5 members of Congress arrested

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And your teabagging comments didn't derail the thread?

No, jackass. I replied to your post raising the issue of the teabaggers to point out just stupid you were to try to compare their idiocy to a topic as serious as Darfur.

My comments were on topic. Why are conservatives who protest considered idiots and liberals who do it doing their civic duty?

Great. Now, tell us how many teabaggers were arrested for "peacefully voicing their grievances" (to quote you). While you're at it, tell us about the historical significance and moral gravity of their Faux sponsored circle jerk.

You went on to talk about teabagging like a child. Saying you could 'find lots more'.. How is THAT not derailing the thread jackass?

Yeah, I did say that in response to bbdub333 suggesting there was no basis for the reference to the colloquial meaning of the term.

YOU brought it up as if there were ANY comparison to the arrest of members of Congress for their protest. bbdub pushed the issue. Please tell me how I derailed the thread.

You can always apologize for your misunderstanding and tell us how your teabagging habits. or anything that happened at your little parties, are in any way comparable to the arrest of members of Congress. THAT would bring your post back on topic. Anything less is another of your teabagging jackoffs.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They crossed police lines and were arrested. Protesting peacefully does not involve acting unlawfully. If members of Congress want to protest peacefully they should do it within the law. In fact, they should be expected to set a good example, not a bad one. They set a bad one here.

Unfortunately, the kinds of protests that actually work are illegal. And in order for protests to work, they must be disruptive. Not violent, but disruptive.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And your teabagging comments didn't derail the thread?

No, jackass. I replied to your post raising the issue of the teabaggers to point out just stupid you were to try to compare their idiocy to a topic as serious as Darfur.

My comments were on topic. Why are conservatives who protest considered idiots and liberals who do it doing their civic duty?

Great. Now, tell us how many teabaggers were arrested for "peacefully voicing their grievances" (to quote you). While you're at it, tell us about the historical significance and moral gravity of their Faux sponsored circle jerk.

You went on to talk about teabagging like a child. Saying you could 'find lots more'.. How is THAT not derailing the thread jackass?

Yeah, I did say that in response to bbdub333 suggesting there was no basis for the reference to the colloquial meaning of the term.

YOU brought it up as if there were ANY comparison to the arrest of members of Congress for their protest. bbdub pushed the issue. Please tell me how I derailed the thread.

You can always apologize for your misunderstanding and tell us how your teabagging habits. or anything that happened at your little parties, are in any way comparable to the arrest of members of Congress. THAT would bring your post back on topic. Anything less is another of your teabagging jackoffs.

I'm pretty sure you have Swine Flu.. its the only explanation.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I'm pretty sure you have Swine Flu.. its the only explanation.

Great comeback. Relevant, too. 0/10 :laugh:

 

[sandorski]

There's nothing wrong with Protesting, even for Politicians. Even the Tea Parties were fine, but were rightly criticized for being completely missing until Political Opponents were running the show.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Do you even have any idea what you are saying anymore, or are you just on auto-stupid?

Next time you consider using the term "auto-stupid," please be sure to check the mirror for the definition. :laugh:

Tea Bag the White House

I don't think teabagging the Whitehouse means what you think it means.

I'm not sure even the jolly green giant has the balls to teabag the Whitehouse.

TEABAG PARTY!

It has since come to our attention that "teabagging means putting your testicles in someone's mouth.

I can find lots more. :laugh:

Bill Clinton would approve of such a Protest!

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sactoking

So, 5 members of congress were arrested for protesting at the Sudanese embassy. It seems like protests are usually the way you voice your displeasure when you're not part of the 'establishment'. One could argue that members of Congress are part of the 'establishment' while at the same time, they're not directly tied to diplomats like the Executive.

What are your thoughts?

Members of Congress are supposedly human beings with the same rights to assemble peacefully to voice their grievances as other American citizens. Good for them for standing up to be counted. :beer: :thumbsup:

Their job is to "protest" from Congress and they can't do their job from jail.

Could it be that Congressmen with guts scare you?

I don't need Evil Knievel in Congress. They make laws for the country and can be better serve the public operating by making laws and not breaking them.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sactoking
-snip-
What are your thoughts?

Protesting is fine, but they shouldn't be breaking the law in doing so. Particularly when it's not a patently bogus law.

They're just attention whoring and one would think an 'official' letter on Congressional letterhead would be more effective. Unfortunately (for the attention whores anyway) that won't get you on TV or in the news.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They crossed police lines and were arrested. Protesting peacefully does not involve acting unlawfully. If members of Congress want to protest peacefully they should do it within the law. In fact, they should be expected to set a good example, not a bad one. They set a bad one here.

Peaceful != legal.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Protesting is fine, but they shouldn't be breaking the law in doing so. Particularly when it's not a patently bogus law.

Yeah... uh-huh... I noticed Martin Luther King listened to your sage advice, as well.

Our nation has a proud history of peaceful protest. It's called civil disobedience. If they're willing to accept the consequenses of their actions, it's their

They're just attention whoring and one would think an 'official' letter on Congressional letterhead would be more effective. Unfortunately (for the attention whores anyway) that won't get you on TV or in the news.

Fern -- Your reality check just bounced. :laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

Protesting is fine, but they shouldn't be breaking the law in doing so. Particularly when it's not a patently bogus law.

Yeah... uh-huh... I noticed Martin Luther King listened to your sage advice, as well.

Our nation has a proud history of peaceful protest. It's called civil disobedience. If they're willing to accept the consequenses of their actions, it's their

They're just attention whoring and one would think an 'official' letter on Congressional letterhead would be more effective. Unfortunately (for the attention whores anyway) that won't get you on TV or in the news.

Fern -- Your reality check just bounced. :laugh:

You need to read better. I said the official letter wouldn't get the attention whores what they're after.

Comparing these people to MLK is farcical at best. Nor was he a US Congressperson.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

You need to read better. I said the official letter wouldn't get the attention whores what they're after.

Comparing these people to MLK is farcical at best. Nor was he a US Congressperson.

Fern

You're right. I missed that. An official letter on letterhead might get added news attention. I respect them for their choice of actions for a worthy cause.

 

[cubby1223]

Whether you approve of the cause or not, what will happen to fix the situation in Darfur? The article says they are protesting to urge world leaders to take action... yeah right, world leaders don't take action, and this has been the case since long before Dubya, so you can't lay this on him too. The only country that truly gives a crap is America, and so what are the chances this administration, or congress led by Pelosi, will approve U.S. military intervention in Sudan?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Whether you approve of the cause or not, what will happen to fix the situation in Darfur? The article says they are protesting to urge world leaders to take action... yeah right, world leaders don't take action, and this has been the case since long before Dubya, so you can't lay this on him too. The only country that truly gives a crap is America, and so what are the chances this administration, or congress led by Pelosi, will approve U.S. military intervention in Sudan?

Is that what they are calling for, or was it to send in food/money so the Warlords can steal it?

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Whether you approve of the cause or not, what will happen to fix the situation in Darfur? The article says they are protesting to urge world leaders to take action... yeah right, world leaders don't take action, and this has been the case since long before Dubya, so you can't lay this on him too. The only country that truly gives a crap is America, and so what are the chances this administration, or congress led by Pelosi, will approve U.S. military intervention in Sudan?

Is that what they are calling for, or was it to send in food/money so the Warlords can steal it?

The protests are calling for "aid" to be sent in to the country or something, presumably food & money. I pose the question if anyone thinks world leaders will actually work together and get aid sent in, in opposition to the current Sudan leader - and if sending food is really the way to go for those who "care", as it's not stopping the slaughters...

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They crossed police lines and were arrested. Protesting peacefully does not involve acting unlawfully. If members of Congress want to protest peacefully they should do it within the law. In fact, they should be expected to set a good example, not a bad one. They set a bad one here.

Breaking the law was a good example. Protests that stay in-line are not protests. It doesn't matter if it's not within the law if it's JUST. What the fuck is the point if you don't step out of line?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They crossed police lines and were arrested. Protesting peacefully does not involve acting unlawfully. If members of Congress want to protest peacefully they should do it within the law. In fact, they should be expected to set a good example, not a bad one. They set a bad one here.

Breaking the law was a good example. Protests that stay in-line are not protests. It doesn't matter if it's not within the law if it's JUST. What the fuck is the point if you don't step out of line?

They weren't protesting the law they broke, so how would it be pointless for them to protest without breaking the law?