Say what?

Okay, to be fair . ... let me think about that.

Let's see; Saddam "kept order" by gassing every man woman and child in a city or two. Saddam kept order in the region by taking over his neighboring countries (with ambitions of dictating over the whole region.

I guess you are right. It was so much more stable befor we took out Saddam. . .and "destabilized the region". (wink wink) :rolleyes:

I guess that would mean that we should have left the looters in charge in New Orleans...as not to destabilize the city. What were we thinking ..."occupying" New Orleans?

I guess the same would apply to Slbo, Hitler, etc.

BUT AT LEAST THERE WEREN'T ALL THOSE TERRORISTS!!!1111

:D

Re: what protest is "OK"?
 

Getting back to your original question - I think the one response that seems apparent, and was previously mentioned, is to become educated on the issues and vote. Secondly, contribute financially to the party or cause for which you believe in. Lastly, get involved - and I don't mean by taking up pickets and marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, but instead by running for office or other legitimate means of effecting change if you feel strong enough about an issue.

Too often in our society, actions become based on anger or emotion rather than rational discourse. I liken it to road-rage mentality. There is a system in place that allows citizens feedback into the political process. It’s worked for several hundred years and should continue working. However when local elections produce only 10 or 20% turnout, the process is questionable and people don’t feel that they are truly represented.

I assume driving your Porsche is an appropriate form of protest? As long as its' a 911.

Peter,

Perfectly stated, thanks.

I think people have a right to do more than vote, or “get involved. Democratic societies have established traditions whereby those that feel passionately about something can go directly to the people. Think Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London. Think the Federalist Papers. Cindy Sheehan and her followers are part of that long tradition. Delivery of their message has simply been tailored to be effective in the year 2005.

Agree or disagree with anti-war protesters, they have a right to speak in a manner that allows their voices to be heard. That means media. You don’t attract national media by writing letters to your Senator or running for City Council.

Cindy Sheehan has been wildly successful in getting her message out. At a minimum, she and her followers have caused people think about the war and how it has been/should be waged.

I agree with Peter. Personally, I would consider protest a suitable means when all others have been attempted and failed. It is really not a proper avenue to try to damage one's own properly elected government just because you are unable to elect someone that agrees with your agenda. The ballot box is the proper venue for political change in a democratically elected government.
No normal person listens to a "tool" like Sheehan. The only people she is "convincing" are those who were already convinced. She is just another loud mouthed loser....a sad joke....as pathetic as the party she represents.

Peter,

Very elequently stated. I agree with most of what you wrote. However, you leave nothing left for those who went against the majority vote other than run for office. There needs to be more than that.

Rodeo,

Great analogy and I like the way you made your point in such a positive way.


Dan

So why don't Conservative churches have a right to exercise their right to free-speech?...Why is it Democrat politicians can get up in front of any black church and pitch their campaign, but the moment a conservative preacher gets up and advocates a position or politician, he is subject to legal action by the ACLU?

The "tax exempt" status argument should not curtail a right of a congregation to speak their minds from the pulpit...As it obviously doesn't curtail labor unions and tax-exempt not for profits like Jesse Jackson's from advocacy for liberal, often socialist, causes.

Why is it the only "freedom of speech" liberals ever fight for are the right to pornography and their presumed right to seditious slanderous speech?

Brilliant insight.

People like you are doing more damage to the effort than a thousand Cindy Sheehans could ever imagine. Keep splitting us apart Flint -- that's exactly what the enemy wants

Jeez, Mul. You must love those hard-line Muslim Mullahs advocating their positions in Mosques around the world.

No normal person listens to a "tool" like Sheehan. The only people she is "convincing" are those who were already convinced. She is just another loud mouthed loser....a sad joke....as pathetic as the party she represents.

Remember the parallels between Sheehan and the Shiavo family.... it is interesting how the defenders in one case are the attackers now (and vice versa).

(cheap shot)Todd - you should buy a gun and form a militia(/cheap shot)

What strikes me here is something I posted a couple of days ago on another thread - the concept of protesting is hijacked by the fringe groups. For instance, the photo with the "IMF" banner appears to have started as a "separate" (I use that term loosely) protest which joined up with the main one. The IMF/World Bank protestors are definitely in the anti-globalisation sandal wearing vegan eatin commune hippy anarchist mould. They are - for want of a better term - "professional protesters", and it is unfair to say that the average protester shares ideology (or even approves) of them.

fwiw, I couldn't have been more of an advocate here, for pulling the tube on Shiavo.

.. .and yet I believe Sheehan is a tool, used by the Lib's for no other purpose than to bash Bush.

You must really love Hitler...Last I checked Christians weren't responsible for worldwide terror.

Alright, so it's ok for Christians to advocate their positions, but not hard-line Muslims. Anybody else on the list, or do you make up your mind as you go?

Dan, anybody can advocate their positon in Mul's world. There's only one catch -- it has to be the correct position. :)

Are you saying that you stand behind Johnson's (liberal) law that prohibits free speech in Churches?

We have had Catholic cardinals and priests advocating withholding Communion from politicians that are pro-choice. I'd say free speech is alive and well in church.