'I got six kids to feed and you are going to get me fired'

a reply to: stirling

Then why dont they protest were the people that actually MATTER are?

Government buildings and police stations? Rather than harass innocent people?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

i like your posts, they always make me think. i like thinking, so i read posters who inspire thought deeper than the obvious surface issues. and for this particular post of yours, i ran a logical chain of thought on pros vs. cons (regarding the woman in the red dress scenario) as it relates to your question. my thoughts are as follows:

this was an issue where other innocent people (his children) were about to be negatively impacted (or at least, that was his biggest concern). i seriously doubt his employer would've fired him, especially after seeing what caused the problem. it apparently effected alot of people and was, for all rights and purposes, an unavoidable meeting of ideologies (get to work vs. make a public statement, assuming there were no other routes to his place of employment or that he may have been stuck in the ensuing traffic jam at the protest barrier.

but where the rubber meets the road is how removing the freedoms of one person (or many persons) in order to illuminate someone else's, is actually counterproductive to the real goal (freedom). it creates tension, complicates an already complicated life. it also takes the positive energy of your protest message, which has just morphed into a big negative blob of angry people, and takes a big stinking dump on it.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes that's all well and very interesting. But it doesn't change the fact the American public have also been given fundamental rights by the founding fathers in the constitution that the modern day government are in direct violation of. Well the american public just sit by and let it happen, just as long as there still allowed to keep high powered semi automatic weapons under there beds.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public

Source

Just remember,

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

The 1st amendment gives the American citizen the right to peacefully assemble anywhere they please to protest against the government.

You are wrong about the "anywhere you please bit." The Constitution does not say that. One cannot "peacefully assemble" on private property without permission, for example, because the citizen who owns that property has rights too.

You cannot "peacefully assemble" in a manner that stops another citizens' right to travel because that other citizen has rights too.

Having the right to something does not invalidate the rights of your fellow citizens to have something else. Me owning a gun does not harm your right to life. Me shooting you without just cause does harm your right to life. Thus, me shooting you without just cause is illegal and not my right no matter how enshrined the second amendment is.

A right for one citizen does not give him carte blanche to violate the rights of other citizens.

For some reason I read the thread title and immediately thought "Total Recall"....

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Jamie1

Yeah, why not? The constitution gives you the right.

You have the right to assemble, but in doing so you cannot violate the rights of others to travel.

So where in the constitution does it state that you have the right to peacefully assemble to petition against the government, as long as it does not violate the time it takes for one to commute on the freeway?

Seems to me your trying to manipulate the words of the constitution to undermined citizens that share a different view point to you.

You have the right of free speech, but that does not entitle you to a radio station.

I completely disagree! But I guess that's why democracy and capitalism are a complete contradiction and simply don't work together.

That makes no sense and does not fit with the concept of what a right is nor the Constitution. You have the right to have free speech but you are not entitled have a radio station. You have to buy your own. Your right to free speech does not obligate your fellow citizens to listen to you--they have every right to ignore you. Your right of assembly does not invalidate the rights of your fellow citizens to travel freely.

You right to do anything does not entitle you to violate other people's rights. Not. One. Iota. Rights and liberties go both ways.

The reason given by the protestors for blocking the highway is because if they protested on the sidewalks, everybody would walk by and nobody would listen to them.

They unabashedly, like the "black brunch" protestors, state their goal is to forcibly disrupt other people's lives who have nothing to do with the events their protesting.

And that's the thing. Just because someone has the right of free speech does not obligate their fellow citizens to listen to them and forcing their message on their fellow citizens in these Brownshirt style tactics actually violates the free speech and assembly and travel rights of their fellow citizens.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: Jamie1

I sympathise with the protesters.

I take my hat off to them for doing something to change what they're not happy with, instead of complaining and going with the flow.

Yes, idiocy is given equal weight in today's environment.

Not happy?

Awesome.

It's somebody else's fault.

Whose?

Doesn't matter.

Just go out and force your will on random strangers trying to support their families take care of people in hospitals.

Not sure why you would support moronic behavior. Would you support them coming to your home and protesting you?

I would probably join them. I don't consider their actions as moronic, they drew public and media attention which was the whole point.

People like you resent anyone else from trying to do what they feel they need to do in an attempt to make things better for themselves and others in the same situation as them. But you don't like it nor care because it's inconvenient for you and you're alright Jack, aren't you?

Protesting where they are 'allowed' to protest just gets ignored by everyone too busy with their lives to care, and so nothing changes for them. Protesting where they are not allowed has got them attention from all those uninterested busy people and the media. If nothing else, they have succeeded in drawing attention to their protest which probably wouldn't have happened in an 'allowed' location, and others who were not previously aware of their grievance are now aware, but it took a brief inconvenience in busy lives to achieve this.

Tell me, if you and your community were living in a some situation that none of you are happy with and that nobody else gave a stuff about, and no-one listened, no matter how loud or how long you all protest in an 'allowed' location - would you all just accept your lot? Would you go back to continue what you're unhappy with? That would be what I'd see as 'moronic behaviour'. Or would your push your protest that little bit further in order to be heard like these people have?

If people weren't ignored in the first place they wouldn't feel they need to protest their grievances.

a reply to: doobydoll

'They drew the WRONG attension.


If your going to protest do where the people RESPONSIBLE are! Government building and police station.....


Its not rocket science.

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: Jamie1

I sympathise with the protesters.

I take my hat off to them for doing something to change what they're not happy with, instead of complaining and going with the flow.

Yes, idiocy is given equal weight in today's environment.

Not happy?

Awesome.

It's somebody else's fault.

Whose?

Doesn't matter.

Just go out and force your will on random strangers trying to support their families take care of people in hospitals.

Not sure why you would support moronic behavior. Would you support them coming to your home and protesting you?

I would probably join them. I don't consider their actions as moronic, they drew public and media attention which was the whole point.

People like you resent anyone else from trying to do what they feel they need to do in an attempt to make things better for themselves and others in the same situation as them. But you don't like it nor care because it's inconvenient for you and you're alright Jack, aren't you?

Protesting where they are 'allowed' to protest just gets ignored by everyone too busy with their lives to care, and so nothing changes for them. Protesting where they are not allowed has got them attention from all those uninterested busy people and the media. If nothing else, they have succeeded in drawing attention to their protest which probably wouldn't have happened in an 'allowed' location, and others who were not previously aware of their grievance are now aware, but it took a brief inconvenience in busy lives to achieve this.

Tell me, if you and your community were living in a some situation that none of you are happy with and that nobody else gave a stuff about, and no-one listened, no matter how loud or how long you all protest in an 'allowed' location - would you all just accept your lot? Would you go back to continue what you're unhappy with? That would be what I'd see as 'moronic behaviour'. Or would your push your protest that little bit further in order to be heard like these people have?

If people weren't ignored in the first place they wouldn't feel they need to protest their grievances.

So basically, if I feel my cause is important enough, I can disrupt your life and infringe upon your rights with impunity?

a reply to: doobydoll

well here's an idea. i proposed this in a different thread by jamie1, from yesterday. if we are concerned about the lack of positives or over abundance of negatives in an area or group in society, we should treat it like an equation we wish to balance.

in this case, the problem is certain parts of the country (inner cities) have accumulated alot of negatives and very few positives. this has spilled over into every aspect of their lives, including those that interact with them, either remotely or as a result of job activity (police, for example). the people who are impacted as a result of job activity have become enmeshed in the negative cycle, as well. and it's feedback looping on itself, each time getting worse as the negative events pile on top of one another.

the only way to resolve this is to balance the equation with the input of positives. since we know what many of the negatives are, the answer is not to blame anybody for the negatives nor to hold people hostage who had nothing to do with it, but rather to create the positives and input them into the equation.

so what are the positives? here i will quote sections of the idea for your perusal:::

wouldn't the powers that be crap their collective pants if we all just suddenly stood in solidarity with the inner city blacks, not on the subject of out of control cops as the sole objective for solutions (cause obviously there needs to be solutions for most social ills), but just because we care about them, as human beings and our fellow countrymen and women? they are being taught that their american compatriots hate them! this is simply not true. we should prove it isn't true, like in a massive way, in one big voice, to be heard around the world.

instead, everyone is going around being offended and not actual hearing the raw emotion and seriousness of the situation, that has inspired the problem. it's like a couple going thru a nasty divorce because they have never actually learned how to communicate effectively with each other. they are both hurt, that's all they know. but we can rise above that situation!

maybe we could get those anonymous guys to make a bunch of videos and spread them all over the world, expressing our love for the inner city poor and in particular the inner city blacks because they are being abused by the system that is currently abusing everybody (it's just harder on the desperately poor and those suffering from violence driven trauma (police in those areas have same problem - that's not an easy job to do, nor an easy place to live. in fact, the inner cities are not fit for human habitation of any kind. we treat people with a broken finger better, when mental and emotional trauma is many times worse (for everyone it effects).

most of that is the result of lack of understanding of brain injuries and mental /emotional trauma IS a brain injury. all the political stuff pales in comparison to the magnitude of human suffering already existing on the planet and threatening to spread like wild fire, everywhere.

i wish i knew more about how the system works with programs like go fund me or something to that effect. we need a neutral third party, and then both conservatives and democrats (and independents, communists, what have you) and people from around the world, could pitch in to the fund, to be used expressly for resolving the problems currently besetting the inner cities.

for example, it doesn't help to throw money at a problem, when there's not enough to actually fix the problem. it just takes the sting out, for a few moments, and then it's right back again. that's what you call a vicious cycle. and it doesn't help if all the people it is meant to benefit, don't know any other way to live. that's another vicious cycle. it needs to have a metric ton of attention and help. like a mammoth project, that out scopes anything we've witnessed in history. i dare say, many of those people would not know how to respond. many would just break down and cry, out of joy, anger, confusion. but it would be healing

mental health issues are not appropriately addressed in the medical community nor at the legal level, such as the prison system. violent criminals in prison should be in mental health facilities for treatment and healing, rather than the worst possible place to be put if you're mentally ill or have emotional trauma. we wouldn't do that to our worst enemies, much less our fellow citizens. how we have managed to go along with the idea that mentally ill and emotionally ill people should be in those hell holes called prison, is beyond me. that's just cruel and inhumane. we are better than that as a nation. remember? i do.

maybe the fire department could run the charitable fund? they don't arrest people or shoot/beat/abuse people or steal from them, or harrass them and they are from potentially every political party and nation in the world. and they are nice, heroic, even. the fire department seems like the most logical approach because fire depts are in every city, have their own fund raising events and therefore, have the infrastructure for something of this magnitude (locally, at least). they also have accounting depts that can keep track of things like donations and have government linkages for directing projects to the areas in question.

first thing i think they would need is vertical farms, where the people can go and get decent food. part of emotional well being is physical well being. that starts with decent food. maybe a "you pick it" set up, where they can go to the vertical farm, are issued a basket and then can pick the foods they need for feeding themselves or their families. maybe have one floor per crop type, and one basket for each floor.

then perhaps a medical clinic in each city, that specifically focuses on dealing with mental and emotional problems. have it be set up so that it represents the various ways a person can heal from trauma, such as mainstream approaches and alternative approaches. many alternative medicines/therapies, offer ways to help people become less addicted to hard core drugs or completely healed of addictions. if the drug lords are no longer interested in taking drugs, in lieu of their marketing choice (drug dealing), perhaps offer them the opportunity to open stores/shops which distribute the needed meds/alternative meds, to their communities. and then give their stores all the same benefits that the mega corps get, including tax shelters and other financial relief. and truthfully, they need to just legalize many drugs, as they are personal choices. that would cut down on the prison population by a large margin, allowing the injured (self-inflicted or not) to seek or receive, real help. prisons are not healing places - they are trauma factories.

p.s. and call it "the phoenix", with a fiery phoenix rising from the ashes (linking the fire dept idea to the healing of the people, resurrecting to renewed life and health).

whatdya think?

originally posted by: stirling
The simple truth is that evil triumphs when" good" men do nothing....
And Americans have sat on their hands so damnably long that they don't know what to do or who their friends really are any more....
Your love of money and worship of power has corrupted the very fabric of half the worlds societies....and all of your own...
When the virtually helpless fight back with something that delays annoys or disrupts your pursuit of the phoney values
and rewards the bosses hand out you get pissy.....

Then the moaning starts about how your suffering from such protests...(which are initiated on your behalf as well.....)
if protests continue to fail the oppressed............ then sooner or later ...it will be IEDs....

Which do you prefer?
Civil disobedience or IEDS?....a missed hour of work or bloody revolution?
The government is counting on all you selfish citizens...........without the likes of you this whole #mess could have been straightened out by now..........

You have it bang on the nail.

Too many people who live just for today and just for themselves, only their lives matter, they refuse to look further than the end of their beaks, and this blinkered 'i'm alright Jack so you better not rock my boat' way of life doesn't work in a society that needs some balance to function properly, or it all caves in eventually.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: doobydoll

'They drew the WRONG attension.


If your going to protest do where the people RESPONSIBLE are! Government building and police station.....


Its not rocket science.

How do you know they haven't already tried that but got repeatedly ignored by TPTB and the media?

You're only sitting up to notice this time because of where they protested.

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: stirling
The simple truth is that evil triumphs when" good" men do nothing....
And Americans have sat on their hands so damnably long that they don't know what to do or who their friends really are any more....
Your love of money and worship of power has corrupted the very fabric of half the worlds societies....and all of your own...
When the virtually helpless fight back with something that delays annoys or disrupts your pursuit of the phoney values
and rewards the bosses hand out you get pissy.....

Then the moaning starts about how your suffering from such protests...(which are initiated on your behalf as well.....)
if protests continue to fail the oppressed............ then sooner or later ...it will be IEDs....

Which do you prefer?
Civil disobedience or IEDS?....a missed hour of work or bloody revolution?
The government is counting on all you selfish citizens...........without the likes of you this whole #mess could have been straightened out by now..........

You have it bang on the nail.

Too many people who live just for today and just for themselves, only their lives matter, they refuse to look further than the end of their beaks, and this blinkered 'i'm alright Jack so you better not rock my boat' way of life doesn't work in a society that needs some balance to function properly, or it all caves in eventually.

So give into demands or face IED's. Hmm. Sounds like extortion to me. More Brownshirt tactics.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes that's all well and very interesting. But it doesn't change the fact the American public have also been given fundamental rights by the founding fathers in the constitution that the modern day government are in direct violation of. Well the american public just sit by and let it happen, just as long as there still allowed to keep high powered semi automatic weapons under there beds.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public

Source

Just remember,

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

The 1st amendment gives the American citizen the right to peacefully assemble anywhere they please to protest against the government.

You are wrong about the "anywhere you please bit." The Constitution does not say that. One cannot "peacefully assemble" on private property without permission, for example, because the citizen who owns that property has rights too.

Well yeah, I should have probably specified I meant anywhere on public property. Obviously protesting on private property violates the right of the owner.

But holding up a freeway for a few hours does not violate anyone's right to travel. Since there not actually stopping them, there simply creating an extra obstacle. I doubt anyone could seriously argue that roadworks or a car accident violates your rights.

Anyway, isn't civil disobedience the whole point of protesting? People can be hostile about it and say they should just protest somewhere the government gives them permission to, in a place they won't bother anyone (like the compliant little pawns they should be). But you can't really deny the fact that it defeats the whole purpose and has no impact on government policy.

You'd probably need a crowd of protesters 100 thousand strong in several cities, to even get the federal governments attention. Or a few thousand people can just kick up a storm and get the governments full attention that way.

Like in Ferguson, they got world wide news coverage resulting in there perceived issues being discussed and debated for weeks by millions of people. Yet if the community of Ferguson had of just marched down the main street a few time after getting all the necessary permits, then it would have probably been lucky to get 15 seconds air time on the local news.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease I guess.

would you people quit making this a them vs us thing? it's not that. the problem is not that. that they are being manipulated while in a tender and vulnerable state, is obvious. that attention must be focused on a result, instead of a cause, is delaying the cure.

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: doobydoll

'They drew the WRONG attension.


If your going to protest do where the people RESPONSIBLE are! Government building and police station.....


Its not rocket science.

How do you know they haven't already tried that but got repeatedly ignored by TPTB and the media?

You're only sitting up to notice this time because of where they protested.

No, they didn't protest. They forcibly obstructed people from going to work.

Freedom of speech doesn't you can force people to listen to whatever idiotic message you want to scream in their faces, or that you can hurt them in their "wallet" just because you want to.

They're not protestors, they're terrorists. Denying people their rights to protest people denied their rights is moronic.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes that's all well and very interesting. But it doesn't change the fact the American public have also been given fundamental rights by the founding fathers in the constitution that the modern day government are in direct violation of. Well the american public just sit by and let it happen, just as long as there still allowed to keep high powered semi automatic weapons under there beds.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public

Source

Just remember,

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

The 1st amendment gives the American citizen the right to peacefully assemble anywhere they please to protest against the government.

You are wrong about the "anywhere you please bit." The Constitution does not say that. One cannot "peacefully assemble" on private property without permission, for example, because the citizen who owns that property has rights too.

Well yeah, I should have probably specified I meant anywhere on public property. Obviously protesting on private property violates the right of the owner.

But holding up a freeway for a few hours does not violate anyone's right to travel. Since there not actually stopping them, there simply creating an extra obstacle. I doubt anyone could seriously argue that roadworks or a car accident violates your rights.

Anyway, isn't civil disobedience the whole point of protesting? People can be hostile about it and say they should just protest somewhere the government gives them permission to, in a place they won't bother anyone (like the compliant little pawns they should be). But you can't really deny the fact that it defeats the whole purpose and has no impact on government policy.

You'd probably need a crowd of protesters 100 thousand strong in several cities, to even get the federal governments attention. Or a few thousand people can just kick up a storm and get the governments full attention that way.

Like in Ferguson, they got world wide news coverage resulting in there perceived issues being discussed and debated for weeks by millions of people. Yet if the community of Ferguson had of just marched down the main street a few time after getting all the necessary permits, then it would have probably been lucky to get 15 seconds air time on the local news.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease I guess.

If those "squeaky wheel" punks try to physically stop me and hurt me in my "wallet" they will get more than grease.

Are you from the U.S.? Did you research the 1st Amendment.

No, it's not your God given right to stop traffic and take over public streets just because you think it's a good idea.

Nor is it a good idea. Did you watch the video? All these little self-entitled punks did was piss everybody off.

a reply to: Jamie1

so that any possible REAL solution can be replaced with an even more violent "revolution"? doh, i mean DOH!
this is perhaps the most frustrating thing of all: knowing the answers are available but neither side wanting to acknowledge them as solutions because they actually WANT the problem to continue to it's boiling point.

what do you do when a person comes to you with a problem but doesn't actually want you to offer solutions? it's mind boggling to watch this thread.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: Jamie1

I sympathise with the protesters.

I take my hat off to them for doing something to change what they're not happy with, instead of complaining and going with the flow.

Yes, idiocy is given equal weight in today's environment.


Not happy?

Awesome.

It's somebody else's fault.

Whose?

Doesn't matter.

Just go out and force your will on random strangers trying to support their families take care of people in hospitals.

Not sure why you would support moronic behavior. Would you support them coming to your home and protesting you?

I would probably join them. I don't consider their actions as moronic, they drew public and media attention which was the whole point.

People like you resent anyone else from trying to do what they feel they need to do in an attempt to make things better for themselves and others in the same situation as them. But you don't like it nor care because it's inconvenient for you and you're alright Jack, aren't you?

Protesting where they are 'allowed' to protest just gets ignored by everyone too busy with their lives to care, and so nothing changes for them. Protesting where they are not allowed has got them attention from all those uninterested busy people and the media. If nothing else, they have succeeded in drawing attention to their protest which probably wouldn't have happened in an 'allowed' location, and others who were not previously aware of their grievance are now aware, but it took a brief inconvenience in busy lives to achieve this.

Tell me, if you and your community were living in a some situation that none of you are happy with and that nobody else gave a stuff about, and no-one listened, no matter how loud or how long you all protest in an 'allowed' location - would you all just accept your lot? Would you go back to continue what you're unhappy with? That would be what I'd see as 'moronic behaviour'. Or would your push your protest that little bit further in order to be heard like these people have?

If people weren't ignored in the first place they wouldn't feel they need to protest their grievances.

So basically, if I feel my cause is important enough, I can disrupt your life and infringe upon your rights with impunity?

Good grief, exaggerating much?

They didn't disrupt anyone's 'life', they haven't physically hurt anyone, all they did is cause a mere inconvenience for around an hour. Big deal.

And anyway, why should they listen to you when no-one will listen to them? Why do you expect them consider your life and work to be more important than theirs?

a reply to: doobydoll

well since you didn't respond at all, to my lenghty post on the subject, i'm safe to assume you want this problem to escalate, not be resolved. you, sir puppy, are the epitome of everything that is wrong with this situation!

originally posted by: undo
would you people quit making this a them vs us thing? it's not that. the problem is not that. that they are being manipulated while in a tender and vulnerable state, is obvious. that attention must be focused on a result, instead of a cause, is delaying the cure.

Yes, you're right. The attention must be focused on the result.

The problem is there is no alignment. The college kids protesting don't even know the result they want. They are not inner city kids. They're self-indulged college kids who never had a job trying to hurt the "wallets" of those who do have a job trying to get to work.

Tyree Landrum gave the punk leader the equivalent of his first spanking that he probably never got when he threw temper tantrums as a 4-year old.

Heck, the reason they're protesting is because the GJ didn't give them the result they wanted in the Brown case. They don't want justice. They want everybody else, including the grand juries, to do what they think they should do. They are self-centered, self-indulged narcissists, not protestors.

How else do you describe intentionally trying to hurt other people in their "wallets?"

They are the ones trying to manipulate the masses, and obviously it didn't work.

These are not the inner city kids you're looking to help with your project. These are privileged college kids who think their entitled to stop people from going to work.

Big difference.