ultraviolet118 said:
There is no need to be so rude. People are allowed to express their opinions, and whether or not you agree with them isn't the issue...it's how you express such feelings. Please do so in a civil manner.
Mother Of Soldier Killed In Iraq Heckles Laura Bush
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
There is no need to be so rude. People are allowed to express their opinions, and whether or not you agree with them isn't the issue...it's how you express such feelings. Please do so in a civil manner.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
ultraviolet118 said:
ultraviolet, I know you're new here, but we really prefer that people keep discussion a bit more civil here.
"F*** you" really isn't appropriate.
Thanks.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Whoa, BC, great minds think alike. 
ultraviolet118
Babyface
Wow. Well, from some of the posts I've read throughout this thread and some others, people have said the same thing, they've just used more words to say it. I will try to be less succinct in my posts.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Haven ´t been following the story.. but is it true that:
this woman who lost her son and shouted out to the First Lady, got thrown in jail?
Now if that ´s true, I really wonder what kind of nation you live in, my American friends.
Is it illegal to shout? First Amandment? Think about it:
Do you really support sending someone to jail who voices his opinion? I mean, you got some Neonazis having a nice little celebration of their ill-minded political ideology, and you say, oh, but we got freedom of speech, so let ´s allow that (in my country, this would be illegal).
On the other hand, you got a mother in grief shouting out her pain about the death of her son - and you don ´t back her right to express her opinion freely?
Wow, that paints a real scary picture about the moral values of your nation.
this woman who lost her son and shouted out to the First Lady, got thrown in jail?
Now if that ´s true, I really wonder what kind of nation you live in, my American friends.
Is it illegal to shout? First Amandment? Think about it:
Do you really support sending someone to jail who voices his opinion? I mean, you got some Neonazis having a nice little celebration of their ill-minded political ideology, and you say, oh, but we got freedom of speech, so let ´s allow that (in my country, this would be illegal).
On the other hand, you got a mother in grief shouting out her pain about the death of her son - and you don ´t back her right to express her opinion freely?
Wow, that paints a real scary picture about the moral values of your nation.
Sheltie
The Fly
We have the right to protest PEACEFULLY. That does not mean we can protest by disrupting someone or something. Then, we would be invading privacy.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Did that woman have a gun or something?
Was it a private gathering of the First Lady and her friends for tea? I thought it was a public appearance.
Was it a private gathering of the First Lady and her friends for tea? I thought it was a public appearance.
ultraviolet118
Babyface
Sheltie said:
That's BS. People boo and heckle all the God d*mn time. Look at poor Ashlee Simpson, she had her a$$ booed off the stage. People boo at sporting events, heckle at comedy clubs, etc. . Give me a break. Just because she's the "first lady" she's immune?! That's BS.
Sheltie
The Fly
It does not matter what it was. Someone can't start yelling at someone like a nut. No matter if it is the First Lady or anyone else. Like I said earlier, they are ways to protest and acting like an idiot is not the way.
Sheltie
The Fly
Its not BS. Go read the Bill of Rights.ultraviolet118 said:
Also a public performance is different from someone making a speech. And yes, how we act and what we say to the President and First Lady is different from the general public. They have more protection.
ultraviolet118
Babyface
Sheltie said:
The Bill of Rights protects people from being booed at and heckled. Uh huh. Sure. I'm pretty familiar with the Bill Of Rights, and I don't recall that being in there. "They have more protection"?! If your referring to the Secret Service, yes, they do have more protection. But they're there to prevent someone from taking them out. Not to protect their egos from pissed off Americans. They're PUBLIC FIGURES, and are fair game for PUBLIC criticism.
Last edited:
Sheltie
The Fly
Amendment 1ultraviolet118 said:
Congress shall make no law restricting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or to the press; or the right of the people to PEACEABLY to assemble and to petition the government for a redress ot grievances.
ultraviolet118
Babyface
Uh, excuse me. That doesn't mean you can't heckle or boo. No one was preventing Mrs. Bush from making her speech, okay? PEACEABLY means without violence. As far as I know, this lady was just being loud. So what? Again, Laura Bush is a PUBLIC figure and fair game for PUBLIC criticism. Your argument holds no water.
Sheltie
The Fly
Excuse me but Laura Bush is not fair game. Read a political science book.
Also as far as I understand, the lady was not just booing. She was making anti-government remarks. Again read the Bill of Rights. There is a right way and wrong to do that. You cant' just start yelling or become disruptive because you don't like someone or want to make a point. What about the First Ladys right to make her speech!
Again, read a political science book because your statements hold no water.
Also as far as I understand, the lady was not just booing. She was making anti-government remarks. Again read the Bill of Rights. There is a right way and wrong to do that. You cant' just start yelling or become disruptive because you don't like someone or want to make a point. What about the First Ladys right to make her speech!
Again, read a political science book because your statements hold no water.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Sheltie said:
well, pre-Senator HRC sure seemed to be fair game.
First Ladies are asked to champion certain causes that are usually non-contraversial (like Miss America!). if one had a problem with said cause, then Mrs. Bush would be fair game. that said, it's hard to argue with things like childhood literacy projects.
seems like the protestor's anger, while legitimate, was being focused at the wrong target. true, Mrs. Bush is associated, obviously, with the administration, but i cannot recall her ever making anything resembling a policy speech on Iraq.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
This is complex. I personally believe that protesting is at its most effective when it's peaceful and orderly. I've been involved in tons of protest politics. We debate tactics and such, and generally decide not to do certain things because they're too confrontationist and may be mainly publicity stunts rather than meaningful discussion of the issues. It depends on what you want to do. If you're like me and would like to let someone know why you feel the way you do, you have a conversation, not a shouting match. I think part of the problem is one of Bush's personality traits, which, depending on your point of view, is either stubbornness or steadfastness. I felt frustrated about the Iraqi invasion because I opposed it and I didn't feel like they were listening to us when we said why. Politics needs to be a two-way street. If we're going to accept a policy, we need to have a chance to express why we disagree with it, rather than just being told we're wrong.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Last edited:
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Sheltie said:
hello, some people have studied political science here.
peacefully does mean non - violent. shouting around is not violent, whether you agree with it or not. if that woman pointed a gun to the first lady´s face, right, then she goes into prison. but she didn´t. she just voiced her opinion. whether that´s in style for you or the government or anyone, or not in style, doesn´t make any difference to her right.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
verte76 said:
it is not complex at all.
i agree with what you say about being effective, but the question is if that woman should be persecuted for voicing her opinion or not.
even if her son was not killed, she would have had the right to do so. to put her into prison for that is pretty near to fascism.
it is very simple.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
How near to fascism?
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
A_Wanderer said:
Read about political prisoners under the reign of Mussolini or Franco (or under Somoza, who upheld a dictatorship for that matter) and figure it out for yourself.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
She really shouldn't be arrested, but I'd rather hold a sign. It gets just as much attention and doesn't generate as much negative response as screaming. That's the way to express yourself, and really, that's what it's all about. Maybe there is a cultural gap between us and Europeans about this stuff as there is in other aspects of life. Some things are acceptable in Europe that are less so in the U.S. and vice versa. We've had transatlantic misunderstandings on some of my U2 lists.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I don ´t know if I would be able to just hold a sign if my child was killed. Probably I ´d favor a more drastic reaction, like suing the Prez, instead of just heckling at a public appearance. I guess I could care less if that is accepted by society or not.
Is there any special reason why Americans "don ´t like" screamers? To us Europeans it seems a little like "Always keep control, don ´t do anything which could disturb the holy white suburbian society we live in". How boring, and what a self - deception!
If you say she really shouldn ´t be arrested, then why did she get arrested?
Is there any special reason why Americans "don ´t like" screamers? To us Europeans it seems a little like "Always keep control, don ´t do anything which could disturb the holy white suburbian society we live in". How boring, and what a self - deception!
If you say she really shouldn ´t be arrested, then why did she get arrested?
ultraviolet118
Babyface
Sheltie said:
She is a PUBLIC figure, therefore, she's subject to PUBLIC criticism. Just because she's the President's wife, does not make her immune or better than any other public figure. I never said what the lady did was right, but it is her right to protest. She was not violent, she was LOUD. Big f**kin' deal. Poor Laura Bush was heckled. The woman's son was killed in some bullsh** war, Laura's husband started. She's pissed and has every right to voice her opinion. If the "president" would've been making the speech at that time, she probably would've yelled at him. Instead, it was Laura. Obviously, you've never read a poli-sci book, because if you had, you wouldn't be posting that drivel about the first lady's immunity to public criticism. It's America, we can be loud and obnoxious. Just because you would've handled yourself differently, does not make you more right.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
American political sensibilities changed a good bit during the twentieth century, I think it had alot to do with Watergate and people generally becoming more cynical about politicians and the presidency. Before Watergate people were more likely to say "oh, he's my president, I respect him" and after Watergate people some people didn't feel like they particularly owed the president respect. He had to work harder to earn respect. But some people still have that pre-Watergate mindset about the presidency. Some people in my family do. The members of my immediate family do not. I do not. But we do have feelings about protests. We strongly prefer peaceful, orderly protests and dialogues to more confrontational tactics. It's just part of our political sensibilities, protest leaders like Dr. King strongly favored non-confrontational, orderly protests, and their tactics were successful. It's hard to argue with success. That said, I don't think public figures should be immune to criticism. That's crazy. This is America, we have the right to disagree with the government and disapprove of its policies. If we've learned anything it should be that we don't give the president carte blanche to do whatever. We've had an impeachment and a resignation in disgrace, 24 years apart.
Last edited:
ultraviolet118
Babyface
A_Wanderer said:
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
verte76 said:
So why did Rosa Parks decide to protest by not sitting in the back of the bus?
Dr. King non - confrontational? Give me a break. He always spoke out against violence, contrary to Malcolm X, but I wouldn´t say he always acted non - confrontational (just like the case we ´re talking about - the woman wasn´t violent and did not threaten to kill the First lady, did she?)
In May 1963 Dr. King and his SCLC staff escalated antisegregation marches in Birmingham by encouraging teenagers and schoolchildren to join. Hundreds of singing children filled the streets of downtown Birmingham, angering the police commissioner of Birmingham, Eugene Connor, who sent police officers with attack dogs and firefighters with high-pressure water hoses against the marchers. Scenes of young protesters being attacked by dogs and pinned against buildings by torrents of water from fire hoses were shown in newspapers and on televisions around the world.
During the demonstrations, Martin Luther King was arrested and sent to jail. He wrote a letter from his jail cell to local clergymen who had criticized him for creating disorder in the city. His "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," which argued that individuals had the moral right and responsibility to disobey unjust laws, was widely read at the time and added to Martin Luther King's standing as a moral leader.
In 1965, King lost support among white Americans when he joined a growing number of antiwar activists and began to criticize publicly American foreign policy in Vietnam. King's outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War angered President Johnson. On the other hand, some of King's white supporters agreed with his criticisms of United States involvement in Vietnam so strongly that they shifted their activism from civil rights to the antiwar movement.
In the end of the 60s, Black Baptist ministers who disagreed with many of the SCLCs tactics, especially the confrontational act of sending black protesters into all-white neighborhoods, publicly opposed Martin Luther King's efforts. The protests were often met with violent counterdemonstrations by whites, including members of the KKK.
Source: www.africanaonline.com
So, Dr. King was successful with many of his tactics, but not because he didn ´t use force (not violence, but force) when it seemed necessary. You don´t think he forbid people to shout out against racism, do you?
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
It depends on what you mean by "confrontationist". Rosa Parks wouldn't vacate her seat on the bus because it wasn't fair to make African Americans vacate their seat for whites. She was arrested for not following a law. But it was an unjust law. It was a holdover from a grossly racist Supreme Court ruling in 1896 which upheld "separate but equal". Separate wasn't equal. The whole thing was a sham. To a certain extent you are confronting when you protest. The accusation that Dr. King was promoting disorder in Birmingham was a bad joke. He was trying to upset the segregationist apple cart. To the keepers of the status quo this was creating disorder, but this was a lame excuse to justify putting him in jail. Actually, if anything, the tactics used by the Birmingham civil rights leader, Fred Shuttlesworth, were even stronger stuff. Diane McWhorter, a Birmingham native who wrote about the civil rights movement in Birmingham, points out that Shuttlesworth was so absolutely *gutsy* in his opposition to segregation he was a little nutty. He wasn't afraid of the Ku Klux Klan. He was even more aggressive than King was. How do you define "confrontationist"? Can you establish degrees of "confrontationism"? I'm not so sure. It is true you have to use some to make a point, but by the same token there is such a thing as using too much of it and maybe losing your audience. It's hard to say, only hindsight is 20-20.
Last edited:
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Ok verte76, I agree. So what do you think about this woman now? You are still the opinion that Dr. King was right using those "degrees of confrontation", whereas she is not right - or kinda exaggerated - her "degree of confrontation" when her son has been killed?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
You explicitly stated that those who support bush are blind lemmings, warmongers etc. and ended with a delightful Fuck You. I was merely illustrating the other side of the story, the millions who have been killed by various political ideologies and dictatorships that the US defeated ~ that we find ourselves so blase about concepts of freedom and national security, I find that the last link (massgraves.info) is of critical importance as those 300,000 thousand murdered by the baathists to be relevent to the current operation in Iraq. You do not need to show me the thousands of dead Iraqi's or the violence that is going on in the country, I see that but the point is seeing both sides, as I have stated before there was no magic wand solution in Iraq either course of action innocent people would have died and strategic interests would be played. I may have composed the post haphazardly but the point still stands; peace can kill and sometimes war is the lesser evil and this point has been made often using facts in the war forum where your post belongs. It was not making a case for the war, that has already been done far too often ~ but a little bit of respect is important because as it stands you appear to be a bilious hater.ultraviolet118 said:
Last edited:
