# General > General Chat >  When is it justifiable for protestors and activists to break the law for the sake of

## kx250kev

When is it justifiable for protestors and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?

I'm writing an essay on this 'pre-chosen' topic for a class.  At first I thought this was a stupid topic, but I'm starting to warm up to it.  I trust you guys, so I thought I'd post it here to research your thoughts and opinions regarding this topic.

 :tabletalk:

----------


## crashdive123

IMO as long as a protest is non-violent, and does not infringe on the rights of others it is just an expression of free speech.  What kind of laws were you thinking of in your question?

----------


## SARKY

Are you asking, when are they justified to revolt? or just when can they start busting in windows and burning cars?

----------


## kx250kev

Unfortunately, the professor gave us no more info than this topic title.  "When is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?"

I guess it is up to me to define and argue this topic.  Maybe another buzz word here is civil disobedience.

Breaking the law could be either peaceful or violent I suppose.  Good point guys.  I was automatically thinking about peaceful law breaking, but I'll add violent to my notes.  I'm in the brainstorming phase right now, so what keeps entering my mind is our 2nd amendment gun rights, or anytime laws violate 'inalienable rights' or the constitution, or personal freedom/liberty or property rights.  Or maybe if the government forces us to buy something like health insurance. Then we might have a duty to break the law.  Seems to me I read something in either the constitution, or by a founding father (maybe the federalist papers) where they talked about "unjust laws".   Can't remember where that was.  Also, was it Jefferson that talked something about the "tree of liberty" and "blood of tyrants".  Can't remember the quote.  Basically saying that at some point the people might need to rise up and oust their government. :Online2long:

----------


## crashdive123

TJ's quote was 


> The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
> time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

----------


## crashdive123

Look at some of the history of protests in the US.  Recently 1.7 million folks protested in DC - not a single arrest.  Then take some of the folks protesting the G7, 8 (whatever number they're up to) - a few hundred protesters and dozens of arrests.  The civil rights protests of the 60's.  Some non-violent, with civil disobedience.  Some violent.  Obviously there are extents to which laws can be broken.  From trespassing, to physical destruction of property and injuring people.  Look at the Founding Fathers - considered radicals and law breakers by many, patriots by many others.  Often the label applied will depend on which side is doing the labeling.

----------


## kx250kev

> TJ's quote was


Thanks.  So TJ obviously believed that laws might need to be broken again some day to restore our liberty.

----------


## kx250kev

> Look at some of the history of protests in the US.  Recently 1.7 million folks protested in DC - not a single arrest.  Then take some of the folks protesting the G7, 8 (whatever number they're up to) - a few hundred protesters and dozens of arrests.  The civil rights protests of the 60's.  Some non-violent, with civil disobedience.  Some violent.  Obviously there are extents to which laws can be broken.  From trespassing, to physical destruction of property and injuring people.  Look at the Founding Fathers - considered radicals and law breakers by many, patriots by many others.  Often the label applied will depend on which side is doing the labeling.


Yep, G8 vs Tea Parties.  Big difference.  I'm a peaceful tea partier myself.
Patriots or traitors, I guess it depends on which side you are on.
All good points!

----------


## crashdive123

Another thing to consider for those with a cause they want to further is the impact their actions will have on the outcome of the debate.  Take for example ELF (Earth Liberation Front) using terrorist tactics to drive their point home.  Their actions make it clear that their goal is not that of saving the environment, but rather one of anti capitalism.  How does torching vehicles and buildings (spewing more harmful pollutants into the atmosphere than those material things would ever produce) further a cause of environmentalism.  In their case, the protest they do have been caused them to be ignored as a serious organization, and sought after for criminal reasons.  Not a very good way to further your stated cause.

----------


## Pal334

_"When is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?"_

Any group or individual that wants credibility needs to stay within the law. I have no respect for individuals or groups that break the law for the benefit of their cause. Laws are (well at least in theory) put in place for the public good. When a group disobeys them during their protest, they are signaling that their cause "trumps" the safety and security of the public at large.

I am of course not referring to civil disobedience, jay walking etc. I am referring to violence or disruption of transportation, or other services.

----------


## Rick

Laws are usually (not always) established by the majority for the betterment of all. For a minority to choose to circumvent that law for their own purpose negates the purpose of the law in the first place. I can't justify any group breaking the law for their own cause. 

There are obviously degrees to be considered. Violating a no trespassing sign is much different than violating the law on murder. However, violating the no trespassing sign erodes the foundation of the murder law. Where do you draw the line and who has the right to decide where the line is to be drawn? 

Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the right to ignore it. IMHO.

----------


## finallyME

I had to write a paper on civil disobedience when I was in college.  I don't remember much about what I wrote though.  Just remember that it is a college paper.  All you have to do is go to the library, find a bunch of books on civil disobedience, and quote a bunch of people on both side of the fence.  The more people you quote, and the less personal opinion you put in the paper, the better the grade you will get.  :Sailor: 

Personally, I feel that civil disobedience is justifiable when the law you are breaking is itself violating the constitution and Bill of Rights.  Of course, this means that you are taking upon yourself the translation and interpretation of what those documents actually mean.  But, if you are willing to go to prison for the rest of your life for it, then more power to you.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Personally, I feel that civil disobedience is justifiable when the law you are breaking is itself violating the constitution and Bill of Rights.  Of course, this means that you are taking upon yourself the translation and interpretation of what those documents actually mean.  But, if you are willing to go to prison for the rest of your life for it, then more power to you.


 I can kinda go along with this.
I guess the person would have to believe that the benefits of his/her actions, outweighs the consequences.....but I believe that a person should be responsible for restitution, for any and all damages, as part of the consequences.

----------


## rwc1969

> When is it justifiable for protestors and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?...



Good question considering it's how our country, the USA, was founded.

it would depend on who you ask.

if i knew that breaking the law would further my cause then I'd consider that justifiable. However, I don't think the opposing party would.

----------


## Rick

So...at the extreme...then Major Hasan's act was justifiable? 

I don't really want to start a debate on that subject I'm just throwing the example out to ask where do you draw the line between something like trespass and murder? Do I simply need to believe in my cause for it to be justifiable?

----------


## SARKY

Major Murderer's actions were not justifiable. Noone forced him to jion the military! He took advantage of the system and then abused it to the enth degree. Hasan could have resigned and paid the military back for his schooling, but NO! he wanted the "free ride"
The idiot ELF people do as much damage to the enviroment as the people they target.
Out here in CA the state is taking an additional 10% income tax as an intrest free loan from the people. They say it's not a tax and that you'll get the money back (in the form of an IOU?) when you file your taxes. Can you say tax revolt comming!!??
We the people wanted a wall on our southern border, the idiots in DC drag their knuckles and thus is formed the Minute Men. When asked why no wall DC responds "it can't be done" .....we put a man on the moon, The chineese built the wall to end all walls and we with all our know how can't build a stinking wall? Now that is representation(sic)! I say throw all the bums out! If they won't go willingly, I know where you can get a good deal on some tar and feathers! 
You realize there was a time in this country when this was common place.

----------


## Proud American

Heres a different spin on those illegal people from another guy close to the border, have you ever thought about how those illegal people are more patriotic than many Americans, they know that we have it good and so they run, ump, and swim so they can take manual labor jobs. Granted I don't want to pay for there health care as some people in the White house want me to, but just pointing it out. 

As far as breaking the law in a protest, I believe that breaking the law as Pal344 is best "Any group or individual that wants credibility needs to stay within the law. I have no respect for individuals or groups that break the law for the benefit of their cause. Laws are (well at least in theory) put in place for the public good. When a group disobeys them during their protest, they are signaling that their cause "trumps" the safety and security of the public at large."

----------


## oneraindog

i hate to encourage the hijacking of a thread but i take exception to people complaining about illegal immigration and demanding things like walls being built. i hear a lot about demand for items "made in the USA" but i never hear people talking about buying "made by legal employess". the illegal work force is only made possible because
1. people continue to consume goods and services produced by illegals
2. illegals will work for a wage much lower than what a legal american is willing to accept.
sure we could build and maintain a wall at astronomical cost(can you imagine how expensive it would be??).  a much cheaper option would be to stop buying product produced by illegal labour. 

as for the OP i think it is very much dependent on what you are protesting and what law you are going to break.
i have developed this notion that if you are attempting to change a law or something about the enforcement of the law the last thing you want to do is validate the need for the existence of that law. 
so, say you are protesting police brutality, it would probably be a bad idea to antagonize and start fights with the police.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

Before I say anything else I want to say that the majority of laws MAY be good and in the majorities best interest. HOWEVER there is the other side of the coin. Not all laws are smart or just,as SARKY pointed out. Just click on this link and I think you will see where I am coming from.
http://www.google.com/search?q=stupi...ient=firefox-a

Did you know it is illegal to sell a blue duckling in Kentucky unless you offer at least 6 of them? Some idiot had too many martinis or something on his lunch break. But it is law.
 While it may not apply to our country. Some laws just go against Human nature. A look at our own past will show that. If that is not enough look at Nazi Germany,or many other countries have laws that are just plain not right. In these cases Breaking the laws is not only just, It is actually the Morally right thing to do.All I am trying to say here is let's not confuse law with morality. A law can exist that is immoral, or morally unjust. If this is the case then assuming that this/these laws cannot or will not be changed. Then breaking other laws May become necessary to get them changed or eliminated altogether. The American Revolution was not absent of taking human life, nor was world war 2. There are times and places where it is unfortunately necessary. The Resistance in WWII was breaking many laws,every day.

----------


## oneraindog

> let's not confuse law with morality


perfectly stated

----------


## Winnie

My take on this is that it's never acceptable for a protestor or whatever to break the law to further their cause. Laws are there for a reason, one of them is to protect the public. If you have to break the law to get a point accross, then you've already lost the arguement. Peaceful protesting.. not a problem, if you have to intimidate, cause physical harm or destroy property, then the perpetrator is nothing more than a common criminal. There are plenty of avenues open to protestors or activists to raise awareness of their campaign without resorting to violence. JMO

----------


## Rick

@ Sarky - You get to live there, I don't. But you need to remember that the The Great Wall of China was built to protect its borders with varying success. I think you'll find even the Great Wall was eventually defeated along one of its gates. There's no reason to believe a fence or wall on our southern border would be any more successful.

@Poco - While it's often humorous to take a look at some of the laws that have been written, we have to remember that we are taking them out of context and doing so is what gives them humor.

----------


## Sarge47

No one, & I mean no one, is above the law; unless, of course, they're President of the United States.  However, in the case of civil disobedience, I saw something interesting on the news awhile back.  Some of Prez O's former supporters were upset with his education cuts & were protesting.  Several men walked towards a police line that was guarding the entrance to a building.  The idea behind this was for the protestors to get arrested for trying to enter, or maybe get the police to act in a "heavy-handed" way.  However I applauded the police for what they did.  As the protestors approached arm-in-arm, the cops "closed ranks" so tight that the only way the protestors could get past them was to physically lay their hands on them, and that would get them a felony assault charge, shooting down there validity as protestors.  They stopped cold, unsure what to do next.  I remember the rioting in Chicago during the Democratic Natiional convention when the police beat everyone in their way with their night sticks.  This was a much better method as no one could complain about brutal cops, nor could it be considered an abuse of power.  Their are rules & guidelines in place for lawful protest, & I will always respect the people who follow them, even if I don't agree with their cause; however I will never support ANY individual or organization that uses unlawful, or even unethical methods to try to make their case.  That, in my opinion, would make them as bad as the thing they're protesting.  An example would be that me & my family stand very strongly against the issue of legal abortion, yet I will never advocate violence, or even name-calling, against those that do, or even practice it; either as a patient or a doctor.  Okay, getting down off of my soap-box now.   :Sneaky2:

----------


## Rick

Now look what you did. All of these folks are protesting your speech. This could get ugly.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## kx250kev

> _"When is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?"_
> 
> Any group or individual that wants credibility needs to stay within the law. I have no respect for individuals or groups that break the law for the benefit of their cause. Laws are (well at least in theory) put in place for the public good.


But sometimes you don't have much choice whether to 'stay within the law'.  Sometimes laws are passed that instantly make you or me an instant violator or felon.  What if the government says everyone in America needs to turn in all guns (like they did in Austrailia).  In those cases are you justified to break the law, or do you just turn everything over?

----------


## Sarge47

> But sometimes you don't have much choice whether to 'stay within the law'.  Sometimes laws are passed that instantly make you or me an instant violator or felon.  What if the government says everyone in America needs to turn in all guns (like they did in Austrailia).  In those cases are you justified to break the law, or do you just turn everything over?


That's why we have guys like Ken; they're called Lawyers & they can answer weather standing on your constitutional right to bear arms regardless of what the Government tries to do is illegal or not.  Guys like Ken can also go after the government.  A lot of people put down lawyers, but when the chips are down & you really need one they can be your best friend! :Cool2:

----------


## kx250kev

> An example would be that me & my family stand very strongly against the issue of legal abortion, yet I will never advocate violence, or even name-calling, against those that do, or even practice it; either as a patient or a doctor.


What if the government passed a law that said you can only have 1 child, and now your wife is pregnant?  Your child will need to be aborted per the population reduction act.  Fleeing the country makes you a felon, and you'll all be imprisoned for life if captured.   Cops just stopped you and see that your wife is pregnant.  Are you still non-violent?

Painted you in a corner now didn't I?  :art:

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

So just to make sure I understand all the legal Law abiding citizens. What you are saying is that if you lived in Nazi Germany you would have ignored the abuses of humanity just to follow the "Letter of the Law" ? That the laws of that time and place were just,just because they were law? I personally would like to think better of myself than to have followed these laws. All I am saying is that to all things there is a time and place.... including breaking the law. You would follow the speed limit while rushing someone to the hospital who may die? I know these examples have nothing to do with the OP, I am merely showing examples that almost everyone would IGNORE the law, whatever it is, to do what is RIGHT not Legal.
  This is what I meant about confusing morality with legality. Some things can be morally right,yet legally wrong, and vice versa. I have searched for one law that I have heard once existed but have been unable to verify for myself via the internet. There was a state that at one time deemed it LEGAL to kill(Murder) Native American women and Children, but not the men(go figure). It was assumed that no white woman would marry a Native American and thus they(Native Americans) would disappear. There is not one of us Today that would stand for such a law,and if a politician were standing in front of you telling you this was the right thing to do, you would probably strangle the life out of them. Times change,Laws change, but what is morally right should NEVER change. In todays Judicial system not many people realize that (at least in some states) Juries actually have the power to strike down a law that they deem unjust.

 Let's take a look at something that is current. Marijuana. Today I hear that the AMA actually are backing the use of "medical Marijuana". How many people have broken that law because they knew that it had a chance to make their lives better? Perhaps give them just a little more comfort in what could be their last days? Perhaps give them just a little more strength to overcome their illness? Now I am not advocating absolute anarchy,or even ignoring the law. But if the law is more harmful than good, It needs to be done away with. If it means for some brave souls(like our founding Fathers) breaking that law, then someone needs to do what is MORALLY RIGHT,not LEGALLY RIGHT. Like everything else, not all laws are perfect. IF they can be changed in the conventional LEGAL way, then they should be. If they can't be changed conventionally, then they must be changed unconventionally. But changed they must be.

----------


## Pal334

> But sometimes you don't have much choice whether to 'stay within the law'.  Sometimes laws are passed that instantly make you or me an instant violator or felon.  What if the government says everyone in America needs to turn in all guns (like they did in Austrailia).  In those cases are you justified to break the law, or do you just turn everything over?


The post is about protesters, not mass,instaneous illegalization (if there is such a word) of something,including firearms. There are always lead times for changes in law, as there was in Australia. That is the time to within the law make your protests. And no, as long as there is a functioning democracy in the USA, I can think of no reason to ever use violence or violent  and unlawful means to protest or to try to enforce *YOUR or ANYONE ELSES* opinion on me. As to your question _"do you just turn everything over?"_ that borders on the silly, so I would not address it any further. Come out from that underground bunker and walk amongst us in civilization,participate in the democratic process. You will be more successful than hiding underground.

----------


## kx250kev

> That's why we have guys like Ken; they're called Lawyers & they can answer weather standing on your constitutional right to bear arms regardless of what the Government tries to do is illegal or not.  Guys like Ken can also go after the government.  A lot of people put down lawyers, but when the chips are down & you really need one they can be your best friend!


So while Ken fights for your rights, you are technically in violation of the new law, so you either protest and break the law, or turn your guns over and hope that Ken wins them back.  Which do you do?

----------


## Sarge47

> So while Ken fights for your rights, you are technically in violation of the new law, so you either protest and break the law, or turn your guns over and hope that Ken wins them back.  Which do you do?


A law does NOT become a law until it is enforced in court, ergo Ken goes to court to fight it.  If the law wins I'd give them all of my guns...if they hadn't all been stolen.   :Sneaky2:

----------


## crashdive123

Gotta agree with Pal on this.  A draconian law such as the examples that you site will not happen over night.  Look at the current protests regarding health care reform.  Voices are being heard and making a difference.  Using the Australian gun ban laws is a good example of the people becoming complacent and not having their voices heard.  Oh sure, there were some, but many remained silent - leaving the heavy lifting to others.  You were asking about protesting, not the attempts by a government to ....... well - that discussion is political, and for another forum.

----------


## kx250kev

> The post is about protesters, not mass,instaneous illegalization (if there is such a word) of something,including firearms. There are always lead times for changes in law, as there was in Australia. That is the time to within the law make your protests. And no, as long as there is a functioning democracy in the USA, I can think of no reason to ever use violence or violent  and unlawful means to protest or to try to enforce *YOUR or ANYONE ELSES* opinion on me. As to your question _"do you just turn everything over?"_ that borders on the silly, so I would not address it any further. Come out from that underground bunker and walk amongst us in civilization,participate in the democratic process. You will be more successful than hiding underground.


Pal334, I'm simply exploring the subject...its' extremes and hypotheticals.  I don't condone violence, and the topic doesn't ask when is violence acceptable.  It simply asks when is is justifiable to break the law for the sake of a cause.  This could include 'mass instantaneous illegalization' which causes the protesting and activism in the first place.

P.s. I'd like to thank all of you for taking the time to 'kick this can' around.  Many great ideas here.

----------


## Pal334

> Pal334, I'm simply exploring the subject.  I don't condone violence, and the topic doesn't ask when is violence acceptable.  It simply asks when is is justifiable to break the law for the sake of a cause.  This could include 'mass instantaneous illegalization' which causes the protesting and activism in the first place.


I usually avoid these types of "What if" questions, since they lead an otherwise useful conversation in silly directions. So I will step out of this one since  in my opinion it is wandering into useless banter. The light of day and fresh air does wonders, as do facts.  

Some unsolicited advise:
Before you use the Australian example again, I would suggest you "google" it and read the facts from several different sources.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> I usually avoid these types of "What if" questions, since they lead an otherwise useful conversation in silly directions. So I will step out of this one since  in my opinion it is wandering into useless banter. The light of day and fresh air does wonders, as do facts.  
> 
> Some unsolicited advise:
> Before you use the Australian example again, I would suggest you "google" it and read the facts from several different sources.


Pal what about my post, post #28? These are current and historical instances, I have used. Your Signature quote also tells me (at least my perception) is that you would do what is right even if it were "Wrong" legally.

----------


## Pal334

> Pal what about my post, post #28? These are current and historical instances, I have used. Your Signature quote also tells me (at least my perception) is that you would do what is right even if it were "Wrong" legally.


I did read your post. The "current reference" ie: Marijuana does not mean much to me, since drug usage is stupid. Does not mean I disagree with your opinion, it is yours and I respect it. The "historic references" are just that, history, we have to learn from it / them and not make the same mistakes now.  I have never ignored a criminal law just because I did not agree with it, in fact I have enforced them and complied with them through out my career. Having said that ,I have and still do vehemently oppose unlawful attempts to misconstrue or inapropriately apply laws, rules and regulations. I have refused unlawful orders from Commissioned officers in the US military (both times to the detriment of my career)and my decisions both times where upheld by compentent authority.  Other than the examples I have mentioned, I can not currently envision not complying with the laws of the land as they currently exist.
I do agree that if we the people feel that a law is unjust, then *LEGAL ACTION* needs to be taken to change it that is why I encourage everyone to vote!!!!!!. Taking inappropriate action, or mass disobedience of a law will make us no better than a 3rd world country

I am off to bed,4am comes early for us miscreants  :Smile:

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

Pal I somehow figured you would answer the way you did. You are dependable and have strong morals, which I respect and admire. I really could see you standing up and refusing Illegal Orders, I really can. Good For You! I once stood up to my superiors too, over conflicting orders,and caught flak over it too. So I know how that feels being, "wrong" when you are right. I appreciate your perspective and thank you for your contributions.

----------


## kx250kev

> So...at the extreme... Do I simply need to believe in my cause for it to be justifiable?


Sarky, I'm with you that what that guy did was....well....evil, but I think Rick does have a good point or question here.  

Who determines what is 'justifiable' when breaking the law?

----------


## Rick

I wrote that because others had indicated that if they believed in something then they would be just in violating the law. I don't see how that can be justified. Not saying it's wrong or invalid. I just don't understand it. 

Kx, I think you and Poco are dealing with hypothetical scenarios. What if questions can't be answered. 

As to the marijuana question, it's illegal. A LOT of folks choose to violate they law. They do so at their own peril. It's a choice they make of their own free will. Still, it's illegal and getting caught means paying some consequence, which they are apparently willing to pay.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> Sarky, I'm with you that what that guy did was....well....evil, but I think Rick does have a good point or question here.  
> 
> Who determines what is 'justifiable'?  Does it mean that the person breaking the law is one that determines what is justifiable?  Or would it be when a majority of the population would find a persons actions justifiable.   
> 
> Or maybe this paper simply needs to focus on what 'I' would argue is justifiable?   But that just seems like a paper full of my opinions.  Yuk.  Anyone out there that can read my professors mind?


As near as I can tell there are only two entities that will determine if it is right or wrong when something like you are talking about is done.
 History is one,in which case we may never know if it is really "right" in our own lifetime. The other is public opinion.

Earlier I used the example about Medical Marijuana. Today federal law says that it is illegal. However some states have decided to "buck the system",and say that it should be (in their states at least) legal. It would seem that the medical community is now backing these states. Since this is a health and medical issue I would have to question the feds motives in keeping the medical(NOT recreational) use of a drug,any drug as being illegal. I see it as if the feds were to say that penicillin were illegal but some states and the medical community said it should be legal. Who am I to listen to? Who really knows what is best in this situation? This is a law that is being challenged(the federal one) openly yet within legal bounds (if only marginally),yet at the same time is breaking that law. A Paradox I know. The states are following their law making process while breaking the federal law. This could be construed as exactly the case you are talking about. It is a protest of sorts.Laws being used to break laws.

----------


## kx250kev

> I wrote that because others had indicated that if they believed in something then they would be just in violating the law. I don't see how that can be justified. Not saying it's wrong or invalid. I just don't understand it. 
> 
> Kx, I think you and Poco are dealing with hypothetical scenarios. What if questions can't be answered. 
> 
> As to the marijuana question, it's illegal. A LOT of folks choose to violate they law. They do so at their own peril. It's a choice they make of their own free will. Still, it's illegal and getting caught means paying some consequence, which they are apparently willing to pay.


I probably should "reel myself in" a little and focus on more conventional "protestors and activists".  I think I'll focus my argument on "unjust laws".  Found a quote from Dr. MLK

"We must continue to stand up, and we must continue to follow the dictates of our conscience, even if that means breaking unjust laws."

----------


## rwc1969

> ...I do agree that if we the people feel that a law is unjust, then *LEGAL ACTION* needs to be taken to change it that is why I encourage everyone to vote!!!!!!. Taking inappropriate action, or mass disobedience of a law will make us no better than a 3rd world country
> 
> ...



I understand your intent and slightly agree with the point you are trying to make, but...

Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on. It was not founded on legal action, diplomacy, beurocracy or voting and BTW, we are not a true democracy either. What would Ben Franklin do?

The real point to ponder is it all depends on which side of the fence you are on. I think 250kev made some good points. There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism.

Do I agree with terrorist acts against our country? Hell no!

Would I willfully accept another government coming into my country and/ or controlling me or placing restrictions on me. Hell no! I would violently protest!
I would try diplomacy and voting first, but when push comes to shove.....
We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases  that just doesn't work.

----------


## Pal334

> I understand your intent and slightly agree with the point you are trying to make, but...
> 
> Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on. It was not founded on legal action, diplomacy, beurocracy or voting and BTW, we are not a true democracy either. What would Ben Franklin do?
> 
> The real point to ponder is it all depends on which side of the fence you are on. I think 250kev made some good points. There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism.
> 
> Do I agree with terrorist acts against our country? Hell no!
> 
> Would I willfully accept another government coming into my country and/ or controlling me or placing restrictions on me. Hell no! I would violently protest!
> ...


The great part of our system is that you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you. 
_Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on._ In fact our country was based upon people claiming their rights to freedom. We were not in another country, the folks as a whole made the determination to declare independence. when the then ruling group refused, *LEGAL ACTION*was initiated. When the ruling group visited violence on the independence seeker, *THEN* more forceful action was started. 

_There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism._ There certainly is not a fine line! Read above. 

_We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases  that just doesn't work._ Other than the "What if" scenarios that have been puked up in this string no one has shown any real instance where  "that just doesn't work".

----------


## Sarge47

> I probably should "reel myself in" a little and focus on more conventional "protestors and activists".  I think I'll focus my argument on "unjust laws".  Found a quote from Dr. MLK
> 
> "We must continue to stand up, and we must continue to follow the dictates of our conscience, even if that means breaking unjust laws."


MLK?  Isn't he the guy who was murdered by someone else protesting him?   :Cool2:

----------


## Pal334

> MLK?  Isn't he the guy who was murdered by someone else protesting him?


Excellent point. It is a spiral that is completely unproductive and destructive

----------


## Rick

Another point worth mentioning is everyone in this fledgling country left some other country to come here. Many because they disagreed with some form of censorship or prejudice. Most because of religious persecution. The point is, if you feel that you are oppressed and can not operate within the framework of law then you are free to do as they did and find another country.

----------


## SARKY

> I understand your intent and slightly agree with the point you are trying to make, but...
> 
> Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on. It was not founded on legal action, diplomacy, beurocracy or voting and BTW, we are not a true democracy either. What would Ben Franklin do?
> 
> The real point to ponder is it all depends on which side of the fence you are on. I think 250kev made some good points. There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism.
> 
> Do I agree with terrorist acts against our country? Hell no!
> 
> Would I willfully accept another government coming into my country and/ or controlling me or placing restrictions on me. Hell no! I would violently protest!
> ...


Could I then call the politicians who are trying to fundamentally change our country (subvert the Constitution), terrorists and then treat as such?

----------


## finallyME

> What if the government passed a law that said you can only have 1 child, and now your wife is pregnant?  Your child will need to be aborted per the population reduction act.  Fleeing the country makes you a felon, and you'll all be imprisoned for life if captured.   Cops just stopped you and see that your wife is pregnant.  Are you still non-violent?
> 
> Painted you in a corner now didn't I?


Or, what if a governor of a state issued an executive order against your religious organization, and that anyone who held your religious beliefs "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary".  Well, it happened.

Wiki "Extermination Order"

----------


## Rick

What if.......the earth spirals out into the universe and the planet becomes an ice ball?

Sarky - Just for my own curiosity, how would you have the country run and by whom?

----------


## Sarge47

I think the question should be "TO WHOM is civil disobediance ever Justified..."  For example, When we decided to become a nation, many of us labeled those fighting towards that end as "patriots," but Britain labeled them as "traitors."

A local woman here was late to work and was speeding, turned a corner, running a stop sign & failing to use her turn signal.  A cop saw her and turned on his lights, yet she sped on to work.  When he finally caught up to her she said:  "I was going to be late to work, your crap can wait!"  She was also charged with resiting arrest, was the officer wrong?  She obviously thought she was in the right.  This all seems to be a matter of perspective.   :Cool2:

----------


## crashdive123

What if ya'lls what if get out of hand?  I imagine the answers will too.

----------


## trax

Wow, this really seems like a fascinating subject and has created some pretty serious debate. I would love to participate but in order to do so, I'll need someone to explain just one detail to me. What are these things called "laws" that everyone keeps referring to?

----------


## rwc1969

Pal 34: The great part of our system is that you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you. 

Me: so true! God bless america!

pal34:  In fact our country was based upon people claiming their rights to freedom. We were not in another country, the folks as a whole made the determination to declare independence. when the then ruling group refused, *LEGAL ACTION*was initiated. When the ruling group visited violence on the independence seeker, *THEN* more forceful action was started.

Me: Our country was based upon big businessmen refusing to pay taxes. 

If we were not in another country what country were we in? The USA? We were in British colonies! 

The folks as a whole had absolutely no say in this. A very small group of wealthy businessmen decided for us without our input. 

It was not legal action in the eyes of the ruling group or many of our potential allies for that matter. 

Was it legal to dump all that tea in the harbor? 

Was it legal to go against the laws of britain?

Was it legal to declare our independance?

Pal34: _We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases  that just doesn't work._ Other than the "What if" scenarios that have been puked up in this string no one has shown any real instance where  "that just doesn't work".

Me: Hmm?? did we get a vote to ban assault weapons? I don't recall one. 

Was there a vote to ban high powered hunting rifles in the southern third of my state for deer hunting? NO! 

Was there a vote to allow dove hunting in Michigan? Yes! Did we win? Yes! Is dove hunting legal in Michigan? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did many a local community get a vote to ban hunting in part or altogether? NO! 

Did the lawyers or voting prevent any of this? NO! Did lawyers make money in the process? Yes!

Are we getting a vote to enact or decline national healthcare? Did we vote to decide to go or stay out of Iraq, kuwait, afghanistan, vietnam? Did we vote for or against medicare, social security? No! Someone else is deciding these things for us. We have absolutely no say in the final outcome. 

How is that working out for us?


Do I agree with violent protest? Yes! as long as that protest supports my ideals.

----------


## rwc1969

> Could I then call the politicians who are trying to fundamentally change our country (subvert the Constitution), terrorists and then treat as such?


I would! but, that's just my opinion.

----------


## rwc1969

> Another point worth mentioning is everyone in this fledgling country left some other country to come here. Many because they disagreed with some form of censorship or prejudice. Most because of religious persecution. The point is, if you feel that you are oppressed and can not operate within the framework of law then you are free to do as they did and find another country.


Or stay here and make another.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Pal 34: The great part of our system is that you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you. 
> 
> Me: so true! God bless america!
> 
> pal34:  In fact our country was based upon people claiming their rights to freedom. We were not in another country, the folks as a whole made the determination to declare independence. when the then ruling group refused, *LEGAL ACTION*was initiated. When the ruling group visited violence on the independence seeker, *THEN* more forceful action was started.
> 
> Me: Our country was based upon big businessmen refusing to pay taxes. 
> 
> If we were not in another country what country were we in? The USA? We were in British colonies! 
> ...


 Perhaps you need to look-up the difference between a democracy, and a democratic republic. Just sayin'.

----------


## Pal334

*Do I agree with violent protest? Yes! as long as that protest supports my ideals.*

Guess that says it all. Have a great day

----------


## Rick

> Me: Our country was based upon big businessmen refusing to pay taxes.


Sorry, but that just isn't true. We've had this conversation on here before. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we not rich at all. Most were lawyers, several were physicians, some were merchants and farmers. You'll find that many died as paupers. Big businessmen is a misnomer. 

In fact, it originally began because the thirteen colonies were being governed without representation. Officially, the Revolutionary era started in 1763. The taxation laws were only considered wrong because the American colonies lacked representation in the House of Parliament. It wasn't the refusal to pay taxes but to pay taxes without elected representation, which was seen as a violation of the rights of an Englishman.

----------


## oneraindog

people behind the iron curtains in germany and russia tried to escape their totalitarian governments. this was against the law. 

to those of you who claim that protest should always take the form of legal action, would you say that people defecting from repressive, totalitarian governments are not within reason of doing so because their protest does not take the form of legal action and they should instead have called upon courts and lawyers to hear their case?

----------


## crashdive123

> people behind the iron curtains in germany and russia tried to escape their totalitarian governments. this was against the law. 
> 
> to those of you who claim that protest should always take the form of legal action, would you say that people defecting from repressive, totalitarian governments are not within reason of doing so because their protest does not take the form of legal action and they should instead have called upon courts and lawyers to hear their case?


I think you may be comparing apple to oranges.  I believe most response (at least mine was) were referring to protest in the United States, not in a dictatorship.

----------


## Rick

I think you'll find they chose the courts as a first means. In any case, you're attempting to compare a dictatorship to a republic.

----------


## Rick

See how we think? Amazing. Great minds and all.

----------


## Ken

> Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we not rich at all. Most were lawyers..........


Yes, most of our Founding Fathers WERE Lawyers.   :Smile: 

Tell ya' what:  You can all call me "Dad,"  okay?   :Innocent:

----------


## Rick

Uncle Dad?

----------


## crashdive123

I'm not sure what 2D's response will be, but I'll lay ya even odds it gets moved.

----------


## Ken

> Uncle Dad?


That's fine.   :Smile: 




> I'm not sure what 2D's response will be, but I'll lay ya even odds it gets moved.


An inconvenience which could be resolved by just one click of the "Ban Button."   :Innocent:

----------


## oneraindog

> I think you may be comparing apple to oranges.  I believe most response (at least mine was) were referring to protest in the United States, not in a dictatorship.


the original question refered to protesters breaking the law. was it US specific? 
even if so i think the example still stands.
in this debate people have complained about abstract "what if" scenarios that have no bearing on what actually happens. but that is not a what if scenario. that actually happened. it is a real tangible example of what i think is justifiable reasons for breaking the law in protest. 

but if you insist on a domestic example what about the japanese internment camps? a japanese person escaping one of those would not have been justified in doing so if they had not used legal court proceedings?

what about rosa parks sitting at the front of the bus?

during the womens suffrage movement women picketed the white house. this was an illegal action. but wasit unjustified? 

speaking of MLK, he once pointed out, though he was not the only one  that legal channels are supposed to be open and equal to all in theory but in practice they are sometimes closed or unfairly obstructed. when this is the case the system is not democratic  in the way that would make civil disobedience unnecessary.

it has been pointed out by activists and legal professionals alike that judicial review is one of the features of american democracy which is supposed to make civil disobedience unnecessary, then it ironically subverts this goal for to obtain standing to bring an unjust statute to court for review, often a plaintiff must be arrested for violating it

----------


## oneraindog

> I think you'll find they chose the courts as a first means. In any case, you're attempting to compare a dictatorship to a republic.


im not comparing anything. im using real world examples of protesters unable to do anything but break the law.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> the original question refered to protesters breaking the law. was it US specific?


 I'm not sure, but like crash, I took it to mean in the U.S.

I would think it could be a totally different discussion, in some other countries, as in some places, protesting will get you shot, or hanged. 

(BTW, I'm ignoring what Ken said. HAH!) :Innocent:

----------


## rwc1969

> Sorry, but that just isn't true. We've had this conversation on here before. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we not rich at all. Most were lawyers, several were physicians, some were merchants and farmers. ....


they weren't poor and without influence. At the time merchants and farmers were the big business of the era. whether they died as paupers is irrelevant.

2d2q, pal34 said we were a democracy. I was the one pointing out that in fact we are not a true democracy, but rather a form of representaive democracy. A huge difference between the two.

This debate is kind of off topic though. The point was that our founding forefathers were considered traitors and terrorists by their own government at the time. So, we see by this that there truly is a fine line between terrorism and patriotism. Don't we?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

----------


## oneraindog

nazi germany is another good example. hitler rose to power in a democracy (no i am not trying to open the "be ware of democracy" argument, just making the point)

so by the rationale ive heard here against civil disobedience, the resistance movement should have instead tried to take hitler to court? or we should have? who should have? what was the legal course of action in that situation? one which came about within a democratic government.

----------


## trax

OK OK, I asked nicely in post #52, but everyone just thought "there goes ol' Trax being a smarta$$ again..." so...I understand a couple of laws

1. Law of Gravity

2. Law of the Jungle

No point in protesting or complaining about either one, neither of them can be broken.

----------


## Sarge47

Trax, you live in Free Traxistan where they only have alcoholic beverages in place of laws!   :Sneaky2: 

Here's the sixty-four dollar questions, who decides what's right or wrong?  How many does it take?  Do we need a majority?  MLK was fighting bigotry, a moral issue, is morality the rationale that we have to have?  Is it the Constitution, ergo "legality" is the clincher?  

I believe that the greatest weapons in our arsenal is truth, justice & education.  For years I've watched poor misinformed people protest abortion by standing outside abortion clinics holding up signs & using really nasty language toward those that worked there or were getting abortions.  I've been ostracized by Pastors & their wives because I refused to go along with that sort of crap, it just creates negativity & stubborness in the minds of the other side!  Just recently the "Pro-life" group won a minor victory without firing a shot.  For years a certain lady Director at a large abortion clinic believed that her view was the right one; until she watched a live abortion via sonagram!  She saw the doomed unborn child who could not escape the confines of it's Mother's womb try to move away from the approaching implement of death, all to no avail.  Since then she has done a 180 on her viewpoint.  I believe that Mike Huckabee interviewed her on his news program.

You say that voting doesn't work, then who's right & who's wrong?  We have to stand up forthe system & try to fix the problems within it.  We can only do that by standing together, not as independents.   :Cool2:

----------


## oneraindog

that is a very good point sarge. it has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong and the difference between the 2 is not confined to the borders of the united states so i would argue that examples of justified civil disobedience are valid whether they happen on the moon or in my back yard.

from ghandis quest for indian independence to MLKs call for black equality, many revolutions would go nowhere were it not for civil disobedience as an implement of protest.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

Most laws I obey, some I break and often. I personally saw enough stupid protests in DC during the '60s to last me a lifetime. Every time someone got POed in the country they "protested" in DC to make it on national TV. I obeyed the law back then but took strong exception to draft dodgers, military haters, people that didn't like what I had on, how long my hair wasn't. Can't argue with an fool so I might have bent a few civil rights and broke a law or bone or both. I didn't see a protest where laws weren't broken, property destroyed, citizens terrified and inconvenienced and they could have stayed on the monument grounds and got their "message" out to the press which is all they wanted. I did get my opinions across without disturbing the tax paying public.

----------


## Sarge47

Here's some links on that abortion deal:

*Planned Parenthood director resigns after  watching abortion on ultrasound*
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/68761337.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ltrasound.html

Also, remember what your goal is if you decide to get into "civil disobedience."  Do you want people to understand and back you?  Or are you just somebody who wants to be known as a "loudmouth, attention-seeking anus?"  "Hey!  Look at me!  I never got the attention I felt that I deserved as a child!"

I remember the idiots who laid down in the street in Ca. to protest the war in Iraq; I'd of used 'em for speed bumps!  Then there were those women who did it in a unique way by taking off all of their clothes, now that was okay; I've been sending them more crap that they can "protest" but so far no luck!   :Sneaky2:  

Bottom line:  What do you hope to accomplish & is your C.D. going to "get it done?"   :Cool2:

----------


## Sarge47

> that is a very good point sarge. it has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong and the difference between the 2 is not confined to the borders of the united states so i would argue that examples of justified civil disobedience are valid whether they happen on the moon or in my back yard.
> 
> from ghandis quest for indian independence to MLKs call for black equality, many revolutions would go nowhere were it not for civil disobedience as an implement of protest.


Ghandi was a wife abuser & the FBI had some dirt on MLK...Morality from immoral people?  Not for me!   :Cool2:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> 2d2q, pal34 said we were a democracy.


 Actually, I was trying to make the point that we are a democratic republic.  :Blushing:

----------


## oneraindog

> Ghandi was a wife abuser & the FBI had some dirt on MLK...Morality from immoral people?  Not for me!


are you serious? so the fact that they were flawed imperfect people negates every bit of their efforts?? 
are you really making the argument that the misdeeds of a person completely negates the worth of anything positive that they might do?
if that is true than every good deed ever done is totally without merit because EVERYONE is flawed and NO ONE is completely moral.

----------


## Rick

Hey. Hold on. I'm completely moral....Oh, shoot. I thought you said morel. Never mind.

----------


## Sarge47

> are you serious? so the fact that they were flawed imperfect people negates every bit of their efforts?? 
> are you really making the argument that the misdeeds of a person completely negates the worth of anything positive that they might do?
> if that is true than every good deed ever done is totally without merit because EVERYONE is flawed and NO ONE is completely moral.


That's too broad of a statement, I question their motives.  Jessie Jackson has taken up MLK's place & I don't care for him at all.   It's not a question of being perfect, just morally upright, even the Boy Scouts swear to that!  Double standards create suspicion in my mind.  And I have no use for a wife abuser, my late sister-in-law was murdered by her soon-to-be ex-husband and now she is the "poster-child for "Take Back The Night."  Remember the idiots who protested the war in Iraq by going over there & occupying buildings thinking that we wouldn't bomb them knowing that American non-combatants were there?  In my book they were guilty of treason!  Civil disobedience is always a tough road to go down as you'll oft-times gain more enemies than allies.  Do it right, you know, "hearts & minds."   :Cool2:

----------


## oneraindog

> That's too broad of a statement, I question their motives.  Jessie Jackson has taken up MLK's place & I don't care for him at all.   It's not a question of being perfect, just morally upright, even the Boy Scouts swear to that!  Double standards create suspicion in my mind.  And I have no use for a wife abuser, my late sister-in-law was murdered by her soon-to-be ex-husband and now she is the "poster-child for "Take Back The Night."


im truly sorry to hear that.

but you are mixing an emotional argument with a rational one. saying "i dont like_________" does not make your argument logical or rational.

i want you to tell me that the work of ghandi and mlk are comepletely meaningless and worthless because of (admittedly large) flaws in their personal lives.   are youre going to do that?

----------


## Sarge47

> im truly sorry to hear that.
> 
> but you are mixing an emotional argument with a rational one. saying "i dont like_________" does not make your argument logical or rational.
> 
> i want you to tell me that the work of ghandi and mlk are comepletely meaningless and worthless because of (admittedly large) flaws in their personal lives.   are youre going to do that?


1st, remember that most people think "emotionally," "not logically."(Notice YOUR emotions at this point?)  2nd, "COMPLETELY meaningless & worthless?"  NO!  However MLK's work has sort of fallen by the wayside with J.J taking over.  Also MLK's work, IMO, was a lot more meaningful than Ghandi's.  Ghandi should have been horsewhipped!  I guess maybe I do stand for civil disobedience, I'd of taken that wife abuser out myself!  You see, there are some character flaws that stand out more than others.  Did you know that he was a bigamist?  Again, I question their motives in what they did, I look for the "why."  My point to all of this is to show that while Civil Disobedience may be a means to an end, it's more than likely going to be messy...sort of like doing delicate heart surgery with a garden trowel.   :Cool2:

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

OK one more time with the best CURRENT US LAW BREAKING PROTEST I can find.
 Federal law says that Marijuana is Illegal. Several states have thought"Well Uncle Sam is a stupid stick in the mud that just wants people to die. We will make it legal in our state so people can use it as Medicine." The fact is that the DEA can at any time,swoop in and shut it down. Wham, Bam, Thank you ma'am! The States themselves are protesting this law. They Break Federal law by legalizing it for ANY use. Sure it is legal in that(those) state(s) But in AMERICA which those states are part of, it is Illegal...period. You can argue that they are trying to do it legally by setting precedent..... Malarkey. It is in effect no different than If my town said that regardless of what the state says that you can sell just one blue dyed duckling. The town is still breaking STATE law!! Take it one step further. It is no different than if I said "I don't care what any LAW says Murder is legal on MY property." Breaking a law of an entity you are part of -Country,state,county,City, whatever, is STILL breaking the law.
 In Essence these states are breaking FEDERAL LAW by Making their laws in direct conflict with state law OPPOSING federal law. You can call it an apple,an orange,or a banana it is still fruity. We aren't talking about apples,oranges,or bananas we are talking about the Fruit of protests breaking law(s). You can call it a "legal action" it is still protesting the federal law. period. This is not a "what if" it is an "it is". It is not hypothetical it is happening right now. Respectable organizations are throwing in with the states, unless you consider the American Medical Association a "frivolous" organization. This is a heavy hitter protest. No lightweights allowed.

----------


## Sarge47

> OK one more time with the best CURRENT US LAW BREAKING PROTEST I can find.
>  Federal law says that Marijuana is Illegal. Several states have thought"Well Uncle Sam is a stupid stick in the mud that just wants people to die. We will make it legal in our state so people can use it as Medicine." The fact is that the DEA can at any time,swoop in and shut it down. Wham, Bam, Thank you ma'am! The States themselves are protesting this law. They Break Federal law by legalizing it for ANY use. Sure it is legal in that(those) state(s) But in AMERICA which those states are part of, it is Illegal...period. You can argue that they are trying to do it legally by setting precedent..... Malarkey. It is in effect no different than If my town said that regardless of what the state says that you can sell just one blue dyed duckling. The town is still breaking STATE law!! Take it one step further. It is no different than if I said "I don't care what any LAW says Murder is legal on MY property." Breaking a law of an entity you are part of -Country,state,county,City, whatever, is STILL breaking the law.
>  In Essence these states are breaking FEDERAL LAW by Making their laws in direct conflict with state law OPPOSING federal law. You can call it an apple,an orange,or a banana it is still fruity. We aren't talking about apples,oranges,or bananas we are talking about the Fruit of protests breaking law(s). You can call it a "legal action" it is still protesting the federal law. period. This is not a "what if" it is an "it is". It is not hypothetical it is happening right now. Respectable organizations are throwing in with the states, unless you consider the American Medical Association a "frivolous" organization. This is a heavy hitter protest. No lightweights allowed.


Hey, don't hold back, Poco, tell us how you really feel!   :Innocent:   Anyway, I agree with you.  It's a good thing all the dope smokers are too stoned to organize and create civil disobedience, huh?   :Sneaky2:

----------


## oneraindog

> My point to all of this is to show that while Civil Disobedience may be a means to an end, it's more than likely going to be messy...sort of like doing delicate heart surgery with a garden trowel.


fair enough. and i agree with you. i just go one step further to say that sometimes it is called for. history shows this. we dont need to get too hung up on the moral character of mlk and ghandi i was just using them as historical examples of justified civil disobedience.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> Hey, don't hold back, Poco, tell us how you really feel!    Anyway, I agree with you.  It's a good thing all the dope smokers are too stoned to organize and create civil disobedience, huh?


Sarge this isn't about "recreational use" or "Medical use". This is about a current situation that is in perfect alignment with this topic. It ain't about whether it should or should not be legalized. It is about a protest that is Breaking the law of the land. Yeah I think it is being overlooked because it deals with something that is considered illegal. Or maybe that it is just "Dope Smokers". The fact remains that this law was originally passed to stop Mexicans from crossing the border. Didn't work did it? After being a Law for a few decades it now also considered immoral as well. I'll bet if we were talking about Dandelions being used to help Cancer or AIDS patients, You nor anyone else would bat an eyelid. Everyone would be saying pass the darn law!! Help those that are sick!!! You see I watched my Dad die of Cancer. If I thought that him smoking or eating this stuff, would have helped him stay alive or help him any little bit, I would have went out and bought the stuff from in front of the police station myself! No telling what they might find out next week in what helps with any illness. I just hope they find it soon so less people have to be miserable.

----------


## BENESSE

> if that is true than every good deed ever done is totally without merit because EVERYONE is flawed and NO ONE is completely moral.



There are degrees of flaw and immorality.
Criminal at one end, just annoying at the other and everything in between.
One ought to keep a sense of proportion when deciding whether a good deed
outweighs the bad. 
Seeing the world in absolutes seldom leads to any real solutions or dialogue.
And it's just a lazy way out.

----------


## oneraindog

> It is about a protest that is Breaking the law of the land


right its called checks and balances. one of the most brilliant aspects of our system of government! it CALLS for a certain about of "law breaking" to ensure that nobody gains to much power over another.

amen poco!!

----------


## rwc1969

one thing's for sure. the federal govt. isn't protesting the tax revenue it gets from the "legal" sale of marijuana.

----------


## Rick

Personally, Poco, I don't see the conflict. The states have the right to pass any law they want whether it is in direct conflict with federal law or not. In this case, California has said, and subsequent state court rulings have upheld, that state law enforcement officials will not enforce the federal law on medical use marijuana. In others words, if a state or county police officer finds medical marijuana in your home they can not arrest you for possession (assuming it is packaged, etc. in accordance with state law). And they can not arrest a doctor prescribing the medical use of marijuana. 

The DEA has said that marijuana is a Class I drug and they have the right to enforce federal law as it applies. Since doctors prescribed medications based on federal law the DEA has jurisdiction over doctors writing prescriptions. The Constitution establishes federal law as the supreme law. That's why DEA still has jurisdiction within the states. 

It's really pretty simple. The term is preemption and you can see it in action in a variety of situations. Some municipalities have a law against the sale of alcohol even though the state says it's perfectly legal to sell it. The ownership and carrying of weapons is similar.

----------


## Beo

There are only several instances I can think for actually breaking the law.
1. If you hurt my family
2. Rape or Domestic Violence against a woman
3. Hurting a child in any way
4. Hurting an animal with the intent to only do harm or torture (not as a food source)
5. Hurting any Elderly Person
6. Being a deadly threat to the general public
7. To feed my family and provide for them (but then again I hunt so we wouldn't be hungry)
8. And if you keep telling me there is no Santa Claus (tired of that, he comes to my house every 
Christmas so there ya wanker)

But that's just me
Beo,

----------


## Pal334

> There are only several instances I can think for actually breaking the law.
> 1. If you hurt my family
> 2. Rape or Domestic Violence against a woman
> 3. Hurting a child in any way
> 4. Hurting an animal with the intent to only do harm or torture (not as a food source)
> 5. Hurting any Elderly Person
> 6. Being a deadly threat to the general public
> 7. To feed my family and provide for them (but then again I hunt so we wouldn't be hungry)
> 8. And if you keep telling me there is no Santa Claus (tired of that, he comes to my house every 
> ...




Nope, I am on board with ya on all of that. And will be back to back with ya if we ever catch the SOB that started that rumour about no Santa,, the rotten SOB

----------


## Rick

Wait! What's this about Santa? I hope nothing happened to him.

----------


## Old GI

> Wait! What's this about Santa? I hope nothing happened to him.


Thanks, Rick.  We better stop that rumor now!!!

----------


## SARKY

It will be soon the way this administration is taking our rights away!
sharpen your pitchforks and light your torches..... they need a lesson in who works for whom!

----------


## BENESSE

> It will be soon the way this administration is taking our rights away!
> sharpen your pitchforks and light your torches..... they need a lesson in who works for whom!



In 2008 people did it without pitchforks and those who care as much as they _say_ they do, can accomplish the same in 2012.

Leave your pitchfork at home. You might put someone's eye out, for god's sake.

----------


## Sarge47

...is that civil disobedience will always seem justified in the eyes of those doing it, but not to those having it done to them!    :Cool2:

----------


## Rick

> Leave your pitchfork at home. You might put someone's eye out, for god's sake.


She's right, you know. Waving those things around is pretty dangerous.

----------


## Beo

> ...is that civil disobedience will always seem justified in the eyes of those doing it, but not to those having it done to them!


Sarge... shhhh! Civil Disobedience is the only time I get a chance to kick the crap out of some goofy retread hippie/yuppie jerk off spouting what needs to be done but doesn't vote to make the changes happen. Civil Disobedience is my friend, we call it anger management in the District. You get angry I manage it for you... :Smile:

----------


## edr730

I can't help but agreeing with both sides of this argument. I think the truth falls somewhere in between. I know that history shows us that violence is the most effective means for change, but I don't like it much. I support "civil disobedience" and feel it has a place in our history and future. I don't know if Gandhi was a wife beater or if President Johnson killed President Kennedy or if Benjamin Franklin was a British spy. It's all just scuttlebutt. I do know that Gandhi marched to the sea to get salt against the established law of the British. He fought for his people in a peaceful way. Not unlike those who swim the Rio Grande or pay "coyotes" for passage because their livelihoods have been stolen by the Free Trade Agreement and they must support their families. When survival is for your people ...your families then protest or breaking the law,  has a different kind of meaning. Those who break the law for the protection of their people and their families and those they love are the Gods of survivalists

----------


## sgtdraino

> Heres a different spin on those illegal people from another guy close to the border, have you ever thought about how those illegal people are more patriotic than many Americans, they know that we have it good and so they run, ump, and swim so they can take manual labor jobs.


If some punk on the street knows you have it good inside your house, is he patriotic to break into your house and take stuff? Even if it's stuff maybe you don't use very much, or care very strongly about?




> As far as breaking the law in a protest, I believe that breaking the law as Pal344 is best "Any group or individual that wants credibility needs to stay within the law. I have no respect for individuals or groups that break the law for the benefit of their cause.


At least in terms of the United States in its current state, I would agree. In the US, you can effectively protest anything you want to in this day and age, without violating the law. And you certainly should not be intruding upon the rights of other people in the cause of your protest. All that does, is make you a hypocrite.




> i hate to encourage the hijacking of a thread but i take exception to people complaining about illegal immigration and demanding things like walls being built. i hear a lot about demand for items "made in the USA" but i never hear people talking about buying "made by legal employess". the illegal work force is only made possible because
> 1. people continue to consume goods and services produced by illegals
> 2. illegals will work for a wage much lower than what a legal american is willing to accept.


The under-the-table illegal alien trade is a terrible business, and should be stopped, even if it takes a wall. The idea that it's okay because it lets us buy cheaper items is totally unacceptible. What it does, is encourage the maintainence of a population of "non-people," for which no standards of decency need apply. Illegals are at the mercy of their employers, because they are here illegally. The employers and pretty much anyone else can screw them over in any manner they like, because they are at the mercy of the legal system. Officials sometimes find trucks belonging to smugglers, packed full of *dead aliens*, that have simply been abandoned. Yes, they come anyway, because in spite of how bad it can be for them here, it's even worse where they came from. But again, that is no excuse to condone or allow such business to continue within the borders of the United States. Whatever our immigration policy is to be, it *must* be above board.

And don't even get me started on the national security risks involved with having such a sloppy border, in the age of Islamic terror, and criminal gang activity.




> sure we could build and maintain a wall at astronomical cost(can you imagine how expensive it would be??).  a much cheaper option would be to stop buying product produced by illegal labour.


Meh. Pay for the raw materials, and then force captured illegals to build it, before you kick them back over to the other side. 




> OK one more time with the best CURRENT US LAW BREAKING PROTEST I can find.
>  Federal law says that Marijuana is Illegal. Several states have thought"Well Uncle Sam is a stupid stick in the mud that just wants people to die. We will make it legal in our state so people can use it as Medicine."





> Personally, Poco, I don't see the conflict. The states have the right to pass any law they want whether it is in direct conflict with federal law or not. In this case, California has said, and subsequent state court rulings have upheld, that state law enforcement officials will not enforce the federal law on medical use marijuana. In others words, if a state or county police officer finds medical marijuana in your home they can not arrest you for possession (assuming it is packaged, etc. in accordance with state law). And they can not arrest a doctor prescribing the medical use of marijuana. 
> 
> The DEA has said that marijuana is a Class I drug and they have the right to enforce federal law as it applies. Since doctors prescribed medications based on federal law the DEA has jurisdiction over doctors writing prescriptions. The Constitution establishes federal law as the supreme law. That's why DEA still has jurisdiction within the states.


I'm a little torn on this one. I am a firm believer that Federal law, short of direct Constitutional law, is the highest law there is. That federal law applies everywhere, and states should be required to obey *all* federal laws.

However, I'm also a fairly strict constitutional libertarian, who believes that the vast majority of law-making power resides (and should reside) with each individual state. I don't think the federal government should be involved in much specific lawmaking, I think it was intended to restrict itself to more basic tasks, like national defense, maintaining the highway system, and perhaps distributing federal tax money where it is needed. Specific things, like what drugs should be legal, and what drugs should be illegal... I really don't see where that should be the business of the federal government to decide. Specific stuff like that should be left to the states, and each individual state should have the power to decide what it wants to allow, and disallow, within its borders.

So, with that in mind, I suppose I oppose the government establishing and enforcing drug policy for the entire nation, but I definitely support the goverment enforcing immigration policy. People entering our borders from foreign lands is definitely a federal issue, and no state should have the power to oppose federal law on that one.

----------


## Beo

I agree with Sgt.Draino, but would add that illegal's are just that "Illegal" and should be caught and deported, if you wanna come here and live I got no problem (although I think the Great American Melting Pot is running over) just do it legally, and then learn the language. I don't live in or go to South America or any other country and expect them to change the language for me. 
No illegals should not get ANY breaks here to include medical, legal, public assistance, or anything else. They are here illegally which is a crime so suffer the consaquences (i know it spelled wrong) if you break the law. 
Build a wall across the border... hmmm, why not. I say about 30 feet deep, 40 feet high, and 20 feet thick made of rebar reinforced concrete with gard shacks every half mile manned by the National Guard all along the Mexican border. Wanna come here come legal.

As far as civil disobedience goes... a protest nonviolent is fine, that is your right. But one that gets out of hand, turns into a riot, people get hurt, or people block the sidewalk (i got a right to walk down the sidewalk without being harrassed by some goof), damage private property, damage any property is wrong and you cannot condone that. Lock them up for a good week to 30 days and teach them a lesson. Drugs are drugs and should be illegal and for good reason.
Just my thoughts
Beo,

Oh, and no if you are illegal you should not have the right to vote, you are not a citizen so your vote is ridiculous. And illegal goods will always happen and I don't know when I buy something if it was made illegally or not and its not my job to find out who makes it if its what I want to buy. Do you research who makes all the crap you buy? I don't think so, no one does and if you do you have to much time on your hands.

----------


## SARKY

So it is not okay to use violence to protest but it is okay to use violence to protest protesters....... as in the SEIU thugs caught on tape beating up a TeaParty member at one of their rallies. Caught dead to rights on tape ........ no arrests, no charges filed, not even an investigation.   Can you say "Brown Shirts"!!!

----------


## sgtdraino

> So it is not okay to use violence to protest but it is okay to use violence to protest protesters....... as in the SEIU thugs caught on tape beating up a TeaParty member at one of their rallies. Caught dead to rights on tape ........ no arrests, no charges filed, not even an investigation.   Can you say "Brown Shirts"!!!


What is "SEIU?" Violence is not okay, but officers are empowered to use a "force continuum" to enforce the law, using one level of force above the level they encounter from someone resisting them, the minimum level of force needed to gain compliance.

As for the Tea Party member and "no charges filed," that Tea Party member needs to go to the Magistrates Office and file charges, then.

----------


## SARKY

Sgtdraino,  you really need to tape and watch Glenn Beck (on Fox news channel)
SEIU is a union organization that obama worked with and who claim that they got him elected. Of course they are backed by the Dailey machine so strong arm tactics are nothing new to them. These people will be the core of obama's civillian defense force. like i said before "brown shirts' for those of you who may not know the historical reference to that term just ask.

----------


## SARKY

So why do illeagals get a pass when they protest in the streets and on the public school campuses of the USA for more benefits??

----------


## rebel

> So it is not okay to use violence to protest but it is okay to use violence to protest protesters....... as in the SEIU thugs caught on tape beating up a TeaParty member at one of their rallies. Caught dead to rights on tape ........ no arrests, no charges filed, not even an investigation.   Can you say "Brown Shirts"!!!


Funny how the SEIU calmed down when folks started to open carry at the tea parties.  I can't remember which big three media (cbs, abc, nbc) portrayed the open carry folks as a white man.  They even tried to doctor the photo. Thank goodness it was a man of color!  It says a lot about our tainted media.

----------


## trax

I liked your reference Sarky. If I may quote a man who I thought was a great man "It wasn't that long ago they were paying me 50 cents a day to shoot the likes of you"--_My Dad talking to a cop who was bullying a guy around in a bar in central Saskatchewan in the late '40's._

----------


## sgtdraino

> Sgtdraino,  you really need to tape and watch Glenn Beck (on Fox news channel)


Hey, I've already got a Beck season pass on my tivo! But lately I haven't been watching as many political shows as I used to.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> Drugs are drugs and should be illegal and for good reason.
> Just my thoughts
> Beo,


OK so let's get rid of penicillin,rogaine,pepto bismol, aspirin,nicotine,caffeine,etc.After all they are "Drugs".
 Sorry Beo, I just think that is a little too broad of a statement. Saying all drugs is saying that you know better than doctors. Do you go to the doctor and tell him what he can and can't prescribe for you? Sorry but they went to a lot of school to know their job,and we have to trust that they know what they are doing. I know you are a LEO and it goes against the grain for you. But Morphine is used medically everyday, yet if you found it "on the street" it would be illegal.Same thing with oxycontine,barbituates,amphetamines,etc. Maybe the same should be true with other "Drugs". If they have a VALID medical use then they should be used accordingly, but not recreationally. Maybe it should be the way it is used that is illegal, not the drug itself. I can promise you that inhalants are more dangerous than Marijuana. So where is the big bust on aerosol paint?Lighter fluid?
Why isn't Nutmeg being taken off the shelves of the supermarket? After all it is halucinogenic. I could go on and on with other "Legal" recreational drugs.Not one of those has a medical use either. Yet they are Legal. Until they are misused. That is the key,the way they are used or misused is what determines whether they are legal or illegal. I know if you pulled me over and I had a prescription drug like one of those listed above and I didn't have a prescription I would be going to jail,but if I did have a prescription I would be going on my way.

 I do not mean this as an attack on you personally, but on the system that has provided us with this lunacy. It makes no sense to me.Shouldn't Law be based on Common sense? Since none of us are MD's why should we know better than them on what medicines/drugs are good to use medicinally.If you DO know better than them, why aren't you allowed to prescribe whatever you want for yourself?

----------


## SARKY

I don't want to get off topic but do you know the reason why Pot isn't leagal? Now they do have a pill form called Marin. It's about money, The drug companies know that canaboids have medicinal uses. But anyone can grow pot from Alaska to Texas and from California to Maine. So if they invest in the plant , produce a legal drug and the people find out that they can get the same benefit by lighting up a legal plant , no profits for the drug company.

----------


## Rick

Sarky, you never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think for one minute that if any of the drug companies saw money to be made in any of the chemical components of marijuana that they wouldn't synthesize, package and distribute it? A 20 million dollar advertising campaign would convince us to eat poop with a toothpick if it was packaged correctly.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> I'm a little torn on this one. I am a firm believer that Federal law, short of direct Constitutional law, is the highest law there is. That federal law applies everywhere, and states should be required to obey *all* federal laws.
> 
> However, I'm also a fairly strict constitutional libertarian, who believes that the vast majority of law-making power resides (and should reside) with each individual state. I don't think the federal government should be involved in much specific lawmaking, I think it was intended to restrict itself to more basic tasks, like national defense, maintaining the highway system, and perhaps distributing federal tax money where it is needed. Specific things, like what drugs should be legal, and what drugs should be illegal... I really don't see where that should be the business of the federal government to decide. Specific stuff like that should be left to the states, and each individual state should have the power to decide what it wants to allow, and disallow, within its borders.
> 
> So, with that in mind, I suppose I oppose the government establishing and enforcing drug policy for the entire nation, but I definitely support the goverment enforcing immigration policy. People entering our borders from foreign lands is definitely a federal issue, and no state should have the power to oppose federal law on that one.


I couldn't agree with you more! That was my whole point that *THE STATES* are Protesting this law while breaking it. I think it "funny" (not in a humorous way either) that there is "selective" enforcement of laws. I know there are a LOT of laws that enforcement IGNORES as they are no longer pertinent to todays society. It Is like the whole joke/saying about marriage/divorce - "It's cheaper to keep her". Let's face it, it costs money to REMOVE laws, the same as it costs to MAKE laws. So sometimes laws are just no longer enforced,while remaining on the books as laws. Kind of like the stupid laws I linked to earlier in this thread. They're stupid, everyone knows it so everyone(including LEO's) just "look the other way". Honestly I think this is exactly what is happening now, That this is the reason DEA is not going in and busting all these places that sell "Medical Marijuana". It has a proven viable use,that in a way negates the necessity of further enforcement of this Law.




> I don't want to get off topic but do you know the reason why Pot isn't leagal? Now they do have a pill form called Marin. It's about money, The drug companies know that canaboids have medicinal uses. But anyone can grow pot from Alaska to Texas and from California to Maine. So if they invest in the plant , produce a legal drug and the people find out that they can get the same benefit by lighting up a legal plant , no profits for the drug company.


Isn't it synthetic? There are other uses for the plant parts, if they could process the necessary medication from the plant. Textiles - Cloth and rope are some of the best available from this plant. Oil from it also has uses. Think of the jobs it would create if it were processed, instead of sold "Raw".
I think you are right though it IS all about money... Like where does the government get their cut? since strength or proof or whatever varies from different plant parts they can't tax it that way. But if it were processed a standard could be formed, that could be taxed. Just a thought.

 I know a Lot of people think that just because a law is broken, someone gets hurt. That is not necessarily the case. If I jay walk at 2 AM when the road is deserted, to get away from a burning building,Will I get hurt? If someone lost in the Wilderness traps an animal to provide necessary sustenance when it is illegal does anyone get hurt? No, a life could be saved,and no harm caused at all. If you speed to take a dieing person to the Hospital and there is no accident is anyone hurt?. I am trying to find incidents where a Law Can be broken and something beneficial comes of it. It's hard believe me, to come up with good examples. But I think you can see, that there are instances when each and everyone will break a law, and something beneficial comes of it. I think this is the beauty of the judicial system when it works like it is supposed to. You CAN break a law and be found NOT GUILTY because of extenuating and mitigating circumstances.

 If a crazed madman breaks in and threatens your family and you shoot and kill them - Sorry, but you are "Guilty" of involuntary homicide/manslaughter at the very least. But I bet you shoot and kill anyway. I think I've made my point, that there are laws, That at the time, Are stupid - and IN THAT INSTANCE, are worthy of being ignored. You can tell me you are "Joe perfect Citizen" all you like, but there are circumstances that each and everyone will either knowingly or unwittingly break a Law.

----------


## BENESSE

> A 20 million dollar advertising campaign would convince us to eat poop with a toothpick if it was packaged correctly.


I'd be very happy to have that account. Something new and different.

----------


## Ken

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> I don't want to get off topic but do you know the reason why Pot isn't leagal? Now they do have a pill form called Marin. It's about money, The drug companies know that canaboids have medicinal uses. But anyone can grow pot from Alaska to Texas and from California to Maine. So if they invest in the plant , produce a legal drug and the people find out that they can get the same benefit by lighting up a legal plant , no profits for the drug company.





> Sarky, you never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think for one minute that if any of the drug companies saw money to be made in any of the chemical components of marijuana that they wouldn't synthesize, package and distribute it? A 20 million dollar advertising campaign would convince us to eat poop with a toothpick if it was packaged correctly.


Sorry Rick I don't think Pills grow on marijuana plants. The Drug Companies ARE manufacturing it already. But you won't see any advertising campaigns,since Marijuana is ILLEGAL and they don't want the stigma attached to them. No amount of money could fly an AD campaign that could spin that in a favorable light! You may as well have said 2 Billion. That is why they don't advertise. But since it is useful They make it.

----------


## BENESSE

> Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.



Tastes Great, Less Filling!

----------


## Rick

Drug companies don't advertise? When's the last time you turned on the TV, listened to the radio or read any type of periodical that there WASN'T a drug advertisement included? Bayer, Tylenol, Lavitra.....

side effects might include dizziness, dry mouth, loss of appetite, libido, fibido, your left foot, your right ear, last night's pasta or your wallet.

Ken - that looks pretty good. Maybe the ads were subliminal.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> Sorry Rick I don't think Pills grow on marijuana plants. The Drug Companies ARE manufacturing it already. But you won't see any advertising campaigns,since Marijuana is ILLEGAL and they don't want the stigma attached to them. No amount of money could fly an AD campaign that could spin that in a favorable light! You may as well have said 2 Billion. That is why they don't advertise. But since it is useful They make it.





> Drug companies don't advertise? When's the last time you turned on the TV, listened to the radio or read any type of periodical that there WASN'T a drug advertisement included? Bayer, Tylenol, Lavitra.....
> 
> side effects might include dizziness, dry mouth, loss of appetite, libido, fibido, your left foot, your right ear, last night's pasta or your wallet.


OK, I guess I deserve that one. I just thought you would understand what I meant. Perhaps I should Clarify what I meant. I meant that they don't advertise the fact that they make a Marijuana synthetic Pill available, to the public. They couldn't take the bashing they would get if they Advertised that.  It would probably affect their profit margins or some such. Better to just let the Doctors know, let them prescribe it, and rake in the profit on the hush hush. We know it is being made, just not who makes it. I'm sure we could find out, But it's not like they are going to the roof tops to shout it out.

----------


## SARKY

Rick, get real! if the drug companies could outlaw O2 and then synthesize oxygen don't you think they would do it??? If any one can just walk outside and suck in O2 where is their profit? the same goes with pot.

----------


## Rick

Poco - My apologies. I completely misunderstood your post. You're describing Marinol. I think Sarky referred to it as Marin and I didn't know what that was. Okay, I'm with you guys now. 

Marinol is made by Unimed Pharmaceuticals, which is owned by Solvay Pharmaceuticals based in Marietta, GA. (There you go Frank!). Marinol is basically a synthetic form of the THC (Dronabinol) that's found in medical marijuana. An interesting aside is that Unimed, at one time, had set up an assistance program for those that could not afford the drug. I don't know if that program is still viable or not. 
*
*

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

Rick, No apologies necessary. If there is one lesson that is applicable to all situations that I learned from training horses. It is this- That when the horse doesn't understand, it isn't the fault of the horse, It's not stupid. It's the Fault of the trainer for  Not clearly COMMUNICATING what the intentions are. My fault for not clearly communicating. :Blushing:  :Innocent:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Rick, No apologies necessary. If there is one lesson that is applicable to all situations that I learned from training horses. It is this- That when the horse doesn't understand, it isn't the fault of the horse, It's not stupid. It's the Fault of the trainer for  Not clearly COMMUNICATING what the intentions are. My fault for not clearly communicating.


 *Snort, chuckle*   Rick......I think he just called  you a horses arse! LOL :Whistling:

----------


## COWBOYSURVIVAL

Nah! Just a half @$$!

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> *Snort, chuckle*   Rick......I think he just called  you a horses arse! LOL





> Nah! Just a half @$$!


I Did No Such Thing!!! Well maybe 1/8th? You guys like getting me in Hot water don't ya'. Thanks But I can do that all by myself!! LOLJust read the rest of this thread and you will see how much hot water I've been in already. 
 Oh and Rick, you may be 1/8th but I am 1/4th, so that makes me more of one than you!!        

Hey wait a second,that didn't come out right!! I want a Do Over!! LOL

----------


## Rick

I've been working on the math for about an hour now and I'm no further along than when I started. The nearest I can come up with is I'm an Arse and a half but I don't think that's right.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I've been working on the math for about an hour now and I'm no further along than when I started. The nearest I can come up with is I'm an Arse and a half but I don't think that's right.



 I don't know, Rick....I think that just may be the correct answer. LOL :Innocent:

----------


## trax

> I've been working on the math for about an hour now and I'm no further along than when I started. The nearest I can come up with is I'm an Arse and a half but I don't think that's right.


Have to agree with 2d2k on that one, looks like that there 'new math' works after all!

----------


## Old GI

Wow!  Talk about your deteriorating thread. :clap:

----------


## SARKY

If we are no longer being listened to, heard or represented by our (supposed) representatives is it justifiable to rise up and physically kick their asses out? Lets not forget that they have failed to uphold their sworn duty and oath of office!

----------


## crashdive123

Everybody should exercise their rights, as they see fit.  Let's stay away from the political stuff.  Thanks.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Everybody should exercise their rights,


...and their lefts! :boxer:  :Lol:

----------


## Rick

I so go for it, Sarky. I'll even help. I'll meet you at the White House. If I get delayed for any reason go ahead and start protesting and I'll be there as soon as I can.

----------


## rwc1969

> If we are no longer being listened to, heard or represented by our (supposed) representatives is it justifiable to rise up and physically kick their asses out? Lets not forget that they have failed to uphold their sworn duty and oath of office!


Good question!

But, are they the traitors or would the uprisers be considered traitors?

----------


## SARKY

You see what has happened to us as a country??!! You can thank the Clinton statement "it depends on what the meaning of is,  is" . And the press of being illiterate bumpkins.
You tell me, which will be doing LESS harm to the country and we'll figure it out from there.

----------


## Rick

Who fills the role once you kick them out of office?

----------


## SARKY

Funny you should ask that, We could probably be better served by picking names out of the phone book!

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> Funny you should ask that, We could probably be better served by picking names out of the phone book!


Or you could throw YOUR name in the hat!.... just sayin'....

----------


## Ken

I've mostly stayed away from this thread because Sarky would look like a couch potato compared to me.  Just sayin'.   :Innocent:

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> I've mostly stayed away from this thread because Sarky would look like a couch potato compared to me.  Just sayin'.


I've "noticed" you reading but not commenting.

----------


## Rick

But then whoever we pick out of the phone book or whoever's name we draw out of a hat becomes one of *"**them"* and we're back where we started.

----------


## pocomoonskyeyes

> But then whoever we pick out of the phone book or whoever's name we draw out of a hat becomes one of *"**them"* and we're back where we started.


Well there is that.......    How about if we kick them all out and DON'T replace them at all!?!?!?

----------


## Rick

The we wander around aimlessly bumping into each other and expecting someone else to point in the right direction. Seriously, we should practice our Baaa's.

----------


## BENESSE

"In the land of the blind, one-eyed man is king."

Just sayin'.

----------

