[Bobboau]

if you have a large bunch of angry people together, is it totaly illogical to take precautions incase they should turn violent?

and we are all well aware of the break down, currently Bush has about a 60% aprooval rateing, about 40% of the contry love him, 40% hate him and 2 about 20% are tapitly more in suport of him than not, mostly becase the opposition in this contry is just a bunch of phony looking spinless morons, (the same can be said about Bush's party too). there are only two polotitions I realy kinda like Leberman and McCane, and neither of them is perfict either (there both just a bit too right wing honestly, but it's only like two or three issues that I dissagree with on ether of them)

[Rictor]

Ok, I don't usually complain about such things, cause I am myself a bad speller, but your spelling in the last few posts has been terrible. Erh, yeah...

__

Well, see, the people were not angry or rioting. I'm sure you've been lead to believe otherwise, but most protests are totally peaceful. No one throws molotovs or guns down cops or such. It is unreasonable to assume that a protest would turn violent if you have no information pointing to such an event. And since the zones are set up before hand, the Secret Service can't possibly know if a protest is going to be violent. And really even if it was violent, whats the probability of Bush being harmed, standing behind a wall of CIA and Secret Service goons?

Yes, you could in theory say that ANY protest has the POTENTIAL to turn violent, and therefore must not be allowed to take place, but that way lies totalitarianism. To assume such a case with no evidence is unreasonable, irresponsible and simply wrong.

So I'll ask you again, please tell me how this action is not a breach of freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly?


For the Democratic condidate, as I've said before, the only one who isn't a Republican-lite is Kucinich. However, I would settle (and it seems I'll have to) for Dean. Now, Nader would be even better, but like thats gonna happen....

[phreak]

ugh Kucinich is a douche. we kicked him out of ohio.

me = not voting

[Liberator]

Maybe Dean...or Al Sharpton.

Okay, one is left of Streisand & Co. and the other is criminal.  The only Demoncat that I have any respect for is Liberman.  

I'm not saying I gonna vote for him, but you Dems out there better give a second look.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by PhReAk
ugh Kucinich is a douche. we kicked him out of ohio.

me = not voting

You == Moron

Even if your vote doesn't count for **** when it comes to the presidency, it does matter for your congressmen. Since its your Congressmen that appoint the president, you bloody well better vote.

If there's one thing that pisses me off, its people who don't vote.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by PhReAk
ugh Kucinich is a douche. we kicked him out of ohio.

me = not voting

Mik has a good point.

If you don't like him, you could at least vote against him....

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Rictor
So I'll ask you again, please tell me how this action is not a breach of freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly?

becase they were freely speaking while assembled
and not being shot, or imprisoned

and while yes I know most protests are not riots, the situation is such that it is more likely to happen in the middle of a protest than on a sunny day in the park.
is it more likely that  a riot will break out in the middle of a protest than in the middle of a city were no protest is being held?

and sorry about my spelling, I know I have horrable gramer ect, I always have and I stoped careing about it a few years ago.

[Knight Templar]

Just remember, bob gets special treatment in the department of grammar enforcement. Just think of it as a combination of his l33tness plus the monumental irony of the difficulty of pronnouncing/spelling/experiancing his name.

[vyper]

This is as bad as the UK government hiding protesters from the Chinese leader a few years back.

[Sesquipedalian]

Up here we let protestors put cream pies into the face of our Prime Minister, and then we let the Prime Minister put a choke hold on the offending protestor.  Level some petty charges, make a news clip and a joke or two, and everyone goes home happy.  Take a lesson from the Canadians: if you want freedom of expression to work well, just don't be so bloody uptight about everything, eh?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau


becase they were freely speaking while assembled
and not being shot, or imprisoned

and while yes I know most protests are not riots, the situation is such that it is more likely to happen in the middle of a protest than on a sunny day in the park.
is it more likely that  a riot will break out in the middle of a protest than in the middle of a city were no protest is being held?

and sorry about my spelling, I know I have horrable gramer ect, I always have and I stoped careing about it a few years ago.

Yes, and it's more likely that democracy will break out in a country with free speech.

In all seriousness, there is a justification for maintaining a security cordon around hostile protestors.  There is not one, however, for deliberately isolating them in an area for political reasons.  It's not only anti-democratic, it's also an implicit restriction on free speech - you can only protest if no-one can see you.

We've had multiple protests in George square in Glasgow - against Israel, against the war, (many times, inclduing a fairly large parade to the Armadillo / SECC), Berti Vogts* and tuition fees - and not one of which has had an ounce of trouble.

Frankly, if a protest turns so easily into a riot, so can any large gathering of people - so you'd need to close down every large fair, tourist attraction, sports stadium, concert....etc.

You only example I remember you giving for such an event was - IIRC - Seattle.  Which was an anti globalisation protest, where the riot was essentially pre-organized and started by anarchists - normally not the type to respect laws anyways.

[Zarax]

Ouch... Try changing names and locations... You'll obtain Italy, with only one difference...
Our damned prime minister OWNS the media, so i let you imagine how free can be our speech...
The 21st century has a new form of censorship: Media Exclusion.
If you don't appear on media then you don't exist.

[Joey_21]

Originally posted by mikhael
If there's one thing that pisses me off, its people who don't vote.

Me = not voting either...

So... you get pissed off at people who practice their free will?!
What a reason to blame somebody... Last time I checked, we are humans, and humans will do things that some may not agree with, but it's their choice. There doesn't necessarily have to be some logical reason behind the choice, one can simply make the choice and they shouldn't have to put up with anybody's harrassment to make them feel ridiculed. Of course, some will persist with the ridiculing, but do you see what I'm saying?

You shouldn't just go off and call somebody a moron for being human.
A moron can be a human, but a human is not necessarily a moron. Non-voters are not moronic, they are exercising free will.

[IPAndrews]

Check cnn.com now for a picture of President Bush using his "force push" power to remove some troublesome protesters.

[Drew]

Bob is right on this one. In the US, a group cannot just organize a protest without permission. You first must submit your protest plan(where your gonna protest, etc.) to the local civil government. (Bear in mind, it is *required* that groups are allowed to protest.)  If the civil government dosnt like the plan for reasons of safety, etc.  the government can change the area where the group is allowed to protest. The group *will* protest though.  This is the way the system works through the *entire* country, not just in D.C.

[you dont have to read this but it might help]

Fore example(); I live in Augusta, Georgia.  The Masters golf  tourny(THE biggest golf tourny on the planet) is held here anually. During that time, we get a good 30000 ppl that congregate around the golf course. This year there was a womens right organization that wanted to protest the tournament.  They wanted to protest *right across* the front gate. the city would not let them protest where they wanted to because the traffic on Washington Road. Think what would happen to a planned 3000 protesting on the *sidewalk* next to one of the busiest highway in the city.

[/you dont have to read this but it might help]

If your mad at Bush pressuring the system(Phreak) to move a group of protestors, you should VOTE HIM THE **** OUT. Its the governemnts perogative on this issue; if you dont like what the government is doing, KICK THEM OUT.  The government is well within its range of authority on this issue.

[Corsair]

Originally posted by neo_hermes
That's what i was thinking of. i'm not voting for Bush this year!:ick

Maybe Dean...or Al Sharpton.

Well IF I could vote... It wouldn't be for Bush, that's definite. And probably not Sharpton either, from what I've heard he's a real scumbag. An amusing scumbag, yes. A charismatic scumbag, yes. But still a scumbag.

[phreak]

Originally posted by mikhael


You == Moron

Even if your vote doesn't count for **** when it comes to the presidency, it does matter for your congressmen. Since its your Congressmen that appoint the president, you bloody well better vote.

If there's one thing that pisses me off, its people who don't vote.

actually Kucinich isn't my congressman.  That would be Steve LaTourette(R-OH).  I think he got about 70% of the vote in 2002 so his job is pretty safe.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
2) Media Corporations are looking for ratings. Ratings get them money. More people are interested in seeing what the president has to say, whether they love or dispise him, then see a bunch of people talk about how much they don't like him. That'd be why medias wouldn't show as much coverage of anti-bush protestors.. unless they become noteworthy of course.

Then this thread is therefore intellectually bankrupt as everyone is getting what they want

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Up here we let protestors put cream pies into the face of our Prime Minister, and then we let the Prime Minister put a choke hold on the offending protestor.  Level some petty charges, make a news clip and a joke or two, and everyone goes home happy.  Take a lesson from the Canadians: if you want freedom of expression to work well, just don't be so bloody uptight about everything, eh?

Well we try. A fellow egged John Prescott, our deputy PM and transport minister. He got a punch in the mouth for his troubles

[Flipside]

The government even put a stop to good old egg-throwing here, no, it's wrong, even if you are going to divide the yeahs and nays, you don't put one lot right in front of the podium and one lot 3/4 mile down the road. That is cowardice.... I believe the cracks are beginning to show.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Joey_21

So... you get pissed off at people who practice their free will?!
What a reason to blame somebody... Last time I checked, we are humans, and humans will do things that some may not agree with, but it's their choice. There doesn't necessarily have to be some logical reason behind the choice, one can simply make the choice and they shouldn't have to put up with anybody's harrassment to make them feel ridiculed. Of course, some will persist with the ridiculing, but do you see what I'm saying?

You shouldn't just go off and call somebody a moron for being human.
A moron can be a human, but a human is not necessarily a moron. Non-voters are not moronic, they are exercising free will.

Yes, I do get people who exercise their free will to do stupid things. If you decide to walk out into traffic blindfolded, I'll call you a raging moron and get pissed off, even though it is manifestly your free will. You don't need a logical reason and you don't even have to like it. My free will allows me to exercise my inbuilt ability to call you a moron for doing somthing that is blatantly stupid.

Not voting, when you have the right to do so, is stupid. You have the franchise. People died to ensure that you have it and people die to ensure that you keep it. When you don't vote, you're rolling over and giving Carl Rove and John Ashcroft and George Bush permission to take away your rights. When people don't vote, you allow someone else to decide what is right for you. When you don't vote, you as much as say that your life and rights and freedoms aren't worth enough for you to make the effort to protect them. When you don't vote, you declare that your stake in your country and the world is worthless.

You have the right to not vote, but you have the duty and responsibility to vote. If you don't look out for your interests and the interests of your country (as you see them), no one will.