'Charleston Chad' Asks: Badass Internet Racist?

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by William Joyce, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,755
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,786
    I disagree. When political protesters are using violence, and violating the law in a scale larger than domestic law enforcement can handle, it needs to be stopped PERIOD.

    The Constitution does NOT allow violent punks to protest violence using the very tool they are protesting. It allows for PEACEEFUL assembly, and redress of grievances.

    Ulitmately, they were WRONG. The damage done to this Nation by Vietnam antiwar protesters has been immeasurable. We have been a divided nation since then, with no national will, and absolutely no concept of percervering to victory.

    Anyone who thinks when the going gets tough it's okay to quit is nothing but a loser, IMO.
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    83,442
    Thanks Received:
    14,874
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +33,400
    The people who were killed weren't being violent. In fact, I recall reading that one of the women killed was the one who put a flower into a guardsman's firearm.

    I think the damage was done by the Vietnam War -- not by the protesters.

    There was nothing to win there. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. The French walked and left us holding the bag. Doesn't mean you let even more people die for no reason.

    Same as Iraq. A stupid use of military force and, ultimately, an exercise in futility incredibly damaging to our national interests. The way I see things, a good chunk of the 28% or so people left who think we should be in Iraq simply want to re-fight the Vietnam War. That isn't a good enough reason to stay.
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    83,442
    Thanks Received:
    14,874
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +33,400
    I would also add that this country had far more things than even Vietnam dividing it since the '60's... the Civil Rights Act divided this country, too. The assassination of three great leaders divided this country, and changed what might have been, leaving terrible scars.

    Impeaching the most popular democratic president since John F. Kennedy also ultimately divided this country in a way that it won't recover from for decades.

    George Bush's policies further divided this country and caused permanent damage to our national prestige, our place in the world, and our Constitution in ways it will take decades to fix.

    I could go on. ;)
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,755
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,786

    I pointed out that the people killed were not part of the crowd.

    Regardless whatever damage you perceive was done by the Vietnam War, violent protests were NOT the appropriate means to redress grievances, and most certainly were not "peaceful" assemblies.

    One perceived wrong does not justify heaping another wrong on top of it. I've often likened protesters using violence to protest violence to protesters using murder by bombing abortion clinics to protest murder. Polar opposites, but the same premise ... they are no better and mostly worse than those they are protesting.
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    83,442
    Thanks Received:
    14,874
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +33,400
    Whenever there are protests, people come out of the woodwork who just want to cause trouble. That isn't the fault of the protesters. Nor was it the intent of the protesters to engage in violence. Escalating it by having a quasi military force there was inappropriate.

    FWIW, I don't think protest should be violent. And I agree with your analogy about the loonies who bomb abortion clinics. I think that kind of violence pretty much takes away the moral high ground. And for the most part, the activists engaged only in civil disobedience, not violence. But when anarchists and nutcases attach themselves, there isn't a lot to do about it. The bikers who started breaking the windows in town that weekend really set the tone for everything that followed.... much like what happened at Altamont.

    And your argument about people who use violence to protest being no better than the people they're protesting is 100% true. It's what many of us have said on the board about how regardless of what terrorists have done (and I, for one, don't diminish what they've done) we can't stoop to their level, either in word or action or by undermining our freedoms.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,848
    Thanks Received:
    4,649
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,802
    Like destroying private property, by pouring cement on railway tracks? Throwing stones at soldiers and their equipment trying to get back to their base, (mind you NOT on their way to a conflict)? Getting in front of military trucks, with their children.

    Protestors like that?

    http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/272105.html

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/205287.html

    Police haven't been overly bright dealing with them:

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxdT08wqAr1QEYsvG0lZJzfz232gD8STLSPO1
     
  7. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Considering that you and I both fought to protect the rights of Americans to exercise our 1st Amendment rights, how can you possibly square any of that to what happened at Kent State?


    The fact that no one has been charged or convicted of MURDER in that case somehow nullifies all that we ever fought for, doesn't it?
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,755
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,786
    I disagree. Murder is committing intentional homicide. The soldiers opened fire in self defense. As I asked earlier, ever been hit with rocks or bottles? Yet, you expect that these soldiers, many the same ages as the students, should just stand there and be injured without fighting back?

    I don't know that opening fire was the correct answer, but I DO know that when people set out to be violent, as some of these protestors did, they should expect that violence to be met with violence.

    I have no problem with the 1st Amendment, nor freedom of speech. State colleges are funded by tax dollars. That means NO ONE, on either side, has a right to be preaching politics where I send my kids to get an education, not indoctrination into some radicals political POV.

    If you want to go shout your frenzied slogans and rhetoric, get a permit to assemble in an appropriate forum and I have no problem with it. When you start disrupting a college campus that is there for EVERYONE, you then are denying everyone who disagrees with your POV THEIR rights.
     
  9. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    OK. Even Steven, if you like.

    Shouldn't those troops been provided rocks and sticks instead of lethal bullets and other artillery?
     

Share This Page