Political Protesters

[Imperator]

First off, this topic is NOT about Bush, read the entire post before responding please.

About a week ago I ran into some protesters who wanted Bush to step down. They had the usual stuff, you know, Bush lying about this and that, not doing this, killing the economy, and other stuff. They even went as far as to compare him to Hitler, and when I asked them some questions, they said that Bush was "the most controversial and widely discussed person in history".

Now normally I would have walked away at that point, but I decided to ask what I felt was a reasonable question, "What happens if Bush was removed?"
In other words, what would happen next if, hypothetically, Bush resigned tomorrow?

To this they had no answer, no solutions to any of the problems they were talking about, no plan for the future of the nation.

I told them that first off, if Bush stepped down, Cheyne would be in charge (V.P. assumes the Presidency). I was trying to get them to think about the consequences of what they wanted to do....

The best answer I got was, "we need to return to a government for the people, by the people, and of the people".

Frankly, that group was total Bull crap. But they made me question the whole idea of political protesting. It seems that people like to protest, but don't have a solution or plan for the future. They want Bush to go away, but don't know what to do next...

This irks me, because people like this are just COMPLAINING and BITCHING, instead of working on solutions.

And maybe they should spend less time griping about issues, and more time trying to solve them.

Your thoughts and opinions on Political Protesters welcomed.

P.S. I tried starting this topic a few days ago, but because it was worded differently, one of the mods thought I was talking about Bush, and I got banned because it wasn't in the "Official Bush Thread". Hopefully I've reworded it a little better so the little 13 yr old jackass can see it's not about Bush, but about Political Protesters...

[PhysicsMafia]

At 11/7/05 12:56 PM, Imperator wrote:

And maybe they should spend less time griping about issues, and more time trying to solve them.

maby if they spent more time having jobs they wouldnt have the time to do so much protesting and mite actually enjoy their lives better if they had some meaning other than complaining.

i think there are way to many people protest cuz they think its cool, or contravercial, but if they have no idea what they're doin or what benifits they want it to bring they should just stay at home, or school, or get a job. be a productive member of society, not a burden

[Imperator]

Hey thanks for replying, and yeah, I agree with you. It seems that the most uneducated people are the ones with the most extreme views and complaints (comparing Bush to Hitler, I mean, come ON now!!). Problem is they waste time and money and act as a drain on the country, yet feel it is their "patriotic duty" to inform the country.....

I can think of at least 10 people who's legacies have survived and will survive longer than Bush, he is by far not the most controversial figure in history.

I'd like to hear from some peeps who have actually been in a protest before, if there are any out there....

What were your platforms, complaints, and what were your solutions?

[Flash007]

I have been in one protest before. It is a weekly thing in my home town, where the mormans (pacifist by religion) and all those who don't agree with the war in Iraq stand out in downtown for about an hour with various signs (Like "Pro-life means anti-war, right?" and so on). Any way, it is strictly a war protest. Sure, we may not like Bush, but it isn't about just him. Being a pacifist, I am against the war, or even war in general.

All right, solutions. The problem is that my want would be the "war" (since it isn't offically a war anymore) to end right now so that our troops can be pulled out and go back to living normal lives where they are not being shot at all the time. The rational part of me, however, says that that is virtually impossible due to the chaos it would cause. So, not being a particularly good military stratigist, I have no idea what to do.

But I feel I need to say a bit more on actual protest. A large part of protest is not to come up with answers. Not like "dude, you can't come up with answers, this is a protest!" but just that that is not the main point. The main point is to try and draw others attention to the protest and what it is protesting. It is an attempt to make people think, and not just react, or fallow set party lines. While it would be good to have some answers, I can still object to war on a moral basis even if I have no idea how to fix it. And considering that no one else seems to know what to do, aside from what we are doing, that doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Of course, the pacifist wouldn't be in the situation of being stuck in an invaded country because we would not have invaded in the first place. But that is beside the point.

As for protesting Bush: I have heard several times recently that we should just "wait until the next election" to try and get power back, and that protestors are simply trouble makers who do nothing. (BTW: the "drain on society" thing? Utter bullshit. The vast majority of protestors are not unemployed vagrents as you seem to think. They are members of society who contribute their fair share, and then, in their off time, express their own views.) Now, this seems a little bit of a Catch 22 to me. If we protest, then we are being silly trouble makers who are a drain on society. If we do not, however, it will, beyond all doubt, be pointed out during the next election that we did not protest, so everything must be right the way it is.

So, while protesting Bush will acomplish very little (though all of us liberal can dream of him and his entire group getting impeached), to do nothing is not the right answer either.

Just for the heck of it, I'm going to include a few anti bush links. Feel free to ignore/flame me for them.

http://www.bushflash.com/liberation.html

http://www.bushflash.com/antivic.html

Or my favorite one to combat prolifer's with thier brochures filled with aborted fetus pictures:
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

And one must not forget NCLB:
http://nochildleft.c../jancov03.html#index

[Memorize]

There was an anti-war protest where my school was a few days ago. Those of us who were acually at school just said it was a piss poor excuse to get out of school for the day.

...Tho im not at school right now...

[Imperator]

Hey Flash:

Thanks for your opinions!
As far as the "drain" part, I meant that in specific to the group I witnessed, the more extemist style protesters, but I didn't really write it that way, my bad.

You do raise some interesting points though, especially the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kind of attitude the general populace has towards protesters.

I also understand that while you may not have all the answers, at least you do have some answers. The people I witnessed had NO answers, hence I've labeled them as "extreme".

I just have a problem with the multitude of people who don't seem to think ahead when they debate political aspects, clearly you are not one of these people though (thank god there's someone else here with some friggin common sense and intellect). I'm sure we will agree we all see people constantly suggesting we do an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but don't think ahead.

I admire the fact that you DID think ahead, but admit you don't have all the answers. This leads me to my next question:

Clearly true protesters have the general good will in mind, but is protesting the best way to accomplish a change in government policies? Are there alternatives to protesting, ie, massive sums of letters to Senators with different solutions to the problem, or other forms of protest?

It just seems to be that only in cases of epidemic/monumental protests (ie, lots and lots of people, million man march, etc), do protests truly accomplish something, and often times these types of protests are more at risk of becoming violent.

I say this because although debating and protesting helped end the Vietnam War, there were also a helluvah lot of riots and anarchy as a result. In this way, yes, the protests helped save the lives of soldiers, but it also caused a lot anguish to those who died/ lost irreplacables during the riots. And correct me if I'm wrong, but there haven't been many (if any) smaller protest groups that have dynamically changed government policy, either in this country or others in history....

[Ted-Easton]

But can we honestly expect a group to survive and garner any kind of support if they make such broad, sweeping plans?
The appeal of these protest groups lies in their simplicity. They demand one thing, and if they get it, one more, etc. If they don't, they continue to demand it or they disband. To ask them to formulate a cohesive plan for the future, based on what they would like to see happen, is not only uselessly complicated, it is unreasonable. It would render, in effect, these protestors, members of a quasi-political party. All they would lack is a budget.

The reason these groups have the support they do is because they can gain a large number of supporters who all agree on one specific issue. To ask them to do more would divide these groups as none could gain the same support, none could have all their members agree on all points.

[Imperator]

Thanks Ted,

You raise some great points here.
No, I don't expect these groups to conform to some ultimate or broad based "plan of attack" to put on their pedestal, but I feel it is necessary for at least a general group consensus on the next 2 steps, otherwise I feel it's a wasted effort.

"We want Bush out", ok fine, what next, "We want these government reforms", excellent, then what, "We want...."

Problem I see is that there are groups that stop after the first reform movement, and while I see your idea to take it one step at a time, protest 1 issue, win/lose, move on to next issue, etc, it seems to me that this might be the reason why small protest groups or 1 stance/issue groups don't typically ever generate enough support to actually make a difference, or are dismissed by the powers that be.

Just like that extreme example, many people might feel a protest group, while having notable and worthy ideas, don't expand on them enough, and thereby these people become uninterested and unsupportive of said groups, ergo they remain small and seemingly uneffective protest groups.

I'm asking if there's a better way, a happy median to protest groups (which can grow larger and thus more effective, but also prone to violence and rioting) , and the "quasi-political parties", something more effective in changing government policy?

P.S. I would like to thank the people coming here to discuss this topic with me, surely beats the 12 yr old idiots talking about hentai, Jesus as a Commie, or other such pre-teen malarky. I hope this thread attracts more intellectuals, and drags the overall feeling out of the cesspool of garbage to which I think it often deteriorates. I tried this thread once before as previously stated, and I've tried to act in accordance to the general pull of its members, ie, a snotty teen with a big mouth, but I'm glad to see there are signs of intelligent life out there (lol) and that this thread (as was my fear) didn't get buried in muck like "What if Satan was god", "you communist ass fuck!" and the rest of the kiddie crap.

It feels good to show my true colors!
Huzzah!

[Leftover-crack]

dude don't worry about these people. they fellow MTV thats why they do what they do.

BASE YOUR REASONS ON FACTS DUMASS'S OF AMERICA. DON'T BE LIKE THESE PROTESTERS THIS GUY SAW.

[SteelersPa22]

At 11/7/05 01:12 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote:
maby if they spent more time having jobs they wouldnt have the time to do so much protesting and mite actually enjoy their lives better if they had some meaning other than complaining.

i think there are way to many people protest cuz they think its cool, or contravercial, but if they have no idea what they're doin or what benifits they want it to bring they should just stay at home, or school, or get a job. be a productive member of society, not a burden

For the record most protesters have jobs and protest in their free time. We are not a burden to society either. Also I know of no one who protests simply because they think it is cool or contravercial (Did I Spell That Right?), They protest because they are standing up for a cause they believe in, you can't be an effective protester if you don't believe in the cause you are protesting for.

[Leftover-crack]

At 11/7/05 10:45 PM, SteelersPa22 wrote:

At 11/7/05 01:12 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote:

For the record most protesters have jobs and protest in their free time. We are not a burden to society either. Also I know of no one who protests simply because they think it is cool or contravercial (Did I Spell That Right?), They protest because they are standing up for a cause they believe in, you can't be an effective protester if you don't believe in the cause you are protesting for.

as usual "you can't go forcing something if its just not right"~when I come around by green day:dookie*

now your not forcing something on anyone in this context but really there people that protest just because the media tells them to. your one of the protesters that I admire. even if what you want changed isn't really for the better in the long run, you stick to it. I like that.

[Nomader]

This is by far one of the best topics I've read in awhile - sorry if my reply's a bit off topic, but I have a few things I want to mention.

I live in Washington D.C, and frankly, find protesters some of the most annoying things. I walk out of the Friendship Heights metro station, only to be greeted by PETA protesters outside of Neiman Marcus, who hand me a phamplet about animal cruelty. I've always wondered what would happen, if I asked them "Who Cares?" or "Why do you do this?", but I'm always afraid they'll act like the crazies they are, and snap back at me.

And, I don't see much point in protesters protesting in the first place. I agree with Imperator here - what are they going to do afterwards?

From the sound of those protesters, it almost sounded like they were communists. They want to give control to the people - precisly what Communism is all about.

Maybe you ought to mention that to the next protesters you see...

At 11/7/05 02:49 PM, Flash007 wrote: Like "Pro-life means anti-war, right?

Erm... no.

I myself am a staunt supporter of both the war in Iraq, and Pro-Life. I go to church every Sunday even. But just because I don't support the death of unborn babies, doesn't mean I can't support a war.

Apologies, but I had to respond to this part.

[OpusFreiling]

controversial
root word: controversy
Sorry, had to.

[Hyperion]

You've got to judge on an individual basis. There is a clear difference between uninformed Bush protester #999999999 and a group trying to stop child labor.

[Imperator]

Glad everyone seems to be enjoying themselves.

Nomader:

Thanks to Ted, I see now why a massive platform to march on isn't worth it, general rule of thumb being: the more specific a group's stance is, the less people it will attract.

But I still don't understand why groups still don't think even a little bit ahead, unless they already do??

Now I understand that "legit" protesters and protest groups are formed of normal everyday people who believe that this is their way of correcting government flaws and viocing their opinions, but I ask y'all: Does they work?

I'm not talking about massive rallys and thousands upon thousands marchin on the White House for weeks on end, obviously when this happens our governemnt responds in some way, shape or form (using Vietnam war protests or Civil rights protests as examples). I'm talking about the small scale, maybe no more than 5 thousand, who march consistently but seldomly, maybe in DC, maybe not.

It's these groups that I find are irrelevant, since while their intentions may be the best for everyone, they often go unnoticed, the government responds much more to a large mob than a few pesky flies. It is only when they turn into a massive mob that the government really starts to pay attention, and at the same time, the threat of violence increases.

*side note: We are not discussing the select few individuals who manage to fundamentally change government policies, as there are always exceptions to the rules. Only person i can think of now is Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This inherently leads to the question : is there a better way?
Can there be a better way to
1. attract gov't attention
2. change gov't policy
and
3. not escalate the situation to violence?

Only thing I can think of now is letters to Senators, congressmen.
I'm sure if a protest group sent a few thousand letters to a bunch of Senators, they would be inclined to at least read ONE of em, lol! And this way, there is no threat of violence.
Kinda like Amnesty International....

[Demosthenez]

1) If any of you have read the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test, Ken Kesey's comments to the protestors I thought were grand. To sum it up, he called all the fo-intellectuals protesting morons becase they were doing exactly what the goverment wants them to do, which is work in the system. What they were doing was accomplishing close to nothing. Kesey knew it, the goverment knew it.

2) If anyone can find the article "The War Inside the Peace Movement" in the Rolling Stone Oct. 20 2005 issue, I highly suggest some of you read it. It highlights very well the crazies who protest. In particular in highlights "A.N.S.W.E.R.", an organization who has no problems throwing around words like "racist", "imperialist", "bigoted", etc. to describe America. Yes I know some of you indeed do believe we are this, fine. Whatever. Problem is mainstream America does not and there is no way in hell these people who are supposed to be one of the pre-eminent leaders of the anti war movement will ever connect with mainstram America, ever.

They are to psycho.

At 11/7/05 12:56 PM, Imperator wrote: This irks me, because people like this are just COMPLAINING and BITCHING, instead of working on solutions.

Come on, we all know that finding solutions is only for losers.

Its SO much more in style to bitch about shit. Hell, look at Green Day. They sold 4.5 million records off it.

[Imperator]

Went to that site, found this:

:The gruesome number of U.S. war dead pales in comparison to the loss of life suffered by Iraqis. Public opinion in the United States has decisively turned against the war in Iraq just as it turned against the war in Vietnam three decades ago. U.S. troops should be brought out of Iraq immediately. The people of Iraq should be paid reparations for the wholesale destruction of their country and the staggering loss of human life. Bush, Cheney and other officials in the Bush administration should be held accountable for their criminal conduct.

This is what I'm talking about. We have a bunch of well intentioned people, with no solutions other than get the troops out, repay the Iraqis, and charge Bush and the administration.

First, my question is: charge him with what?

Second, ok our troops are out, and we just paid Iraq a rather hefty fee to rebuild.
Now, WHAT ARE THE IMMEDIATE AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF THESE ACTIONS?

Problem I have is this protest does not say/know.
Our economy is not the best as is right now, paying Iraq in retrubutions would certainly not help the situation any.
Great, our troops are out, now what happens to Iraq, what happens to our standing in the world, among Mid East countries, etc etc?

These are some of the questions I would ask them, whether or not they have answers for them is what I am concerned with....

I think that while protest groups cannot distintly answer all the "what ifs" without becoming a neo-party as already stated, certainly some of them SHOULD be answered, like the ones dealing with the direct and immediate consequences of the protest goals.

[stilanas]

If I dismiss an arguement because I demonstrate that it is invalid or its premises are false, claiming I do not offer a better alternative arguement it does not make me wrong about the first.

I am not the President of the United States. I am not obligated to offer an alternative policy if I dismiss the president's as being poor.

The war on Iraq was a massive failure and a big mistake. We're doing more harm than good, both for Iraq and ourselves. People who say that if we pull out now that Iraq will be a disaster don't realize that it already is a disaster. Our policy of detaining terror suspects, including american citizens without confirmation or fair trials that they have any real connection to terrorism for intelligence that is worthless is a black mark on our history. Torturing people does not yield reliable information. The current presidental administration has spent more money than all of the previous presidents combined, all the while cutting aid to the needy and scholarships to pay for more bombs and give more money to people who are already rich.

If you want an alternative here it is. The president should do the exact opposite of what he is doing now on all the issues I have cited and then some.

[Imperator]

I also find it funny that I've been able to break several rules with this thread, and didn't get banned. heheeh!

I resurrected a thread I made before, previously locked, indirectly asked why I got banned for it, and then complained/whinned about a moderator! (rules 1, 3, 13, 15, and 17[big time on this one]). Although some are pretty closely related, I just included the ones I thought I violated with this topic.

Just goes to show what good rhetoric and an education can do for ya!

Wataah!!

[PhysicsMafia]

At 11/7/05 10:45 PM, SteelersPa22 wrote:

For the record most protesters have jobs and protest in their free time. We are not a burden to society either. Also I know of no one who protests simply because they think it is cool or contravercial (Did I Spell That Right?), They protest because they are standing up for a cause they believe in, you can't be an effective protester if you don't believe in the cause you are protesting for.

*sniff, sniff*...anyone else smell that........bullshit........ most protesters have jobs,..? dont make me laugh, the vast majority of protesters iv ever seen have just been a bunch of smelly school children wanabe socialists or unemployed wasters who think they are mad cuz they get to say bad words and wave posters.

Not a burden to society? fuck off, wen u block the roads or streets "protesting" you stop people getting to their jobs, stop businesses from opening, cause a public nuisance and generaly get on my nervers. if thats not burdening society i dont know what is.

[Imperator]

PhysicsMafia:

If you haven't noticed, we are trying to establish a higher form of communication here. Although I can't do anything about it, I am asking you to keep the conversation as scientific and professional as possible.

I welcome all opinions here, so don't go around telling people to fuck off in an otherwise sexcellent Thread....

Jackass....

[punisher19848]

What does protesting accomplish anyway? No one with any political clout would even waste his time paying attention to these underemployed/unemployed members of society because there are too few of them to make any real difference at the ballot box.

[stilanas]

At 11/8/05 02:18 PM, punisher19848 wrote: What does protesting accomplish anyway? No one with any political clout would even waste his time paying attention to these underemployed/unemployed members of society because there are too few of them to make any real difference at the ballot box.

I think your characterization of us as a bunch of unemployed people is very unfair. I've been to some of the bigger protests. A great majority of these protestors are not only employed or in college but are also successful. People from many walks of life who feel disenfranchised are represented. We have lawyers, doctors, academics, artists, poets, writers, environmentalists, straight people, gay people, christians, jews, muslims, pagans, white people, black people, red people, yellow people, brown people, pot smokers, straight edgers, punks, hippies, yuppies, professionals, white collars, blue collars, Vietnam veterans, Gulf War veterans, young people, old people, freaks, geeks, and every combination of the above. I myself am a college student and our teachers are with us all the way. The anti-war student organization of which I am a member is composed of active students with good grades.

The purpose of these protests is to rally enough concerned citizenstogether, and there are a great many of us, hundreds of thousands who come to these protests, to get media attention to the large an diverse body of people who say no to Bush. Admittedly few elected officials, even, in the Democratic party showed up and that's a damned shame. That party sold out the left a long time ago and its leaders are for the most part puppets of the same assclowns who pull the strings in the Republican party. That said, it is undeniable evidence that the opposition is there, waiting to be tapped.

[Imperator]

I keep asking a question no one is intelligent enough to answer aparently....

Fine, protesting doesn't work (hypothetical and argumentative statement here)

What WILL work?

[Just-Think]

What WILL work?

In our form of government, voting.

For example, if, lets say, you are opposed to President Bush's current agenda. During mid-term elections, vote Democrat (as long as the platform the Democratic candidate is running on is sound, of course). If it is noticed that a majority of Americans voted Democrat as opposed to Republican, the Republican party will have to review their agenda and most likely need to change it if they wish to win the next presidential election.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 11/8/05 01:45 PM, Imperator wrote: PhysicsMafia:

If you haven't noticed, we are trying to establish a higher form of communication here. Although I can't do anything about it, I am asking you to keep the conversation as scientific and professional as possible.

I welcome all opinions here, so don't go around telling people to fuck off in an otherwise sexcellent Thread....

Jackass....

ok, dont tell me how to post, especially wen uve been here for all of 70 posts. if someone replys to one of my posts in a foolish manner it is my right, no, my obligation to point out thier foolishness. and u dont need to reply to every post thanking them for their interest, thats just weird.

[Ted-Easton]

At 11/8/05 02:43 PM, Imperator wrote: What WILL work?

First, a response to my earlier statement. To elaborate, not only do the groups succeed in attracting support through general and vague belief structures, but they last because of this. They do not aim simply for one goal, but a general aim which they can use as an umbrella for all they wish to accomplish.
For example, many lobbyist groups for same-sex rights don't necessarily call themselves "____ for same-sex marraige", they state their mandate to be "the amelioration of same-sex rights". This means that even once equality is achieved, they can continue to exist as a group for the continuation of the "struggle".

As for what will work, that's the question, isn't it? If we knew, every group would use it. It seems it has all been done before - large scale protests, mass mailings, advertising, lobbying, etc. What we need is a new way to engage the public interest.
I would suggest through a new medium, such as the internet, but by this would be inherently useless because the majority of people/users reached by an ad on any site would be outside the geographic area in question.
What is necessary is a way to pass along the information to people without inconveniencing people. I am certain that the general apolitical person would easily shift their own stance against a group based on nothing more than a phone call during the dinner hour.

[Imperator]

Ted:

Alright, I went back and I think I misread/understood some of what you were saying.
I see much clearer now what you are getting at.

In response to your earlier comments:
"But can we honestly expect a group to survive and garner any kind of support if they make such broad, sweeping plans?"

No, we can't. You're right, if the group is too specific or tries to have members agree on a future plan, the group will fall apart. Everyone wants it done "their way" and usually don't settle for less, especially if given an option.

I relate everything to Rome because hey, that's what I do... I forgot that there was a reason for Rome having the ability to declare a dictator in times of emergency, to keep it short and simple for everyone, decisions are made a lot faster by 1 man than in a committee. Same (sort of) concept applies to protesters. If a group actually took the time and effort to find a near unanimous plan for the future, it would crumble, or turn into a political party.

I did understand the general model you gave earlier about the more general a group is = the more support/people a group has

"What is necessary is a way to pass along the information to people without inconveniencing people. I am certain that the general apolitical person would easily shift their own stance against a group based on nothing more than a phone call during the dinner hour."

Actually I agree, if there was a way where it wasn't inconvenient, I would listen.
Off-topic, but I actually think there was a law passed that made telemarketing during the dinner hours illegal? Don't know about that, or if it even applies to political groups, but I personally hate it when people call while I eat....ok, now back on topic, lol!

Stilanas:
Sources for those claims please?

I agree, it's not your job to fix the problem, rather it's the people with the power who have to fix their mistakes. You are simply making sure they DO know that they made mistakes that need correcting. Kinda like a boss who watches you like a hawk to make sure you do your job. In this case, protesters are the bosses who are makin sure the administration knows they did somethin that we don't like.

PhysicsMania :

Are you seriously trying to "pull rank" on an online forum discussion??
You signed up 5 months ago and made 1000 posts....whop de do.....
There are others "higher up" than you, like Nomader, who have said nice things like this, "This is by far one of the best topics I've read in awhile ".

Don't be an asshole, there are gazillions of threads filled with nothing but people swearing at each other in random and meaningless manners, THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THREADS!

I didn't tell you to do anything, I asked you to stay with the flow of the thread. If you can't comment in an academic and productive way like everybody else, then post somewhere else, .......CIVILIAN!

~ Police Sgt. Imperator

[Imperator]

Sorry Just_think:

I kinda lost your little, but highly important, post in the middle of the 1/2 page ones I've been making.

You're right, voting is the citizen's tool of political power. Problem of course is that not all citizens can vote (marginalized poor, those not on the census, other reasons).

Another problem is elections, held only every so often. In the case of the President, every 4 years.

So yes, while voting is the most important political tool the avg. citizen has in his arsenal to participate in government, it is hampered and limited.

Should we change things, moving towards a Radical Athenian style of Democracy?
Shorten the terms of office?
Create some type of "emergency election"?
The impeachment process already kinda works on the last one, gives the government a way to remove someone from power (you can thank Greek ostracism and Roman Tribunes of the plebs for those) without waiting for the next election.

But as we constantly try to improve upon ourselves, we must still ask, can more be done? Should more be done?

All comments and opinions, minus PHYSICSMAFIA at this time, appreciated.

[Nomader]

At 11/8/05 12:54 AM, Imperator wrote:

maybe no more than 5 thousand, who march consistently but seldomly, maybe in DC, maybe not.

Personally, I can't stand it. It's so common nowadays. Outside a Neiman Marcus, or the roads are closed off in the World Bank. Just because I live in the capital of the Untied States, doesn't mean mine, or anybody else's commute should suffer because of it. Not only do these protesters often have worthless causes, but often, they just aren't worth the price it causes to residents. It makes me more pissed than supporting their cause.

It's these groups that I find are irrelevant, since while their intentions may be the best for everyone, they often go unnoticed, the government responds much more to a large mob than a few pesky flies. It is only when they turn into a massive mob that the government really starts to pay attention, and at the same time, the threat of violence increases.

Often, these groups are worth about what they seem like - a few pesky flies. Take PETA for example. The average protest I see is about 60-200 people, and only about five to ten police men are needed to keep it under control. They sit there, hand out phamplets, and chant,

Stop the murder!
Stop the pain!
Neiman Marcus is to blame!

and they repeat it on... and on... and on...

I find protests like these to be what the face-value looks like. Horrible, terrible pesks. They have absolutly no use to protest animal rights.

Sometimes, not only do they need to think about what the consequences are, but what the hell their saying. It just doesn't make logical sense.