feeling alone my libs, see protest photos from DC & Other Places.......

[verte76]

I suppose this is correct, but I find it a little rude how some completely support the protesters' decisions to interrupt the president's speeches. Some of you claim the protester who barged into Madison Square Garden the night of the RNC was not a democrat. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but I would think that the undecided voters who saw this did not block it out of their memory. How far can you go without being obnoxious? This was downright obnoxious, it's a laugh that people are defending him, and he made a fool out of anyone who voted against Bush.

I will acknowledge that there are protesters out there who value their freedom of expression. There are those who use it properly, and there are those who abuse it. Would you rather be portrayed as a Ghandi like figure, or a Roy Moore type of figure? It's up to you, I hope for peaceful protests, if any protests must exist.

I do not support the protesters who disrupt speeches and meetings. This is not the way to protest, in my view. Gandhi knew how to protest. Roy Moore? I can't stand the guy. I hate it that he's from my own home state and has influence here. I don't see why protesters can't follow a few simple rules for how to be the most effective. I was furious when those protesters disrupted the President's speech at the RNC. Among other things, yes, I was also afraid that it would hurt our campaign, even though I didn't think Kerry would have anything to do with tactics like that, either. The guy has too much decorum for that, I think, but does Voter X know that? Damage is damage. If you're going to do politics, you need to think about what you want to do, and the best way to do it. Over and over again, it's been proven that the peaceful, orderly style of protesting is really the only way to do it. Otherwise you're cutting your own throat. I only want to express my views. I don't want people to draw the wrong conclusions about what I'm trying to do. If I disrupted speeches or meetings, that's what would happen. Look at the difference between the results Gandhi got and the results Moore got. The British had to leave India. Moore got his ass kicked out of the courthouse and himself out of a job, all for making a golden calf out of a statue.

 

[STING2]

Oh yeah I forgot that freedom of speech only covers wispering.

Did I say anything about Freedom of Speech there? I said I didn't consider YELLING to really be a good example of peaceful protest.

 

[STING2]

I don't agree with the spitting or burning of dolls either, but that's not what you said.

You had a problem with people stating Bush should have had a private ceremony if he didn't want protestors. That's what I was questioning. Bush knew he would have protestors, he's not that dumb. This is one of the beauties of this country that we can protest. You can question the means all you want but don't question the protest.

You have the freedom to protest, but you do not have the freedom to rob other people of their right to have a ceremony without it being disrupted in any way shape or form.

 

[STING2]

They have that right. Personally I don't want to hear Bush speak, maybe he should listen to the left a little more.

You don't have the right to interfere with someone else engaged in their freedom of speech. If the Protesters don't want to hear the President speak, then don't go down to where the ceremony is taking place and turn the channel on the TV or radio when he comes on.

 

[STING2]

The fact is he doesn't listen, and he is not a unifier as some were hoping he was going to reveal himself to be. And if people want to shout as protest they can do so; they want to be heard. If Bush didn't want people interrupting his speech, he should have held it in a private function, instead of holding it in a public area.

Ant.

This nation has been inaugurating Presidents outside for the past 200 years! Its the countries right to have an inauguration free of disruptive behavior from a small minority of people who refuse to respect the rights of others and often the law itself.

 

[STING2]

oh gee, I don't know- maybe because the election was stolen?

maybe because Pres Bush doesn't care about poor people, disabled people, most working people, or a healthy environment?

Gee, why would anybody want to protest about such 'unimportant' 'things'.

Stolen? Why because John Kerry did not win?

Most Americans are not of the opinion that George Bush does not care about the issues you list above and they voiced that opinion on November 2, 2004.

 

[BVS]

You don't have the right to interfere with someone else engaged in their freedom of speech.

What is this first come first serve freedom of speech?

 

[BVS]

You have the freedom to protest, but you do not have the freedom to rob other people of their right to have a ceremony without it being disrupted in any way shape or form.

I'm not saying I agree with this at all, but where in the constitution does it say we don't have the right? You are confusing rights with manners. These people may not have had manners, but please show me where they don't have the right.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Stolen? Why because John Kerry did not win?

Most Americans are not of the opinion that George Bush does not care about the issues you list above and they voiced that opinion on November 2, 2004.

Seems as though it's become standard for quite a few lefties to call a presidential election "stolen" because their candidate didn't win.

Now that's good sportsmanship!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I do not support the protesters who disrupt speeches and meetings. This is not the way to protest, in my view. Gandhi knew how to protest. Roy Moore? I can't stand the guy. I hate it that he's from my own home state and has influence here. I don't see why protesters can't follow a few simple rules for how to be the most effective. I was furious when those protesters disrupted the President's speech at the RNC. Among other things, yes, I was also afraid that it would hurt our campaign, even though I didn't think Kerry would have anything to do with tactics like that, either. The guy has too much decorum for that, I think, but does Voter X know that? Damage is damage. If you're going to do politics, you need to think about what you want to do, and the best way to do it. Over and over again, it's been proven that the peaceful, orderly style of protesting is really the only way to do it. Otherwise you're cutting your own throat. I only want to express my views. I don't want people to draw the wrong conclusions about what I'm trying to do. If I disrupted speeches or meetings, that's what would happen. Look at the difference between the results Gandhi got and the results Moore got. The British had to leave India. Moore got his ass kicked out of the courthouse and himself out of a job, all for making a golden calf out of a statue.

Well thought response. The swing voters are going to observe both sides, and whether that protester was a moderate democrat or a hard socialist doesn't make a difference in the way they saw him. While I would think the real reason for him to barge in at the RNC was to influence the election, I'm positive that he didn't get the results he wanted. Why? Because he was no Ghandi. He was a Roy Moore. Probably even worse. Glad to see at least some on here aren't defending the guy to death.

 

[BVS]

Glad to see at least some on here aren't defending the guy to death.

There's a big difference in defending someone's actions and defending someone's rights. There are many who'd lost lives so we have the freedom of speech. Those that have died may not have always agreed with what was being said or even how it was being said, but they all agreed that we have the right to say it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Does it embarrass you as a liberal that protesters are up there interrupting the president, and making anti-Bush voters look like left-wing Roy Moores? You want this kind of behavior to represent you? Even if your fellow rebels have the right to do this, do you enjoy seeing it happen? Do you think it helps your party?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

How old are you again?

Great argument.

 

[BVS]

You want this kind of behavior to represent you?

Well obviously you aren't going to reply to my other post, I didn't think you would. So I'll repeat myself.

THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT ME!

 

[STING2]

I'm not saying I agree with this at all, but where in the constitution does it say we don't have the right? You are confusing rights with manners. These people may not have had manners, but please show me where they don't have the right.

Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to disrupt an event like the inauguration. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to say or do anything, anywhere, anytime, you please.

 

[STING2]

What is this first come first serve freedom of speech?

Your freedom ends where another persons freedom begins. You can't use your freedom to negatively impact the freedom and rights of others.

 

[BVS]

Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to disrupt an event like the inauguration. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to say or do anything, anywhere, anytime, you please.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see where a when, where, or what is defined.

 

[BVS]

Your freedom ends where another persons freedom begins. You can't use your freedom to negatively impact the freedom and rights of others.

Still haven't seen that defined. Please show me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well obviously you aren't going to reply to my other post, I didn't think you would. So I'll repeat myself.

THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT ME!

You've made that clear to me. Have fun making that clear to half the voting population.

 

[BVS]

Have fun making that clear to half the voting population.

Well then they are ignorant. Just like I'd completely agree that anyone on the left would be ignorant if they judge all conservatives by Pat Robertson.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well then they are ignorant. Just like I'd completely agree that anyone on the left would be ignorant if they judge all conservatives by Pat Robertson.

There are quite a few even on here that seem to compare conservatives to Robertson & Co. I can see why, because they don't share our views. Call it ignorant if you will, but a protester barging into the RNC with a sign that says "Bush lied and people died" doesn't appear much different from Al Sharpton at the DNC with his "Boot Bush" sign to a voter who is heavily monitoring both sides in order to make a decision. My point is that these protesters are hurting your party, whether they truly represent it or not. The protest for peace is well-intended, but it's tragic when you have people dying such as this: http://www.ktvu.com/news/2051138/detail.html. Realizing that it wasn't because people got out of hand, still, it generates bad publicity for Bush-opposers.

 

[BVS]

There are quite a few even on here that seem to compare conservatives to Robertson & Co. I can see why, because they don't share our views. Call it ignorant if you will, but a protester barging into the RNC with a sign that says "Bush lied and people died" doesn't appear much different from Al Sharpton at the DNC with his "Boot Bush" sign to a voter who is heavily monitoring both sides in order to make a decision. My point is that these protesters are hurting your party, whether they truly represent it or not. The protest for peace is well-intended, but it's tragic when you have people dying such as this: http://www.ktvu.com/news/2051138/detail.html. Realizing that it wasn't because people got out of hand, still, it generates bad publicity for Bush-opposers.

Whatever

Oh and your link didn't go to any paticular story so I have no clue what your point was.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I guess the site doesn't direct you to it, I pulled it up on google again, even though I'm sure you're well aware of this incident.


Anti-War Protester Falls From Golden Gate Bridge

POSTED: 2:04 p.m. PST March 19, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO -- The male protester that apparently fell or jumped off of one of the towers on the Golden Gate Bridge has died, a U.S. Coast Guard spokesman said.

Chief Petty Officer Dan Brophy said the man was pronounced dead at 11:55 a.m.

Initial reports indicated the man was attempting to secure an anti-war banner on one of the tower of the bridge, however no banner has yet been found at the scene.

Guardsmen were on scene when the man either fell or jumped off the tower, falling about 220 feet from the center span to the bottom of the bridge, Brophy said.
Copyright 2003 by Bay City News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[BVS]

No I hadn't heard about this. Tragic story, but has nothing to do with the subject at hand except that it happened to happen at a protest.

If some woman happened to have a baby at the protest and kept the child would that change conservatives mind about liberals in the positive?

You see these little scanarios that you claim are shaping the vision of a whole political party are ridiculous and silly.

 

[verte76]

The term "Bush-opposers" is a catch-all phrase that can be applied to different kinds of people. It can refer to Democrats, radicals, Trotskyists, anarchists...............some of these people are given to confrontational tactics. Some are not. It's definitely a mistake to link these kooks to half the country.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The term "Bush-opposers" is a catch-all phrase that can be applied to different kinds of people. It can refer to Democrats, radicals, Trotskyists, anarchists...............some of these people are given to confrontational tactics. Some are not. It's definitely a mistake to link these kooks to half the country.

It is a mistake, but it's a mistake that will be made.

 

[verte76]

It is a mistake, but it's a mistake that will be made.

Probably. Needless to say it's not one that makes me happy.