Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nothing wrong with peaceful protesting. It is a Constitutional right that needs to be protected. However, the 1st amendment has restrictions with regards to time/place/manner.
I fully support the restrictionss as long as they are reasonable.
There are no restrictions stated in the First Amendment.
I have seen articles in the last few weeks about the President wanting to cut down on any demonstrations and that his folks have worked hard to make sure any protestors (OWS, for ex) are nowhere near the "festivities" and out of the camera's eye. I have read many allegations that Secret Service and Homeland Security have ramped up exaggerated suggestions re: terrorists to keep people away from Charlotte, and to make sure the ones who show up are unlikely to question the many restrictions devised to keep them minimized.
Now, I don't know if there is an element of truth in all that - or if folks are right on target - and there is a systematic effort in place to restrict Free Speech.
What I do find confusing about all this is that it doesn't appear that any more security is being put in place at this convention than at all conventions since 9/11.
So yeah . .. maybe Frewroad is onto something and truly, there is an effort being made to keep The People from making a scene at the DNC.
But I don't see how anyone can deny the very real possibility of violence or even a crazy Lone Wolf assassin. I think of Gabby Gifford - it doesn't take but one nutball in a crowd . . .
It seems a fine line to come up with how much security is enough and how much is too much . . . Most of us would rather the decision be made for too much security as opposed to not enough . . .
However, I know in saying that, it echoes exactly what history has taught us . . . people WILLINGLY give up their rights when they believe their existence is being threatened.
So I get both sides. Really I do - and I think most folks do. But what is to be done? No way to sort out how much of the "threat" is real or manufactured. And in the end, if this convention concludes with no violent incidents, it will be remembered as a successful event, for both the DNC attendees and the City of Charlotte.
The alternative isn't one I think any of us wish to see.
You have vented for weeks about this build up.... .....
You are simply proving the last paragraph in my previous post.
I stated an opinion and everything since has been in response to people such as yourself who don't think I'm entitled to it. Yet you can't give a logical reason why anything I've said is wrong so you have to resort to comments such as this.
If you think I'm venting, then I will give the advice that I gave to the last party who implied I am an idiot. Stop responding to my posts and put me on ignore. It's a solution that's so simple even a caveman can do it. (no offense to real cavemen)
But I don't see how anyone can deny the very real possibility of violence or even a crazy Lone Wolf assassin. I think of Gabby Gifford - it doesn't take but one nutball in a crowd . . . .
This is why the Secret Service will be there. No doubt that real threats are not going to be left to Chief "Crime is going down" Rodney Monroe to handle.
You are simply proving the last paragraph in my previous post.
I stated an opinion and everything since has been in response to people such as yourself who don't think I'm entitled to it. Yet you can't give a logical reason why anything I've said is wrong so you have to resort to comments such as this.
If you think I'm venting, then I will give the advice that I gave to the last party who implied I am an idiot. Stop responding to my posts and put me on ignore. It's a solution that's so simple even a caveman can do it. (no offense to real cavemen)
please provide the post that said you aren't "entitled" to your opinion. I'll wait...
As far as putting you on ignore or ignoring you... I'll decide on if that is necessary. However, instead of telling people who disagree with you to put you on ignore, why not put us on ignore since you are the one who really has the issue with differing opinions?
please provide the post that said you aren't "entitled" to your opinion. I'll wait...
As far as putting you on ignore or ignoring you... I'll decide on if that is necessary. However, instead of telling people who disagree with you to put you on ignore, why not put us on ignore since you are the one who really has the issue with differing opinions?
Just sayin'
Differing opinions are good. We are all entitled to our opinions. Most of the time, folks offering an opinion expect that there will be discussion. Sometimes, tho, folks think it is a matter of being right or being wrong and their opinion is actually fact . . .
There is no way to know for a fact how much is or isn't necessary as far as LE at this or any other convention. If no incidents occur, there will be opinions on whether the reasons behind a peaceful gathering were the result of an oppressive police presence or it meant things were handled exactly as needed.
If there is an incident, there will be cries of poor planning and lack of law enforcement, check points, screening, too many protestors - whatever (pick your "reason").
It's the classic Catch-22. But the only way security planning will be judged, in the end, will be after the fact, and even then, there will be differing opinions.
please provide the post that said you aren't "entitled" to your opinion. I'll wait...
As far as putting you on ignore or ignoring you... I'll decide on if that is necessary. However, instead of telling people who disagree with you to put you on ignore, why not put us on ignore since you are the one who really has the issue with differing opinions?
Just sayin'
Why do you turn every thread into a battlefield? If everyone is entitled to their very own opinion as you state, you wouldn't challenge almost every post made that you do not agree with. It is not warranted.
Why do you turn every thread into a battlefield? If everyone is entitled to their very own opinion as you state, you wouldn't challenge almost every post made that you do not agree with. It is not warranted.
No, bless yours...you see your condescending pompass attitude speaks volumes. And please stop dm'ing me with your silly thoughts and threats...it IS against TOS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peacekeepers
