tragicallymike Wrote:that sounds like a wasted afternoon.
A wasted afternoon is sitting on your hands and saying nothing, great thing about democracy, you can protest, where officials deem is the correct place to( typically no where near where the people you want to give the message to are ), with a permit, if it's approved.
j-monster Wrote:People who speak out against him are free to do so of course... just keep it peaceful or else you lose all credibility..
Because some people can get violent, the message loses credibility ? Or all the people lose credibility ? Then surely the police have no credibility , nor does Bush, or are their exercises of violence justified, even without provocation? Police are known to incite violence at protests, it's a means of dispersing the crowd and giving a bad name to anyone who speaks out. Watch the propaganda grow in the Ottawa papers about the potential violence that protesters trucked in from wherever will cause.. Same in Halifax, simple tactic, police issue press release/conference about how they will do anything to keep the violent protesters from tainting the good name of their city, how they will exercise strict control and tolerate very little, the talk will be all about how negative protesters are. The typical Joe reads the paper and is proud what a great job the good men in uniform are doing to hold up the community values. "you can protest just don't riot" In essence it's just muffling anything that offers opposing views or dissent, and that's what it's meant to do. Look what happened during the APEC conference in 97. UBC students were pepper sprayed for having a peacefull protest, a completely legal protest, the police initiated the violence, not the protesters. What was the main issue of the protesters ? Well Suharto was there , infamous for the human rights violations in Indonesia. Later on Chretien came up with his famous wisecrack. "me I like pepper on my food" Go fuck yourself you piece of shit. (Chretien that is)
cratch: How could he have not won legitimately with having 51 percent plus of the popular vote and the majority of the electoral vote? I understand why liberals are frustrated about losing to him, but wishful thinking about supposed electronic ballot tampering, etc doesnt help support the institutions. If Kerry and his advisors can accept the results and Bush's right to hold the office, why can't you?
