Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (64647)	12/2/1999 2:33:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

<< yes - peaceful assembly is peaceful assembly. If demonstrators cannot restrain their own from violence, then too bad for them. >> And if destruction is happening 2 blocks away unknown to the demonstrators, too bad for them? And what if those causing the destruction weren't even part of any demonstrator group, but just punks exploiting the situation, too bad for the demonstrators, gas the fuckers? And should Christine's witch friends be gassed also, even if they had no idea what was going on someplace else? You are way to eager to side with the police. There was no destructive activity at all going on at Kent State when protestors were gunned down. What I saw in Seattle was overreaction IMO. The right to protest is what makes this country special. Del

To: epicure who wrote (64647)	12/2/1999 11:09:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

Well, IMO it's a good thing for the civil rights movement that your view didn't prevail during the 60s.

To: epicure who wrote (64647)	12/2/1999 11:15:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If demonstrators cannot restrain their own from violence, then too bad for them. 1. The vandals were not part of the demonstrations, but were opportunists. Or more? There were stories last night of undercover plain clothes cops beating demonstrators. Hmmm. 2. Does this principle apply to the post office? Enough of their own have taken up weapons and attacked the postal system that under your principles the whole postal system should be locked down. If we allow a few vandals (100 out of 30,000 represents one third of one percent) to deny civil rights to tens of thousands, our democracy is in trouble. If a small group of anarchists learns that they can deny civil rights to the vast majority, freedom isn't very secure. Democracy is a messy process. Strict order comes best from dictatorships. Democracy has never and never will be known for strict order. But the trade off is, IMO, worth it.