Jobber of the Week Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Posted January 5, 2004 And if these pseudo-hippies had an active brain cell among them they would come to these events with "Bush OWNZ" signs, get invited up to where they could be seen by the President and then let their true colors shine... And then they'd get arrested.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 But they would have said their two bits and would become martyrs for their cause. There would be so many lawyers rushing to this protestor's cause you'd have to beat them away with a stick. This lucky protestor could become the next Mumia, and they wouldn't even have to kill any police officers...
Jobber of the Week Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Posted January 5, 2004 But they would have said their two bits and would become martyrs for their cause. Hurrah for futility. There would be so many lawyers rushing to this protestor's cause you'd have to beat them away with a stick. I doubt it'll do any good, what with Strom Jr invoking the security clause if necessary and little legal precedent to go on (Clinton's attempts to bar anti-abortionists that was mentioned earlier being the only one.)
NoCalMike Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 Like I said earlier, this could all be an attempt to paint a more friendly picture then actually exists.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 But they would have said their two bits and would become martyrs for their cause. Hurrah for futility. Pehaps. But it would do a lot more good for their "cause" than just parading with a bunch of other dirty pseudo-hippies holding "Bush is a NAZI" signs...
NoCalMike Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 One thing of note is though, if there is a group of 5000 people and maybe 5-10 have signs like, "Bush and the nazi war machine" or stupid shit like that, and the media is just covering that group. That is just irresponsible coverage and quite insulting to the other 4500 folks there for reasonable discussion/debate, and on top of that it would not support a "liberal media bias" opinion, since focusing on the few cooks in a group is hardly a fair representation.
Styles Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 One thing of note is though, if there is a group of 5000 people and maybe 5-10 have signs like, "Bush and the nazi war machine" or stupid shit like that, and the media is just covering that group. That is just irresponsible coverage and quite insulting to the other 4500 folks there for reasonable discussion/debate, and on top of that it would not support a "liberal media bias" opinion, since focusing on the few cooks in a group is hardly a fair representation. It's a little more than 5-10. The thing is, if you're that passioned to go out and protest, you're probably part of the "bush is a nazi, blood for oil crowd". There are many rationale, fair people who don't support Bush but they're likely not going to go out and try to cause a stir and if they are, they're chanting and cheering along with whoever's making the most noise, mob mentality and all of that...
NoCalMike Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 One thing of note is though, if there is a group of 5000 people and maybe 5-10 have signs like, "Bush and the nazi war machine" or stupid shit like that, and the media is just covering that group. That is just irresponsible coverage and quite insulting to the other 4500 folks there for reasonable discussion/debate, and on top of that it would not support a "liberal media bias" opinion, since focusing on the few cooks in a group is hardly a fair representation. It's a little more than 5-10. The thing is, if you're that passioned to go out and protest, you're probably part of the "bush is a nazi, blood for oil crowd". There are many rationale, fair people who don't support Bush but they're likely not going to go out and try to cause a stir and if they are, they're chanting and cheering along with whoever's making the most noise, mob mentality and all of that... Sorry but I disagree. You can be passionate about something without going over the line. Things like war(meaning disagreeing with it) can bring people out, rational and clear thinking people, mind you. Unfortunately it also brings out the "I only eat raw foods" groups who are there to push their own agendas as well. Just look at the way the media handled the war protesting. Every website you went to had the same one or two pictures of some idiotic sign, and then wrote of some long editorial piece of protestors. I can only imagine what Ann Coulter produced after seeing it. Never did the media seek out rational thinking people for a discussion, they were there searching for the zaniest cooks in the bunch.
Jobber of the Week Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Posted January 5, 2004 The thing is, if you're that passioned to go out and protest, you're probably part of the "bush is a nazi, blood for oil crowd". The amount of people at the British protests gives me doubts about it. Besides, such a well known political figure does draw out the crowds, positive and negative. It's not like the 50 people here who were protesting the recall or whatever after the swearing-in.
Styles Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 That might be true, but in a crowd, the more boisterous usually stand out and lead and many will get into the moment and follow along, whether they're really that radical or not...
Guest Cerebus Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 The media focuses on loudmouths? HOLY SHIT! Thousands protesting in Baghdad against terror and destruction by the Ba'athists was covered a little bit by the AP and burried on page A12 in the NY Times. Wouldn't want our precious picture of everyone hating the US allday-everyday in Iraq disturbed now would we?
Lando Griffin Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 I think these people should be allowed to protest. And I should be allowed to slap them until my hand falls off. Idiots.
Jobber of the Week Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Posted January 5, 2004 Thousands protesting in Baghdad against terror and destruction by the Ba'athists was covered a little bit by the AP and burried on page A12 in the NY Times. Wouldn't want our precious picture of everyone hating the US allday-everyday in Iraq disturbed now would we? You're changing the subject. This isn't about whether the media wants to paint a picture that everyone hates the US, this is about whether the constant practice of these seperate zones simply for those expressing dissent are unconstitutional.
BX Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 My editor at work brought up some excellent points on this issue.. "This policy is not a reaction to 9/11. It was apparently already being implemented before the terrorist attacks. Bush just doesn’t like the bother of people with inconvenient opinions raining on his parades." "Even if it were a reaction to 9/11, common sense tells us that someone wanting to get close to the president and do him harm would hardly single himself out as a troublemaker. Rather, wouldn’t he try to blend in with the adoring throng?" "It is not the act of expressing opinions that is being prevented and punished. It is the expression of negative and unflattering opinions, however muted. Those supporting the president are presumably free to yell their heads off and hold up whatever signs they want. That sounds about as unconstitutional as you can get." The very notion of a "free-speech zone" is aninine, and a slap in the face to the architects of the Constitution. What's next? A free trip to the "Joy Camps" to purge us of our thoughtcrimes?
NoCalMike Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 "Even if it were a reaction to 9/11, common sense tells us that someone wanting to get close to the president and do him harm would hardly single himself out as a troublemaker. Rather, wouldn’t he try to blend in with the adoring throng?" Well yeah, the 9/11 terrorists weren't exactly over hear proclaiming Islamic Jihad and how they would kick it all off. Hell they practically engorged themselves in as much american pop culture as possible until those scumfucks executed their plan. So this notion of, "ok all you possible terrorist sympathizers over there and all you bush-fanatics right here in front" taking place in the name of national security is kind of weak.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 5, 2004 Report Posted January 5, 2004 My editor at work brought up some excellent points on this issue. Ah, so you work at the Nation...
Guest Cerebus Posted January 6, 2004 Report Posted January 6, 2004 Thousands protesting in Baghdad against terror and destruction by the Ba'athists was covered a little bit by the AP and burried on page A12 in the NY Times. Wouldn't want our precious picture of everyone hating the US allday-everyday in Iraq disturbed now would we? You're changing the subject. This isn't about whether the media wants to paint a picture that everyone hates the US, this is about whether the constant practice of these seperate zones simply for those expressing dissent are unconstitutional. I just think its garbage that people are weeping over losing a few assholes' right to be assholes on TV when REAL protestors in Iraq are ignored wholesale.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now