discourse in discussing the issue to find common ground. You are an example of the problem we are talking about with your "shoot first" mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docdru Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by red zone Of course a war time president is going to bring out the protestors. I think George W. is willing to trade the great uniter lable for increased national security any day. I get the feeling people protest because it makes them feel good, not because they really intend to accomplish anything. I wise man once said, "Lead, follow or get out of the way!" I wouldn't go so far as to call Thomas Paine's saying wise. It fits into a long American tradition of reducing complex philosophical debate to glib one liners that can easily be digested by the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docdru Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Stu See my response to BURGOLD ceding this point but using it as an example for a larger point. Note how we used civil discourse in discussing the issue to find common ground. You are an example of the problem we are talking about with your "shoot first" mentality. I was late in responding and for that I apologize. I just get all worked up when people misinterpret history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by docdru I was late in responding and for that I apologize. I just get all worked up when people misinterpret history. Fair enough. Though we might disagree, gentle corrections are always appreciated. Cheers. Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I want to comment for a second that this thread has had points of incivility that were often nipped in the bud rather quickly. For such a divisive topic, it seems you guys have done an excellent job of keeping this from becoming a slugfest, making this thread an enjoyable read. Cheers to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I think the delegates are surprised that anyone out there actually disagrees with W. They'd never know it from going to campaign fundraisers or at the country club. This is not some staged event, with loyalty oaths required to enter and phony questions made in advance to further the talking points. Welcome to the real world, people! Just imagine how bad it would be if Bush wasn't a uniter! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 it's incredible the amount of adoration and disgust one man can bring out in the public. bush is truly a gifted and talented individual in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by red zone ...I think George W. is willing to trade the great uniter lable for increased national security any day. .. That is a false choice. Wouldn't a united populace have the greatest effect on increasing national security? I understand the Republican "bumper sticker" mentality, though. No nuance. Black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by AJWatson3 it's incredible the amount of adoration and disgust one man can bring out in the public. bush is truly a gifted and talented individual in that respect. Yeah, it's Bush's fault these people are a-holes with a lack of respect for anyone with an opinion that opposes theirs. We could have world peace, they greatest economy this country has ever seen, these people would still hate Bush as they can't stand the fact that they lost in 2000 and have been looking for any excuse to rip him apart ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by pr11fan Yeah, it's Bush's fault these people are a-holes with a lack of respect for anyone with an opinion that opposes theirs. So, you're an a-hole with a lack of respect for anyone with an opinion that opposes yours, but the difference is you don't blame Bush? Do I have that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by flashback So, you're an a-hole with a lack of respect for anyone with an opinion that opposes yours, but the difference is you don't blame Bush? Do I have that right? The day I cuss people out in public, threaten, and assault them you can call me an a-hole. Until then I suggest you mind your business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Wow. So you called them a-holes, but you didn't cuss anybody out in public. Is that because this board isn't public, or is a-hole not a cuss word? My business is minded, thanks for asking, or were you threatening me? Lets see, what did we leave out, assault? Ok, I won't call you an a-hole until you assault someone. Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Duckus Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by flashback Wow. So you called them a-holes, but you didn't cuss anybody out in public. Is that because this board isn't public, or is a-hole not a cuss word? My business is minded, thanks for asking, or were you threatening me? Lets see, what did we leave out, assault? Ok, I won't call you an a-hole until you assault someone. Deal? Checkmate....I was wondering if anyone would realize he had called them a-holes right in his pervious post. Anyhow, seems like everyone agrees on this: Peaceful protesting = good Violent (ie. Pro life/Anarchists) = bad Seems pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.