Protestors should not block streets

All you do then is totally 100% delegitimize your message.  Whatever it is.

I'm sure I'll regret saying this later, but I agree. Protest is fine, but allow the bigots access to go to their bigot rally as is their right. 

And inconvenience innocent and uninvolved people. 

Protest often involves inconveniencing people - sit-ins, chaining selves to gates, etc. Kinda like picketing. The point is to disrupt, for better or worse. 

Remember all those poor colonial tea drinkers who didn't get their tea? Or, way before that - as we love to boast in my new RI home - the Gaspee Affair? More destructive behavior. 

(said GL2 as he hummed the "Star-Spangled Banner")

GL2 has that right.

Same can be said about the Vietnam protests. How dare they block the pentagon. Or those horrible colonial terrorists who terrorized the tea merchants when they threw the tea into the bay.

spontaneous said:

I'm sure I'll regret saying this later, but I agree. Protest is fine, but allow the bigots access to go to their bigot rally as is their right. 

You're saying exactly the same thing the good law abiding people of Germany said when some tried to block the Hitler rallies, when Hitler was starting out. Later, blocking was "not an option."

BG9 said:

spontaneous said:

I'm sure I'll regret saying this later, but I agree. Protest is fine, but allow the bigots access to go to their bigot rally as is their right. 

You're saying exactly the same thing the good law abiding people of Germany said when some tried to block the Hitler rallies, when Hitler was starting out. Later, blocking was "not an option."

No, in Germany people said it didn't involve them, so they turned a blind eye.  Protest, but protect the rights of people you don't agree with at the same time.

Or rather than protesting, start getting the word out on why it is so damned important to go to the f*cking polls this November.  Stopping people from attending a Trump rally won't do a damned thing if those same people don't vote November because it is too inconvenient, or because their candidate of choice didn't get the nomination.  I support Bernie, but I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.  Staying home to protest, as some are threatening to do, only makes it more likely that whichever Republican nightmare gets the nomination will get into office.

Blocking the entrance to the place of the rally is one thing but stopping the traffic of the main road where only maybe 1 out of 100 are going to the rally, that's not going to get people on your side.  And I don't think you need to mess with the non-rally goers to convince us that Trump is an awful person.

BG9 said:

GL2 has that right.

Same can be said about the Vietnam protests. How dare they block the pentagon. Or those horrible colonial terrorists who terrorized the tea merchants when they threw the tea into the bay.

I wasn't going to mention it but probably the funniest of our 1960's experiences came when Allen Ginsburg and Abbie Hoffman decided to levitate the Pentagon.   The leaders of the group actually got a permit to do so but they were only allowed to raise it 3 feet and not the requested 300.

A few hundred of us had broken off from a much larger rally and walked to the building.  There we stood with Ginsburg chanting and the rest of us being very serious.  We were surrounded and more or less infiltrated by the Secret Service.  They were young men impeccably dressed and all with lapel pins and 

ear buds in place.  With so many of them all around us we could hear their chit chat.  As the big 

moment approached one questioned all his friends  "Do you think they can do it"

Is this a great country or what?

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

It's ok to block the road because it's not in my state and it's not inconveniencing me and besides it's for an opponent to Hillary or Bernie so that's ok. Just don't block my GW Bridge or I want hearings and an impeachment.

maresleg said:

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

It's ok to block the road because it's not in my state and it's not inconveniencing me and besides it's for an opponent to Hillary or Bernie so that's ok. Just don't block my GW Bridge or I want hearings and an impeachment.

That's a really ridiculous "reply" to the quote Mr . Maresleg claimed to be responding to.

Possible responses could be:

(a) No, I disagree with that, also; or

(b) No, because preventing women from entering there is different, because [fill in your reason].

But choice (c), "Really ridiculous comparison", isn't pertinent. 

I wanted to take a break from shopping at Woolworths and sit at the lunch counter and have a cup of coffee, but those Negro students were taking up all the seats even though they knew they were not going to be served. They really had some nerve and certainly did their cause no good.

GL2 said:

Protest often involves inconveniencing people - sit-ins, chaining selves to gates, etc. Kinda like picketing. The point is to disrupt, for better or worse. 

Remember all those poor colonial tea drinkers who didn't get their tea? Or, way before that - as we love to boast in my new RI home - the Gaspee Affair? More destructive behavior. 

(said GL2 as he hummed the "Star-Spangled Banner")

One of the reasons I turned against unions is because their pickets too often turn from a legitimate protest to stopping uninvolved parties from going where they want to go. Like when unions have a contract dispute with landlords but stop UPS employees from delivering to tenants in the building. That angered me enough to make me hate all unions. So it is all counterproductive if you make people you are trying to convince hate you. 

nohero said:

maresleg said:

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

It's ok to block the road because it's not in my state and it's not inconveniencing me and besides it's for an opponent to Hillary or Bernie so that's ok. Just don't block my GW Bridge or I want hearings and an impeachment.

That's a really ridiculous "reply" to the quote Mr . Maresleg claimed to be responding to.

Possible responses could be:

(a) No, I disagree with that, also; or

(b) No, because preventing women from entering there is different, because [fill in your reason].

But choice (c), "Really ridiculous comparison", isn't pertinent. 

If you thought it was a serious answer to the question well, no more needs to be said on your part.

There is a difference between a non-confrontational protest and civil disobedience.

Maybe Thoreau should have just paid the Poll Tax and picketed the White House.

bramzzoinks said:

One of the reasons I turned against unions is because their pickets too often turn from a legitimate protest to stopping uninvolved parties from going where they want to go. Like when unions have a contract dispute with landlords but stop UPS employees from delivering to tenants in the building. That angered me enough to make me hate all unions. So it is all counterproductive if you make people you are trying to convince hate you. 

Did they physically assault the UPS delivery men? If so they should have been arrested.

I never thought ill of Negroes and even thought that Woolworths should serve them until they pulled that ridiculous stunt.

I've been informed that I was commenting on what was intended as a joking response to a poster who expressed concern about protestors blocking women's health clinics.  I missed that it was a joke.

maresleg said:

nohero said:

maresleg said:

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

It's ok to block the road because it's not in my state and it's not inconveniencing me and besides it's for an opponent to Hillary or Bernie so that's ok. Just don't block my GW Bridge or I want hearings and an impeachment.

That's a really ridiculous "reply" to the quote Mr . Maresleg claimed to be responding to.

Possible responses could be:

(a) No, I disagree with that, also; or

(b) No, because preventing women from entering there is different, because [fill in your reason].

But choice (c), "Really ridiculous comparison", isn't pertinent. 

If you thought it was a serious answer to the question well, no more needs to be said on your part.

If you support the right of people who think like you to stop the assembly of people who don't think like you, then you have to support the right of people who don't think like you to stop the assembly of people who do. It goes both ways. That is the thing about rights, we have to support the rights of people we don't agree with, or else they aren't truly rights. 

nohero said:

I've been informed that I was commenting on what was intended as a joking response to a poster who expressed concern about protestors blocking women's health clinics.  I missed that it was a joke.

With BCC banned perhaps it was inevitable that someone else would take the role of having no sense of humor but I never imagined it would be you.

spontaneous said:

If you support the right of people who think like you to stop the assembly of people who don't think like you, then you have to support the right of people who don't think like you to stop the assembly of people who do. It goes both ways. That is the thing about rights, we have to support the rights of people we don't agree with, or else they aren't truly rights. 

No one has the "Right" to use physical force stop any lawful assembly. It's civil disobedience and those who choose to engage in it are making a moral  decision to violate the law and must be prepared to accept the consequences.

LOST said:

nohero said:

I've been informed that I was commenting on what was intended as a joking response to a poster who expressed concern about protestors blocking women's health clinics.  I missed that it was a joke.

With BCC banned perhaps it was inevitable that someone else would take the role of having no sense of humor but I never imagined it would be you.

It didn't seem like much of a joke - comparing a protest where the people blocking the road admit what they are doing, and are subject to being arrested by the police, with the Christie Bridge Blockage - where they lied about what they were doing, and used the police to enforce it.

I think inconveniencing people might be OK if you're willing to pay the fine or whatever the penalty is. In other words, take the consequences.

nohero said:

I've been informed that I was commenting on what was intended as a joking response to a poster who expressed concern about protestors blocking women's health clinics.  I missed that it was a joke.

maresleg said:

nohero said:

maresleg said:

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

It's ok to block the road because it's not in my state and it's not inconveniencing me and besides it's for an opponent to Hillary or Bernie so that's ok. Just don't block my GW Bridge or I want hearings and an impeachment.

That's a really ridiculous "reply" to the quote Mr . Maresleg claimed to be responding to.

Possible responses could be:

(a) No, I disagree with that, also; or

(b) No, because preventing women from entering there is different, because [fill in your reason].

But choice (c), "Really ridiculous comparison", isn't pertinent. 

If you thought it was a serious answer to the question well, no more needs to be said on your part.

Since your so hung up on exact comments never said it was a "joking response" to the question.

My answer was to what are the standards of a cause.

Is it my assumption that if you believe in what they are blocking the roadway for it's OK ? And if not then they have no right to hinder anyone and should pay the consequences ?  

maresleg said:

nohero said:

I've been informed that I was commenting on what was intended as a joking response to a poster who expressed concern about protestors blocking women's health clinics.  I missed that it was a joke.

maresleg said:
If you thought it was a serious answer to the question well, no more needs to be said on your part.

Since your so hung up on exact comments never said it was a "joking response" to the question.

My answer was to what are the standards of a cause.

Is it my assumption that if you believe in what they are blocking the roadway for it's OK ? And if not then they have no right to hinder anyone and should pay the consequences ?  

Well, first of all, make up your darn mind - serious or not serious.

Second, I wrote what I wrote, and your "Is my assumption" assumption doesn't really apply.  Unless, of course, your "question" was really a way to make a point, in which case it would help if you just said it.

Trump's boy toy shut down the George Washington Bridge for days to protest the failure of the mayor of Fort Lee to support him.  This seems like pretty small potatoes comparatively speaking.

Honestly, if the ends justify the means, I am willing to give some pretty wide leeway to the folks trying to stop the idiots on the right from making a mistake we will all regret for decades to come.

LOST said:

bramzzoinks said:

One of the reasons I turned against unions is because their pickets too often turn from a legitimate protest to stopping uninvolved parties from going where they want to go. Like when unions have a contract dispute with landlords but stop UPS employees from delivering to tenants in the building. That angered me enough to make me hate all unions. So it is all counterproductive if you make people you are trying to convince hate you. 

Did they physically assault the UPS delivery men? If so they should have been arrested.

I once wrote the head of Fed Ex and asked how the company could not di what the shipper had paid them to do - deliver a package. The written response I got was that they do not require their employees to do a delivery if they fear for their safety in doing so.

spontaneous said:

BG9 said:

spontaneous said:

I'm sure I'll regret saying this later, but I agree. Protest is fine, but allow the bigots access to go to their bigot rally as is their right. 

You're saying exactly the same thing the good law abiding people of Germany said when some tried to block the Hitler rallies, when Hitler was starting out. Later, blocking was "not an option."

No, in Germany people said it didn't involve them, so they turned a blind eye.  Protest, but protect the rights of people you don't agree with at the same time.

Actually, many didn't turn a blind eye. Many protested and were finally arrested and labeled as communists, socialists and labor union troublemakers -  political opponents.  The Nazi concentration camps were created to hold those protesters which is when they "learned" that blocking rallies was no longer an option.

nohero said:

I've been informed that I was commenting on what was intended as a joking response to a poster who expressed concern about protestors blocking women's health clinics.  I missed that it was a joke.
...

oh, I think we all missed that.

bramzzoinks said:

All you do then is totally 100% delegitimize your message.  Whatever it is.

Nor should they throw tea in Boston Harbor. Doesn't even make any sense, y'know?