Dechristo Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 that is the nature of this world, not the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I personally think that "legalistically" is sufficient to bar groups of citizens from taking the law into their own hands, and is the maximum achievable standard in any political order.* Â I am pretty sure that George Washington, after his retirement from office, had more influence than the average street-drunk with title to 50'x50' plot of land, even though they each got a vote. Ditto for any other conceivable number of comparisons between someone who has risen to any level of prominence in society. The fact that none of the people involved in illegally obstructing traffic on a public road in Olympia has attained a status that would give their opinions or their influence any extra-normal influence on the voting public or their representatives has less to do with the defects of our society, than it does on the limitations imposed by their talents, ambitions, drive, etc. You and I had every bit as much of an opportunity to accumulate as much wealth and influence as say, George Soros, but the fact that we haven't doesn't implicate the system in the least. Ditto for any thinker who commands a wide audience, etc. Â *That is, if you confine your analysis and ambitions to reality. If your aim is to dream up utopias predicated on any number of ludicrous assumptions "Assume that we abolish greed, envy, malice, inherent differences in intelligence, ability, ambition, abolish the need for economic calculation, etc..." then feel free to discard all such restraint, but don't pretend that whatever you conjure up has any bearing on situations that occur someplace other than a zealot's private political onano-fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I can only assume you're referring to this guy (at least assuming your points are relevant to the era). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I think that people against the war may not be totally crazy to believe they have no legal recourse in terms of war policy or public policy. Opinion polls have been against the Iraq war quite substantially for a while now. Sizeable minorities have opposed it since day one. What is there to show for it? A surge. Increase the troops over there! Â Add to that the fears of being disenfranchised because of the Diebold voting machine controversies, and the alleged justice department attempts to influence local elections via "voter fraud" investigations and interferences in prosecutions against GOP-friendly pols. You've got some people worried that legal means of change are being removed. Â Then, of course, you've got the President who doesn't even feel the need to follow laws that have already been put on the books (you know the ones we're talking about here), and indicates his unwillingness to even follow the laws currently being enacted by the use of his signing statements. Â Put it all together, I wouldn't blame any average war critic for feeling like he/she has any practical legal recourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I don't think anyone need look any further than the Democrats that they voted into office to explain these phenomena. Â I think that when a segment of the electorate feels like a chasm has opened up between the direction that society seems to be going, and the direction that they'd like to see it going, and they've been unable to persuade the people or the legislature to make the kind of changes that they want to see with reason - you inevitably see a portion of that segment overcome by cynicism, paranoia, and anger. Force then provides the only means by which to bridge their gap between what their aspirations and what the rest of society will willingly consent to. Â I think that a portion of the political right felt that way during the Clinton era, and the result was the "Patriot" movement , survivalist "secular-techno-world's-gonna-get-it's-comeupance" in response to the Y2K bug, etc. The Truthers and various other groups spouting "the system is irretrievably flawed and corrupt and that's why the public/legislature/etc aren't snapping to attention and obeying our orders, deferring to our superior judgment in all things, etc" lefto-litany are the flip side of the same coin. Â People are free believe whatever self-justifying shit they want to explain away their political disappointments, but this doesn't give them license to take the law into their own hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 People are free believe whatever self-justifying shit they want to explain away their political disappointments, but this doesn't give them license to take the law into their own hands. Â very well said sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 I personally think that "legalistically" is sufficient to bar groups of citizens from taking the law into their own hands, and is the maximum achievable standard in any political order.*Â I am pretty sure that George Washington, after his retirement from office, had more influence than the average street-drunk with title to 50'x50' plot of land, even though they each got a vote. Ditto for any other conceivable number of comparisons between someone who has risen to any level of prominence in society. The fact that none of the people involved in illegally obstructing traffic on a public road in Olympia has attained a status that would give their opinions or their influence any extra-normal influence on the voting public or their representatives has less to do with the defects of our society, than it does on the limitations imposed by their talents, ambitions, drive, etc. You and I had every bit as much of an opportunity to accumulate as much wealth and influence as say, George Soros, but the fact that we haven't doesn't implicate the system in the least. Ditto for any thinker who commands a wide audience, etc. Â *That is, if you confine your analysis and ambitions to reality. If your aim is to dream up utopias predicated on any number of ludicrous assumptions "Assume that we abolish greed, envy, malice, inherent differences in intelligence, ability, ambition, abolish the need for economic calculation, etc..." then feel free to discard all such restraint, but don't pretend that whatever you conjure up has any bearing on situations that occur someplace other than a zealot's private political onano-fantasy. Â Indeed, well said. Thanks for offering a grim peek into that ideological freakshow that you call a worldview. Your disconnection from the realities of American democracy in the 21st century is only outdone by your bloated justifications for the rule of the few over the many. Your argument can be reduced to: "those who own the country ought to run it, the rest are just street-drunks anyway". Be sure, those in power with such a view, for whom you are a flunky, can only expect more "mob activity" in the future. Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octopuswithafez Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 This thread has become a waste of skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Large, prosperous middle class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Be sure, those in power with such a view, for whom you are a flunky, can only expect more "mob activity" in the future. Â Â Â Bring it on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) This thread has become a waste of skin  Agreed.  Now enjoy this. bGTZoyARvnQ Edited November 21, 2007 by Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I personally think that "legalistically" is sufficient to bar groups of citizens from taking the law into their own hands, and is the maximum achievable standard in any political order.*Â I am pretty sure that George Washington, after his retirement from office, had more influence than the average street-drunk with title to 50'x50' plot of land, even though they each got a vote. Ditto for any other conceivable number of comparisons between someone who has risen to any level of prominence in society. The fact that none of the people involved in illegally obstructing traffic on a public road in Olympia has attained a status that would give their opinions or their influence any extra-normal influence on the voting public or their representatives has less to do with the defects of our society, than it does on the limitations imposed by their talents, ambitions, drive, etc. You and I had every bit as much of an opportunity to accumulate as much wealth and influence as say, George Soros, but the fact that we haven't doesn't implicate the system in the least. Ditto for any thinker who commands a wide audience, etc. Â *That is, if you confine your analysis and ambitions to reality. If your aim is to dream up utopias predicated on any number of ludicrous assumptions "Assume that we abolish greed, envy, malice, inherent differences in intelligence, ability, ambition, abolish the need for economic calculation, etc..." then feel free to discard all such restraint, but don't pretend that whatever you conjure up has any bearing on situations that occur someplace other than a zealot's private political onano-fantasy. Â Indeed, well said. Thanks for offering a grim peek into that ideological freakshow that you call a worldview. Your disconnection from the realities of American democracy in the 21st century is only outdone by your bloated justifications for the rule of the few over the many. Your argument can be reduced to: "those who own the country ought to run it, the rest are just street-drunks anyway". Be sure, those in power with such a view, for whom you are a flunky, can only expect more "mob activity" in the future. Â Â Â Oooh. Scary. The liberal order that crushed the Axis Powers, and the Soviet Union trembles before the collective might of the Western Parlor Marxist... Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 Oooh. Scary. The liberal order that crushed the Axis Powers, and the Soviet Union trembles before the collective might of the Western Parlor Marxist... Â Given your most recent posts, your relationship to the liberal tradition is tenuous at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Yet never minding that no outside power ever crushed the Soviet Union, or Russia for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannible Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Shot in the face with rubber bullets? Faceshot pics? Â I do have such pictures. One of the news video guy who was shot near his eye, and another of a guy who had his nose broken by one. Â The fact that none of the people involved in illegally obstructing traffic on a public road in Olympia has attained a status that would give their opinions or their influence any extra-normal influence on the voting public or their representatives has less to do with the defects of our society, than it does on the limitations imposed by their talents, ambitions, drive, etc. Â Not that it matters, but an Olympia city councilman was involved with the port protests last year, and was arrested at the Tacoma protests earlier this year. He was out of town this time around. He's no George Washington but he is an elected official. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I hope you wont bar me from the country, but I'll be back in a few days. I expect my own protest and I would like to see baby sheilds, rock throwing hooligans, and to be spat upon and a "fuck you baby killer!" would be nice too. See ya soon bitches!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Oooh. Scary. The liberal order that crushed the Axis Powers, and the Soviet Union trembles before the collective might of the Western Parlor Marxist... Â Given your most recent posts, your relationship to the liberal tradition is tenuous at best. Â I believe he was refering to the historical definition ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Yup, look up "classical liberalism" on Wiki. I think Jay's picture is there somewhere. Â Welcome back baby killer, no one can fault your willingness to walk your talk. I haven't heard of anyone spitting on troops lately though, if that's your kink you'll probably have to take an ad out in The Stranger to get your needs met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmknight Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 The stuff that went down in Oly last week wasnt to far from spitting on troops. Throwing bricks and trashcans in front of them while they drive down the street doesn't exactly say "Welcome home." The bizarre thing is that several war protesters claim that we should pull out of Iraq because of all the dead and dying soldiers, but when those soldiers make it back to the states they throw trashcans at them. Â The Olympia Port protests were little more than masterbation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I agree that there is are aspects to these protests that one could find naïve, arrogant, clumsy, misdirected or worse, and I think throwing bricks and trashcans around was probably not a good idea – either from a strategic or political point of view. However, on balance it looks to me like what happened there was that those who planned and participated in these demonstrations engaged in non-violent protest and accomplished something: a minor change in policy.  Who was masturbating here: the folks who actually showed up in the flesh and accomplished something or the keyboard critic on cc.com? Unlike some naysayer who criticizes them on an Internet bulletin board that nobody pays any attention to anyway, or the armchair intellectual who shows us daily how clever he is in putting everyone else down, or the zealous cc.com spraylord, these people stood up for what they believed in – if in reality only in a fairly small way. (Note: I include myself among those who waste their time blowing smoke here on cc.com.) I hope the Olympia protestors are proud of what they did and that they'll continue to look for ways to make their voice heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I hope you wont bar me from the country, but I'll be back in a few days. I expect my own protest and I would like to see baby sheilds, rock throwing hooligans, and to be spat upon and a "fuck you baby killer!" would be nice too. See ya soon bitches!!! Â Â YAYAYYA red monk is back!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I agree that there is are aspects to these protests that one could find naïve, arrogant, clumsy, misdirected or worse, and I think throwing bricks and trashcans around was probably not a good idea – either from a strategic or political point of view. However, on balance it looks to me like what happened there was that those who planned and participated in these demonstrations engaged in non-violent protest and accomplished something: a minor change in policy.  Who was masturbating here: the folks who actually showed up in the flesh and accomplished something or the keyboard critic on cc.com? Unlike some naysayer who posts under an anonymous name and criticizes them on an Internet bulletin board that nobody pays any attention to anyway, these people stood up for what the believed in – if in reality only in a fairly small way. (Knight and Harpell may actually be using their name and I respect them for that; others among the most scathing critics here carefully guard their anonymity.)  What change in policy did they accomplish? Do you extend similar congratulations to anti-abortion activists who take issue with laws implemented by a freely elected legislature, elevate their own conception of morality above the laws enacted by these bodies, and force clinics to implement "minor changes in policy" in response to the actions of the vigilante moralists who attempt to obstruct access to them? How about the crowds of private citizens in the South - who hadn't had their representation compromised in the least - who gathered in the streets to oppose integration?  If you don't like a particular policy or law, and you want to see either of them changed, there's a process available for you to do so. This process requires generating popular support amongst your fellow citizens with the force of your arguments, which will ultimately also persuade their elected representatives to amend the policy or law, or lead to the election of representatives with convictions that mirror those of their constituents in this respect. Failing that, or if laws implemented by the freely elected legislature are at odds with the constitution, they have recourse to the courts.  Given this state of affairs - who takes to the streets and tries to take the law into their own hands? Only those people who *know* that neither the people, nor their representatives in the legislature or the courts find their arguments either legally or morally compelling. Their recourse to "direct and vigorous action" is an acknowledgment of the gulf that separates their political ambitions from what they can get their fellow citizens to willingly support using only means which they are entitled to use - the logical or moral force of their arguments. As such the actions of any such group are an insult to and a violation of the democratic process, not a commendable extension of it.  This is true whether you happen to support their goals or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Jay: last I heard, the polls are pretty clear that many if not most Americans now think an ongoing occupation in Iraq is not in our best interest yet I think it is pretty clear that our elected representatives are not really going to stick their necks out to take a hard stand against it (current electoral politics aside). I agree with your argument to an extent: just as these people did, the anti-abortionists or those opposeed to segregation DID have a right to demonstrate in the streets. Do you remember the Skokie case from your history classes? You have a right to disagree with what these folks did, and GMKnight can complain about the throwing of garbage cans or you and I can argue over whether the right to life crowd is moral or not. At the end of the day, however, you and I are simply blowing smoke here on cc.com because we find it amusing or interesting to do so. Â Overall, I say the Olympia protestors exercised a right that I for one am glad they have. Could they have been more effective in conveying their message? Probably. And would I advocate "taking to the streets" every time someone disagrees with another groups political position or doesn't like a law? No. But in my opinion those folks can and should be proud that those shipments are not going to go through Olympia - at least for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Go protesters! It's what freedom is all about. Seems small now but as the war drags on I hope it will spread. I bet the first anti "Nam demonstrations were small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I hope you wont bar me from the country, but I'll be back in a few days. I expect my own protest and I would like to see baby sheilds, rock throwing hooligans, and to be spat upon and a "fuck you baby killer!" would be nice too. See ya soon bitches!!! Â Â YAYAYYA red monk is back!!!!!!! Â That's right baby and almost whole. Missed ya sweetums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.