Current Events

TOPICS:

11/18/03

ass sauce anyone?

11/18/03

2003 Overall Health Score Rankings:

11/17/03

Homeland Hoedown

11/17/03

dark beer is healthier! [2]

11/17/03

This is SO weird!

11/17/03

11/17/03

are you a patriot?

joshof13thfloor

11/17/03

Leftwing Religous Groups

Max16Characters

11/17/03

Chicken, bok bok!

11/17/03

jessica lynch...naked? [2]

11/17/03

"aren't you lucky to be in a county.."

11/17/03

Protocols for visiting dignitaries....

11/17/03

The Last Free American [2]

11/17/03

libetarian party [3]

11/17/03

President Ahnold? [3]

11/16/03

sweatshop free? [2]

11/16/03

George W. Bush: Resume [2]

11/16/03

US casualties in Iraq > Vietnam for same timespan

11/16/03

I hate my McJob. [2]

11/16/03

Footage of the Siegfried & Roy accident.

11/15/03

dying in Iraq...

11/15/03

the most hands-on teacher ever [2]

11/15/03

God Shave the Queen

11/14/03

Racial Slurs and the like

11/14/03

CIA Mind Control Documents Released [4]

11/14/03

Freakish storm hits Southern California

11/14/03

7 year old boy charged with molestation in NJ

11/13/03

virtual beauty queens [2]

11/13/03

Alabama Chief Judge Fired for 10 Commandments deal

11/13/03

iTunes Encourages Playlistism

11/13/03

Would you like to BOMB IRAN???

11/13/03

The end of the werld WTF

11/13/03

That DVD and CD of yours? Isn't really yours...

11/13/03

11/13/03

maybe he'll get thrown in with chong [5]

11/13/03

11/13/03

Jessica Lynch Was Raped By Her Iraqi Captors [8]

11/13/03

Has The Onion jumped the shark? [2]

11/12/03

Prince Charles and his knob [2]

11/12/03

PAGE:

1 ...

425 | 426 | 427

... 484

retweet

"aren't you lucky to be in a county.."

Lorelei

SUICIDEGIRL

Tennessee, USA

NOV 16, 2003 02:33 PM

Bush's response to UK protests (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3274331.stm):

"Aren't you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind?" he said. "I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say."

in other words, we shouldn't speak our minds, because we can.
haha.

Pauillac

Canada

April 2003

NOV 16, 2003 02:44 PM

Pretty much in the same vein as:

The erosion of you personal liberties shouldn't bother you - unless you've got something to hide.

What a dick.

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by Pauillac]

Iron_Thunderbolt

Portland, OR

November 2003

NOV 16, 2003 02:45 PM

heh, that made me laugh.

MisterJesus

United Kingdom

November 2002

NOV 16, 2003 02:49 PM

This kind of comedy you just can't make up.

stockula

Anchorage, AK

May 2003

NOV 16, 2003 03:30 PM

More like he could give a fuck what the protestors think of him.

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA

February 2003

NOV 16, 2003 04:26 PM

stockula said:
More like he could give a fuck what the protestors think of him.

yeah that's kinda how I took it......

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 16, 2003 04:29 PM

Racer_X said:

stockula said:
More like he could give a fuck what the protestors think of him.

yeah that's kinda how I took it......

yup, that is exactly what it means. no need to read anything else into it. it's his way of acknowledging the protests while completely brushing them off.

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA

February 2003

NOV 16, 2003 04:37 PM

s5 said:

Racer_X said:

stockula said:
More like he could give a fuck what the protestors think of him.

yeah that's kinda how I took it......

yup, that is exactly what it means. no need to read anything else into it. it's his way of acknowledging the protests while completely brushing them off.

exactly, but I don't think that either one of us expected him to acknowledge any kind of protest..i mean what politician really does acknowledge any criticism of their policies?...

Lorelei

SUICIDEGIRL

Tennessee, USA

NOV 16, 2003 04:37 PM

well, i think he darn well should give a fuck.
but, sounds like he'll even be spared the sight of seeing the protesters at all... that's great p.r., just making it blatantly apparent to people that he will blissfully turn a blind eye/ear to any dissenting voices. what is the point of "a country where you are free to speak your mind" then, if he refuses to listen? i'm sure those protesters won't be saying at the end of the day:
"well i feel great now that i got that off my chest! three cheers for free speech! now how about a nice cuppa?"

MarkoffChaney30832

Truth Or Consequences, NM

February 2003

NOV 16, 2003 04:45 PM

I dunno, Bush's right on this one (got to give the devil his due) -- I just don't think he really believes it. I caught the thread awhile back about the Feds going after college profs who teach/preach against America, and there were lots of folks who said "Right on -- Why should the government fund its enemies?" And well, a). there's a difference between academic profs who vehmently critique policy and people who blow up Federal buildings, and b). supporting everybody's right to speech, and hell, I'd even extend that kicking a few dollars to pinko-profs, is the ideal that makes America great. If we were actually true to that ideal, a lot of these people in these repressive regimes -- Syria, Iran, Iraq -- would have a harder time shooting at us, IMO. There's something to be said about being better than your enemies; And rather than employing their same tactics to root them out, actually adhering to a few principles, to leave our enemies to die on the vine.

Sorry for a little cross-pollination of threads here. And I just wish I lived in a country where which books I read -- that encourage me to speak my mind -- weren't on file in the Attorney General's office. Hi, everybody.

crispy

NEWSWIRE

Philadelphia, PA

NOV 16, 2003 04:51 PM

I don't know about you, but I think Dubya is counting the days until next year's election because he's known since the beginning that he's in over his head.

He was just trying to make daddy proud, and never considered what would happen if he was actually elected.

I'm sure he longs for the days where he spends eight hours working the 'Jumble' in his local newspaper rather than trying to pretend he knows what's going on in the world ...

Lorelei

SUICIDEGIRL

Tennessee, USA

NOV 16, 2003 05:41 PM

Truth or Consequences, New Mexico? I want to live there...

anyway, you have a point MarkoffChaney.. but I'm just saying, when people say things like "well, aren't you glad you don't have to wear a sack over your head?" this translates to my own ears as 'you protesters should all just shut up.'
you're right, we can't go around trumpeting our 'priviledge' of free speech if we are not, as you said, true to that ideal.
and i don't think giving people a false sense of freedom of speech (what is dissent to no one who is listening?), like penning them up in a 'free speech zone' so their intended audience can't see them, is being true to those ideals.

i'm sure the reply to this will be that freedom of speech doesn't necessarily require anyone to listen, but doesn't it include being able to stand on whatever public property you want to when you speak? (see Dubya comes to UK thread) i mean, no one is allowed to forcibly remove the pro-life marchers from the front of the planned parenthood clinic, so if the women exiting there just after having an abortion have to look at that, george w. shouldn't be spared the sight of anti-war protesters.

and yes (before someone replies and asks me if i'm glad that i don't have to wear a sack over my head) i'm glad for the freedoms we do have here over the people in iraq, however, i'm sure we've all heard cases of peaceful protesters being teargassed right here in the US or worse. (sorry i don't have time to offer links but it's nothing new) also, i believe free speech is a right, not a priviledge, but these kind of comments treat it like the latter... is a lot of talk of free speech just lip service?

Helter

Chester, PA

OLD SKOOL

NOV 16, 2003 08:16 PM

Wait, free speech doesn't exist unless people are forced to listen to what you have to say? Ummm...

First off, these were folks in the UK. Bush is the president of the United States of America, not the world. He doesn't answer to the brits.

Second, public protest is not a valid means to deliver a message. Just because you stand outside with a sign it does not mean that your opinion is any more valuable or valid than anyone elses, just that it's more publicized. Why should he pay any more attention to their opinions than anyone elses? I sure as hell dont' see the president addressing *my* complaints, why she address theirs? Get 20 million people to vocally agree and you'll have something that warrants the presidents attention. A group of people standing outside with signs just doesn't cut it. The only reason he would even consider wasting any time addressing their concerns would be for the good press. I'd be willing to bet that the Ku Klux Klan has more members than that protest did, yet I don't see you clamboring for the president to seriously consider *their* message...

troglodyte

Victoria, BC

May 2003

NOV 16, 2003 10:25 PM

Helter said:
Wait, free speech doesn't exist unless people are forced to listen to what you have to say? Ummm...

No, but democratically elected politicians should be listening.

First off, these were folks in the UK. Bush is the president of the United States of America, not the world.

Aren't Americans always refering to their president as the "leader of the free world"? Considering how hegemonic the US is, I'd say everyone has a right to their opinion the US president.

Second, public protest is not a valid means to deliver a message. Just because you stand outside with a sign it does not mean that your opinion is any more valuable or valid than anyone elses, just that it's more publicized. Why should he pay any more attention to their opinions than anyone elses? I sure as hell dont' see the president addressing *my* complaints, why she address theirs? Get 20 million people to vocally agree and you'll have something that warrants the presidents attention. A group of people standing outside with signs just doesn't cut it. The only reason he would even consider wasting any time addressing their concerns would be for the good press. I'd be willing to bet that the Ku Klux Klan has more members than that protest did, yet I don't see you clamboring for the president to seriously consider *their* message...

First, public protest is a perfectly valid means of delivering a message. It isn't very effective, but valid nonetheless. Politicians should pay attention to them for the same reason they pay attention to letters they get from constituents; for every letter they get, they think of it as representing 100 people with the same opinion but don't bother to write. They should think of protests the same way. I'm not saying it necessarily works, but if you've got a problem with the system, you have an obligation to speak up one way or another.

Whether or not the politicians pay any attention or not is another matter...

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by troglodyte]

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by troglodyte]

Lorelei

SUICIDEGIRL

Tennessee, USA

NOV 17, 2003 05:47 AM

troglodyte said:

Helter said:
Wait, free speech doesn't exist unless people are forced to listen to what you have to say? Ummm...

No, but democratically elected politicians should be listening.

my point exactly..
and helter, check TeeJay's post here and note that it's not just "a group of people with signs":
http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/27642/page2/

Troll

I'm lost

August 2003

NOV 17, 2003 06:26 AM

Lorelei said:

troglodyte said:

Helter said:
Wait, free speech doesn't exist unless people are forced to listen to what you have to say? Ummm...

No, but democratically elected politicians should be listening.

my point exactly..
and helter, check TeeJay's post here and note that it's not just "a group of people with signs":
http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/27642/page2/

One problem with that, though I agree with the fact that they should listen, is we have two established parties that have now gone into avoiding opinion polls for policy making as some opinions will not be liked by their core group, the guys with the money and pull that got them there. This is actually another reason for continuing and increasing the effort of pushing for 3rd parties

Helter

Chester, PA

OLD SKOOL

NOV 17, 2003 07:29 AM

troglodyte said:

No, but democratically elected politicians should be listening.

To people he doesn't represent?

Aren't Americans always refering to their president as the "leader of the free world"? Considering how hegemonic the US is, I'd say everyone has a right to their opinion the US president.

Of course everyone has a right to their opinion of him. He doesn't represent the citizens of other countries though, and he shouldn't be listening to citizens of other countries as if he did.

First, public protest is a perfectly valid means of delivering a message. It isn't very effective, but valid nonetheless. Politicians should pay attention to them for the same reason they pay attention to letters they get from constituents;

Exactly, and do you think that the president makes a public response for every 10,000 letters that they get of a certain opinion? Buzzzz, sorry, no.
Public protest is not a valid way of delivering your message to a politician, for one it doesn't actually deliver an opinion, only a loose association with a general idea. For two, theres no way of ascertaining who the people involved are, how many there are, and whether they are constituents or not. This is a perfect example. The only reason people expect him to respond to this is because it was public. If the same number of brits had just written letters nobody would expect a response at all.

for every letter they get, they think of it as representing 100 people with the same opinion but don't bother to write. They should think of protests the same way. I'm not saying it necessarily works, but if you've got a problem with the system, you have an obligation to speak up one way or another.

Yes, but public protest is not a way of "speaking up", it's a way of publicizing your dissent. That's all. It's just a way of getting more notice than you would had you written letters or made phone calls.

AcidGrampa

Berkeley, CA

September 2003

NOV 17, 2003 08:41 AM

Bush's comment his way of saying that he has the power to take away your freedom of speech (or his buddy Blair could, in England), and that you're damn lucky he's allowing you to protest.

Oh, and BTW, when we lose in Iraq? That means we're winning.

troglodyte

Victoria, BC

May 2003

NOV 17, 2003 05:42 PM

Helter said:
Of course everyone has a right to their opinion of him. He doesn't represent the citizens of other countries though, and he shouldn't be listening to citizens of other countries as if he did.

Although he doesn't represent them, he should pay attention to the climate in other countries, especially when it's the only real ally he has in the Iraq war.

Exactly, and do you think that the president makes a public response for every 10,000 letters that they get of a certain opinion?

No, I don't. But perhaps he should.

Public protest is not a valid way of delivering your message to a politician, for one it doesn't actually deliver an opinion, only a loose association with a general idea. For two, theres no way of ascertaining who the people involved are, how many there are, and whether they are constituents or not.

But by that line of reasoning, the only valid means would be scientifically administered opinion polls (accurate 19 times out of 20), and in that case opinions are being gathered, not expressed.

Yes, but public protest is not a way of "speaking up", it's a way of publicizing your dissent.

I'm not sure what the difference is between speaking up and publicizing dissent.

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 17, 2003 06:53 PM

the protest wasn't for bush - it was for the american people to see that those british people don't like our leader. if you vote in america and you're concerned about what other countries think of us, you might choose to vote against bush in 2004. if you don't care, then you'll vote for whomever you were going to vote for anyway. but remember, those same protesters in the UK are going to help elect a new government at some point, which may or may not feature a bush-friendly prime minister. so it all comes down to how much you value a strong alliance between the US and the UK. depending on how everyone votes, that alliance could either fall apart or strengthen. so, this has much more to do than getting bush to "listen". he's not going to, and everyone knows that.

Pauillac

Canada

April 2003

NOV 17, 2003 07:17 PM

s5 said:
the protest wasn't for bush - it was for the american people to see that those british people don't like our leader. if you vote in america and you're concerned about what other countries think of us, you might choose to vote against bush in 2004. if you don't care, then you'll vote for whomever you were going to vote for anyway. but remember, those same protesters in the UK are going to help elect a new government at some point, which may or may not feature a bush-friendly prime minister. so it all comes down to how much you value a strong alliance between the US and the UK. depending on how everyone votes, that alliance could either fall apart or strengthen. so, this has much more to do than getting bush to "listen". he's not going to, and everyone knows that.

I think that you are right about this - interesting that Britain seems to be the only country whose opinion matters to the American public.

Having said that, let's hope the protest is huge and well publicized.