A Statement
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Sunday, August 17, 2025 15:39
VIEWED: 7074
PAGE 6 of 10
AnthonyT
Unless there's a revolution, you'll be doing what you can.
Think of it this way - do you remember what got the Argentine junta out ? Not guns. It was old ladies standing in the plazas with signs asking about 'the disappeared'. Not confronting anyone, not yelling, just - standing. That's what happens when you do what you can and you're in it for the long haul.
And it is SO much better - even smarter and more moral - than saying - what difference will it make anyway ? It's all the same.
***************************************************************
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't buy it Rue. Most of above evils you mention, and they are definitely that, occurred with the tacit approval of the Democrat controlled congress. So I'm not seeing these big differences you're suggesting. They shouldn't need a majority to act out against these things, but now that they've had the upper hand for two years, the Democrats have no excuse.
In 2004, I followed something like your logic and rallied for Kerry, if a bit begrudgingly. Because at that point, we KNEW what kind of a bastard Bush was. Just about anything but Bush would have been a dramatic improvement. But he's leaving office.
All we have now are unknowns. I have no idea how any of the mainstream candidates will behave once in office because: Every damned one of them are used car salesmen. Even if you believe them, they don't present anything like a clear philosophy of government. They pick and choose sides on the various issues to strategically satisfy constituencies. How do you ever know what someone like that is going to do? And why in the world would you assume a Democrat has any more moral authority, or would be any more likely to provide intelligent leadership, after the party's underwhelming performance in recent years?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh you mean those Democrats who promised to get us out of Iraq, like, immediately if they secured a majority in congress.
Hmmm, how's that workin out for ya, then ?
You're going to a card sharpers house, and playing on his table, with his deck, and somehow expecting to do something other than lose... that's just silly.
Make em play by YOUR rules, and as for peaceful protest, BWAHAHAHAHA, better bring a gas mask and a taserproof jacket just in case you dare leave the "Free Speech Zone" in the basement of some parking garage miles away from the event to get a sandwich or something.
Ask the Bonus marchers, or the IWW, or any other peaceful protest that annoyed the powers that be just how well that went for the protestors - ask how well it went in Florida, where they were UTTERLY CRUSHED, brutalised, and beaten down...
Versus Seattle, where they fought rough and tumble, and not only won the day, but *because of that* did so with LESS violence over all, and not all in one direction, than when they decided to "play nice" in Florida.
To be blunt, what are you gonna do at your peaceful protest when the riot batons, the gas, pepperball rounds and the like start flying at you, just lay down and take it, show the status quo that it works ?
Nonviolent protest ONLY works when your opponent and their political backing has a conscience, and in this day and age, our current cabal, the corporate lords, I defy you to tell me with a straight face that playing on their conscience will do you any good.
As for simply laying down and taking it, even Ghandi had some strong words about that.
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.
Nonviolence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of nonviolence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with nonviolence. Translation from swordsmanship to nonviolence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Nonviolence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission.
-Mahatma Gandhi
So what's your strategy for when (not if, but when) the riot shields and billyclubs come out then ?
Cause that is as important as anything else - if you are violently attacked simply for exercising your rights, and you throw in your hand and fold, you've accomplished naught but to send the message that you'll stand up, but only so far, and that such oppression works.
Stand up, or stand aside.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I believe this statement refers to the idea that the loss of life (say in a terrorist attack) is not worth the loss of privacy and freedom (as say in cell phone monitoring, cameras on every corner, email monitoring ect ect).
Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?
I dont believe it refers to the criminal/victim relationship.
Man.... I like this guy.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It seems to me that we are at a crossroads. Non-violent political action, somewhat political action (like voting and hoping that it isnt "adjusted" or that it will even count) accepting things as they are and just trying to get by, violent action, or stockpiling a compund in Texas....
Tell me, will any of it work? Or should I just buy a plane ticket to (insert name of 3rd world country here), take my savings of 300 bucks, and live like a king?
I can buy a mansion for 60 dollars, hire an army for 80, and buy food and weapons for a year with the rest....(Im joking, of course. Trying to make a point about how ineffective Im feeling)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes but/ and ... You need several things for a direct action to work:
Nonviolent protest ONLY works when your opponent and their political backing has a conscience, and in this day and age, our current cabal, the corporate lords, I defy you to tell me with a straight face that playing on their conscience will do you any good.
1) AN OUTLET TO THE PRESS
I've seen nonviolent protests work, even when the response was brutal... but only when the cameras were rolling and the image played day in and day out. Kent State. Civil rights marches. Indian independence from Britain. I've seen nonviolent protest fail, not by being crushed but by being ignored to death. Do you remember the 1977 million-woman march on Washington supporting the ERA? Of course not. The difference between a protest "failing" and "winning" is not the police response or the level of violence but the amount of press. (Sometimes violence brings press coverage as in Seattle. But sometimes it doesn't, as in Florida.) So if you're going to have a protest, bring your own cameras, and send the image to every outlet. Embed the foreign press if you can- they're less biased than ours when it comes to our "internal matters". Write your own newspaper, but whatever you have to do GET THE IMAGES OUT THERE.
2) A SYMPATHETIC AUDIENCE
If your audience doesn't give a rat's patooties about you or your cause it doesn't matter if a million of you are killed by a tactical nuke on live TV. Your audience will just say: Glad those troublemakers/ terrorists/ bastards are dead! You need to prepare the ground a bit. You need good writers and orators... a Rachel Carson or a Germaine Greer or a MLK.
3) MUSCLE
SOME of this movement has to be ready for a muscular response. Publicity stunts actually work rather well. Again, bring your own cameras. I would not post more because that would be considered "terrorism". You get my drift. But the "muscle" has to be calibrated so as not to turn popular response off.
So, let's say that our first goal is clean elections. Not "next time".... THIS TIME. Are you ready to roll? START HERE
http://civic.moveon.org/protectourvotes//
And HERE
www.blackboxvoting.org/
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SergeantX
"Most of above evils you mention, and they are definitely that, occurred with the tacit approval of the Democrat controlled congress. ... now that they've had the upper hand for two years, the Democrats have no excuse."
I get really pissed off when people don't tell the truth. So when exactly was the Congress controlled by democrats ?
Were democrats the House majority in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 ? Or even 2006 ? (putting Democrat House control at 1 year, since the actual switchover didn't occur till January 2007.)
As for the Senate, when were the Democrats a majority ? Was is here ?
Senate
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Democrat (50 seats)
Republican (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Here ??
Republican (50 seats)
Democrat (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Perhaps here ?
Senate
108th Congress (2003-2005)
Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100
Or could it be here ?
Senate
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100
PLEASE - if you're going to lay blame, at least have the honesty to get your facts straight. All it takes is a simple google search.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FremD
"Oh you mean those Democrats who promised to get us out of Iraq, like, immediately if they secured a majority in congress. Hmmm, how's that workin out for ya, then ?"
I get really pissed off when people don't tell the truth. So when exactly was the Congress controlled by democrats ?
Were democrats the House majority in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 ? Or even 2006 ? (putting Democrat House control at 1 year, since the actual switchover didn't occur till January 2007.)
As for the Senate, when were the Democrats a majority ? Was is here ?
Senate
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Democrat (50 seats)
Republican (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Here ??
Republican (50 seats)
Democrat (50 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Perhaps here ?
Senate
108th Congress (2003-2005)
Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100
Or could it be here ?
Senate
109th Congress (2005-2007)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)
Total Seats: 100
"... as for peaceful protest, BWAHAHAHAHA, better bring a gas mask and a taserproof jacket ..."
Just can't stand the idea that signs worked better than guns, can you ? For the record, while I used it as ONE example, there are MANY OTHER THINGS ONE CAN DO AS A PART OF THE PROCESS, and I gave other examples as well. So 
to you and your bogus arguments.
You know, ALL you supposed freedom lovers are so full of **it it's incredible. You'll make ANY excuse to not exercise and protect the freedom you DO have. I mean really, your views are SSOOOoooo entrenched even simple, readily available facts don't penetrate.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pulled this off Wikipedia. Sounded like what I'd heard so I went with it. How is it wrong?
Quote:
Since the 2006 midterm elections the Democratic Party is the majority party for the 110th Congress; the party holds an outright majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic caucus (including two independents) constitutes a majority in the United States Senate. Democrats also hold a majority of state governorships and control a plurality of state legislatures. In 2004, it was the largest political party, with 42.6 percent of 169 million registered voters claiming affiliation.
Are you saying Democrats have done a passable job as a minority party?
I know you're convinced the Democrats will do better, and that you prefer the liberal Democrat view of things, and that's fine. But they've been nearly equal partner's in selling out our nation and have barely lifted a finger to stop the worst of Bush's abuses.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But they've been nearly equal partner's in selling out our nation and have barely lifted a finger to stop the worst of Bush's abuses."
Oh so the Democrats are still responsible no matter who really did the deed ? Give it a rest.
***************************************************************
BTW, does your bias put Robert Wexler in the same category as the republicans ? He's the democrat trying to impeach Cheney. How about Obama - who never supported the Iraq war. Does he fit into the 'just like a repubican' category ? Or perhaps Edwards, you know, the guy who said he was wrong on Iraq. Hear any repubicans saying that lately ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME