So let me walk you through this.
Before the 7th there were Dobermans', fire hoses and night-sticks.
After the 7th there was an injunction that allowed the march for 5 days.
The march was legally supported.
Atheists Pulling no Punches on Veterans
- Thread starter 22*43*51
- Start date
So let me walk you through this.
Before the 7th there were Dobermans', fire hoses and night-sticks.
After the 7th there was an injunction that allowed the march for 5 days.
The march was legally supported.
And when did they try to first march? That's right, the 7th. And what happened? That's right Bloody Sunday happened. When did they try again? On the 9th. What happened? Redneck protesters killed one of them. Your position I'd MLK was wrong to here. My position is he was within his rights. Later a judge agreed with me and with the help of LBJ made sure MLK was able to act.
None of that means prior permission is required to protest. It's hard to believe any red blooded American even thinks that's a valid position. Frankly it shocking and sad that protesting is so reviled by so many here. This is how freedom dies. When we reject the tools of its maintenance and fabricate the history we truly do endanger liberty. But it has been enlightening watching cons defend a police state.
Calm down, Reverend. No one is suggesting that the response to the black marchers was appropriate.
Let me ask you a simple question: is it possible to protest and get your point across without detaining, intimidating, humiliating and harassing people?
Yes or no.
Yes. But note some including you have suggested what happened on Bloody Sunday was appropriate. If you don't want to be preached to. Show you understand the lesson.
I did not. It was a joke. You only bring the dogs out when people are smashing store windows and stuff.
Physically preventing me from leaving is violence. There's really no way to dance around that one.
Use your words and not the mob if you you want me to stay and listen to you.
If you attempt to leave and I stand in your way so that you physically cannot leave until you hear me out, what do you call it?
I call it holding you hostage. You're not allowed to leave until you pay the ransom of hearing me out.
Violence isn't always bloody.
I call this thinking from you justifying the use of dogs. I call this rhetoric turning up the heat to such hyperbolic levels that what should be seen as a civic demonstration now becomes justification for blood. I call your description a huge overreaction. And because you overreact, the dogs aren't dismissed as a joke. Because even if you wouldn't cross that line, you are covering for those that might.
When you use force, don't be surprised when the other side uses even more force. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked.
Exactly. So don't use force. Be peaceful. Be persuasive. Be visible and loud and proud, but also be respectful. You have to respect the rights of others if you expect others to respect the rights of yours.
You cherry pick the one date(the 7th; Bloody Sunday) that wasn't federally protected.
On March 21st a group of 3200 set out on the same route to Selma. On March 25th more that 25k reach the state capitital in Montgomery. All protected as marchers under federal law.
The Selma marches were not lawless like you claim.
Know your history.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/us/1965-selma-to-montgomery-march-fast-facts/
Last edited:
So should they go to every "public" Veterans Cemetery and remove the crosses from each grave? I understand the difference between the two, but a soldier kneeling over the grave of a fallen friend being protested just because it happens to be depicting the grave at a Veterans Cemetery, and the head stone is a cross seems completely insane.
I think this organization is just going around the country extorting money from communities. And anyone that agrees with them should feel ashamed of themselves. Although I know you won't.
I like the very last one... the Muslim five-pointed star, which they can't depict on the website due to copyright restrictions.
Say what?
One thing is clear. The opposition to protesters constantly feels the need to make up facts to support their positions.
You were factually incorrect.
So, are you saying I am in opposition to the Civil Rights movement in 1965 Selma?
My position is on March 7th MLK was within his rights to march in the street. Are you not arguing the opposite?
Interesting story about how the "Sand Hill Crane" emblem was approved.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2013/07/coming_to_va_cemetery_headston.html
As long as he wasn't violating anyone else's rights, sure. Walk down the street all you like.
You claim walking down the street is a violent violation of other's rights.
Actually, that's not what you said.
You quoted me and made a comment about made up facts used by opposition to the Civil Rights protests.
It started sounding like a short-cut around calling me racist. You usually don't lower yourself to such debate tactics.
Never said that. I said that blocking the street and holding people hostage until you're done bitching them out is a violent violation of other's rights.
You did make up a fact. The fact that I quoted, namely that I claimed the marchers were lawless. And I'm not calling you a racist, I'm calling you an authoritarian who is arguing that prior to the court order, there was no right to march. I'm saying that's a wrong reading of the history and a wrong view of how rights and protesting works.
No it doesn't. It's nothing like Selma. In Selma, the protesters peacefully marched to the capitol and delivered a petition. They weren't surrounding cars or intimidating anyone. They peacefully assembled on the Capitol steps and lawn.
No, they blocked roads and bridges for days. And it was anything but a peaceful situation. But neither blocking roads nor agitating locals was sufficient to block the march. Empirically your standards are not supported by the Selma precedent.
You use this Selma example as a comparison to the protesters in Missouri having a right to interrupt a parade.
Did the parade participants not have a right to peacefully assemble and march?
The protesters were peaceful. The police and the "deputized" white thugs were not.
He doesn't get that. I've made that point dozens of times on numerous pages of several threads, and he still believes that the rights of some people are greater than the rights of other people. He will let us know which group is superior whenever a future dispute occurs.
I use that example because the opposition introduced that example and it ironically illustrates my position perfectly. Sure they had a right to a parade, just as the protesters had a right to protest. The court finding you keep referencing established the precedent that the right to petition government for redress supersedes the right of public to use the roadways for normal business.
Link to any Selma protesters surrounding a car and refusing to let it move until a list of grievances were read?
Similar threads
