RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 Now back to the discussion. Peaceful means quiet, calm, etc... If these folks are demostrating, carrying signs and shouting, then without a permit they could/would be cited for inciting a riot. 9219[/snapback] Peaceful also means non-violent. I think as long as no one is physically harmed there are no grounds for arresting people. But that's my interpretation. A riot is one thing, and I don't think most people want a part of that. It would be completely contrary to the cause and just make the public think, "look at the crazy protesters," and shift the focus away from anything they have to say. DC Tom, there are plenty of deadbeat protesters, I'll admit that. There are plenty of deadbeats listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of working in their offices, too. But that's just an easy way of defusing someone's message. I will be walking the dog, and I was hoping to go to the park and hear what people had to say. My point was, I'm going there anyway. If I stay and do that this weekend, do I suddenly become an unruly protester?
TPS Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 9199[/snapback] I believe that politicians do engage in wagging the dog, and what easier way to do it than with some obtuse terror warning. As I recall, Jose Padilla was in custody for weeks, but they announced his arrest during that Congressional testimony by the female FBI agent from Minneapolis, who said that their investigation of Moussoui was squelched by DC higer ups.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 My spelling's fine. His reading sucks. 9224[/snapback] I just miss my old glasses.
Captain America Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 Does it really matter what the target is? All you need is a terror warning. In fact, seems to me that using VA hospitals has a greater impact than something people would expect. Do a Google search tomorrow and see what got more press. BTW, I noticed Drudge had the terror warning, but not the poverty numbers.... 9218[/snapback] You should run for President. The terrorists and poverty .just have the terrorists attack and kill all the people in poverty ..end of poverty ,then we kill the terrorists end of terror what a great solution :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 You should run for President. The terrorists and poverty .just have the terrorists attack and kill all the people in poverty ..end of poverty ,then we kill the terrorists end of terror what a great solution :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 9235[/snapback] Man, Captain America should change his name to Dr. Doom. I always thought Dr. Doom was pretty cool anyway.
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 I've been told a lot of times I couldn't go somewhere, for various reasons. I'd just go another time. Why is there a big deal involved unless one plans on being part of the protesting mass? And as has been pointed out-there are venues for that. I find it highly unlikely that if a crowd of 2000 people forms, all 2000 are going to jail. There will be a central rabble rouser(s) hauled away.
VABills Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 I just miss my old glasses. 9234[/snapback] No Tom was using one of his rights to modify his posts after the fact. basically being an evil bastard at your expense. However, as BIB points out peaceful is peaceful. As you say too. But if you get loud and start shouting in peoples faces and becoming threatening, that is assault, and therefore, inciting a riot and off to jail you go.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 I've been told a lot of times I couldn't go somewhere, for various reasons. I'd just go another time. Why is there a big deal involved unless one plans on being part of the protesting mass? And as has been pointed out-there are venues for that. I find it highly unlikely that if a crowd of 2000 people forms, all 2000 are going to jail. There will be a central rabble rouser(s) hauled away. 9240[/snapback] I doubt it. But if there is no rioting or violence and they haul anyone away, people will be intimidated enough to leave. There have been a lot of police vehicles in the park today and I have no doubt this is what for. People are being made to feel that they will be arrested just for being there.
IDBillzFan Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 Y'know, I think the 'don't kill the grass' thing is crap. But BiB brings up a point...a good, clear point...which unfortunately flies in the face of Americana despite its truthfulness. This might not be the best time to put that many people in a resource-draining tough-to-control area on a specific day at a specific time. I believe he referred to it as a soft target. If the protesters really were a bunch of pissed off people who stopped their lives to protest...then okay. But that's not the case 90% of the time, so there's no sense staging a play if you're not going to charge admission. I'd say the same thing regarding the DNC as well. These protests drain our resources at a very critical time. I'd rather people recognize this as a lengthy, but temporary situation and not a changing of our liberties. But it's just not that simple unfortunately.
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 DC Tom, there are plenty of deadbeat protesters, I'll admit that. There are plenty of deadbeats listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of working in their offices, too. But that's just an easy way of defusing someone's message. 9230[/snapback] Don't get me wrong; I didn't say deadbeat protesters, I said professional protesters. The group that most immediately springs to mind for me (simply because of the cold, dark place in my heart I have reserved for them) is PETA. They have a group of people whose job it is to travel the country and organize, plan, and execute protests, without whom the vast majority of PETA protests would not occur. And even though I mention them specifically, they're not even remotely the only group that does this. But they're not deadbeats...in fact, I suspect they're paid rather well for their services, and usually very dedicated to their cause as well. But a person whose sole existence is wrapped around provoking others to B word about things is not someone who's going to get much respect from me...particularly when their message is negative rather than positive. People who's position is constantly against something and for nothing just waste my time.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 No Tom was using one of his rights to modify his posts after the fact. basically being an evil bastard at your expense. Yeah, figured that one out However, as BIB points out peaceful is peaceful. As you say too. But if you get loud and start shouting in peoples faces and becoming threatening, that is assault, and therefore, inciting a riot and off to jail you go. 9247[/snapback] Sure. I don't think most, if any people, are going to shout in people's faces or threaten people. Like I said before, most people are smart enough to recognize the stakes are high and this will only hurt their case. I hope a few idiots don't ruin it.
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 No Tom was using one of his rights to modify his posts after the fact. basically being an evil bastard at your expense. 9247[/snapback] Perish the thought. I would never do that...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 Y'know, I think the 'don't kill the grass' thing is crap. But BiB brings up a point...a good, clear point...which unfortunately flies in the face of Americana despite its truthfulness. This might not be the best time to put that many people in a resource-draining tough-to-control area on a specific day at a specific time. I believe he referred to it as a soft target. If the protesters really were a bunch of pissed off people who stopped their lives to protest...then okay. But that's not the case 90% of the time, so there's no sense staging a play if you're not going to charge admission. I'd say the same thing regarding the DNC as well. These protests drain our resources at a very critical time. I'd rather people recognize this as a lengthy, but temporary situation and not a changing of our liberties. But it's just not that simple unfortunately. 9249[/snapback] And that brings up yet another point. What, precisely, should we be protecting? The safety and welfare of the people is an obvious one...but this country was founded on certain ideals and principles, among which are the rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble. Now, it's all well and good to tell people "You can't gather here, for your own good"...but you have to realize that protects the people at the expense of the civil rights our country's founded on. Conversely, you can allow the gathering...and protect the civil rights at the expense of the people's safety. But which SHOULD the government be protecting...the people, or the people's rights? Strikes me as an important question to consider, if you want to figure out precisely what it means to "win" the war on terror...
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 Yeah, figured that one out Sure. I don't think most, if any people, are going to shout in people's faces or threaten people. Like I said before, most people are smart enough to recognize the stakes are high and this will only hurt their case. I hope a few idiots don't ruin it. 9261[/snapback] There's a lot of concern in the democratic camp, as well as within some of the protest organizations as to the many ways this can backfire.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 And that brings up yet another point. What, precisely, should we be protecting? The safety and welfare of the people is an obvious one...but this country was founded on certain ideals and principles, among which are the rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble. Now, it's all well and good to tell people "You can't gather here, for your own good"...but you have to realize that protects the people at the expense of the civil rights our country's founded on. Conversely, you can allow the gathering...and protect the civil rights at the expense of the people's safety. But which SHOULD the government be protecting...the people, or the people's rights? Strikes me as an important question to consider, if you want to figure out precisely what it means to "win" the war on terror... 9276[/snapback] Point well-made. It's murky territory.
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 Point well-made. It's murky territory. 9284[/snapback] I have my own opinion on the subject...but every time I post it, someone yells at me. Either calls me a "pinko liberal" or a "neo-con Nazi". It would be nice, just once, to have an honestly held and reasonably supported opinion without being labelled for it...
IDBillzFan Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 Point well-made. It's murky territory. 9284[/snapback] It absolutely is, but unfortunately you really need to see the world view on these things and not just the view of one political side or another. That's what makes this all so challenging right now. A great time to be alive...that is for sure.
Recommended Posts