Mother Of Soldier Killed In Iraq Heckles Laura Bush - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-26-2005, 03:38 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:26 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 04:24 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Quote:
So, to all of you war-mongers, lemmings, sheep, blind loyalists, and other supporters of Bush and his war, I say, "F**K YOU!"
Right back at you slick

100,000,000

12,000,000

300,000
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 04:54 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sheltie

Again, read a political science book because your statements hold no water.
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 is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 04:57 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
This is complex. I personally believe that protesting is at its most effective when it's peaceful and orderly.
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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 05:01 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:26 PM
How near to fascism?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 05:10 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
How near to fascism?
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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 06:37 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:26 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 02:32 AM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:26 AM
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?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 06:33 AM   #84
Babyface
 
ultraviolet118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 16
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sheltie
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.
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.
__________________
ultraviolet118 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 06:34 AM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:26 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 06:42 AM   #86
Babyface
 
ultraviolet118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 16
Local Time: 05:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
[B]Right back at you slick

Not sure what your little links are supposed to represent. If you're trying to prove a point, you may want to try explaining it. If you're trying to make a case for Bush's war in Iraq, you've failed, miserably.
__________________
ultraviolet118 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 08:10 AM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
It's just part of our political sensibilities, protest leaders like Dr. King strongly favored non-confrontational, orderly protests, and their tactics were successful.
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?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 09:49 AM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:26 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 11:41 AM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:26 AM
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?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:54 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolet118
Not sure what your little links are supposed to represent. If you're trying to prove a point, you may want to try explaining it. If you're trying to make a case for Bush's war in Iraq, you've failed, miserably.
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.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com