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

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle


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. [*1*]

The recent events concerining Ann Coulter are a prime example of this
www.breitbart.com... [*2*]

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. [*3*]

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 [*4*]...which I hope is some intimate time with Bubba.



Regarding [*1*] Your "right to hear" someone speak is trumped by someone else's right to speak freely. If some controversial figure, wether over-rated like Coulter or not, has thier p.a. amplified speech interrupted, thier right to speech is not being violated. Perhaps the collected group would rather hear one person or another speak, but that is up to them. Perhaps, even, the police would decide that a person interrupting the speaker is creating a public disturbance... though in reallity, it may be the paid speaker doing so... Ideally, this decision is not up to the government, and we should hope that they stay out of that debate for as long as possible. What is more, your own "right to hear someone else's free speech" begs the very question of having a "meaningfull" right of protest. Certainly, this is not something you have argued for, but against.


Regarding [*2*], there was no "free" speech going on. She was a highly paid speaker, and no one removed her ability to speak. Indeed, she could have been asked by the people paying her to stop speaking into the mic, and leave. But they did not. She was boo'ed while at a highly amplified microphone, like so many bar cover bands are every night. Perhaps some dozens or hundreds of people o'erpowerred her amplified voice, but in no way was her right to free speech stopped by anyone but her.

Regarding [*3*]... they should be put into jail for... what? speaking loudly? this would seem to counter what you are trying to defend... speech! Now threatening violence, actually engaging in state sanctioned (or not) violence, and other acts can actually encroach on free speech... but that did *not* occur in this incident. not in the least.

Regarding [*4*] and who here is threatening to prevent the PotUS from speaking? As far as i can tell, you were the first to dream this one up, Blue Triangle. You're not threatening PotUs, are you? I would certainly hope not. No one else here has... but perhaps you mean that protestors should not be allowed within microphone ear-shot of the president, or to shout loudly when He is near? or speak thier mind? or speak so loudly that he can be heard whenever he wants, without fear of dissent? If so, i think you are invoking your strange "right of one person's speech being heard" again, and adding to it a right of "no one else but the speaker during his speech" clause. No such right.


Though, perhaps, you are trying to refer to the right of *meaningful* protest. that is something different entirely.

And finally, i find it ridiculous that you are citing people speaking or shouting or even booing during a Coulter speech as an example of Free Speech being interrupted. Consider, instead, when Martin Luther King was shot during one of his Free Speeches. When the people gatherred to hear him underwent all sorts of humiliation, intimidation and worse. And King himself was killed.

That's a risk of free speech.

I doubt Coulter has anything nearly so signifigant to say, or that she has endured any hardships whatsoever in her saying it. Prove me wrong.








[edit on 31-1-2006 by TheeStateMachine]




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheeStateMachine
Regarding [*1*] Your "right to hear" someone speak is trumped by someone else's right to speak freely. If some controversial figure, wether over-rated like Coulter or not, has thier p.a. amplified speech interrupted, thier right to speech is not being violated. Perhaps the collected group would rather hear one person or another speak, but that is up to them. Perhaps, even, the police would decide that a person interrupting the speaker is creating a public disturbance... though in reallity, it may be the paid speaker doing so... Ideally, this decision is not up to the government, and we should hope that they stay out of that debate for as long as possible. What is more, your own "right to hear someone else's free speech" begs the very question of having a "meaningfull" right of protest. Certainly, this is not something you have argued for, but against.


Look, I'm not a lawyer and I'm guessing you're not either. But, I can tell you for a fact that law scholars and federal judgments disagree with you on this one. I'll quote an ACLU lawyer (I despise the ACLU, but obviously their knowledge of the law is greater than mine) for you:
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DEFENSE OF THE UNPOPULAR

And so it should be, for a people cannot be free unless they are able to express themselves freely, to associate freely, to petition the government freely, and to pray freely—or to be free not to pray at all. The First Amendment establishes the essential condition for a democratic society. That is, a free marketplace of ideas to which everyone contributes and from which everyone draws information and inspiration.

In this sense, the free speech guarantee encompasses two rights—first, the right to speak; and second, the right to listen. Usually when we discuss the merits of free speech we are referring to the speaker’s right to express his or her views without fear of prosecution or censorship. But consider the fact that there is also a “listener’s right.” That is, the right each of us has to hear different ideas and opinions, including and especially those with which we might disagree.

The listener’s right to hear is an essential component of free speech. After all, the exercise of free speech requires an audience—one that attends freely and listens freely. Moreover, by exercising our right to listen, we are strengthening the foundation on which other democratic values rest. This is especially the case when we listen to views that are opposed to our own. For it is exactly in such instances that we learn the value of tolerance that is the real and most critical lesson of the First Amendment.




Regarding [*2*], there was no "free" speech going on. She was a highly paid speaker, and no one removed her ability to speak. Indeed, she could have been asked by the people paying her to stop speaking into the mic, and leave. But they did not. She was boo'ed while at a highly amplified microphone, like so many bar cover bands are every night. Perhaps some dozens or hundreds of people o'erpowerred her amplified voice, but in no way was her right to free speech stopped by anyone but her.


You may have a point that her "free speech" rights didn't apply because she was a paid speaker, but again I'm no lawyer. My point, however, is that today's protesters seem to think that yelling over the opposing viewpoint is the right way to go and it's not. This was an example of this in action.


Regarding [*3*]... they should be put into jail for... what? speaking loudly? this would seem to counter what you are trying to defend... speech! Now threatening violence, actually engaging in state sanctioned (or not) violence, and other acts can actually encroach on free speech... but that did *not* occur in this incident. not in the least.


They should be put into jail for disrupting the event. They knew beforehand who the speaker was going to be. They knew beforehand that they would not like what she had to say. They chose to attend the event anyways and the thousands of people who attended to hear what she had to say didn't get to hear. Frankly, I'm shocked anybody would approve of this type of activity. This is no different than the kid in kindergarden that puts his fingers in his ears and yells "lalalalalalala" when the teachers yells at him. In this case, however, the kid is putting his finger in everybody's ears.


Regarding [*4*] and who here is threatening to prevent the PotUS from speaking? As far as i can tell, you were the first to dream this one up, Blue Triangle. You're not threatening PotUs, are you? I would certainly hope not. No one else here has... but perhaps you mean that protestors should not be allowed within microphone ear-shot of the president, or to shout loudly when He is near? or speak thier mind? or speak so loudly that he can be heard whenever he wants, without fear of dissent? If so, i think you are invoking your strange "right of one person's speech being heard" again, and adding to it a right of "no one else but the speaker during his speech" clause. No such right.


Are you being serious here? This is a joke right? I mean, I've heard of twisting somebody's words around, but this is ridiculous. My point, as it was clearly stated above, is that for protesters to attempt to drown out the President so those who wish to hear cannot is not free speech. It violates the President's right to speak and my right to hear, YES, my right to hear. Read the link above. disagree if you want to, but my "strange" interpretation of the first amendment is shared by legal scholars and judges.
As for my argument on this topic, simply read the first post in this thread.

At 9:00 PM EST, just as Bush starts to speak, everywhere we will BRING THE NOISE. In a cacophony of sound, we will drown out his address with music: from drums to violins, from hip hop and classical; and with noise: banging pots and ringing church bells, sound car horns and lifting our voices.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This has nothing to do with Bush speaking without fear of dissent. It has everything to do with protesters preventing an opposing viewpoint from being heard. If this goes off as planned (I doubt this will happen, but we'll see) it definitely threatens the President's speech as nobody will hear it over the car horns and screaming idiots.


And finally, i find it ridiculous that you are citing people speaking or shouting or even booing during a Coulter speech as an example of Free Speech being interrupted. Consider, instead, when Martin Luther King was shot during one of his Free Speeches. When the people gatherred to hear him underwent all sorts of humiliation, intimidation and worse. And King himself was killed.


It was a travesty, I agree 100%. But, I fail to see how this is relevant. There are no degrees of free speech written into the Constitution to the best of my knowledge. Does free speech only apply to those that are under persecution? or those who risk punishment by doing so?


Coulter has anything nearly so signifigant to say, or that she has endured any hardships whatsoever in her saying it. Prove me wrong.


Again, irrelevant. Hardships and content don't matter. Heck, even the KKK has free speech rights in this country. They appeared on the courtsteps 20 miles from my house a few years ago. In my opinion, their content isn't worth vocalizing, but it's still their right.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
So, January 31, 2006 was uneventful except for the impressive SOTU speech that the president gave. I stepped outside but didn't hear any churchbells or wooden spoons bangin' on pot bottoms. I did hear a dog barking, tho.


Anybody else witness any of the planned protests?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, January 31, 2006 was uneventful except for the impressive SOTU speech that the president gave. I stepped outside but didn't hear any churchbells or wooden spoons bangin' on pot bottoms. I did hear a dog barking, tho.


Anybody else witness any of the planned protests?


I think somebody must've gotten to my 4yr old son, he was running around the room "hootin' and hollerin'" during the speech. I kept having to shoosh him. Other than that...nothing.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
January 31 = *crickets chirping*.
On to February 4th.
My prediction .... more *crickets chirping*

This was all just wishful thinking by some on
the radical left - as we thought.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
For the most part all I see around here is People crying and bitching about how things are. Other then that........ when "The Dog" is out walking you all just run inside and hide!

What bugs Me is, Who is going to running the show next 4 years!
And are the Votes going to count for REAL!

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Mr101Hazardous]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
If by "crickets chirping" you mean complete disregard by all media...thats right! There was a pretty big gathering. Like I said before, our voices mean zilch.

Ballot or the Bullet



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Where was the gathering? Were you there?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Hell no I wasnt there. I was home reading books polishing guns. I think protesting is a waste. Havent you been hearing me? I definately side with most crybaby liberal protesters, I just think protesting is pretty much a waste of time, unless you are aspiring to be the next Cindy Sheehan.
I dont recall the actual #'s, but I have some good friends that go to that stuff religously. Gimme a day if you need and I can even get some pics of the crowds. There was a huge one in Sep. I forget the date exactly, but the turnout was good I guess.

But, like you said...crickets chirping...but hey, they make a new pill for acid reflux, and a headache medicine you apply directly to the forehead, and a one application hemroidal cream. Just watch that little box and ignore the world unraveling...



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
If by "crickets chirping" you mean complete disregard by all media.

*Crickets Chirping* ... dead silence except for the crickets.
No people .. no media... nothing.

There was a pretty big gathering.


That's interesting. How 'big'? Got any figures or pictures?
Even better - something that shows it was taken
just a few days ago on January 1st. (hard to get, I know)

Those are honest non-agenda requests ...
nothing snide insinuated. I'm curious.

The topic of this thread was 'MASSIVE' protests that
would oust G.W. From this vantage it doesn't look
like that happened.


[edit on 2/2/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
1/31 Mrs King Dies
1/31 3 day DoD nucular exercizes
2/1 3rd Anniversary of Columbia Accident
2/3 16 provisions of the Pat act are to expire.



Kinda eventful IMO



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Those are honest non-agenda requests ...
nothing snide insinuated. I'm curious.


Somehow I find that a little hard to believe. If you were curious, you could certainly find out about it, but I'll oblige.

Google Search

There's lots of information, links and pictures on this page.

Jan 31 Protests



In demonstrations in at least 68 cities across the country Tuesday night, thousands of people answered President Bush’s State of the Union address with a sharp message: the State of Union is a State of Emergency. In protests organized by the World Can’t Wait—Drive Out the Bush Regime movement, people declared that they are going to bring the demand: Bush Step Down to Washington DC this coming Saturday, February 4.






[edit on 2-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Ballot or the Bullet


bullet, democracy has just become another show on tv. I find it hard to believe that ballots influence what happens anymore.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Those protests did not seem that "massive" at all. I live in the biggest and most liberal state in Vermont. I heard of no protests, or any noise during the State of the Union.

Maybe if the protesters watched the President speak the could have learned something. But I guess they just like to play outside...

-- Boat



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
I live in the biggest and most liberal state in Vermont.


There are states in Vermont?

Perhaps your town/city didn't have a protest. Doesn't mean it didn't happen around the rest of the country. It's a big place, you know.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
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 don't protest because it has become very clear that our voices don't matter much, whether right or left. We are at this monsters will, and protests aren't changing a thing......


Sorry you feel that way. You can protest all you want, however if your organized mass of people number less that a few thousand in a city of millions, then you rank right up there with a very small sporting event.

Maybe you are not as much of a "true majority" as some claim. I mean even mainstream Democrats steer away from the platform these protesters proclaim. Take a hard look at all (not some) of the organizers of many of these protests and you will see why they fail to catch on with people.

How do you expect to change policy when you start from a point of view that does not seem to have a real solution to any problem vis a vis the war in Iraq and WOT? It is easy to point out shortcomings and mistakes, much harder to point them out and have solutions. Becoming a turtle or an Ostrich in today's interconnected world is just not an option.

Also on a side note: The hyperbole that these protesters use frankly turns off much of older America, who expect a more civil dialogue than call people "monsters", "dictators", "Nazis" ect all the time. As they say, to belittle is to Be Little.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic





That's actually kind of sad, it looks from the picture like maybe a thousand people showed up in New York City, population 8,000,000. Quotes on the website say the number was 1,500 - 3,000, but groups like this tend to inflate counts. It's kind of hard to tell from the picture exactly how many people, but since this is a picture posted on the website that organized it, I'm betting that the picture was taken with the intention of making the crowd look larger than it was. So, it was likely only half that number, but we'll assume the number 3,000 just to make a point. Assuming 3,000 people showed up, that amounts to a staggering .0375% of NYC citizens. To put that into perspective, in my home town (population 14,626) that would be the equivalent of 5 people standing on a corner waving signs. What makes it even more sad is that 87% of registered voters in NYC are democrats, rock solid proof that even the liberals think this group is wacko.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
What makes it even more sad is that 87% of registered voters in NYC are democrats, rock solid proof that even the liberals think this group is wacko.


This is no 'proof' whatsoever, much less 'rock solid proof' of anything of the sort. Unless you interviewed the liberals in NYC who didn't attend, or at least a group of them, you have no idea their reasons for not attending. You're assuming that all of them have the same reason and that that reason is they think these protesters are 'wacko'. You're making a huge assumption, applying it to all the 'liberals' in NYC and calling it "rock solid proof".

You're certainly free to have and voice your opinion, as I am free to point out the huge holes in your logic.

No one is claiming an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers protested or anything of the sort. They're just presenting the pictures of the event. The numbers are what they are. No one claims that all 'liberals' protested or a majority protested or anything like that. It's just what it is.

Argue what it means if you like, but your logic leaves a lot to be desired in this case.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Those are honest non-agenda requests ...
nothing snide insinuated. I'm curious.

Somehow I find that a little hard to believe. If you were curious,
you could certainly find out about it, but I'll oblige.

Now BH ... try to be nice! I am not a liar.


I DID look on the internet, however I found nothing of
significance, and further it seemed like people here
might have been at this protest personally and would
have personal info ... figures ... pictures ...


In demonstrations in at least 68 cities across
the country Tuesday night, thousands of people


Thank you for the link and photos. I appreciate the effort.
This says 68 cities. 'Thousands' of people. How many 'thousands'?
Does anyone have a real figure? For example .. if 6,000 people
showed up in total then it is nothing more than 100 or so people
in each of the 68 cities. Not exactly 'massive'.

See what I'm looking for? How many?
(BlueTriangle said it better than I am. )

[edit on 2/3/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Now BH ... try to be nice! I am not a liar.


Oh, all right, all right.
I don't mean you're a liar, I mean it's a little unusual for you to 'just be curious' about this topic.




This says 68 cities. 'Thousands' of people. How many 'thousands'?


Well, 3000 in NYC (estimate). I don't have a real figure, no. I think we can assume that NYC is probably one of the largest of the 68. With only 68 cities reporting, my guess is that they're probably all fairly major cities. If only 1000 showed up in each, that would be 68,000, rightly referred to as 'thousands', but perhaps not 'massive'. If 500 showed up in each, 34,000 is still rightly referred to as 'thousands'.

However, 3000 is also rightly referred to as 'thousands'. Massive? A matter of opinion, but I agree with you, it's not what I would call massive. The Tuesday night protests were not 'massive' in my opinion.

We'll have to see how he Saturday night events unfold. My guess is that it wll be much larger, especially in D.C., and perhaps could even be called massive by some. But then again, that word could be referring to their hopes for the turnout.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join