 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
On the issue of the id and bag search, I would have complied-- its just easier and I have nothing to hide.
Its the same if a police officer asked to look in my car trunk-- I'd let him. I could validly refuse but then he could decide to require my vehicle undergo a safety inspection or something that could take hours.
Even if they do nothing that violoates my rights, the police have enough discretionary powers that I see no point in peeving them. I actually have a lot iof respect for the police. I think they have a very difficult job and most of them do it very well. But like any job, there will be a few egomaniacs and pure a**holes that will misuse their power. Since I don't know which officers those are, I'm nice to all of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
It's not hard to find out their plans since they put them on their web sites. Or at least most protestor groups do. |
Their very nature is that they have to publicize their plans or many of the rank and file won't know where to come. Some leaders or even some loners might have plans that weren't necessarily shared (ie vandalize a building)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Because they're an anti-democratic neoliberal elite?
|
Assume you are correct concerning what they are. Do not they have a right to hold a meeting without some self-appointed crusader breaking down the door??
I also don't see much democratic in the door breakers either. Were they elected? By whom? and they purport to speak for the people yet I am one of the people and I support very little that the protestors stand for.* yet if I and a couple of thousand people held a rally adjacent to the lefty protestors and acted exactly as they did, I believe but don't know that you would denounce us as tools ofoppression or some such drivel
* Note it is difficult to generally support or oppose what the protestors stand for as they are a mix of a variety of causes and ideologies that are consistent only in that they don't like the existing government much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Nope. I also don't think that the bulk of the protestors have the character of Ghandi but I do believe the bulk of protestors are non-violent-- |
Lots of people have the character of Ghandhi, they just don't get the opportunity to let the world know about it.
quote:
You don't and this comment is dishonest as I said no such thing. My comment was along the lines that protestors often speak of the rights of the "people" to be heard . . . I just don't know what gives these particular protesters the role as "spokesman for the people" |
Who said that? They speak for themselves and those who agree. Sorry, you don't need permission for that. When did you come over so fascist?
quote:
How is that different than my statement that they are pretty much united in their dislike over how government is currently run? You were merely more specific. |
Obviously. I told you exactly what they didn't like.
quote:
Now thats the easy part. Now ask all the protesters what the current system should be replaced by  . I'm sure the anarchists, environmentalists, libertarians and communists would have a fun time with that one. |
More representative international institutions. The IMF and World Bank should be reformed for a start. That's what they'll say.
Perhaps if you lived in the real world instead of in the middle of nowhere, this would seem more obvious.
quote:
Many demonstrations get charged. Tell you what . . . I'll agree the police "start it" sometimes if you agree that in some cases its the protesters fault. OR do you have a vison that all the protesters are all benevolent wonderful people that would never commit and act of violence?? |
Not at all. But the police should never do it, simply because they're the police and aren't supposed to attack citizens – officers of the law have a greater responsibility than the average citizen. If an anarchist throws a brick at a cop he gets punished, if a cop does the same, most of the time nothing happens. There's a massive inequality of power here.
Not only do the police sometimes start it, but in a number of cases the "protesters" who provoke police violence are in fact undercover police.
quote:
In all this I see no problem with people being allowed to assemble to exercise their free speech. But your right to speak cannot supersede my right to listen for only so long as I choose. . . and if protesters want to block streets, trains, buses etc, they are essentially imprisoning me I would expect the police to act. |
Actually you don't have the right to force people to move unless they are deliberately blocking you, and that hasn't been the case in most marches I've been on. Sure, it might annoy drivers, but its no different from other heavy traffic. People have the right to gather on the street and march if they want to. If you don't like it, tough ****.
But I really can't see what your point is. You've typed and typed, but seem to have come up with nothing other than sad old tory whining.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Who said that? They speak for themselves and those who agree. Sorry, you don't need permission for that. When did you come over so fascist?
|
Nice try-- never said anything about permission. Just a minor annoyance that some groups think they speak for the "people" when all they speak for is a largely irrelevant sub-faction
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Obviously. I told you exactly what they didn't like.
|
Since now you are agreeing with me, why you were you telling me I was wrong before ?
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
But I really can't see what your point is. You've typed and typed, but seem to have come up with nothing other than sad old tory whining. |
I whine about nothing. I just want to be left alone to live my life and raise my child. I don't want some ass-wipe thinking they have some divine right to block streets or crash into offices. Protest to your hearts content. If I believe in your cause I might even join you. Exercise free speech until you are blue in the face. I support and cherish all those rights. But your rights stop when they begin to unduly infringe on mine. Thats all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Actually you don't have the right to force people to move unless they are deliberately blocking you, and that hasn't been the case in most marches I've been on. Sure, it might annoy drivers, but its no different from other heavy traffic. People have the right to gather on the street and march if they want to. If you don't like it, tough ****.
|
So you never heard of sidewalks and jaywalking? Thankfully most protest organizers prefer not to alienate several thousand people at once and therefore avoid protests on main routes at rush hour. The police likewise don't want motorists crashing into a crowd or even attempting to force their way through-- after all they have a right to be on the street as well right??
The result is usally a sensible compromise that allows exercise of free speech without unduly infringing on the rights or others and with lessened risks to the public
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Nice try-- never said anything about permission. Just a minor annoyance that some groups think they speak for the "people" when all they speak for is a largely irrelevant sub-faction |
In other words you disagree with them. The anti-war marches were getting not much more than some of the anti IMF/World Bank protests, yet there is no question that the anti-war marches spoke for the majority of citizens of every country they occurred in except the United States. Most people when asked tend to agree that unelected transnational institutions need more democratic controls. Before 9/11 this was the fastest growing protest movement in history – books dealing with these problems were regularly in the bestseller lists.
What we have here is you objectifying your prejudices to impugn the protest movement.
quote:
Since now you are agreeing with me, why you were you telling me I was wrong before ? |
I am not agreeing with you. I'm trying to point out how retarded your original post was. You claimed that the protesters are united over the fact that they think government is poorly run. Of course they are. Virtually every protest is. But that is a particularly poor, glib and misleading characterization of their actual views, which are rather more specific.
Perhaps this lame form of "argument" works where you come from, but not here.
[quoteI whine about nothing.[/quote]
He says, and then goes on to disprove this in the rest of the paragraph.
quote:
I just want to be left alone to live my life and raise my child. |
Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around you and your concerns.
quote:
I don't want some ass-wipe thinking they have some divine right to block streets or crash into offices. Protest to your hearts content. If I believe in your cause I might even join you. Exercise free speech until you are blue in the face. I support and cherish all those rights. But your rights stop when they begin to unduly infringe on mine. Thats all. |
What a load of crap. Nobody is claiming that protesters have a right to smash up offices or block streets or otherwise break the law. But they have as much of a right to walk the streets as you do, and when there are protests, there are more of them. If you are inconvenienced by this, then tough – that's what democracy looks like. Presumably you supported the Ukranian protesters or the mobs in Tiananmen Square. Guess what genius – they're exactly the same as the Canadian protesters or protesters anywhere. I'm sure that dour and selfish conservatives were inconvenienced by those protests. Big deal. Cry me a river.
I am inconvenienced by the results of conservative ignorance far more than you are by the 2 or 3 anti-globalization protests that Canada has experienced over the past five years. The fact is that people like who that have little or no appreciation of the world's real problems are the asswipes in this case.
Part of living in a free society is that you get inconvenienced by the political expression of others. The alternative is worse. Grow up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
wow agathon
That was far too easy. . .. and I didn't even make one personal remark towards you.
Lets see "fascist" in one post and then
" retarded"
another shot at "where I come from"
"asswipe" etc etc
Got to say haven't been lectured on reality by a communist in a while. It must burn to be politically irrelevant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
In other words you disagree with them. The anti-war marches were getting not much more than some of the anti IMF/World Bank protests, yet there is no question that the anti-war marches spoke for the majority of citizens of every country they occurred in except the United States.
|
Logical fallacy here. Just because one protest movement speaks for a majority does not mean another such movement does
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Most people when asked tend to agree that unelected transnational institutions need more democratic controls.
|
NO suprise-- you ask "do unelected transnational institutions need more democratic controls?" and the question indicates the answer since you would find very few people that would oppose democracy.
The funny thing is that personally I don't like the IMF or World Bank structures much either. BUt my question is again-- get beyond the platitudes . . . how do you reform things so that they are workable?
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I am not agreeing with you. I'm trying to point out how retarded your original post was. You claimed that the protesters are united over the fact that they think government is poorly run. Of course they are. Virtually every protest is. But that is a particularly poor, glib and misleading characterization of their actual views, which are rather more specific.
|
Nope -- I walked the streets a bit during the G-8 and talked with a number of protestors (away from the big protests) . Their views varied and they ranged from being well informed to completely ignorant regarding the issues they were protesting... and contrary to what you say there was very little commonality-- remember this was the G-8 and not IMF meetings-- you might have missed that earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around you and your concerns.
|
Nor yours. The difference is I don't expect it to.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
What a load of crap. Nobody is claiming that protesters have a right to smash up offices or block streets or otherwise break the law. But they have as much of a right to walk the streets as you do, and when there are protests, there are more of them. . |
AS long as they move aside so I can get my SUV by we are all good *
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Part of living in a free society is that you get inconvenienced by the political expression of others. The alternative is worse. Grow up. |
Part of living in a free society is that your expression rights are limited by the expression rights of others. If I don't like communist ideology, I can say so. I can proclaim it loudly from a streetcorner. But I can't expect to do it at 2 am through a megaphone on your front lawn. I cherish the right to free speech and welcome different viewpoints-- In fact I bet I have a more open mind than you on most issues . . . but rights have limits when they infringe on the rights of others.
* I don't actually own an SUV
Last edited by Flubber on 21-06-2005 at 21:10
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Perhaps if you lived in a country that is more tolerant
quote:
Bush's Lonely Campaign Against Chavez
By MARK WEISBROT
For anyone who has been to Venezuela, it's easy to see why no one wants to take Washington's side in this grievance.
A few weeks ago I passed by a 22-story government building in downtown Caracas, and saw about 200 students blocking the exits in a protest against the government.
Trapped inside past quitting time were thousands of employees including several Cabinet-level ministers. A few police stood by calmly, not interfering. This went on for hours. There were no injuries or arrests.
I thought of what would happen if people tried this in Washington. There would be tear gas, pepper spray, heads cracked, and mass arrests. Some would get felony charges. The protest would be over in 10 minutes. The next day I turned on the TV and on the biggest channels there were commentators and experts trashing the government, in ways that do not happen in the United States or indeed most countries in the world.
I picked up the two biggest newspapers at a newsstand -- very slanted against the government, again like nothing in the United States.
It's pretty hard to make a case that Venezuela is less democratic than other Latin American countries, and no respectable human rights organization has tried to do so.
The Venezuelan economy is booming, millions of poor people have access to health care and subsidized food for the first time, and President Chavez' approval ratings have soared to more than 70% -- according to opposition pollsters.
Still, the Bush administration perseveres on its lonely road.
The most recent embarrassment came at the Organization of American States meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., this month, when the United States failed to convince other countries that the OAS should monitor and evaluate "democracy" within member countries. It was widely seen as an attempt to use the OAS against Venezuela, to which other countries responded by saying, "Please take your fight elsewhere."
Just weeks before that, the US-backed candidate for OAS president lost to Chilean Interior Minister Jose Miguel Insulza, backed by Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil. It was the first time in 60 years that the United States failed to get its candidate as head of the regional body. The Bush team pressured Insulza to make a statement about "elected governments that do not govern democratically," which was seen as a swipe against Venezuela. But this turned out to be more of an embarrassment to Insulza than anything else.
After supporting a failed military coup in 2002, giving millions of dollars to the opposition (including some involved in the coup), funding a presidential recall effort that failed miserably last year -- one would think that the Bush team would know when to give up. But they don't.
And now an increasing number of US members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are beginning to question the wisdom of continually harassing our second-largest trading partner in South America and third-largest oil supplier.
It started when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced hostile questions about her Venezuela policy from five senators in January during her confirmation hearings. Now the criticism is spilling over into our House of Representatives. Eventually our government will have to learn to respect the results of democratic elections in Venezuela -- which is all that the Venezuelans are asking from us. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
Just so I get it straight, you applaud a few hundred people for having the ability to imprison several hundred ( assumption based on 22 story building). If I am in that building I don't want to see tear gas or cracked head but I would hope the police would do something. Its not mere inconvenience. You prattle on about your right to say this and express that. Doesn't the individual inside the building have the most basic right of liberty to his own person??
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-06-2005 21:43
|