Gordon Lightfoot Forums - View Single Post

Janice · 03-27-2003, 05:37 PM

Watchman, you missed my point entirely, which is my fault for not clearly expressing myself.

The point I was making is that whether they are peaceful or not.....pro or anti...marches and rallies ALL call for a large volume of police to be monitoring the event. It's not JUST the unpeaceful protests that, as you say, "take hundreds of police officers off the street when they should be on guard against people trying to blow up buildings and spreading anthrax in a subway," it's ALL rallies and marches that do that. Does this mean that I feel there should be no rallies and marches? No, that's not what I'm saying, either. I was just pointing out the shades of gray that I see, in what some feel is a black and white situation.

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Janice, wrong, really wrong. There are far fewer pro-war rallies and never, ever, since this war has started have there been any problems with them. Again, the problem is with protests that are not peaceful. When you have unpeaceful protests, like what the morons in this country are doing, yo need cops and a lot of them to keep the babies under control. What a shame that adults have to act like heathens.

Janice, the only response to your post is that you are wrong. Did you make this up or can you show me some real data to back up your claim that there are the same amount of cops pulled from duty for pro-war rallies in comparison to anti-war protests? First of all, there are far more anti-war protests than pro-war rallies. In comparison, the amount of pro-war rallies when compared to war protests, makes pro-war rallies moot, in comparison.

I have yet see anything other than "philosophy" to back up any statements made thus far.......I have heard these same comments from reading protestors signs.

03-27-2003, 05:37 PM	#12
Janice Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: La Mesa, CA, USA Posts: 715	Watchman, you missed my point entirely, which is my fault for not clearly expressing myself. The point I was making is that whether they are peaceful or not.....pro or anti...marches and rallies ALL call for a large volume of police to be monitoring the event. It's not JUST the unpeaceful protests that, as you say, "take hundreds of police officers off the street when they should be on guard against people trying to blow up buildings and spreading anthrax in a subway," it's ALL rallies and marches that do that. Does this mean that I feel there should be no rallies and marches? No, that's not what I'm saying, either. I was just pointing out the shades of gray that I see, in what some feel is a black and white situation. quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman: Janice, wrong, really wrong. There are far fewer pro-war rallies and never, ever, since this war has started have there been any problems with them. Again, the problem is with protests that are not peaceful. When you have unpeaceful protests, like what the morons in this country are doing, yo need cops and a lot of them to keep the babies under control. What a shame that adults have to act like heathens. Janice, the only response to your post is that you are wrong. Did you make this up or can you show me some real data to back up your claim that there are the same amount of cops pulled from duty for pro-war rallies in comparison to anti-war protests? First of all, there are far more anti-war protests than pro-war rallies. In comparison, the amount of pro-war rallies when compared to war protests, makes pro-war rallies moot, in comparison. I have yet see anything other than "philosophy" to back up any statements made thus far.......I have heard these same comments from reading protestors signs.