Vietnam War - how did US benefit from it?

[Care4all]

Really? Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to be disruptive. Fact is, you don't have that right and I for one cheer everytime some group of morons is tossed in jail for it.

I believe that is called ''civil disobedience''

here's a famous example

Rosa Parks
Rosa Parks was a black seamstress by profession and secretary for the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP. Shortly before her arrest on December 1, 1955, she had completed a course in "Race Relations" at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. The boycott was triggered by her arrest, when she was charged for violating racial segregation laws in Montgomery after refusing to give her seat on a bus to a white man. She was sitting in the fifth row (the first row that blacks could occupy), along with three other blacks. Soon, all of the first four rows were filled up, and a white man walked on. Since blacks and whites could not be in the same row, the bus driver wanted all of the blacks to move. The other three blacks complied, but Parks refused.

When found guilty on December 5, Parks was fined $10 plus a court cost of $4, but she appealed. As a result of her courage, Rosa Parks is considered one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe that is called ''civil disobedience''

here's a famous example

The question was where it is written in the Constitution as a right. The closest your going to get is the 1st amendment with its right to free speech and free assembly. But that has limits as well and does not actually say you have the right to break the law.

 

[Ruby]

Really? Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to be disruptive. Fact is, you don't have that right and I for one cheer everytime some group of morons is tossed in jail for it.

Well disruptive is why we have nuisance laws...they dont make you CRIMINALS though. It is technically illegal to be disruptive but it is also recognized that being a nuisance is most certainly part of dissent and any laws designed to get TOUGHER on such things are clearly just an attack on the first amendment.

Nuisance laws are the best balance to keep dissent and be able to draw lines so that things dont escalate to violence or other forms of coercion that would be a violation of others rights as well.

It is certainly the reason there has always been a history of govts and those who oppose the dissenters content and goals to plant provocateurs who go beyond disruptive and become quite violent and destructive.

The fact that you have no real respect or understanding of key role that dissent plays in a democratic society is rather sad. I do hope you represent a minority of americans.

 

[Ruby]

The question was where it is written in the Constitution as a right. The closest your going to get is the 1st amendment with its right to free speech and free assembly. But that has limits as well and does not actually say you have the right to break the law.

Yet you are doing a good job of ignoring the important value of both dissent and civil disobedience.

I guess we should be remembering Rosa Parks as a criminal then since she went beyond dissent and into civil disobedience (which is a step up from dissent)?

http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html

Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. Some of the most well known of these are:

1) The Boston Tea Party -- citizens of the colony of Massachusetts trespassed on a British ship and threw its cargo (tea from England) overboard, rather than be forced to pay taxes without representation to Britain. This was one of the many acts of civil disobedience leading to the War for Independence, establishing the United States of America as a sovereign state.

The citizens in this case even destroyed property...do we remember them and label them as criminals?

2) Anti-war movements have been a part of U.S. history since Thoreau went to jail for refusing to participate in the U.S. war against Mexico in 1849. More recent examples were the nationwide protests against the war in Viet Nam, U.S. involvement in Nicaragua and Central America, and the Gulf War. Actions have included refusal to pay for war, refusal to enlist in the military, occupation of draft centers, sit-ins, blockades, peace camps, and refusal to allow military recruiters on high school and college campuses

It sure isnt shocking that people who now stand accusing of being "criminals" are anti-war protesters. We have a long history of this and the newest war with the protesters are hardly a new phenomena and are no more criminals than any other group who is trying to bring change. The biggest difference here is the people who disagree with the CAUSE.

I doubt you want to label those who did so for american independence, the womans right to vote (suffrage movement), the underground railroad or those who gave aid and helped to hide escaped slaves as criminals right?

Civil disobedience is often an effective means of changing laws and protecting liberties. It also embodies an important moral concept that there are times when law and justice do not coincide and that to obey the law at such times can be an abdication of ethical responsibility. The choice of civil disobedience and non-cooperation is not for everyone. We all choose to do what feels right to us personally. However, it is hoped that this article will make such a choice more understandable to those who have wondered about this form of protest.

Dissent and civil disobedience have made some of our best changes such as the end to slavery, rights for women, the right to vote for many who previously didnt have the right in our society, civil rights, and even our own independence and soveriegnty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet you are doing a good job of ignoring the important value of both dissent and civil disobedience.

I guess we should be remembering Rosa Parks as a criminal then since she went beyond dissent and into civil disobedience (which is a step up from dissent)?

http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html



The citizens in this case even destroyed property...do we remember them and label them as criminals?



It sure isnt shocking that people who now stand accusing of being "criminals" are anti-war protesters. We have a long history of this and the newest war with the protesters are hardly a new phenomena and are no more criminals than any other group who is trying to bring change. The biggest difference here is the people who disagree with the CAUSE.

I doubt you want to label those who did so for american independence, the womans right to vote (suffrage movement), the underground railroad or those who gave aid and helped to hide escaped slaves as criminals right?



Dissent and civil disobedience have made some of our best changes such as the end to slavery, rights for women, the right to vote for many who previously didnt have the right in our society, civil rights, and even our own independence and soveriegnty.

Which has nothing to do with the argument at all. And how is it that Sheehan has ended up in every thread your in over the last 3 days? She broke the law, if that law includes jail time, her status as a "celebrity" should not exempt her from that punishment. Simple as that.

 

[Ruby]

Which has nothing to do with the argument at all. And how is it that Sheehan has ended up in every thread your in over the last 3 days? She broke the law, if that law includes jail time, her status as a "celebrity" should not exempt her from that punishment. Simple as that.

The thread drifted all over, but it was certainly a topic in this thread.

Well I guess she ended up the subject in 3 threads because her dissent is doing what its intended to do...get attention and get people talking.

She isnt a celebrity, she is an activist.

 

[trobinett]

Posted by Ruby:

She isn't a celebrity, she is an activist.

Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.

The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.

Yea, now she IS a celebrity, congratulation................

 

[jillian]

Posted by Ruby:



Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.

The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.

Yea, now she IS a celebrity, congratulation................

Activists seek name recognition so they can advance their cause. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as celebrity, though certainly there are celebrity activists.

On the other hand, I suspect that if my name had that kind of weight to put behind the causes I believe in, that I'd want to use it, too....

 

[trobinett]

Activists seek name recognition so they can advance their cause. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as celebrity, though certainly there are celebrity activists.

On the other hand, I suspect that if my name had that kind of weight to put behind the causes I believe in, that I'd want to use it, too....

Well, I suppose jillian, though "weight of a name", in my humble opinion, has little to do with it.

I would feel "used", but then, thats just me.............

 

[Ruby]

Posted by Ruby:



Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.

The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.

Yea, now she IS a celebrity, congratulation................

No it means they go after making changes in their cause vehemently and no matter how much the opposition tries to smear them.

It isnt easy to stand against a tide of professional propagandists and keep going and keep fighting for your cause...but activists do it all the time and the ones with the most name recognition take on the brunt of the smears as well.

You can try to call her a "celebrity" but the fact is she is KNOWN for one reason...thats her activism in trying to end a war she is against.

 

[Psychoblues]

"Excuse"? Just how do you figure that, trobby?

Posted by Ruby:



Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.

The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.

Yea, now she IS a celebrity, congratulation................

Celebrity and reputation have everything to do in American politics otherwise Ronald Reagan would have never been elected Governor, US president or anything else. I already know you can't dig that but I beseech you, dig that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Excuse"? Just how do you figure that, trobby?



Celebrity and reputation have everything to do in American politics otherwise Ronald Reagan would have never been elected Governor, US president or anything else. I already know you can't dig that but I beseech you, dig that.

Being elected to President had NOTHING to do with his supposed Celebrity status, he wasn't even a great actor. He was however a very good politician and had been one since the 50's.

 

[Psychoblues]

OK, RGS, I'll admit he was a "B" grade actor with some parts that he played well.

Being elected to President had NOTHING to do with his supposed Celebrity status, he wasn't even a great actor. He was however a very good politician and had been one since the 50's.

He played well as a politician and President also. He was nothing like you imagine him to be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OK, RGS, I'll admit he was a "B" grade actor with some parts that he played well.




He played well as a politician and President also. He was nothing like you imagine him to be.

I know the Liberal democratic state of California elected HIM twice as Governor and I know he won both his elections to the Presidency in a HUGE manner. I know he forced a dem Congress to do what he wanted every year. But your right unlike you I never met the man and spent any quality time with him. Perhaps you can share with us all the personal time you spent as his best buddy?

 

[Psychoblues]

What was that you said about the amnesty of 1986?

I know the Liberal democratic state of California elected HIM twice as Governor and I know he won both his elections to the Presidency in a HUGE manner. I know he forced a dem Congress to do what he wanted every year. But your right unlike you I never met the man and spent any quality time with him. Perhaps you can share with us all the personal time you spent as his best buddy?

I voted for Ronald Reagan. He was the last honest Republican that I ever knew.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What was that you said about the amnesty of 1986?




I voted for Ronald Reagan. He was the last honest Republican that I ever knew.

The amnesty was wrong. Doesn't matter that Republicans supported it or not. You see unlike you liberals, I can critizes my party when it makes mistakes. I can hold my party to some standards other than "the ends justify the means"

I too voted for Reagan both times. And if it had been legal and he had wanted to run a third time I would have voted for him again. Doesn't change the fact the amnesty was a bad idea and never should have happened.

How about rather then ignoring your claims and trying to change the subject you actually respond?

 

[Psychoblues]

I responded.

The amnesty was wrong. Doesn't matter that Republicans supported it or not. You see unlike you liberals, I can critizes my party when it makes mistakes. I can hold my party to some standards other than "the ends justify the means"

I too voted for Reagan both times. And if it had been legal and he had wanted to run a third time I would have voted for him again. Doesn't change the fact the amnesty was a bad idea and never should have happened.

How about rather then ignoring your claims and trying to change the subject you actually respond?

You shit your pants and try to change the subject. Are you telling the truth about your RetiredGySgt thing or are you attempting to gain credense for an admittedly failed endeavor?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I responded.






You shit your pants and try to change the subject. Are you telling the truth about your RetiredGySgt thing or are you attempting to gain credense for an admittedly failed endeavor?

Ahh yes you can not back up any of your claims and so resort to attempted character assassination. Par for the course. Usual Liberal tactics at work. Make bullshit statements and when called on them fail to defend them, prove them or support them, then resort to attacking the individual that has made them look foolish.

 

[Psychoblues]

Not at all, RGS.

Ahh yes you can not back up any of your claims and so resort to attempted character assassination. Par for the course. Usual Liberal tactics at work. Make bullshit statements and when called on them fail to defend them, prove them or support them, then resort to attacking the individual that has made them look foolish.

As you know, I have provided links and other information in other threads. I am not shy about genuine information.

Here's one to start your investigation: http://www.awolbush.com/

You can dig it or not. Your loss is my gain.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not at all, RGS.




As you know, I have provided links and other information in other threads. I am not shy about genuine information.

Here's one to start your investigation: http://www.awolbush.com/

You can dig it or not. Your loss is my gain.

Get bck to me when you can link to a legit source.