Middle east outcome

[Kenyth]

...yep - and then you get the knuckleheads who WANT to be arrested - they go out of their way to do it. It gets main stream press, advances their argument (that our country is becoming a nazi Germany), and they get to do the wounded puppy whine (exactly like that one first person press story DVM quoted)...

Idiots make it hard on everyone. Truly reasonable and peaceful protestors get treated pretty badly because of groups like the church that was picketing soldiers funerals.

Let's not treat the other side as angels without an agenda either though. If making a molehill into a mountain and supressing a few rights will keep the protestors (and bad press) out of sight, they'll jump on it in a heartbeat! Local officials will also protect their interests without regard for the right to peacefully protest. That's what happens when you have a confict of interests with the big boy's though.

[SmokinDVM]

Idiots make it hard on everyone. Truly reasonable and peaceful protestors get treated pretty badly because of groups like the church that was picketing soldiers funerals.

Let's not treat the other side as angels without an agenda either though. If making a molehill into a mountain and supressing a few rights will keep the protestors (and bad press) out of sight, they'll jump on it in a heartbeat! Local officials will also protect their interests without regard for the right to peacefully protest. That's what happens when you have a confict of interests with the big boy's though.

So you're saying it's OK to violate peoples RIGHTS, just so some dumbass "vip" doesn't get embarrassed? Now that is disconcerting.

[ggiese]

So you're saying it's OK to violate peoples RIGHTS, just so some dumbass "vip" doesn't get embarrassed? Now that is disconcerting.

So you're condoning someone acting like an ass - TRYING to get arrested - so they can prove the point that they got arrested for carrying out their "civil rights"???

Again - while it seems logical that anywhere on American soil someone can say what they want, when they want and how they want based upon the US consitution - even the Supreme Court disagrees with you... They've had numerous rulings over our history placing limits on what free speech really is. But there are those who are very willing will test those limits for the purpose of furthering their argument that we are not a free society...

But then, Barry - do you really wanna see what free speech is not or what a "nazi" government REALLY is? Have one of your pals heckle the administration during a speech in Iran - or Syria - or North Korea - or Iraq (before we engaged them). It won't take much to draw a response - far less than it would if you tried it here... And our response to the situation would be pale in comparison to what those countries would do to you when they get their hands on you. I assure you - there would be no desire to ever heckle again (if you managed to survive the "discussion" they had with you about "heckling")...

No comparison, my friend - NO COMPARISON...

Free does not mean without responsibility...

[WhiteWidow]

And our response to the situation would be pale in comparison to what those countries would do to you when they get their hands on you.

This is a good point. While the US may have its problems, I'm sure not moving anywhere else, and I don't see the people who think it is so bad here moving either.

I'd go to Australia though, I'll bet that place is pretty cool. Vancouver would be ok except for all the Vietnimese turf wars and what not.

[SmokinDVM]

So you're condoning someone acting like an ass - TRYING to get arrested - so they can prove the point that they got arrested for carrying out their "civil rights"???

Again - while it seems logical that anywhere on American soil someone can say what they want, when they want and how they want based upon the US consitution - even the Supreme Court disagrees with you... They've had numerous rulings over our history placing limits on what free speech really is. But there are those who are very willing will test those limits for the purpose of furthering their argument that we are not a free society...

But then, Barry - do you really wanna see what free speech is not or what a "nazi" government REALLY is? Have one of your pals heckle the administration during a speech in Iran - or Syria - or North Korea - or Iraq (before we engaged them). It won't take much to draw a response - far less than it would if you tried it here... And our response to the situation would be pale in comparison to what those countries would do to you when they get their hands on you. I assure you - there would be no desire to ever heckle again (if you managed to survive the "discussion" they had with you about "heckling")...

No comparison, my friend - NO COMPARISON...

Free does not mean without responsibility...

Actually, my response was directed at the quoted statement by Kenyth. Buuuut, as long as you've brought it up...

What you seem to be saying is that it's OK for those overzealous LEO's to crack a few heads, or strip search, or violate some CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, of people who are doing NO PHYSICAL harm, MENTAL harm, nor otherwise threatening behavior, just because they would get much worse in another country.
Last time I checked, WE ARE NOT IN ONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES! And in my opinion, an opinion most neocons obviously don't agree with, I'd rather they not continue eroding away our rights, which only leads to our Country being more like those other countries.

Dumbya said it himself when he blurted out, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -
just so long as I'm the dictator." I think that pretty much says it all.

You're right, free doesn't mean without responsibility. Kinda like the responsibility of the elected officials not to abuse their office.

[ggiese]

Nope - not condoning LEO's from cracking heads, but I'm also not really fond of people like the Westboro Baptist church that protests soldier's funerals or the gay community (even though I may SOMEWHAT agree with some of their message - their way of presenting it turns me off). And to point at those people and say they have the freedom of speech... Or the American Nazi Party that wants to protest in the midst of a largely jewish community... That's absolutely, positively looking for trouble...

Just like those liberals who are TRYING to get arrested by pushing the limits to the absolute outside of the bounds of reasonableness. Forming a human pyramid of naked men, with the exception of thong underwear, is WELL outside of the bounds of reasonableness - I don't care WHO you are. I don't want to look at that nonsense - and are you suggesting that I am forced to in the name of "freedom of speech"?

In the current state of heigthened fears over terrorist attacks on our infrastructure - I believe there has to be a sense of reasonableness with protesting high value "targets" (politicians). If you don't understand that - I'm not EVER going to make you understand...

We're at a different point in history. Back in the 40's, 50's and even into the 60's, Americans wouldn't EVEN THINK of acting like some are acting now. It wasn't proper respect for the office or for the institution that is the US. That seems to have been thrown out the window in favor of "freedom of speech". So it seems the pendulum is swinging MORE in the favor of freedoms that weren't even dreamed of 20, 30 or 40 years ago.... Do you also condone the use of an American flag as a door mat - or burned because people disagree with the policies of the government (which, by the way, was a "protected" expression of free speech)???

And you complain the freedom of speech is being taken away??? Seems to me it's more prevalant than it was in the past...

[WhiteWidow]

......but I'm also not really fond of people like the Westboro Baptist church that protests soldier's funerals

I don't know if I'd consider that a "church." I think it was just one in-bred family that was insane, basically.

I think ggiese is trying to say that its cool to protest, but you shouldn't make a complete jack-ass out of yourself in doing so. Whatever message the naked pyramid is sending (which isn't clear, which makes it an ineffective protest in itself), its not going to get taken seriously, even though it is hilarious.

[cigarsarge]

Barry...If you had a five year old and came across a naked pyramid of humans...In the view of the pubic... How would you feel?

[SmokinDVM]

Nope - not condoning LEO's from cracking heads, but I'm also not really fond of people like the Westboro Baptist church that protests soldier's funerals or the gay community (even though I may SOMEWHAT agree with some of their message - their way of presenting it turns me off). And to point at those people and say they have the freedom of speech... Or the American Nazi Party that wants to protest in the midst of a largely jewish community... That's absolutely, positively looking for trouble...

Just like those liberals who are TRYING to get arrested by pushing the limits to the absolute outside of the bounds of reasonableness. Forming a human pyramid of naked men, with the exception of thong underwear, is WELL outside of the bounds of reasonableness - I don't care WHO you are. I don't want to look at that nonsense - and are you suggesting that I am forced to in the name of "freedom of speech"?

In the current state of heigthened fears over terrorist attacks on our infrastructure - I believe there has to be a sense of reasonableness with protesting high value "targets" (politicians). If you don't understand that - I'm not EVER going to make you understand...

We're at a different point in history. Back in the 40's, 50's and even into the 60's, Americans wouldn't EVEN THINK of acting like some are acting now. It wasn't proper respect for the office or for the institution that is the US. That seems to have been thrown out the window in favor of "freedom of speech". So it seems the pendulum is swinging MORE in the favor of freedoms that weren't even dreamed of 20, 30 or 40 years ago.... Do you also condone the use of an American flag as a door mat - or burned because people disagree with the policies of the government (which, by the way, was a "protected" expression of free speech)???

And you complain the freedom of speech is being taken away??? Seems to me it's more prevalant than it was in the past...

Whether or not we agree with the Westboro freaks, or the gay community, or even the nazis is irrelevant. What is, is that they have a right to have their points, or protests, heard, or more accurately, have a right to voice them. None of these groups, however, has any relationship with a public official who just doesn't want to be exposed to a dissenting viewpoint. As long as they're not inciting to riot, or trespassing, etc., they have every right.

As far as the human pyramid, disgusting as it may be, is still a valid expression of free speech. If you don't like the message, don't listen, or look, whichever the case may be. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO WATCH.

Please stop with this fear of "turrists" bullshit. It's a complete smokescreen. Non of those "high value" targets, are in any more danger than at any other time in our history. I know they would like you to think that, as it puffs up their head even more.

Maybe it's got something do to with DESERVING respect. It really needs to be earned. BTW, disrespecting public officials is a VERY long held tradition in this Country.

Flag burning, or its use as a doormat, is all protected speech. Do I personally burn flags, no, but I support the rights of those who might.

Protection of free speech means protection of possibly offensive speech. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection. That was the point of the First Amendment.

I don't think free speech is more prevalent, the protestors are just better organized. And, in the case of this admin, they've created more of them.

[Kenyth]

As far as the human pyramid, disgusting as it may be, is still a valid expression of free speech. If you don't like the message, don't listen, or look, whichever the case may be. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO WATCH.

Protection of free speech means protection of possibly offensive speech. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection. That was the point of the First Amendment.

Valid? Saying, "I objec to the Iraq war and the treatment of POW's by the US military! I think we're wrong and should pull out our troops immediately!", to whomever will listen, is a valid expression of free speech. Writing it on a placard or billboard, or advertising it in the media is a valid expression of free speech. Strutting around near naked in public doing stupid human tricks isn't free speech. It's using shock factor and breaking ordinances or committing misdemeanors to get attention. The fact that it's in plain view in public, forces people to see it. That's the whole point of something like that. To force people to take notice of you and shock or appall them enough to remember you. If you subscribe to this tactic of attention whoring, you'd better be willing to take your lumps. I've little sympathy.

[SuperChuck]

Protection of free speech means protection of possibly offensive speech. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection. That was the point of the First Amendment.

There's a good quote I can't find, so I'll paraphrase it. I want to attribute it to Jefferson, but I might be wrong. Basically:

Freedom of speech isn't for you, it's for those with whom you disagree.

It's real easy to defend your own freedom to say what you believe, but it's really hard to remember that the guy you disagree with has that same freedom.

Should peaceful protests be broken up and protesters arrested? No.
Does it happen? Yes.
Has it happened since the Vietnam Era? Yes.

Do some protesters want to be arrested? Yes.

Sometimes it furthers your cause. Think about Martin Luther King, Jr. I doubt we'd be taking Jan 15th off every year if he was never arrested.

I was just listening to a lady in England who refused to pay taxes to protest something. They threw her in jail. When a politician had her freed, she wanted to go back. She was knowingly breaking the law and felt she should face the consequence of her action. Without going to jail, she ceased to be protesting, she was just getting away with not paying taxes.

[Kenyth]

So you're saying it's OK to violate peoples RIGHTS, just so some dumbass "vip" doesn't get embarrassed? Now that is disconcerting.

I didn't say it was OK. I said that's the way it IS. If you think it's bad now, read up on how things were done as little as a hundred years ago. The world can be a very unfair place. Just because someone cries foul, it doesn't mean everything changes. You'll have to fight it in court. That takes a lot of money and dedication. Not a job for one man. That's why it's best to organize or join a respected interest group and volunteer money and time there. You probably won't get to wear thongs in public as much, but you just might get legal representation and a voice that can really make a difference. Everyone has their own interests and tries to protect them as best they can, so it won't be easy. Pick your battles wisely and don't expend yourself on a fools errand.

Segregating picketers based on their message is wrong, but making an obscene spectacle in public is also wrong. Too often protests turn into embarassments and sometimes riots. Butting heads with the local authorities won't win you much sympathy. Righteousness generally isn't taken much into consideration when dealing with troublemakerswho incite disturbances.