I would like to point out what I believe is a bit of irony in this situation.
In the war in Iraq, the U.S. and its allies are using precision-guided munitions in an effort to minimize the loss of civilian life. In marketing, this would be known as the “rifle” approach.
In the U.S. and elsewhere, protestors are attempting to disrupt and inconvenience the lives of as many average civilians as possible, in an attempt to draw attention to the aforementioned war. In marketing, this would be known as the “shotgun” approach.
So get the fuck out of sitting in an intersection. Write your congressman, raise awareness in effective ways(i.e. don’t piss the people you are trying to educate off), and vote.
Amazingly enough, I’m a multi-tasking protestor; I generally schedule 9-12 for letter writing, and 1-5 for Anarchy Riots, with 5-7 for Mobster Riots (since the two groups don’t get along much.)
I guess my other methods haven’t gotten through your thick awareness, eh?
Interesting. I would say the irony goes in the opposite direction. I mean, would you rather be in New York amidst the protests, or Baghdad amidst the bombings? The “shotgun” versus “rifle” approach is invalid, since the protesters are not trying to kill anyone. Trust me, all of Baghdad, even the parts not getting bombed, are inconvenienced much more so than New York.
I find it ironic that pro-war people are angry at relatively minor inconveniences designed to advance the cause of peace, but not angry at major hardships and significant “collateral damage” that are necessary to advance Bush’s war. But I guess things like this are wrong only when they happen to you, huh?
Sure, I guess you didn’t hear about the brief? Funny about that.
Perhaps one of the lawyers here could get you a copy off of Findlaw.
Property? What about justice? I hope we haven’t yet traded fairness for a nice shiny new Explorer, I hope.
Good gravy! In other words, I had the temerity to base the reasons for protests on rock-solid Constitutional rights? Quick, let me be like the president and wrap myself in the Flag and present no logical reason for my actions!! That’ll win 'em over for sure!!
Really – what sort of rationale were you expecting from this thread? "I likes my ultra-violence, and Starbucks sucks, man?"
I’m still waiting for these rock-solid Constitutional rights you think you have. All I’ve gotten is “Well, I feel like I should be able to do whatever I want”. :rolleyes:
Ace, what exactly is your point about not getting a permit for the anti-war demonstration? Did you even read the court’s opinion? Do you disagree with it? Or is it easier to spew rhetoric about losing your right to free speech to time, place, and manner regulations, than deal with the fact you while you have the right to free speech, you don’t have the right to disrupt the runnings of a city of millions?
I didn’t anwer it, as it was assuredly a Rhetorical Flourish, and the thread concerns the activities of the civilly disobedient protestors and their possible rationale, not my personal proclivities.
So if you want to know what I think the percentage of protestors is that vote, ask that.
If you want to know whether I vote, whether I’ve been arrested, or my methods of High Mobster Anarchy, e-mail me.
Coalition forces are not targeting civilians, provide proof or shut up, it’s that simple.
**
I can’t speak for all pro-war people but I’ll speak for myself here. There are many reasons that this war is unjust and possibly unnecessary at the point in time. I could make a list of 100 reasons we should have done it, and 100 against. I am frustrated against a small percentage of the anti-war people, because they seem to be giving a black eye to the rest of the movement.
Violent protests, defacing property, throwing stones at National Guard soldiers (wtf???) etc, is not going to help anything, and they simply need to realize this.
Protesters (the ones we are pissed about) have never mentioned some of the possible benefits, they have never taken the time to try and look at the other point of view, or at least acknowledged some of the possible reasoning behind some of the decisions made.
What bothers me the most is that these people stick their fingers in their ears and yell as loud as they can. I have the utmost respect for a person that will act on convictions to effect change, but only if done in a lawful respectful manner.
This war is not 100% I’m right, %100 you’re wrong no matter what perspective you use.
That little disclaimer said:p, I am for this war, but like many people, have a great many problems with it.
Ah yes, a semi-creative dodge to a simple yes or no question.
Not that I think one needs to be active in every level of community involvment to have the right to complain about ‘the system’, but forgive me if I have a tad more admiration for them.
I bet less then %50 of the protesters voted in any election, which I find depresssing.
Yes, I still beat my wife, thanks for asking, ol’ friend.
Here’s something for the serious to chew on, in regards to the permit system being a tool of political supression. It’s from the NY Civil Liberties Union: (Warning, contains more Constitutional Rationale)
Guess what, Sparky. The Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, aren’t absolute rights. You can’t call “Fire” in a crowded theatre, and the city (which is paying the bills for your little wingding, BTW) has the right to restrict demonstrations to the appropriate times and places, mainly so they can provide city services.
I may be blind, but when I read Cockburn’s piece in your link, I couldn’t find any mention of the government saying that this group represents a security risk. That Bush and Ashcroft got involved means nothing without seeing the actual brief that the government filed. And, since you brought up this brief, you get to provide the link to it. It’s not my job to prove you right.
Did you read the NYCLU peice? It is, to my eyes, a quite damning cite, and it answers your questions about the tradeoffs between rights and their costs as best I am able, not being a lawyer an all.
I’m quite comfortable with the quality of my cites and argument, and I haven’t seen more than opinion, hyperbole, and rhetorical devices to oppose them.
Am I now do to Herculean legal research to disprove an opinion? What next, the Philosopher’s Stone?
At this point, if you find an argument or cite you find flawed, please let me know; If you are merely unconvinced or unimpressed, let’s agree to disagree.
