[CMichael]

From Foxnews.com

Anti-War Protests Have Big Price Tags

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

SEATTLE — Large anti-war protests come with a hefty price tag.

Money is needed to rent or buy stages, sound systems, permits and portable toilets, and tabs often run as high as $200,000 per demonstration — much more than the average grassroots peace group will ever have in its coffers.

So who is picking up the tab?

"The major anti-U.S. government demonstrations are organized by people who have been around for a long time, particularly the Workers World Party, which has existed for more than 30 years now and has always supported the enemies of the United States," said Herbert Romerstein, a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency.

The Workers World Party describes itself as Marxist in nature.

Officially, protest organizers are groups such as Not in Our Name and International A.N.S.W.E.R., but the demonstration's sponsors have long histories of backing anti-government causes.

Not in Our Name is financed by the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization. I.F.C.O. is a million-dollar-a-year non-profit that supports Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and once sponsored a group headed by Sami Al-Arian — the University of South Florida professor being charged with fundraising for terrorist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

A.N.S.W.E.R. is an offshoot of the International Action Center, which intelligence officials say is a front for the Worker's World Party. A.N.S.W.E.R. canceled a scheduled interview with Fox News but a worker in the Seattle field office acknowledged there are ties.

"There are some Workers World Party members in A.N.S.W.E.R.," said A.N.S.W.E.R. coordinator Jim McMahan.

The International Action Center was founded by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who is a longtime public face of the anti-war movement.

The Workers World Party supports North Korea's brutal regime and I.F.C.O. defied U.N. sanctions when it made a trip to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Now, both are sugar daddies to the anti-war movement.

"The American people have the right to know whether stooges of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il or Castro or Saddam Hussein are involved in these demonstrations," Romerstein said.

The groups bankrolling these protests say they're spending their money the way donors would want, and protest organizers say it doesn't matter where the money comes from — the message is their own.

Others wonder if knowing the fringe politics of the people paying the bills might keep some demonstrators off the streets.

But anti-war organizers — regardless of their financial backing — are plugging ahead and are actually planning more aggressive action that they say will be hard to ignore, despite the fact that the United States is on the brink of war with Iraq.

"People will step up their actions, there will be active civil disobedience," said Simona Sharoni of United for Peace in Thurston County, Wash.

Direct Action, a San Francisco Bay-area group of anti-war veterans, has been drawing up their own battle plan should there be a war.

They say they will shut down 70 targets in San Francisco alone, including power plants, water systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies, the Pacific Exchange and the Transamerica Building.

And their hit list goes beyond economic targets.

Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs. Organizers say this will give others a chance to contemplate how war affects the children of Iraq.

"The civilians in Iraq are losing their lives and one day of work is worth a thousand lives," said Leone Reinbold, an anti-war activist in San Francisco.

Reinbold helped organize the World Trade Organization protest in Seattle three years ago. She blames the violence and damage on anarchists from the radical fringe, not the mainstream demonstrators.

All the same, police departments from coast to coast know that keeping things peaceful won't be easy.

"We know based on the last one that each preceding demonstration has been a little bit more volatile than the one before," said Deputy Chief Greg Suhr of the San Francisco Police Department.

Some protestors are vowing to bring traffic to a standstill, as they recently did on a Seattle bridge. But many wonder if paralyzing the morning commute and engaging in similar disruptions will win converts or make enemies of people losing patience with their tactics.

Fox News' Dan Springer contributed to this report

[P12]

your going to love this!


Anti-War Protests Have Big Price Tags
Tuesday, March 18, 2003

SEATTLE — Large anti-war protests come with a hefty price tag.

Money is needed to rent or buy stages, sound systems, permits and portable toilets, and tabs often run as high as $200,000 per demonstration — much more than the average grassroots peace group will ever have in its coffers.

So who is picking up the tab?

"The major anti-U.S. government demonstrations are organized by people who have been around for a long time, particularly the Workers World Party, which has existed for more than 30 years now and has always supported the enemies of the United States," said Herbert Romerstein, a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency.

The Workers World Party describes itself as Marxist in nature.

Officially, protest organizers are groups such as Not in Our Name and International A.N.S.W.E.R., but the demonstration's sponsors have long histories of backing anti-government causes.

Not in Our Name is financed by the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization. I.F.C.O. is a million-dollar-a-year non-profit that supports Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and once sponsored a group headed by Sami Al-Arian — the University of South Florida professor being charged with fundraising for terrorist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

A.N.S.W.E.R. is an offshoot of the International Action Center, which intelligence officials say is a front for the Worker's World Party. A.N.S.W.E.R. canceled a scheduled interview with Fox News but a worker in the Seattle field office acknowledged there are ties.

"There are some Workers World Party members in A.N.S.W.E.R.," said A.N.S.W.E.R. coordinator Jim McMahan.

The International Action Center was founded by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who is a longtime public face of the anti-war movement.

The Workers World Party supports North Korea's brutal regime and I.F.C.O. defied U.N. sanctions when it made a trip to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Now, both are sugar daddies to the anti-war movement.

"The American people have the right to know whether stooges of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il or Castro or Saddam Hussein are involved in these demonstrations," Romerstein said.

The groups bankrolling these protests say they're spending their money the way donors would want, and protest organizers say it doesn't matter where the money comes from — the message is their own.

Others wonder if knowing the fringe politics of the people paying the bills might keep some demonstrators off the streets.

But anti-war organizers — regardless of their financial backing — are plugging ahead and are actually planning more aggressive action that they say will be hard to ignore, despite the fact that the United States is on the brink of war with Iraq.

"People will step up their actions, there will be active civil disobedience," said Simona Sharoni of United for Peace in Thurston County, Wash.

Direct Action, a San Francisco Bay-area group of anti-war veterans, has been drawing up their own battle plan should there be a war.

They say they will shut down 70 targets in San Francisco alone, including power plants, water systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies, the Pacific Exchange and the Transamerica Building.

And their hit list goes beyond economic targets.

Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs. Organizers say this will give others a chance to contemplate how war affects the children of Iraq.

"The civilians in Iraq are losing their lives and one day of work is worth a thousand lives," said Leone Reinbold, an anti-war activist in San Francisco.

Reinbold helped organize the World Trade Organization protest in Seattle three years ago. She blames the violence and damage on anarchists from the radical fringe, not the mainstream demonstrators.

All the same, police departments from coast to coast know that keeping things peaceful won't be easy.

"We know based on the last one that each preceding demonstration has been a little bit more volatile than the one before," said Deputy Chief Greg Suhr of the San Francisco Police Department.

Some protestors are vowing to bring traffic to a standstill, as they recently did on a Seattle bridge. But many wonder if paralyzing the morning commute and engaging in similar disruptions will win converts or make enemies of people losing patience with their tactics.

Fox News' Dan Springer contributed to this report.


The Story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81314,00.html)

Now those of you who are against this war, well check your company that your keeping.

[Oleg Volk]

permits

Does the US Constitution say anything about permits or fees for public gatherings?

[Skunkabilly]

IMO permits are bunk. The KKK has every right to march through Chinatown PEACEFULLY promoting their politics, if they can handle the smell and the welcoming committee of armed citizens.

[Chris Rhines]

Surprise! Anti-war activists funded by commies! News at eleven! :rolleyes:

And this should make me rethink my opposition to the invasion of Iraq, why?

- Chris

[Pendragon]

I agree Chris, its a tough decision:

Money...Crimes against humanity...money...crimes against humanity...money...MONEY!

[Ian]

This is part of the reason why, despite opposing this war, I wouldn't be caught dead at one of those protests.

[Chris Rhines]

Pendragon, please. Are you trying to make me feel guilty? If so, invoking my self-interest is hardly the way to go about that...

- Chris

[longeyes]

The protesters don't want to be ignored. There's an old saying: Be careful what you wish for.

[LawDog]

Duplicate threads merged.

LawDog

[WyldOne]

Many groups can just get stuff donated.

[Skunkabilly]

Many groups can just get stuff donated.

So I stopped buying Levi's and Ben & Jerry's ;)

[DeltaElite]

I was at a "Peace Rally" as security on Saturday. I am not sure who the chief has us protecting them from, since even some of the TV stations didn't care enough to show up.
What a bunch of clueless blithering idiots.
Now to see that they are funded by foriegn govts makes me all the more impressed. ;)

[WyldOne]

So I stopped buying Levi's and Ben & Jerry's

That's cool. More ice cream for me!!! :D But Levi's? What did I miss?




I am not sure who the chief has us protecting them from,

Um, we don't know either, but if you figure it out could you lemme know? I've never understood that. :)


What a bunch of clueless blithering idiots.

:rolleyes: At least they're standing up for their beliefs, and exercising their Constitutional Rights. More than most Americans can say for themselves.


Now to see that they are funded by foriegn govts makes me all the more impressed.

:confused: :confused:

[DeltaElite]

So you support stupid people who express poorly reasoned opinions and are backed by foriegn govts? ;)
I do support their right to free speech, no matter how wrong or stupid they may be.

They are the puppets for foriegn govts, if they are accepting money from them. Oh wait, I just defined the Democratic parties fund raising strategy. ;)

As long as there are plenty of people like them, I will continue to have a job. :D

I wanted to stand up for my beliefs at that rally, but my Sgt said I couldn't carry my "Peace Through Superior Firepower" sign.
So sadly I had to just stand there on overtime making $38 an hour. :( :neener:

[WyldOne]

So you support stupid people who express poorly reasoned opinions and are backed by foriegn govts?

I support anyone expressing their political opinions, regardless of how uninformed or misinformed I may believe them to be. :) And since I don't know where most people get their backing, and I'm almost afraid to ask how you know such information, then I can't really make that judgement.


I do support their right to free speech, no matter how wrong or stupid they may be.

:cool:


They are the puppets for foriegn govts, if they are accepting money from them.

What in the world are you talking about? Like I said, most orgs can just get stuff donated.


As long as there are plenty of people like them, I will continue to have a job.

Excuse me, but who is "them"? People voicing political opinions? Yes, what a crazy bunch we are. :rolleyes:

[Carlos Cabeza]

I wondered where the support for these massive protests came from..............:rolleyes:
I say arrest the ones who disrupt the normal routines and that should offset the budget deficit in those cities......:D

[cordex]

Does the US Constitution say anything about permits or fees for public gatherings?
On whose property?
Playing around on the courthouse lawn means playing by the rules set by the gentlefolks elected in that town, no?

[DeltaElite]

The "them" are idiots, not necessarily protestors, but they can be the same, it's up to them if they are idiots. :D
Providing security for idiots, arresting idiots.
I have a career revolving around idiots. :D

[Sergeant Bob]

Some protestors are vowing to bring traffic to a standstill, as they recently did on a Seattle bridge.
Some protestors tried this crap when I was on my way to Howard AFB, from Panama City after Just Cause. They changed their minds about blocking me and hurling bricks at me when they saw a 3200 lb Buick hurling at them at 60 mph. Nothing but ***holes and elbows.

They have no right to restrict my lawfull travel or my ability to perform my duties and make a living.

[techmike]

Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs.

They have obviously never seen my wife trying to get to work on time...they must have a death wish.:D

I guess you never know until the time comes, but I believe if I encountered these freaks while dropping off or picking up my kids it would get bad..Quick!:fire:

[DeltaElite]

What you guys are describing are criminals.
Protesting does not involve the activities that these people are saying they will use.
Anyone who "protests" in that manner has no honor.

[B9mmHP]

Many groups can just get stuff donated.

Could free speach be called, stuffing donated stuff where the sun dont shine, into the blithering idiots? That would be expressing a political opinion.:neener:

[WyldOne]

I've blocked a road in my day, and I'd do it again for a cause I believe in. :)


Could free speach be called, stuffing donated stuff where the sun dont shine, into the blithering idiots? That would be expressing a political opinion.

I don't get it. :confused:

[DeltaElite]

I've blocked a road in my day, and I'd do it again for a cause I believe in.

Then you are not a protestor WyldOne, you are a criminal.
To impede others free action by your actions is abhorrent and shows a lack of respect for other people.

[WyldOne]

Lock me up, then.

[WyldOne]

But before you lock me up (after all, if I am a criminal, then I deserve to go to jail, correct?), let me leave you with these words from Henry David Thoreau:


Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles.
*snip*
If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office."

Source (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html)

[Thumper]

The point of the thread isn't that you don't have a right to peacably protest,Wyld...

It's that many of these young idealists are being manipulated by those who don't have the interests of America at heart.

These organizations have strong ties to those that would cheerfully gas these young idiots and their families.

[DeltaElite]

I certainly would. We locked up three such "protestors" on Saturday. :D

Your belief that free speech allows you to infringe upon others freedoms shows that you do not respect others, nor do you understand the concepts this country was founded upon.
Post from Thoreau all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you do not respect others freedoms. You place your freedoms above others when you impede them with you actions.
BTW, nowhere in that post does Thoreau say to block a roadway and act like a selfish child, you must have made that part up on you own. ;)

Your elitest attitude is coming through, after all your free speech is more important than other peoples freedoms. :rolleyes:
When you block a roadway, you are telling people that you are better than them and they will just have to wait for you to have your say, before they can continue on with their lives. :rolleyes:

You have every right to protest, but when it interferes with another citizens rights, you have just over stepped your rights and are imposing your will upon another.

[CZ-75]

I think I'm fully behind DE on this one, particularly his last post.

Wave all the signs you want; shout your slogans. But don't deprive me of my freedom of movement and, hence, my livelihood. Your rights end where mine begin. Simple common sense would dictate that pissing people off is the last thing a protestor wants to do to get favorable attention.

[WyldOne]

Your elitest attitude is coming through,


BTW, nowhere in that post does Thoreau say to block a roadway and act like a selfish child, you must have made that part up on you own. (Emphasis mine)

No, actually I just learned how to...what was it?..."act like a selfish child" from my High Road mentors. You know, the ones who proclaim that others are elitist, while acting quite elitist themselves?

You consistently refer to people as idiots, and childish, and then you call me elitist? LOL!


You have every right to protest, but when it interferes with another citizens rights, you have just over stepped your rights and are imposing your will upon another.

Please tell me what rights of other people I have violated. The right to get to work on time? The right to drive and not be annoyed by people exercising their First Amendment?

We must be reading two very different documents, Sir.

[CZ-75]

Please tell me what rights of other people I have violated. The right to get to work on time? The right to drive and not be annoyed by people exercising their First Amendment?

Liberty? The Pursuit of Happiness?

Just because the right to earn a living isn't listed in the BOR, doesn't mean we don't have it.

I can just imagine some poor schmuck who gets paid by the hour missing half a day of work because some selfish a** thought their right to speak out outweighed his right to put food on the table. :rolleyes: :barf:

As far as I know, your message can be dispersed effectively from the sidewalk. I'm all for water cannons, attack dogs and tear gas for anyone who thinks what they have to say is more important than what the rest of us think or do.

I remember watching a documentary about Ronald Reagan bringing out the CHiPs and Nat Guard in Bezerkly, when he was Gov., to deal with the students protesting the war and social inequality, etc. Funny thing was that these students ended up in the poorer parts of town and ended up trashing the property of these folks to fight the police. That social inequality message must've escaped them somehow.

[WyldOne]

As far as I know, your message can be dispersed effectively from the sidewalk.

Actually no, demonstrations get far more public attention than passing out leaflets on the sidewalks. Just check out your local news--when was the last time they did a story about "xyz organization passed out pieces of paper today"? And the goal of a demonstration is to raise awareness.

But I must thank you for not calling me a child, or an idiot, or any such name of that variety. :)

[CZ-75]

Selfish a** was about as close as I got.

Your concern about screwing people over, or the lack of it, is telling. Pardon me if I won't be broken up when "Killer" takes a large bite out of you or your fellow protestors.

As for attention, I don't think negative attention does any cause much good. Planned rallies in parks seem to get a fair bit of attention, as do pickets. Neither interfere with people earning a living.

[WyldOne]

Pickets quite often interfere with people's ability to earn a living. Not the striking workers, who voted in favor of the strike. But, what about the labor-ready temps that are hired in their place? They frequently experience verbal and physical abuse trying to walk in the front door.

[JPM70535]

To peacefully exercise ones right to protest a policy of the Government is basic, however when that protest interferes with the rights of others, then the protesters have gone from being legitimate, to being criminal. My right to travel peacefully on the roadways, unimpeded by "Peaceniks" is equally as protected as is their freedom of speech and expresson.

Let me put it another way:

ROADS ARE FOR CARS, SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS, AND BEFORE I WILL STOP AND SUBJECT MY FAMILY TO POSSIBLE HARM FROM COMMON CRIMINALS, I WILL DO MY BEST TO REPAVE THE ROAD WITH THEIR CARCASSES.

[fallingblock]

I am saddened that you have inappropriately chosen a quote from H.D.T's "Essay on Civil Disobedience" as support for what Henry would have no doubt considered an anti-social act.

Thoreau certainly was a multi-dimensional character, but what comes through his writing is the unmistakable message that his guiding principle is to be 'a good neighbor'. If you oppose the state, then your quarrel is with the state, not with your neighbors. If the state elects to imprison you, go quietly to prison.
In Henry's day, this would translate, perhaps to:"You ought not to abuse the jail-keeper for his part, nor should you detain the farmer in his cart as a hostage to your cause."

You were just fortunate that Sergeant Bob wasn't on the road you were blocking in such an un-neighborly fashion.:p

The current anti-war protests have much to do with political enmity and expedience and not a lot to do with genuine 'anti-war' sentiment...at least as far as the organizers are concerned.

When you commit a criminal act of trespass or deny access to your neighbor, you damage your cause in the eyes of the fence-sitters.

Henry Thoreau was wise enough to grasp the obvious:rolleyes:

[Thumper]

Wyld, they're right...your putting your pet cause over the livelihood of your fellow citizens negates your cause.

You'd sit down in the road? I see a Darwin award entry...

[DeltaElite]

Wow, nothing much to add. Seems alot of people agree that you are wrong in your actions WyldOne.
You refuse to see that imposing you will on others is wrong.

You will get over being called a childish idiot, or at least you need to get accustomed to it, since you continue to act like one. :D

Funny, me being the cop, you would think I would be the one who imposes his will upon others, not the other way around. ;)

[B9mmHP]

Wyldone!!

I know you dont get it. And yes you are:confused:

[ahenry]

I've blocked a road in my day, and I'd do it again for a cause I believe in. (and further comments of this type)

I was always of the opinion that if belief couldn’t stand on its own merits then it wasn’t much of a belief. Personally, I think the war protesters tactics speak volumes for the lack of merit their belief holds.

[dustind]

wyldOne, i disagree with you, please tell me where you live so i can place a few 1000 pound boulders at the end of your driveway so you can see my message (written on the boulders) it may impede your travel but i guess thats ok since its my first amendment right :rolleyes: :barf: *note i was just makeing a point i was not serious.

i'm also guessing in your logic that you can spray paint things on others property too, or even destroy thier property to make a point. that is truely disturbing.

[igor]

They are the puppets for foriegn govts, if they are accepting money from them. Oh wait, I just defined the Democratic parties fund raising strategy.

DeltaElite, you just defined the Bush administration's fund raising strategy. Replace "foriegn govts" with "various undemocratic stakeholders".

[DeltaElite]

True Igor, all politicians are corrupt puppets of special interests. :D

[DeltaElite]

C'mon surely someone agrees with WyldOne. :rolleyes:

I would hate to think all her high priced education at Vanderbilt was for naught. :p

BTW, WyldOne, nice site you have up and running.
I am not as militant as I come across.:D

[jmbg29]

I've blocked a road in my day, and I'd do it again for a cause I believe in.If you block the road in front of me, and I see no reason to believe that you are under duress and seeking my help, then I will treat you the same as any other carjacker/thief, and continue toward you without changing speed/direction. Count on it. :fire: :fire: :fire:

[WyldOne]

Okay, most of you guys aren't making a whole lot of sense. What was that rule of thumb? Think twice, post once.....I thought it was the anti's who were supposed to get all emotional and such?

Are you guys getting all hot and bothered because you think I've been to an anti-war rally? Newsflash: I have not attended an anti-war rally since Clinton bombed Yugoslavia. Sorry to disappoint, but a simple question would have taken care of that.


JPM70535
Senior Member

To peacefully exercise ones right to protest a policy of the Government is basic, however when that protest interferes with the rights of others, then the protesters have gone from being legitimate, to being criminal. My right to travel peacefully on the roadways, unimpeded by "Peaceniks" is equally as protected as is their freedom of speech and expresson.

Who's a "Peacenik", and what does that have to do with the current conversation at hand? And....which rights, again, are being violated? I must have missed the part of the BOR where it says "The Right to travel peacefully on the roadways".


ROADS ARE FOR CARS, SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS, AND BEFORE I WILL STOP AND SUBJECT MY FAMILY TO POSSIBLE HARM FROM COMMON CRIMINALS, I WILL DO MY BEST TO REPAVE THE ROAD WITH THEIR CARCASSES.

:rolleyes:


fallingblock
Senior Member

I am saddened that you have inappropriately chosen a quote from H.D.T's "Essay on Civil Disobedience" as support for what Henry would have no doubt considered an anti-social act.

Thoreau certainly was a multi-dimensional character, but what comes through his writing is the unmistakable message that his guiding principle is to be 'a good neighbor'. If you oppose the state, then your quarrel is with the state, not with your neighbors. If the state elects to imprison you, go quietly to prison.
In Henry's day, this would translate, perhaps to:"You ought not to abuse the jail-keeper for his part, nor should you detain the farmer in his cart as a hostage to your cause."

Thank you for your polite response. I would like to continue this discussion, but apparently The High Road disapproves of civil disobedience. I shall respond to you via Private Message.


The current anti-war protests have much to do with political enmity and expedience and not a lot to do with genuine 'anti-war' sentiment...at least as far as the organizers are concerned.

Um, okay.


Thumper
Senior Member

Wyld, they're right...your putting your pet cause over the livelihood of your fellow citizens negates your cause.

You'd sit down in the road? I see a Darwin award entry...

I have, and I would do it again for a cause I believe in. If you disapprove, that's fine.


DeltaElite
Senior Member

Wow, nothing much to add. Seems alot of people agree that you are wrong in your actions WyldOne.

Actually, it seems that a lot of people are getting quite...."emotional". Maybe they're turning into liberals and we haven't realized it?? OH NO! Not that! Anything but that!


You refuse to see that imposing you will on others is wrong.

Actually, there have been several good points made. But until I am treated with respect, I will not publicly acknowledge that.


You will get over being called a childish idiot, or at least you need to get accustomed to it, since you continue to act like one.

In 10 words or less, what does "The High Road" mean to you?


Funny, me being the cop, you would think I would be the one who imposes his will upon others, not the other way around.

*yawn* :rolleyes:


B9mmHP
New Member

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 12
Wyldone!!

I know you dont get it. And yes you are

Great, thanks for that well-thought-out reply.



ahenry
Senior Member

I was always of the opinion that if belief couldn’t stand on its own merits then it wasn’t much of a belief. Personally, I think the war protesters tactics speak volumes for the lack of merit their belief holds.

Well, I can't speak for the war protestors, but I can speak for myself. Will respond privately, after lunch.


dustind
Member

wyldOne, i disagree with you, please tell me where you live so i can place a few 1000 pound boulders at the end of your driveway so you can see my message (written on the boulders) it may impede your travel but i guess thats ok since its my first amendment right *note i was just makeing a point i was not serious.

i'm also guessing in your logic that you can spray paint things on others property too, or even destroy thier property to make a point. that is truely disturbing.

Well, if you could read, you could find out where I live. Correct? And no, I don't have a driveway. And no, I don't think it's right to silence people just because you disagree with them.

And please, DO NOT ASSUME that I support property destruction. What is truely [sic] disturbing, is that you have made a judgement based on assumption based on the fact that I have participated in nonviolent civil disobedience in that past.


DeltaElite
Senior Member

C'mon surely someone agrees with WyldOne.

I would hate to think all her high priced education at Vanderbilt was for naught.

BTW, WyldOne, nice site you have up and running.
I am not as militant as I come across.

I wouldn't be surprised if nobody here agrees with me. That's fine, and perfectly understandable. Attempting to alienate me won't change my mind, however. Calling me names won't change my mind. Making assumptions about my education won't change my mind.

What will change my mind? Intelligent discourse. If that's even possible here.

Oh, and if you act towards me on my site, the way you have acted in this thread, you will be banned. My site is for people who know how to respectfully disagree with others. But you're more than welcome to join, the more the merrier.

EDIT: Somewhere up above, I stated that I had not attended an anti-war demonstration since the Clinton era. Upon re-reading this thread, I recalled that I have been to one rally. It was the "we have a legal permit, and we're just gonna stand here and hold signs" type. I just wanted to correct my error before someone calls me a liar or something.

[DeltaElite]

Well, if you could read, you could find out where I live. Correct?
That was very High Road of you, yet you question my comments.
Seems you are hurling insults out yourself. ;)
What will change my mind? Intelligent discourse. If that's even possible here.
Here you insult the entire board. My, my what intelligent rational discourse you create. :D

I do find it amusing that you would ban me from your board for my free speech, yet you have no problem blocking a roadway and interfering with other peoples freedoms.
I expect to be counseled for my actions my High Road staff, but I knew that when I made my statements.
I understand your board is your home, but some people have to get to work to pay the bills to keep their home.
So much for respecting peoples freedoms.

hy·poc·ri·sy

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

[WyldOne]

That was very High Road of you, yet you question my comments.
Seems you are hurling insults out yourself.

Yeah, I actually thought of that too. Oh well. :o


I do find it amusing that you would ban me from your board for my free speech,

No. It is not your opinions I care about, but the way you go about expressing them. And, since it is my private board, I am free to ban whoever I want.

The Terms Of Conduct here, at The High Road, indicate an agreement of my position:

A note on FREE SPEECH:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is greatly respected here on The High Road, as are all other Amendments that the Second Amendment defends. However, The High Road is private property and requests that members adhere to all forum policies. It is a contract agreed to by all who become members of The High Road. Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech - a contract broken is a contract broken. If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board.

And, as stated in my welcome message:

If you fail to respect others, you will be banned. No questions, no apologies.


The primary reason that I started my board, was to talk about things with my internet friends when my dad died last year. For that reason, I am vigilant about only permitting nice, respectful people in my site. We talk about some extremely touchy issues, and if your behavior is at all similar to this thread, then you will be banned; regardless of your political standpoint.


yet you have no problem blocking a roadway and interfering with other peoples freedoms.

Please explain to me what having an internet messageboard, and sitting in a street, have to do with each other.


I understand your board is your home,

Very well. What is the problem here?


but some people have to get to work to pay the bills to keep their home.

As do I. But that still does not mean that I can go into a stranger or an acquaintance's home, and call them names. Just because I have to work to pay my bills.


So much for respecting peoples freedoms.

What right am I violating now, your right to post insults on an internet messageboard? :rolleyes:

[CZ-75]

And....which rights, again, are being violated? I must have missed the part of the BOR where it says "The Right to travel peacefully on the roadways".


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



I would like to continue this discussion, but apparently The High Road disapproves of civil disobedience.

Your willingness to inconvenience others just because you have something to say is ANYTHING BUT civil.

I have, and I would do it again for a cause I believe in. If you disapprove, that's fine.

And, as I've said before, I approve of police using all the force allowed by law to remove you.

It isn't your message that I disagree with, but your tactics, which betray a belief that you are superior to those trying to go about their lives. We poor benighted members of the proletariat just don't know what is good for us. :rolleyes:

Actually, it seems that a lot of people are getting quite...."emotional". Maybe they're turning into liberals and we haven't realized it?? OH NO! Not that! Anything but that!

Cheap shot. An attempt to to "poison the well" to deflect the opposition.

Nothing quite so offensive to the sensibilities of people as an attempt by the self-important to foist themselves and their beliefs upon others.

Actually, there have been several good points made. But until I am treated with respect, I will not publicly acknowledge that.

And take your toys with you. :rolleyes:

You need to earn respect.

You have more than adequately shown that you don't have respect for others, through your hinderance of their movements. I can't see why you think that you a deserving of respect when you don't give it; your attitude belies a sense of superiority and entitlement.



I, for my part, won't tender you any more than simple politeness and a refrain from ad hominem.


What will change my mind? Intelligent discourse. If that's even possible here.

Oh, please!

We're just a bunch of ignorant rednecks who need a morally superior member of the educated class to disabuse us of our prejudices, misconceptions, and superstitions, eh? :rolleyes:

Another subtle cheap shot by you.

Oh, and if you act towards me on my site, the way you have acted in this thread, you will be banned. My site is for people who know how to respectfully disagree with others. But you're more than welcome to join, the more the merrier.

No thanks. I won't be visiting, as it'd only feed your ego gratification and give you another chance to talk down to us, only by YOUR rules.

My site is for people who know how to respectfully disagree with others.

Sounds like double-talk for "those who agree with me and kiss my a**." You can keep your smarmy sycophants. Only fifty-some have signed up.

[WyldOne]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


.....?.... Help me connect the dots, please.



Your willingness to inconvenience others just because you have something to say is ANYTHING BUT civil.

That's nice, but the tactic is referred to as civil disobedience.


And, as I've said before, I approve of police using all the force allowed by law to remove you.

That's fine. If I break the law, I fully expect to pay the consequences.


It isn't your message that I disagree with, but your tactics, which betray a belief that you are superior to those trying to go about their lives. We poor benighted members of the proletariat just don't know what is good for us.

You don't even know what my message is/was. And when did I ever say anything about me being superior?? You....do realize that I work a 9-5, correct? :confused:



Cheap shot. An attempt to to "poison the well" to deflect the opposition.

Call it what you wish, but it is my view of the level of responses here.


Nothing quite so offensive to the sensibilities of people as an attempt by the self-important to foist themselves and their beliefs upon others.

Please explain, using examples.



And take your toys with you.

Oh, I'm not going anywhere. :)


You need to earn respect.

As do you. In this entire thread, I have made one insult that I'm aware of, and I'm not proud of it. Yet I am being called childish, immature, elitist, etc.

Please tell me what of my behavior needs to change, in order to earn respect? I could sure tell a bunch of posters here what part of their behavior needs to change in order to earn my respect.


You have more than adequately shown that you don't have respect for others, through your hinderance of their movements.

And how have I shown this? Through my behvavior, or through a chosen protest tactic?


I can't see why you think that you a deserving of respect when you don't give it; your attitude belies a sense of superiority and entitlement.

I have posed questions to all of these points previously in this post. I am awaiting examples of my treating others with disrespect, acting superior, and acting entitled.


I, for my part, won't tender you any more than simple politeness and a refrain from ad hominem.

A simple politeness is all that I ask; yet some people here cannot even muster that.



Oh, please!

We're just a bunch of ignorant rednecks who need a morally superior member of the educated class to disabuse us of our prejudices, misconceptions, and superstitions, eh?

Another subtle cheap shot by you.

That is NOT what I meant, Sir. What I meant was, judging from the level of responses, intelligent discourse is impossible here. Otherwise, we could be neck-deep in a discussion about various protest techniques, and their pro's and con's. But no, people instead have chosen to just call me names. So be it; but don't blame me if I react to that behavior by assuming that the posters are not capable of having a thoughtful discussion.



No thanks. I won't be visiting, as it'd only feed your ego gratification and give you another chance to talk down to us, only by YOUR rules.

That's fine, that comment wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward someone who had indicated interest. If you don't come, I really don't care.


Sounds like double-talk for "those who agree with me and kiss my a**."

Not it at all, actually. Nice assumption though. Actually, at my site, I am in the minority. Most people there disagree with me. But they do so without resorting to name calling.


You can keep your smarmy sycophants. Only fifty-some have signed up.

Smarmy sycophants? LOL, that majority of the posters at my site are posters here.

[DeltaElite]

WyldOne,
So you are saying that there are limits on free speech?
Such as not being able to block a roadway?
How about not having to tolerate rudeness in your own home, business or message board?
All are valid limits on free speech, because they both infringe the freedoms of others.

You claim to respect my message, but not how I have delivered it in this thread. Fair enough.
I respect everyones right to protest, within the rules of law and without oppressing others.
Sounds like we actually agree on something. :D

You have attempted to divert the issues and insult us "dumb ole redneck gunowners", but I see through all the "higher education" gibberish.

Ise gots an edumacashion two. :neener:

I just chose to overcome my college education and learn to think for myself. Instead of parroting professors who have never lived a day in the real world, most of whom are hiding in the academic world to avoid getting a real job.

This conversation is starting to get really dull.
BTW, get back to work, quit wasting taxpayer dollars by messing around on the internet. :D

[Oleg Volk]

I will be back to re-read this thread tonight...hint, hint. Thank you.

[DeltaElite]

Shhhhhh, Dads looking into the room. :)

[Oleg Volk]

Bickering with your allies is easy, they are right next to you. Taking the fight to the enemy is harder, as evidenced by the scarcity of posts in the floated "time to act" thread.

Playing Dad...no thank you. Can't pay me enough to do that for chronologically adult people.

[Sven]

I'm shocked at the behavior demonstrated in this thread. Absolutely floored.

[WyldOne]

So you are saying that there are limits on free speech?

I waffle back and forth on this. I used to be a free speech absolutist, but lately I'm beginning to see useful limits on free speech (the whole "fire" in a crowded theater). My concern, however, is who determines what those limits are? When do "limits" become censorship?


Such as not being able to block a roadway?

I said that I've done it before and I'd do it again. I never said everyone has to agree with me or my tactics.


How about not having to tolerate rudeness in your own home, business or message board?

Home and (definitely :)) messageboard, yeah. Business, I'm not sure of, because even if it is privately owned, it is still open to the public. So I don't know.


All are valid limits on free speech, because they both infringe the freedoms of others.

Yeah, I know. Can I be in-between on this?


You claim to respect my message, but not how I have delivered it in this thread. Fair enough.
I respect everyones right to protest, within the rules of law and without oppressing others.
Sounds like we actually agree on something.

Sounds like we do. :eek: ;)


You have attempted to divert the issues and insult us "dumb ole redneck gunowners", but I see through all the "higher education" gibberish.

I have? I didn't realize that. You know that I'm a RKBA supporter, right? And, knowing that myself and other friends that I have met are, in fact, NOT "dumb ole redneck gunowners", I don't understand why I would believe in that stereotype? Especially when that's exactly the stereotype that I wish to break.

And...What "higher education" gibberish? :confused:


Ise gots an edumacashion two.

Um...congratulations? :confused:


I just chose to overcome my college education and learn to think for myself. Instead of parroting professors who have never lived a day in the real world, most of whom are hiding in the academic world to avoid getting a real job.

Okay......


This conversation is starting to get really dull.

No kidding.


BTW, get back to work, quit wasting taxpayer dollars by messing
around on the internet.

I don't get paid by taxpayers :confused:

BUT, I do have to get back to work!! :D

[CZ-75]

.....?.... Help me connect the dots, please.


I put this simply, then. Just because you don't see the "right to travel freely" listed, doesn't mean we don't have it. Same with "the right to earn a living." Ditto for "the right to eat."

You don't even know what my message is/was. And when did I ever say anything about me being superior?? You....do realize that I work a 9-5, correct?

Nor do I care. The simple fact that you are willing to inconvenience others so that YOU may make a point, says everything I need to know.

Please explain, using examples.

Um, sitting in the middle of the road when people are trying to get somewhere, like a job? :rolleyes:

As I said before, the fact that you place yourself above others. That is not the full extent of it though. That would merely be an ego problem.

The real point is that you place yourself above others enough to purposefully inconvenience them. Such as keeping people from earning a living by sitting in the street.

That doesn't even take into account the possibility that you are keeping emergency vehicles from getting to their destinations.

Sheer arrogance.

As do you. In this entire thread, I have made one insult that I'm aware of, and I'm not proud of it. Yet I am being called childish, immature, elitist, etc.

Please tell me what of my behavior needs to change, in order to earn respect? I could sure tell a bunch of posters here what part of their behavior needs to change in order to earn my respect.

The fact that you are arrogant enough to try to bend others to your message by infringing upon their rights is the part of your behavior that needs to change. Your justifications ARE childish and elitist.

You have NO right to impose your will upon me.

I haven't gone about trying to impose my will on others. Hence, I'm more deserving of respect than you are until you change your sentiments and tack.

And how have I shown this? Through my behvavior, or through a chosen protest tactic?

Are the two distinguishable? Your protest tactic IS your behavior.

It shows that you believe what you have to say is more important than the rights of others.

I have posed questions to all of these points previously in this post. I am awaiting examples of my treating others with disrespect, acting superior, and acting entitled.

Hopefully, you aren't so obtuse that you don't get it by now.

Placing your right to speak out before others rights is the ne plus ultra of examples.

That is NOT what I meant, Sir. What I meant was, judging from the level of responses , intelligent discourse is impossible here. Otherwise, we could be neck-deep in a discussion about various protest techniques, and their pro's and con's. But no, people instead have chosen to just call me names. So be it; but don't blame me if I react to that behavior by assuming that the posters are not capable of having a thoughtful discussion.

How is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who believes their rights supercede those of others?

The failing lies with you.

I don't care to discuss ANY protest tactic that involves infringing upon the rights of others.

Name-calling is juvenille, but so is believing the world revolves around you and your viewpoint. I can EASILY see why you've so offended everyone.










I'm shocked at the behavior demonstrated in this thread. Absolutely floored.

Your sensibilites seem quite delicate, then.

I'm absolutely floored that someone could espouse their right to "free speech" to the extent that they act to the detriment of others rights.

[Master Blaster]

Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs.

Folks are free to stand next to the daycare center and protest all they like. I may not agree with what they say but I would defend their right to say it.

Unpopular speech is the speech most in need of constitutional protection.

But if you get between me and my children and you interfere with my right to excersize life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, think about what a mama grizzly bear will do if you get between her and her cubs.

I have two little ones in daycare and I have to feed them, clothe them, shelter them and PROTECT them above anything else I do.

I support your right to protest even though I may not agree with what you are protesting.

BUT when you infringe upon my rights or threaten my safety or that of my children you will be in deep doo doo.

I dont think I will find Wyld ONE at my daycare center making threats.

But if she does or any other anarchist / protestor does, the police will no doubt remove them. At least I hope so for their safety as well as my own.



Thats my rant.:o

[DeltaElite]

Maybe we should retitle this thread. "I can't see the forest, because of all these dang trees." :p

Frankly, this thread has been rather tame, maybe not within "The High Roads" standards, but some people are openly discussing their criminal activities, disguised under the term "civil disobedience". I find that very distasteful and not worthy of "High Road" status.

So let me get this straight, name calling is bad, but board members proudly telling of their criminal acivities and stating they would do it again, is not. :rolleyes:
Honestly, I am just mentioning this to point out that both activities are wrong, but only one is promoting criminal activity.

[Oleg Volk]

FWIW, my comment was addressed to several participants of this thread.

[ahenry]

You need to earn respect. I disagree. Either you choose to act gentlemanly (or ladylike) regardless of the other persons actions or you don’t. Myself, I choose to act as gentlemanly as possible and provide the rope for the other person to cling to or hang themselves with.


BTW, regarding civil disobedience:
Civil disobedience is still disobedience and should still hold the appropriate consequences. It’s intent is not to break the law to inconvenience others but rather to demonstrate the absurdity (or immorality) of the law by forcing the law abiding to obey an unjust law. Civil disobedience is not blocking streets; it is a black person drinking from a white person water fountain. It is not sitting in the middle of a busy street blocking traffic; it is a black person sitting in the middle of a bus amongst the white people. Don’t mistake civil disobedience to be any form of disobedience but rather specific applications of disobedience thereby bringing the contested law to the forefront of social consciousness.

[CZ-75]

I agree w/ ahenry's assessment of civil disobedience.

Ghandi, the supreme practitioner thereof, never did anything to force his message down the throats of his fellow citizens/subjects.

Burning passbooks was an affront to silly regulation and govt. institutions, as were his general strikes, and his circumvention of the laws on making salt.

I disagree. Either you choose to act gentlemanly (or ladylike) regardless of the other persons actions or you don?t. Myself, I choose to act as gentlemanly as possible and provide the rope for the other person to cling to or hang themselves with.

A better choice of phrasing would've been, for my part, that you can, through your actions, lose your respect among others. The converse is also true.

[WyldOne]

I put this simply, then. Just because you don't see the "right to travel freely" listed, doesn't mean we don't have it. Same with "the right to earn a living." Ditto for "the right to eat."

Okay, because I've used kinda the same argument to say that education and healthcare are basic human rights. But everytime I use this argument, I get shot down (NOT to indicate that I think that everyone who "shoots" is against education and healthcare!!!).


Nor do I care. The simple fact that you are willing to inconvenience others so that YOU may make a point, says everything I need to know.

Okay.



As I said before, the fact that you place yourself above others. That is not the full extent of it though. That would merely be an ego problem.

Well, I don't see it as placing "myself" above others. I see it as forcing the issue into public view, in a manner that cannot be ignored.


That doesn't even take into account the possibility that you are keeping emergency vehicles from getting to their destinations.

That's a good point.


Your justifications ARE childish and elitist.

I haven't really made any justifications.



I haven't gone about trying to impose my will on others. Hence, I'm more deserving of respect than you are until you change your sentiments and tack.

Sorry, I disagree. Just because you dislike my chosen protest tactic, does not mean that you are justified to treat me as any lesser of a participant in these forums.


Are the two distinguishable? Your protest tactic IS your behavior.

It shows that you believe what you have to say is more important than the rights of others.

Yes, they are distinguishable. You say that blocking traffic is, say, childish. Have I acted childish in this thread? I treat people with respect; that is how I behave. My protest tactic is inconvenient, yes. That doesn't mean that I behave immaturely.


How is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who believes their rights supercede those of others?

It is quite possible, as I and others somehow manage to do it every single day. Perhaps if we lay down judgements, and simply say: I disagree with your tactic; here is why, that would probably lead to an intelligent conversation. I'm quite open to constructive criticism.


Name-calling is juvenille, but so is believing the world revolves around you and your viewpoint. I can EASILY see why you've so offended everyone.

I've offended everyone? By simply revealing that I have participated in blocking traffic? Wow.

I thought I was among friends. Shall we all just remain strangers, then?


I dont think I will find Wyld ONE at my daycare center making threats.

Nopers. :)


But if she does or any other anarchist / protestor does, the police will no doubt remove them. At least I hope so for their safety as well as my own.

Well...I'm not an anarchist though, but I got ya.


ahenry
Senior Member

Civil disobedience is not blocking streets; it is a black person drinking from a white person water fountain. It is not sitting in the middle of a busy street blocking traffic; it is a black person sitting in the middle of a bus amongst the white people. Don’t mistake civil disobedience to be any form of disobedience but rather specific applications of disobedience thereby bringing the contested law to the forefront of social consciousness.

Hmmm.

I thought civil disobedience, was disobedience done in a civil manner (ie, not vandalizing or destroying property, which I do NOT do)?

[CZ-75]

Okay, because I've used kinda the same argument to say that education and healthcare are basic human rights. But everytime I use this argument, I get shot down (NOT to indicate that I think that everyone who "shoots" is against education and healthcare!!!).

Problem is, you expect someone else to pay for these "rights."

If you wish to couch these rights in the terms of "no one should be denied access to education or healthcare because of membership in some group," such as being black, a woman, elderly, etc., then I'd agree with you. You don't have right to my pocketbook to provide for your rights. I won't give up my income so that you can speak out or so that you may go to school or a doctor, though I'm somewhat ambivalent on education.

Sorry, I disagree. Just because you dislike my chosen protest tactic, does not mean that you are justified to treat me as any lesser of a participant in these forums.

Your chosen protest tactic shows a disrespect for everyone else. I WILL treat anyone who is disrespectful towards me or others with the lesser amount of respect that they've engendered.

BTW, your statement is indicative of the elitism and entitlement mentalities I've accused you of previously. You believe that you are entitled to be treated with a full measure of respect while treating others as if they were hired help. Works both ways.

[B9mmHP]

WildOne, I`m not sure I can be more clear on what my first reply was, but I will try.

Your first reply was. Many groups can get stuff donated.

I assumed you were talking about the Commie groups bankrolling the protestors.

Next you agreed to free speach and expressing a political opinion.
Well I agree with you on that. I will now try to explain what I wrote in my first reply that you were confused over.

I was sugesting that free speach would be stuffing the donated stuff up the rectum (rectum is where the sun dont shine) of blithering idiot protestors, and expressed that would be a political opinion.

I hope you get it this time, but even if you do I still think you are

:confused:

If this reply doesn`t meet with your idea of a well- thought- reply, I guess I could try again.

PS: The rectum is the part of a human, that speach origniates in, from liberal socialists.

[WyldOne]

I WILL treat anyone who is disrespectful towards me or others with the lesser amount of respect that they've engendered.

And WHEN have I been disrespectul towards you?


BTW, your statement is indicative of the elitism and entitlement mentalities I've accused you of previously. You believe that you are entitled to be treated with a full measure of respect while treating others as if they were hired help. Works both ways.

My statement was that just because you disagree with a protest tactic that I have used, is not an excuse to treat me with disrespect. Where is the elitism in that? Where is the entitlement in that?

And who on EARTH am I treating "as if they were the hired help"???

I feel like I'm the frickin' enemy here, when I'm actually not the enemy.

ETA:

BP:

Your first reply was. Many groups can get stuff donated.

I assumed you were talking about the Commie groups bankrolling the protestors.

Okay, no. I don't know what "Commie groups" do. But, almost any nonprofit organization can ask supermarkets, stores, and whatever else they need to donate food, or art supplies, or sound equipment, or whatever.


Next you agreed to free speach and expressing a political opinion.

Yes.


I was sugesting that free speach would be stuffing the donated stuff up the rectum (rectum is where the sun dont shine) of blithering idiot protestors, and expressed that would be a political opinion.

So, free speach [sic] is putting food, art supplies, and sound equipment in someone's butt? Please explain how this qualifies, I see it as an act of violence.

Would you be saying anything political while you did this? Or would it just be an arbitrary act of aggression?

[CZ-75]

And WHEN have I been disrespectul towards you?

"Your chosen protest tactic shows a disrespect for everyone else."

You've been disrespectful to just about everyone, even if they don't live near you, because you don't care about their rights when you choose to exercise yours.

And who on EARTH am I treating "as if they were the hired help"???

The people, about whom you care so little, that you'd impose your "freedom of speech" upon them, even if it cost them their wages (or their lives, should they be in an ambulance that couldn't get through).

The same people, I might add, that you'd screw over again with another sit-down protest right in the middle of the street, as you've said previously. Sentiment or action are the same to me in this case.

My statement was that just because you disagree with a protest tactic that I have used, is not an excuse to treat me with disrespect. Where is the elitism in that? Where is the entitlement in that?

You have avowed use of a tactic that causes harm to others. These others could include me. I don't take being crapped upon lightly; I don't like to watch others receive the same. Neither do I get warm fuzzies for someone who unrepentently espouses doing it again.

I feel like I'm the frickin' enemy here, when I'm actually not the enemy.

You're as much the enemy as anyone else who wishes to impose their views upon others.

Dianne Feinstein is my Enemy because she'd deprive me of my RKBA.

So would you be should you cost me my pay so you could sit in the street.

I don't have much respect for someone who screws other people over so they can get what they want, be it their message heard or cold hard cash.

[ahenry]

I thought civil disobedience, was disobedience done in a civil manner (ie, not vandalizing or destroying property, which I do NOT do)? I suppose it is your prerogative to believe that civil disobedience is whatever you want it to be. After all, you alone suffer the consequences of your actions (at least for the most part). However, do not expect others to remain sympathetic to your cause, when you lash out at the general population through your chosen means of protest. I will reiterate, the primary purpose of civil disobedience is not to alienate others, but rather to bring a particular unjust law to the forefront of discussion by forcing the law abiding to choice between abiding by an immoral or unjust law or breaking it themselves.

[B9mmHP]

WyldOne???

You don`t seem to get it:(
My first reply was ment as humor, just to add a little laugh.

Yes it would be sic to stuff sound equipment in that brown spot, that would alow a louder voice from the source of there speach. Just more humor:neener:

But Don`t let my(sic) humor fool you. I will not tolerate any blithering idiots screwing with my rights of free passage on a public road or anyother of my freedoms:rolleyes: