Oh, and to be clear, do you think that all persons who engage in patriotic protests that involve breaking the law should be arrested? For the law they broke and not the fact they were protesting, of course.
The “midterm” elections will be coming up soon. If anyone is angry at how things are going in the government, then VOTE. Throw the bums out. If you/we “unelect” enough of the people giving us heartburn, then maybe the new crew will get the message.
To steal from Boss Tweed, vote early and vote often (just a joke)
I was just going to lurk through this thread but for this comment:
John, was the President exercising his duties as Commander in Chief? I may have misread the article, but it seemed to me he was on his way to a fundraiser/reception. Also, I think it’s important to note, he wasn’t stopped and the road was not blocked. The three who tried to do so were arrested. Aside from that, yes, I would say that right to life demonstrators have the right to gather and protest Ruth Bader Ginsberg when she attends events. I’d be surprised to find out they hadn’t done so already.
I am saying that the very necessity of changing the status quo ante distinguishes the cases, as well as the outcome of a “successful” blockade.
they should be prepared for arrest. (ie, put your bail bondsman on notice, to minimize your holding time)
whether as a matter of public policy all who invoke civil disobedience should, in the wide discretion of the cop on the beat (which is huge) be arrested, is quite a different question.
Throw the bums out.
from your mouth, as my grandma would say, to god’s ear
Is this a no to the statement that those who break the law to make a point should be arrested? Are you appealing for leniency from that cop with ‘wide’ discretion (all laws are fuzzy?) for the protestors, or not? Just liberal protesters?
if they are not arrested, the point of civil disobedience is lost. The idea of civil disobedience is to “witness”, not to oppress.
to clarify: if the authorities refrain from arrest, they sabotage the civil disobedience.
a subtext:their arrest should be conducted in the same civil spirit as the disobedience–ie, the redwood protestors who chained themselves together and were maced in the eyes while being unwelded have a beef…
I’m not sure, but probably not. He was supposed to meet with some non-government officials at the Hoover Institute, which is on the Stanford campus although it is not officially part of Stanford (Hoover “fellows” aren’t Stanford faculty). BTW, if you mean was he specifically acting as the Commander in Chief (as opposed to other presidential duties), I’d say definitely not.
**Bob **was responding to the OP, who claimed the road was blocked. So let’s assume the hypthetical of road blackage for both GWB and RBG.
I don’t think anyone on this board would deny the right of any group simply to protest. My question to **Bob **was whether he would consider the pro-life protest to be “an act of patriotism”, which is what he called the anti-Bush protest.
Well, I can’t answer for Bob, but I certainly would. Exercising one’s right to assemble and protest is patriotic.
Alrighty then. The post to which this was a response was not as clear.
Students have a right to assemble at the sides of the road: check.
Students have the ‘right’ to be arrested for sitting in the road: check.
Bush has the right to go run and hide from his constituents: check. (?)
It sounds like everything is in order here.
of course he has a “right” to run an hide–we just want fifteen seconds on the evening news of him showing his bare ass heading up the road…
Eww, there’s an image I didn’t need; thanks a lot.
don’t thank me, thank his personal trainer…(Richard Simmons–this is a state secret, so it’s just between us…)
Showing your ass, is, of course, a “term of art”
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 25,500 for “showing your ass”
If I may ask a question . . . ?
The Stanford Daily article implies that all of the action took place on the Stanford campus.
Stanford is a private university and as such, don’t they retain some sort of control over their streets? In other words, aren’t any assertions that the protestors blocked public roadways factually incorrect?
I might be moving the debate away from philosophical discussions regarding nonviolent protest, and more towards the motor vehicle code. But as a point of order, let’s get our facts straight before proceeding to the debate.
I think you correct, altho in the instant case, we may without much risk assume that the fascist trustees of that second-rate bay area institution (forever overshadowed by the intellectual stature of Berkeley, and moreover piss-poor football players) granted bubble boy an easement for transit to the belly of the beast.
I don’t see what difference that makes. Stanford is private property, yes, but it’s not owned by the students. If the university approved of the visit, the students have no right to block access.