Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

You may want to look over those threads a little closer. We've discussed the problems with the G20 summit extensively. Familiarize yourself with 'Agent Provocateurs'.

Compare that to the reaction to the Vancouver Stanley Cup Riots. Crushing dissent, yet allowing an actual riot to continue uninhibited.

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Compare that to the reaction to the Vancouver Stanley Cup Riots. Crushing dissent, yet allowing an actual riot to continue uninhibited.

Riots against the system = bad. Riots against your hockey team losing = good.

Posted

Riots against the system = bad. Riots against your hockey team losing = good.

You can be as destructive and violent as you want over a sports team, but try to peacefully talk about problems with the system and you will be crushed.

Posted

You can be as destructive and violent as you want over a sports team, but try to peacefully talk about problems with the system and you will be crushed.

Glad I am not the only one who finds that very odd. The fact that we have free speech needing it's own zone, away from the government officials in which they are protesting, which really is just baffling.

Posted

Compare that to the reaction to the Vancouver Stanley Cup Riots. Crushing dissent, yet allowing an actual riot to continue uninhibited.

Actually, they allowed the G20 riot to go ahead uninterrupted.

In both cases, I would apply the maxim "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Posted

Glad I am not the only one who finds that very odd. The fact that we have free speech needing it's own zone, away from the government officials in which they are protesting, which really is just baffling.

"Here's your free-speech zone: in your home, away from others, and not bothering those you're protesting."

Posted

"Here's your free-speech zone: in your home, away from others, and not bothering those you're protesting."

There's never been a right to protest wherever one wants to protest. There's also the security concerns regarding the people being protested. It's not a black and white issue. So stop pretending that it is.

Posted (edited)

There's never been a right to protest wherever one wants to protest. There's also the security concerns regarding the people being protested. It's not a black and white issue. So stop pretending that it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The 1st Amendment.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Who is pretending there Shady?

Edited by GostHacked
Posted

Am I pretending about what the 1st Amendment means? Do you know how the PATRIOT Act essentially negates certain aspects of the Bill of Rights?

No, you're pretending that one is able to protest wherever they want. That simply isn't true. Nor does one have the right to shut down the peaceful assembly of others, which is ultimiately what some in the G20 protests are all about.

Here's a helpful hint though. You might not want to cite the American constitution when referencing protest concerns in Canada. :rolleyes:

Posted

No, you're pretending that one is able to protest wherever they want. That simply isn't true. Nor does one have the right to shut down the peaceful assembly of others, which is ultimiately what some in the G20 protests are all about.

Here's a helpful hint though. You might not want to cite the American constitution when referencing protest concerns in Canada. :rolleyes:

You may want to take note this is in the US Politics section.

Posted

To call what we have a 'police state' is to stretch the definition beyond what it actually means.

Compared to the socialist Nanny State we're often told we're enslaved in?

Seems like a spot on definition to me.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

You may want to take note this is in the US Politics section.

And you may want to take note that the G20 protests occured in Toronto. Canada.

Posted

And you may want to take note that the G20 protests occured in Toronto. Canada.

Well, you have a chance to counter my argument, instead of nitpicking about the G20, which is actually relevant to the whole thing. Because what we see south of the 49th, in many cases makes it's way up here.

Guest American Woman
Posted

This is a police state that is not so visible to the average person.

If it's "not so visible to the average person," it's not a police state. The "average person" is well aware of it when they live in a police state.

Posted

If it's "not so visible to the average person," it's not a police state. The "average person" is well aware of it when they live in a police state.

"Average person" as defined by who? You?

“This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country.

Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011

Posted

If it's "not so visible to the average person," it's not a police state. The "average person" is well aware of it when they live in a police state.

Most people don't think there was a financial crisis either.

Posted

If it's "not so visible to the average person," it's not a police state. The "average person" is well aware of it when they live in a police state.

Who are you to say what is and isn't a police state? Everyone is entitled to their own truth. :lol:

Guest American Woman
Posted

Who are you to say what is and isn't a police state? Everyone is entitled to their own truth. :lol:

Brilliant. You apparently don't understand the difference between discussing a police state and discussing faith. Explains a lot, actually.

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

Micheal, I hope you were being sarcastic...

Because if you really agree with that statement then you clearly haven't travelled within the U.S. by land any time recently.

There's more Dept of Homeland Security patrol vehicles on the roads than you could imagine.

If the United States is turning into a police state, surely the blame rest on the President's skinny shoulders.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...