Well, no. I disagree with Masklinn, as I posted above - and I disagree with you, on the basic opinion that I disagree with any kind of violence while expressing an opinion. Take your full stop back. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>Our protestors are not that smart.
They also take freedom of expression in the wrong context. They should learn what the limits are before ranting in the streets with no plans such as emergency vehcle passage, etc. They think Feedom of Speech gives them the right to be very bad little boyz and girlz.</font>

[ 03-21-2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Tl, Cloudy, et al...
No one likes to get stuck in traffic. I was stuck for an hour myself yesterday going home due to the protests. But its doesn't bother me like it does you all. I am much more pissed off when a long traffic delay is caused by some idoit that didn't look when they changed lanes or spilled their starbuck's mega-mocha-half-caf-frappa-mocha-chino in their lap. Can I get the police to charge these idiots with obstructing traffic as well?

<font color=skyblue>Our protestors are not that smart.
They also take freedom of expression in the wrong context. They should learn what the limits are before ranting in the streets with no plans such as emergency vehcle passage, etc. They think Feedom of Speech gives them the right to be very bad little boyz and girlz.</font></font>[/QUOTE][img]smile.gif[/img] I disagree that "our protestors are not that smart" in context to the current situation. Not since the 80's Anti-Nuke, Vietnam or Civil rights movement have thousands of Americans taken to the streets to demonstrate against a course of goverment policy.Over the years I have seen a lot of little protests about various things on a weekly basis on the Boston Common, but none as large and frequent as opposition to this war.

To further disagree [img]smile.gif[/img] I am certain that adequate first responder radio operations makes avoiding any sort of traffick snarl a routine part of urban emergency response.

And to finalize my disagreement [img]smile.gif[/img] , I know some people take civil disobediance too far, to me anything further than a public gathering/march or a peaceful sit-in is too extreme, but it is unfair to discredit the legitmacy of a cause and the passion many people have for it because of the action of a few "bad little boyz and girlz"

One further note...Most cities in America have rigid guidelines and deadlines for giving permits for a public demonstration. A group would have to file permit-requests in many cases months or even a full-year before hand. In situations like an un-just war timing is of the essence. I would consider non-permited marchs in the streets as a non-violent form of civil protest.

It is unfortunate that a few would follow a path of destructiveness to achieve exsposure or just because they are stupid. I would have to consider the damage done by those few as "collateral" in military terms. Far better than the colateral damages caused war is it not?

Well, no. I disagree with Masklinn, as I posted above - and I disagree with you, on the basic opinion that I disagree with any kind of violence while expressing an opinion. Take your full stop back. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]You and I agree here. I was stating that Masklinn's statement supporting violence during a protest undermines the same complaining he did about wine bashing. I didn't say "completely obliterates," I said "undermines," i.e. "takes the steam out of it." BTW, I am saying we agree that "violence" in protest is wrong. I think we still disagree as to whether breaking one's own piece of chattel property is "violent" or not. But I do not want to digress.

Rokenn, fist it's Venti, not mega. :D Second, it doesn't bother you because you *agree* with the protest. Howsabout the police corner you for no reason and make you listen about how you should support the war? Or howsabout you get stuck in traffic for an hour having to listen to a pro-war rally? That's the more appropriate analogy here.

I fully support your right to speak - but not on my dime or during my minute. Can anyone argue against this basic principle? If you have the freedom to speak, I have the freedom to go my own way and not listen. Otherwise, if we're going to go limiting each other's freedoms, nothing stops me from acting to remove your right to speak in the first instance.

If they cause an accident, they get a ticket and could even lose their license based on the seriousness of the offense. The bottom line is that drivers are using the roadways for their intended purpose by driving a motor vehicle on them. Protesters who lay in the road to block traffic are not. Whether drivers operate their vehicle within the law is something they are accountable for.

I can't believe someone having a traffic accident that you assume is caused by their ignorance would bother you more than someone intentionally blocking your way.

:D I don't know about the actual charges, but I bet you'd find they were cited for a few moving violations!

I just don't care for mobs that get out of hand for any reason, I guess.

Moiraine, other people sort of answered your question to me, but yes, ordinarily if a large group wants to legally protest something they give the city a plan (for where they will be and how they will proceed) so that areas can be blocked off to traffic if necessary and emergency crews can be alerted to the delays or detours. I don't have a problem with this...well it may be inconvenient if I need to go home that way! LOL But I understand a 'detour' sign or a policeman waving me to take a different route.

[ 03-21-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

Actually, this isn't a very good excuse at all.

Yes maybe there are rigid guidelines in some areas. It takes time to coordinate for the safety of hundreds or thousands of people. It takes time to bring in extra personel(everyone from police to EMS to trashmen). It takes time to shut down streets in question. It takes time to reroute traffic around the effected area. These things are done for safety. The safety of the protestors and the safety of those who aren't protesting. Have you ever been part of the planning to schedule the normal operation of a city around an event like this? I have, and I'm from a small town, but it's a huge hassle to plan for parades, etc. I can't imagine doing it for a major metropolitan area. I certainly can't imagine trying to ensure everyone's safety "on the fly" while being understaffed in every way.

Anyway, there are exceptions for anything. They aren't going to tell anyone they have to wait a year to protest this war. It isn't going to happen, if for no other reason than it would be all over the news. ;)

What about the weekend of worldwide protest? Were the various protests in the US that were seen on that weekend just lucky enough to have been scheduled a year in advance and lucky enough that they happened to be scheduled for the same weekend the rest of the world was able to decide on "spur of the moment".

Every nation has rules about planning these things, and they have rules for reasons that are unrelated to limiting peoples ability to protest, so let's not get too crazy with the excuses. The protest group we've talked about most here got a permit, and it didn't take months or years. They got the permit, but left that area and starting marching up and down the streets in an admitted effort to disrupt traffic. They did not want a permit to march in the streets. ;)

[ 03-21-2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Thanks, Donut; that proves my earlier made point that some media in the US has a completely different approach and agenda at bringing the news. Saying that "a lot of schoolchildren were protesting in France" as the BBC did gives an entirely different image of the situation than an "a McDonald's was destroyed during riots in Paris" kind of approach. It may have happened both, but I'm sure people can see the difference between these ways of presenting the news and the difference in people's initial responses. ;)

[ 03-21-2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]