Salty

iTrader: (14)

This is just ridiculous... If you don't like it then move to Canada!

What's wrong with people today? It's done with! This is going to be as effective as the "bush-chimpanzee" painting and RNC protests that did absolutely nothing except cause a controversy and tons in security costs to local taxpayers.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...dio/index.html

deyes

Some people have a problem seeing past their nose. You know what I mean?

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

Why are they protesting? These are the people that don't realize that kerry would have done almost everything the same way. They just don't like george bush cause he's, well, george bush

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

If I hear you guys right your complaining about people wanting to protest?

Isn't that a very important right in our country? At least it was last time I checked.

deyes

We're not complaining about freedom of speach, its just are they protesting for the sake of protesting or do they beleive that it will help something. I can see protesting an enviromental summit or economic summit but protesting a ceremony because the President and cameras are all going to be in one place sounds like political attention whoring.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

So your mad at the potestors because their doing this for attention when the person they are protesting is attention ***** #1 (presidential campaign)?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

It's counterproductive at this point and pointless.

What can this possibly accomplish, ericdared81?

Think of it this way...

-The President is already getting 4 more years regardless of what they do.

-This group of protestors will be a priority for security even though they aren’t a risk factor..they may throw a punch at a Bush lover but who cares, right? Meanwhile, security forces are diluted and focused on this particular group when bigger, serious security problems may be brewing.

-The cost of security, resources and accommodations has undoubtedly increased due to the broadcast at the local taxpayers expense.

The list goes on and on... what would you like to add to the positive aspects list, ericdared81? The fact they’re exercising their free speech. Wow! Laddiefreakinda!

deyes

Running a presidential campaign to become president and protesting a presidential inaguration to "(work) on housing issues, homeless issues, issues of war, issues of occupation both at home and abroad, and issues of the environment that we all have to live in." are decidedly dissimilar. If they want to work on housing issues and house the homeless then go build houses! If they want to end occupation then go to Iraq and bring an end to the insurgency that is taking the lives of many Americans and countless Iraqi citizens, I'm not sure about the occupation at home part though. But if I wanted to do something that would have absolutely no effect on my goals and say it was in an effor to accomplish my goals then I would protest the presidential inauguration.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

It's amazing how you guys can be so against a group of people speaking thier mind. This shouldn't affect you at all but for some reason it drives you nuts.

This is a very simple explenation for why they protest.. to let people know how they feel.

And because they don't feel the same way that you do, the confusion sets in.

They protest for the same reason that anyone has ever protested. I personally wouldn't ever protest because standing there with a sign just isn't something I would do but these people think that it will let people know their disatisfaction so more power to them.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I'm not against a group of people speaking their minds in the slightest. I am against the very act when it's pointless, counterproductive and has the potential to diverge security when they should be watching for the angry Muslim with the briefcase. That said, it does affect others in the immediate area and does drive me nuts. I was on the QRF (Quick Reaction Force) in Washington D.C. during the last inauguration just for the record. I volunteered just so I could see my fiancee who was attending Georgetown at the time. BTW... they we profiled then and I assure you they'll profile during this event. And rightfully so...

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

The profiling part of crowd control doesn't bother me. If the protesters step out of line one bit I have no problem with security forces showing force to put them down. And there should be a big security perimeter to safeguard those who would be targets.

But at the same time I'm glad that they can protest a president they don't agree with and they want to let him know that. Just do it peacefully like it's written.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I'm just telling you from experience. I have a unique background in security and surveillance. Eyes will be directed toward the type of group that's declared themselves first and everywhere else second. This is a bad thing that will thin out security and make it more risky.

I know they have the right to do this, that and blah, blah, blah... but why do it? Just because you have the right to call a morbidly obese person “fat-***” in public doesn’t mean you should. This is my point.

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me...

However, if nobody had ever coined the term 'fat ***', and nobody ever complained about or made fun of the morbidly obese, it would seem perfectly okay in our culture to be, well, a fat ***. But, this is not so, and you can thank the people that AREN'T willing to hold back their disgust at the wide load that you can't manuver around in that grocery store aisle for making being a 'fat ***' not socially acceptable.

If nobody voices their opinion about things they think are wrong, the mindless 75% of our population will continue to think that everything is peachy.

It seems to me that you are upset about people possibly swaying the opinion of others... I can see why you might roll your eyes at them, and you have your own right to do so- but to suggest that they shouldn't voice their opinion is just silly.

If we went by your rules of supressing the minority's views, the civil rights movement probably never would have happened.
It definitely wasn't a majority that advocated change then. And hey, it seems as if they just might have been correct afterall...

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

From a security standpoint I totally agree with you, it's not a good thing. That is one of the negatives to public protest. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't speak their mind.

deyes

They have a pirate radio station they can and do speak their minds from there. Having a pirate radio station is criminal which would cause some concern if they were organizing a protest, as opposed to a legitimate organization organizing a protest. I just don't see this protest as any way to accomplish their stated goals.