Putin smashing dissent?
CorporateWhore
Posts: 1,890
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/16/D8M239DG0.html
"Russian authorities pulled hundreds of opposition activists off buses and trains and detained them along with scores of others on Saturday ahead of a rare anti-government rally in Moscow, organizers said.
The police action did not prevent more than 2,000 people from gathering in a central square, where leftist and liberal groups demanded that Russian President Vladimir Putin stop what they called Russia's retreat from democracy."
Is Putin hurting democracy in Russia? I know of many Russians that adore him. Why?
Shutting down protests is certainly detrimental to democracy, though.
"Russian authorities pulled hundreds of opposition activists off buses and trains and detained them along with scores of others on Saturday ahead of a rare anti-government rally in Moscow, organizers said.
The police action did not prevent more than 2,000 people from gathering in a central square, where leftist and liberal groups demanded that Russian President Vladimir Putin stop what they called Russia's retreat from democracy."
Is Putin hurting democracy in Russia? I know of many Russians that adore him. Why?
Shutting down protests is certainly detrimental to democracy, though.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
-Enoch Powell
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Amen to that. You know those dirty, smelly hippies deserve to get night sticks up their asses from power-hungry cops.
I don't know: I've gone to the March for Life in Washington D.C. and I've never been segmented to a free speech zone or forced to stay in a building full of asbestos and toxic crap. Maybe that's because the government agrees with my ideas, eh? On the whole, I doubt most legislators would oppose abortion if they were forced to vote on it. Luckily, the judges took that decision away from them! Hooray for judicial tyranny
-Enoch Powell
Is democracy necessarily perfect?
-Enoch Powell
Ours sure isn't.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Free speech is alive and well in the United States. Stop being so dramatic. The difference in America is that a lot of people who disagree with you have the same free speech, so when the Dixie Chicks say something, or Cindy Sheehand marches for her liberal (and not personal) agenda, people can talk back. Of course you liberals see that talk back as an attack on free speech. Which you use to scare the public (ala Patriot Act) just like you say the Bush administration uses terrorism to scare the public. Remember the scare tactics before the 2006 elections, about how the Republicans were going to tamper with the voting machines to steal the elections? Yeah, Democratic scare tactics. But you won, so obviously you don't hear a peep about election fraud.
Free speech is alive and well in the United States. Stop being so dramatic. The difference in America is that a lot of people who disagree with you have the same free speech, so when the Dixie Chicks say something, or Cindy Sheehand marches for her liberal (and not personal) agenda, people can talk back. Of course you liberals see that talk back as an attack on free speech. Which you use to scare the public (ala Patriot Act) just like you say the Bush administration uses terrorism to scare the public. Remember the scare tactics before the 2006 elections, about how the Republicans were going to tamper with the voting machines to steal the elections? Yeah, Democratic scare tactics. But you won, so obviously you don't hear a peep about election fraud.
yeah....that must be it :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_57
http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/pier57/
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I see one isolated incident of protestors being injured. One could argue that a lot of that situation was accidental. What I do not see is a multi-tiered effort by the government to limit free speech, as we see in Russia.
Do you think there's a multi-level effort by the government to limit our free speech? Or do you think that any injury done to free speech is unusual and rare, at best?
-Enoch Powell
My point is: should every nation be a democracy? Is it right for everyone?
I don't think so. I think Russia can afford to be a bit authoritarian in order to stabilize a wayward society.
Who knows?
-Enoch Powell
well, you can watch rage against the machine's dvd of their last show...one of the bonus features is the show they played outside the dnc convention in 2000 when the cops started shooting tear gas at the crowd and beating them...there's a nice shot of a camerman running away from it yelling "i'm w/ the press, i'm w/ the press...!!!" and getting hit w/ a night stick...then there's a nice shot of a cop on a horse using the horse to pin someone against a chain link fence while they get beat in the head....
and there's also this, which IS commonplace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. They are based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time and place -- but not content -- of expression. Some critics have suggested that authorities use such zones in a heavy-handed manner to suppress the expression of specific content. Other critics suggest that, whether or not these abuses have actually taken place, the creation of such zones leave the door open to this kind of abuse.
Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, after a bid to keep protesters out of downtown Boston was abandoned due to harsh media criticism of its dictatorial implications. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the Fleet center where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a 'protest pen' or 'Bostons camp X-Ray'.[4]
Free speech zones were used again in New York at the 2004 Republican National Convention, after a bid to keep protesters out of the whole city was abandoned due to harsh media criticism
Prominent examples of recent free speech zones are those set up by the Secret Service, who scout locations where the president is scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials will target those who carry anti-Bush signs and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.
Protesters who refuse to go to the free speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.[7][8] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.[9][10]
in South Carolina, Brett Bursey was singled out as the one person in a crowd of thousands with a sign protesting George Bush's arrival. When he refused an order to go to the free speech zone half-a-mile away, he was arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police. "Bursey said that he asked the policeman if 'it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.'" However, those trespassing charges were dropped. Instead, Bursey was indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president. Bursey faced up to six months in prison and a US$5,000 fine. [8] However, after a trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but the judge deemed the offense to be relatively minor and ordered a fine of $500 be assessed, which Bursey appealed, and lost.
The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."
and then there was this just last year....
http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=qVdH1G0KQt4&eurl=http%3A//forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D209781&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static6.sjl.youtube.com/vi/qVdH1G0KQt4/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJOeohm8ox4UBjncal8tNLD
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
This is a personal favorite of mine:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MmN4dPMoY&search=commies%20get%20beat%20down
Honestly, I don't have a big problem with the police rolling in and beating the shit out of those people. I know you put that video up as an indication of the limiting of free speech, but all it does for me is make me laugh. Why? I don't like those people and I don't like protesting in general.
That video does not show you how those people were legally able to protest. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten tazered if they followed rule of law. I know that is a difficult thing for them to do seeing as how they're idealistic liberals.
Look, I can protest and do a lot of meaningful, symbolic "actions," or I can actually get something done by voting and writing literature. I find protesting to be generally pointless, which makes me nervous going to the March for Life.
At the March for Life, they decided that protesters could no longer walk up the steps of the Supreme Court. If pro-life people were like those people in Kabong's video, they would walk up the steps and get arrested. But, pro-life people don't do that shit because they respect rule of law.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Inherent in opposition to "free speech zones" is the idea that they must be physically opposed during protesting. Therefore, rule of law will always be opposed by those who physically oppose free speech zones. This is not a stereotype, but a conception of their beliefs and resulting actions.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, however my post may have sounded, the only good guy is God. Everyone else is a bad guy.
It's just a matter of how bad they are.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
russia smells
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw
well, as long as you have a good reason for wanting them to have the shit beat out of them... :rolleyes:
how did they break the law?
if protesting is pointless why go to the march for life one? it's only acceptable when you agree w/ it??
they do? that's why they blow up abortion clinics?
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
-Abiie Hoffman
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
If they didn't break the law, they would've not had shit shot at them. Judging by the film, they weren't allowed to be protesting there. Meaning: they probably didn't get the right licenses and what-have-you. You can protest as often as you want in America, but not WHEREever you want. What if I wanted to sign up for the army at that place? Those tools would've been blocking me.
ehh, the march for life is pointless too but i go because it's good to meet fellow pro-lifers.
Methinks assimilated conformity is best represented by the percentage of society that is pro-choice, which is in the majority. Therefore, pro-life people are the "dissidents." Or, you could say the Eric Rudolphs are the dissidents. He doesn't have freedom anymore, lolz! Still, the proportion of pro-"lifers" that blow up abortion clinics is ridiculously small and it is odd that you would imply that all pro-lifers bomb abortion clinics.
Are you saying that blowing up abortion clinics is wrong? Rudolph was just "protesting" and he's a dissident too. How much of the rule of law is negligible and how much should be respected, Kabong? Should those people in the video be allowed to gather illegally and infringe upon my rights?
When those leftists protest illegally in front of the military recruitment center, they break the law and infringe upon the freedom of others, but it's okay for them since they're "right." Eric Rudolph infringes on the right to life of others, which is admittedly worse. Daily, abortion clinic doctors infringe on the right to life of babies, which is worse than Rudolph.
I'm having difficulty understanding what level of negligence of the rule of law that you would be okay with when it occurs within the form of "protest." Greenpeace destroying SUVs? Is that just fine? Is it wrong when people die? How do you determine whether a group's actions killed people? Indirect or direct?
Judging by some of your definitions of "killing" used against the CIA, I'd say we have a brought definition of what constitutes "killing." If an environmentalist group frees a bunch of chickens from captivity, they indirectly kill someone who dies from going hungry. :(
-Enoch Powell
didn't god say to judge not??
why?
so you can protest as long as no one can see you and the media can't take pictures of you? it's sad you are ok w/ police brutality and the limiting of dissent
so...you're saying holding a sign at a rally is equal to blowing up abortion clinics??? your example w/ the chicken is false b/c i doubt someone would die from hunger just b/c of that 1 freed chicken.
you are ok w/ ppl no tbeing able to protest their government, at least w/ them being out of view from the government...you are ok w/ ppl being fined $500 for holding a sign where ppl could see...
it is obvious you only care about your side of view and everything else is stupid and wrong...that is not freedom, it's conformity
didn't jefferson say something about dissent being hte highest form of patriotism?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
-Enoch Powell
that didn't answer anything
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Your questions are unanswerable because they are inconsequential.
-Enoch Powell
in other words you can't back up your bullshit?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Hail, Hail!!!
Shouting someone down so they can't speak is not 'free speech' and you know it happens all the f***ing time!
Amen.
-Enoch Powell
can you plz give us the source of past rnc or dnc convention has been disrupted by protestors shouting so much they couldn't speak?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
No, but I can point you to hundreds of other well documented examples of protesters shouting down those who they wish to silence.
That's not free speech. That's preventing free speech.
Free speech would be holding you own event in a civil manner to counter points being made by those with whom you disagree.
ok...and then security comes and removes the offender....did these 'hundreds' of events have to be shut down b/c of the person shouting?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way