It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
from Waiting2awake
I don't condone violence, but violence begets violence, and when people feel betrayed they will lash out at those they feel betrayed them. Now clearly you can see how people may feel their government in general, and the bush Co specifically, has betrayed many of them... so what is there not to understand?
Besides there was no violence, nor from what I gather, any threat of violence. Merely one fraidy cat running from the public, no doubt in order to sign some law that will send more of those crazynut jobs over seas to be killed for a make beleive war... but hey, why would anyone be angry with them right?
If you piss off people, they will want to hurt you. So that is way we evolved manners, and being polite and comman edicate. It is something that while the US may have had more might than the British they were never half the world leaders the British were.
Jso, I think you'll find that after you illegally invade a country, cause the deaths of 10's if not 100's of thousands of people, the illegal maming and torturing of people, tend to tick people off. Why is that so hard to see?
Originally posted by jsobecky
from Waiting2awake
I don't condone violence, but violence begets violence, and when people feel betrayed they will lash out at those they feel betrayed them. Now clearly you can see how people may feel their government in general, and the bush Co specifically, has betrayed many of them... so what is there not to understand?
What is not to understand? The fact that you accept violence as a method of protest, and see it as normal behavior.
Originally posted by jsobecky
The fact that Jeb Bush had nothing to do with Iraq should go without saying. But you and others continue to try the "guilt by association" ruse.
The fact that these thugs were not even Jeb's constituents should go without saying. But you somehow try to say it's justified, because he is a) a politician, b) a Republican, no less!, and c) has the same last name as the POTUS.
The fact is, if you disagree with a politician's actions, there are methods specified to deal with it. Like elections, for example.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Adults live under the rule of law. Adolescents haven't yet grasped that, and live on the sour milk of unbridled emotion. That's what happened in Pittsburgh - a group of emotionally adolescent thugs chased a visitor to their city down into the subway.
Originally posted by jsobecky
OK, I understand if you can't supply facts to back up your allegation.
And what has it got to do with the topic? Let's see... chasing an innocent man down the subway... impeding his freedom of movement... the seeds of mob rule.. oh, I don't know, let me think about it for awhile. I'm sure I can connect the dots.
Originally posted by twitchy
[I think you mean Constiuents? Ushered, Crammed, Hidden, we can play with synonyms all day and it doesn't really change the fact that he didn't want to talk to the people that sign his paycheck and instead went into a closet and had them tasered. What a looser.
Originally posted by intrepid
jsobecky, are you being intentionally obtuse? If I say Kenneth Starr no link is needed. It's like saying OJ Simpson. You KNOW what they did. You asked when a Rep's went after a Dem like it hadn't ever happened, I give you Kenneth Starr, he was a lot more tenasious imo.
THAT'S IN PARIS. What the hell has it to do with THIS topic. Is your arguement that weak?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by intrepid
jsobecky, are you being intentionally obtuse? If I say Kenneth Starr no link is needed. It's like saying OJ Simpson. You KNOW what they did. You asked when a Rep's went after a Dem like it hadn't ever happened, I give you Kenneth Starr, he was a lot more tenasious imo.
Get with the program, intrepid. When was Ken Starr ever chased by an unruly mob?
THAT'S IN PARIS. What the hell has it to do with THIS topic. Is your arguement that weak?
Wrong again, intrepid. Read the article. He was pursued by a mob.
Maybe you should wait till the weekend wears off a bit....
Originally posted by jsobecky
Post a link about Starr, please.
So, is this the logical next step to these type of actions?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by intrepid
Your question was, "When did the Rep's go after a Dem" The answer is below.
Originally posted by jsobecky
When was the last time you saw Republicans chasing a Democrat?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by intrepid
Your question was, "When did the Rep's go after a Dem" The answer is below.
Look, intrepid, you're doing nothing but playing word games. It's juvenile, and I don't care to participate.
I've been denouncing the people that chased Jeb Bush down the street. You respond with an allegation that Ken Starr suffered the same fate. I ask you to provide a link. You can't.
Starr was pursued in the press and in the courts. Once again, I ask you: when was he chased by an unruly mob?
You cite OJ Simpson? What the hell does that have to do with this thread, except to give you an attempt to wiggle-worm out of the first fact you couldn't prove.
So you spin, and spin.
Take it somewhere else, please.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I believe in the rule of law, not a drunken mob reaction to a situation.
[edit on 9-10-2006 by jsobecky]
Originally posted by intrepid
OK, you need to be spoon fed. Your original post on this:
Originally posted by jsobecky
When was the last time you saw Republicans chasing a Democrat?
These were not Jeb's constituents; he was in Pittsburgh to attend an event.
You may defend these protestors all you like, but their actions were immature and stupid. I wonder if they treat all visiting Republicans this way. Is that OK with you if they do?
This comes on the heels of the Columbia students assault of the Minutemen. These people think that their actions are justified. They certainly are condoned, judging by the responses to this thread.
When was the last time you saw Republicans chasing a Democrat?
Originally posted by jsobecky
So you see, I was referring to a physical event. Mob action.
My point about the author meant that if today you condone chasing someone, is the next step death threats? Will you also condone that, intrepid? You've already demonstrated that you support a mob chasing a person down the street.
Look, it's obvious you got yourself a good whupping. You're dancing because you decided to go with the "Fraidy cat" spouting crowd and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. No defense for their actions.
Just tuck your tail between your legs and go lick your wounds. Live to fight another day.
My point about the author meant that if today you condone chasing someone, is the next step death threats? Will you also condone that, intrepid? You've already demonstrated that you support a mob chasing a person down the street.
Look, it's obvious you got yourself a good whupping. You're dancing because you decided to go with the "Fraidy cat" spouting crowd and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. No defense for their actions.
Just tuck your tail between your legs and go lick your wounds. Live to fight another day.
'That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...'
Originally posted by forestlady
Where do you get taht the mob was drunken or even acted like drunks? Where do you get that ANY violence was used? If there had been, there would have been arrests, but there were NO ARRESTS, meaning no one did anything wrong and that the police weren't concerned about the event. How is telling Jeb Busy to go home, a violent action? And how in the world can you accuse the protesters of mob rule? They weren't trying to rule anything, just to let their wishes, as American citizens, be known to Jeb Bush.
Ya know, this halppened in Pennsylvania, the home of the Quakers, a people who believe in complete non-violence. More than likely, at least a good portion of the protesters were Quaker, since it was an anti-war protest as well.
But then again, to listen to you, you obviously think that liberals are evil filth and you hate every last one of us. You accuse us of hate, when you spew more venom than any liberal I've ever met. It doesnt matter what the thread is, you insist on blaming liberals for everything that is wrong in this world. Why are you so prejudiced? How can you so completely make blanket statements about ANY one group of people?
I'm really getting tired of reading all your venomous, hate-filled, anti-Liberal tripe JSO.
THe Admins have been asking for a long time for people to not be so hateful against a political party. I'm surprised they let you continue with this drivel.
Originally posted by jsobecky
You mean, like the stuff you just said about the Bush family? Oh, I forgot, it's OK if you do it, right.
Originally posted by niteboy82
First of all, you're dramaticizing the entire event. Second of all, no one mentioned death threats. You're speaking in hypotheticals. How about we stick to reality and what is actually being discussed?
You get a kick out belittling other members and gloating? That's pretty sad, especially for a member that's been around for a while. I would expect that from a new member, but not someone of your stature being here this long. You ran someone around trying to mix up the discussion and then gloat over it? It makes it a little more difficult to take postings authored seriously.
I'm not even discussing intrepid as a mod, I'm discussing this as him being a member of this site who still falls under the T&C. You however Becky have turned this around and made it personal, and you aren't creating one bit of good for any other new members coming around with that behavior. Until new members get to know our "online personalities" you're making me look just as bad as you have made yourself look. I find that to be offensive.
A crowd protested (legal), no arrests were made (so obviously legal), and Jeb ran and hid like a coward.
Free speech zones, Becky? Take that to another country, because here we have a rule of law,
'That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...'
The people were protesting legally against a man who they disagreed with. They have every right to do it in a peaceful way. Just because someone is scared of the idea of being protested, and is unreasonably terrified (if it was reasonable, the protesters would be in jail), that is not cause to defend taking away other's rights so anyone else can feel better about their partisan BS.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
So your logic is this - because the mob could have gotten violent, they were violent...
Originally posted by niteboy82
Originally posted by jsobecky
You mean, like the stuff you just said about the Bush family? Oh, I forgot, it's OK if you do it, right.
Just to remind you, the Bush family is not a political party. No matter how you look at it, they aren't.
Not many serious members, I expect, like to ignore other members, it kills the idea of a community which most of us would want.