Bush Step Down- Massive Protests Jan.31 and Feb.4th

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Bush Seeks to Squelch Protest

The previously-approved protest zone for the "Bush Step Down" Protest in Washington has been engulfed by the 'secutrity zone' around the White house, pushing the protesters further away from the president. In addition, conveniently, the grassy areas just happened to be closed for turf repairs that weekend...



The Bush administration has expanded the special security zone around the Capitol, effectively denying a meaningful public space for a protest called by World Can’t Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime during the State of the Union address on January 31, 2006.
...
At a meeting on January 10 with the National Park Service Police, Capitol Police, and National Parks Department, the World Can’t Wait was offered the area surrounding the Capitol Reflecting Pool for the January 31st gathering. This was accepted by World Can’t Wait. However, on January 19, the organization received word that this area had been reclassified as part of a “secure perimeter” for that day.

In addition, the grass areas of the National Mall have been closed for “turf renovation” up to 7th Street.


This is but one thing that's very wrong with this presidency. They separate themselves from the voice of the people and do what's on their agenda, instead. They don't care what the people say. Unless of course, you agree with them. Then they still don't care, but they make a show of it.




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I dislike this administration as much as most, but I refuse to believe that W has even a slight chance at another term. He was hardly re-elected, and thats only if you look past the counting shenanigans. His approval rating is at a low. Its only a matter of the waiting game now. He still has too many supporters to remove him, so we gotta wait till 08.
The real question is whether or not we are gonna see a regime change then, or if the right can fool the masses into a vote for the Christian Conservative Terrorist party again under the guise of protecting our blessed moral issues (i.e. abortion rights, gay marriage, etc...).
PR groups, and the media have toned down protests to the point that they are merely scenery; Nothing to be taken seriously. We could march a million, and I doubt CNN or Fox would mention more than a couple lines about it at 1:00 in the afternoon.
Our democracy has been highjacked by the very people sworn to protect us, and now they have people flying planes into our buildings, and calling for our destruction. The only thing we can do is show the world that this Gov't no longer speaks for us, and that we are doing all we can to make it right. On a long enough time line, if we dont stick up for ourselves, another country will topple this beast for us.
Fix America, before we make irrepairable damage to our global character and someone tries to do it for us.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Please OBL find out where these morons will be protesting and show them how radical Islam deals with protest. Please.

The wacked left will get all of america killed. And they are just too "stupid" to realize it.

Personally I can't stand Bush...he's too darn liberal.

Marg, I wish Nixon was in the Whitehouse...I'd still be 20 something.......


ROFL You still believe that stuff!?

The true enemy of freedom are Bush and his ilk. The Muslims were framed!

And I'm a conservative.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Why is it necessary to be in the president's face when you protest? If the issue is the right to congregate, then there's no issue. We are allowed to congregate. And we have free speech.

Our rights are not enjoyed without responsibility. They are not unlimited; i.e., yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why is it necessary to be in the president's face when you protest? If the issue is the right to congregate, then there's no issue. We are allowed to congregate. And we have free speech.


Well, the whole purpose of protesting is to get the presedent's and the press's attention - to say that they disagree with how things are being done. If they're going to protest out in the boonies, they might as well just stay in their living rooms holding up their signs, huh?

It's necessary to address and request from the government a remedy of their grievances. Dat's what it's all about.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, the whole purpose of protesting is to get the presedent's and the press's attention - to say that they disagree with how things are being done. If they're going to protest out in the boonies, they might as well just stay in their living rooms holding up their signs, huh?

It's necessary to address and request from the government a remedy of their grievances. Dat's what it's all about.

The purpose of a protest is to show your disagreement or opposition to a policy or course of action. You congregate with others of like mind to show solidarity for your cause.

If your cause is deemed newsworthy, the press will be there regardless of whether the president is in the vicinity.

Lots of times, there are only a handful of protestors that understand the issue that is being protested. The rest are people with nothing else to do, and, unfortunately, there's usually a group who are just looking to start a ruckus where property is damaged, people are hurt, and the admin is blamed for it.

Unfortunately, many people want to get close to the president so that they can cause physical harm to his vehicle, or to him. Ask them what they're protesting, and most of them haven't got a clue.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The purpose of a protest is to show your disagreement or opposition to a policy or course of action. You congregate with others of like mind to show solidarity for your cause.


Like here on ATS? I get together with people of like mind and show solidarity. Are we protesting? Sure, in a sense. I can protest verbally or with a magazine article or by writing and singing a song.

The most direct and effective means of protest, though, is to directly approach the percieved cause of the issue being protested.

In a group of protesters, if you asked their purpose, no doubt you'd get several different answers, but it's not just to show solidarity. More often, it's to effect change.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The most direct and effective means of protest, though, is to directly approach the percieved cause of the issue being protested.

And just what issue is being protested on January 31st? How many people do you think will be attracted to join a group that waves posters like that? The protest scheduled for Feb. 4 is just as silly.

There must be a reason why there isn't more press coverage of these protests, right? Maybe it's because the majority of people wouldn't want to be associated with such looneyness.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And just what issue is being protested on January 31st?


I'm sure you know the answer to your questions. I'm not sure why you ask.

It seems you just want to complain about the protesting for no good or solid reason, but for any reason you can find. Every time I answer a question, you complain about something else.

In this country, we have the right to protest, whether you agree with the protest or not. As I see it you can keep complaining or you can get over it. Your choice. But I'm done defending the rights of the people to you.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In a group of protesters, if you asked their purpose, no doubt you'd get several different answers, but it's not just to show solidarity. More often, it's to effect change.

Having been to anti-war protests during the 1969-71 time period, I'd have to tell you sure we didn't like the war.
But, for the most part, it was an excuse to skip class, enjoy the sun on a spring day, throw frisbees, listen to the band, or drive over from the community college to the bigger university protest. I can't say most of the people I saw were serious about efffecting change.

Not particularly proud of my motives, but how many people in that age group are zealots???



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Not particularly proud of my motives, but how many people in that age group are zealots???


What age group? My 75-year-old mother-in-law attends the local protests. Most of the protesters are 35-ish to 50-ish. They ain't throwin frisbees or cutting class...

There is no particular age group that is protesting this war. In fact, many are parents of soldiers.

This ain't the 60s and this ain't Vietnam.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
The vietnam anti-war protests I attended were college age kids.
They were on campus.

I would think that older protesters would be more serious about their motives. At least that is my hope.
I know times have changed. I admit I cannot understand a parent attending such a rally, when their child is off fighting that very war.
I merely wanted to point out that there can be many motives for attending an anti-war rally.



[edit on 27-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I would think that older protesters would be more serious about their motives. At least that is my hope.


Yes, I hope so, too. I don't support the idea of protesting just to protest. And normally I'm against activism, but when people are getting killed, I can easily become an activist myself.




I admit I cannot understand a parent attending such a rally, when their child is off fighting that very war.


I hear that a lot and frankly, I don't see why not. I mean the parent and the child are 2 different people, with different ideas of right and wrong. And in some cases, the child doesn't even support the war, and would protest if they could. In some cases, the parents are saying "I want my child home." I can certainly understand that.



I merely wanted to point out that there can be many motives for attending an anti-war rally.


Yes, it's true. I said this earlier:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In a group of protesters, if you asked their purpose, no doubt you'd get several different answers...



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

There must be a reason why there isn't more press coverage of these protests, right? Maybe it's because the majority of people wouldn't want to be associated with such looneyness.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by jsobecky]


Because the media is the mouthpiece of the government. Freedom of the press is all but gone nowadays.

They'll just put people into free speech zones, which is unconstitutional.

I remember watching the inauguration last year--Bush's car picked up speed when they went by protesters.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


It seems you just want to complain about the protesting for no good or solid reason, but for any reason you can find. Every time I answer a question, you complain about something else.

In this country, we have the right to protest, whether you agree with the protest or not. As I see it you can keep complaining or you can get over it. Your choice. But I'm done defending the rights of the people to you.

You're a bit presumptuous, "defending the rights of the people ". I'm not paying particular attention to your posts, either; you're not that important to me.

I ask questions that you don't like to hear asked, that's your problem and your issue. I defend our rights as strongly as anyone. If you don't like it, file a gripe.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Having been to anti-war protests during the 1969-71 time period, I'd have to tell you sure we didn't like the war.
But, for the most part, it was an excuse to skip class, enjoy the sun on a spring day, throw frisbees, listen to the band, or drive over from the community college to the bigger university protest. I can't say most of the people I saw were serious about efffecting change.

Not particularly proud of my motives, but how many people in that age group are zealots???

I was in the same age group and category. It was - I hesitate to say this - almost fun to be part of the protestors. And for the most part, the cops just hung on the outer fringes, watching, unless things got out of hand.

My attitude changed a whole lot the night a bunch of rowdies starting destroying things, smashing glass and setting the cars and shops on fire. I got my first taste of tear gas that night, and didn't care for the taste.

The first time I saw a kid taunting a military guy that had come onto campus to meet his girlfriend, changed my mind forever. When he spit at the soldier, I almost decked him, but the soldier held me back.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
All of you Bush supporters are showing me why protests have fallen by the wayside. They are a joke. We see an organized mass of people calling for policy change and we perceive a bunch of crybaby liberals marching signs around. Sad but true. I dont protest because it has become very clear that our voices dont matter much, whether right or left. We are at this monsters will, and protests arent changing a thing.
We can only cling to the hope of our protests recruiting new "crybaby liberals" to our cause...nothing more. But what is our cause? To march around bitching about policy? Is this truely making America a better place? The hopelessness is only getting more prevalent in our politics.

I am reminded of a snippit of wisdom from one of the more forgotten civil rights leaders: "Our government has failed us." and the even more popular, "Its got to be the ballot or the bullet." Our votes, or marches, our gripes dont mean JACK. What are we left to do?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
"I guess my parents were criminals too because they opposed the war after my father lost his brother. "

Since when is opposing an unjust war illegal? I'm quite sure that if you lost your brother you would not be so cavalier about war.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by polanksi]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
"I guess my parents were criminals too because they opposed the war after my father lost his brother. "

Since when is opposing an unjust war illegal? I'm quite sure that if you lost your brother you would not be so cavalier about war.
---- Polanksi

I think you missed her point. Marge was being sarcastic, and if English is not your first language, i can see how you missed that. She does not think or believe that her parents were criminals when they were opposing an unjust war, but rather, she thinks that others would believe so.

For example: her parents lost a child in that war (presumably her brother), and then they began protesting against it. From some peoples perspective, her parents could be just behaving like "liberal cry-babies", or unpatriotic people, or even criminals for doing so. Marge feels otherwise. You feel otherwise. I feel otherwise. I suspect that most of humanity would feel otherwise.

However, there were some people who acted poorly in these demonstrations. Some of these demonstrators even spit on or at the soldiers who dutifully carried out orders from thier superiors, as Jsobecky powerfully reminds us. But, some of the people who behaved poorly were police officers (i.e. chicago) acting against the demonstrators. [here ends my explanation of Marge's comment, and begins a comment of my own, and begins my indirect respnce to several more recent posts.]

The same could be said of many demonstrators vs. police or national guard, etc... and these days, things are a little different, but largely the same.

-People now and again behave irrationally; and especially do so during heated or intense moments of cultural and political unrest. Those who do so are present on both sides of any debate (usually).-

Consider the people who marched and demonstrated for civil rights, and those other people who so disliked the concept of such an action so much that they beat some protestors, poured feces and urine on them from a balcony, or screamed and counter-protested as loudly as they could to drown out the protest itself. There were extremists on both sides engaged in irrational behaviour, though in this case it was clear who was more extreme in employing violent or threataning behaviour. Given the lynchings, police violence in the southern states and more... the nation should be embarrassed about treating the civil protestors so poorly.

Consider, next, the anti-war protests of the era (regarding the VietNam "military conflict". Here, you see violence or threatend violence and lots of simian chest-banging on both sides. you can witness even more naive, cultur al or counter-cultural "protest" from both sides, of the likes of which DontTreadOnMe was quite eloquent. The actuall violence on both sides, should again, not be discounted. Both sides have plenty to be embarrassed about... but again, the protestors would see vindication in the eyes of history. We did remove our military from that nation, and most people think we should have done so earlier. Hence the percent of the population willing to protest either in person, or in abstentia by voting.

Consider, finally, the current protests against a war and the president/administration in general. No violence from protestors is threatend, and yet lots of actions being taken to lessen the ability of protestors voices to be heard... re-drawing of valid protest lines, etc... Quite an assymetrical responce.

Even above this, you'll find that lots of people who feel a kindred spirit in the "right wing" defending the policies of the administration by insulting others in the media and on this forum. They use such grade school tactics as name calling, ad hominem, and band-wagon appeals to quell debate. Pathetic tactics, really, but sufficiently effective since most people will avoid a fight simply to save thier milk money (to continue the grade school analogy), and the bully gets the bragging rights.





[edit on 30-1-2006 by TheeStateMachine]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   


They'll just put people into free speech zones, which is unconstitutional.


This is bunk and it's the main problem I have with protestors in this day and age. Your right to free speech has not been taken away. It seems that today's protestors seem to think that the right to free speech is solely their right to yell over those trying to speak with opposing opinions. This violates the free speech rights of the speaker and my right to hear what they have to say. The recent events concerining Ann Coulter are a prime example of this
www.breitbart.com...

I've already seen reports of protest groups calling for large groups of people to yell so that the President's speech can't be heard. Any people who do such a thing should be put in jail. If you disagree with the President, good for you. If you disagree with the President and feel the need to prevent him from talking, then you deserve what you get...which I hope is some intimate time with Bubba.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join