US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Begbie wrote

WUM Rolling Eyes

Or corporate shill more likely, judging by most of his posts

The more obnoxious claptrap he writes, the more he shows his true colours. From his most recent drivel it is clear he wouldn't have supported the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage or the end of apartheid.

LOL. Every time I hear that it just gets funnier.

You don't like what I write so therefore I must be working for some evil corporation that is dedicated to thwarting you.

Egocentric much?

[biffvernon]

Ah yes sorry I forgot: some towns still have lamp-posts.

Bizarre

[emordnilap]

You are completely free to not have a bank account; to not have a savings account; to not have a pension policy; to not apply for student loans for your children and to admonish all and sundry for their use of credit cards and mortgages.

No one is forced to borrow money.

But are we completely free to not contribute to the bail out of banks?

[nexus]

Wow JSD,

I notice you dispute that you are a corporate shill but not that you would have supported slavery, lack of universal suffrage and apartheid.

Feel free to call me egocentric and I'll feel free to call you a shill, I'm not the first and I'm sure I won't be the last.

[energy-village]

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
the majority of people have had enough of the disruptive posturings of a vocal minority.

JavaScriptDonkey, I think you might admit that you do post provocative stuff on here sometimes. I have no problem with it, in my view it helps make the debate on PS more interesting.

But I can't help making a parallel with your comment (above) that implies the majority should not tolerate the 'disruptive posturings of a vocal minority'. My guess is that you do expect that tolerance to be extended to you.

Doesn't it work both ways? Surely your freedom to be heard means you have to allow others to be heard, even 'untidy protesters'? Who knows, one day you may need the tolerance of others, life takes funny turns.

[madibe]

@ JSD

Are you for real?

[Lord Beria3]

The thing about lefties is that they take things so seriously, its actually very amusing to provoke them.... I can see why JSD does it.

I do find it tiresome when people automatically assume somebody is a corporate shrill - its as if they refuse to accept that anybody might have fundamentally different views to them.

Its beyond arrogent and anather typical sign of a self-rightious leftie.

Saying that, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that JSD is hinting at, that protest should be banned on the basis that it offends the majority of people. That is undemocratic and a abolishes basic civil rights.

JSD - what happens if you are a 'vocal minority' one day, say if Communists were elected to power in the UK? Wouldn't you want the right to protest a Communist government?

[vtsnowedin]

The thing about lefties is that they take things so seriously, its actually very amusing to provoke them.... I can see why JSD does it.

I do find it tiresome when people automatically assume somebody is a corporate shrill - its as if they refuse to accept that anybody might have fundamentally different views to them.

Its beyond arrogent and anather typical sign of a self-rightious leftie.

Saying that, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that JSD is hinting at, that protest should be banned on the basis that it offends the majority of people. That is undemocratic and a abolishes basic civil rights.

JSD - what happens if you are a 'vocal minority' one day, say if Communists were elected to power in the UK? Wouldn't you want the right to protest a Communist government?

Well said LB. I often have assumed you are a one note band (gold),but I shall have to reconsider.

[RenewableCandy]

JSD - what happens if you are a 'vocal minority' one day, say if Communists were elected to power in the UK? Wouldn't you want the right to protest a Communist government?

I am absolutely certain that, under those circumstances, JSD would have the decency to make his way to the nearest lamp-post and hang himself.

[JohnB]

I am absolutely certain that, under those circumstances, JSD would have the decency to make his way to the nearest lamp-post and hang himself.

Maybe all the lamp posts will have been stolen for scrap by then!

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Wow JSD,

I notice you dispute that you are a corporate shill but not that you would have supported slavery, lack of universal suffrage and apartheid.

Feel free to call me egocentric and I'll feel free to call you a shill, I'm not the first and I'm sure I won't be the last.

I'm going to treat that with the contempt it deserves.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

But I can't help making a parallel with your comment (above) that implies the majority should not tolerate the 'disruptive posturings of a vocal minority'. My guess is that you do expect that tolerance to be extended to you.

Doesn't it work both ways? Surely your freedom to be heard means you have to allow others to be heard, even 'untidy protesters'? Who knows, one day you may need the tolerance of others, life takes funny turns.

You are amongst the many who are missing the point.

I have never hinted that protest should be banned but I do support that the notion that your heart-felt protest that disrupts my life should be banned.

Why should the vast majority have to put up with disruptive protests?

Hoards of the outraged camping out on the street. Hot headed youths flooding a fur store. Hunt sabs trespassing. Whatever. Why can't these people just accept that they don't get to tell the rest of us what to do.

Or should I take your advice and disruptively protest against the protesters? Dump 20tons of slurry on the Occupy tents? Infiltrate and inform on anti-furists? Sabotage the hunt sabs?

You see how this goes? Disruptive protesters rely on the fact that I will meekly take their intrusion into my life and do nothing, And yet when I voice my disapproval - just even voice my disapproval - suddenly I am accused of supporting slavery.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

You are completely free to not have a bank account; to not have a savings account; to not have a pension policy; to not apply for student loans for your children and to admonish all and sundry for their use of credit cards and mortgages.

No one is forced to borrow money.

But are we completely free to not contribute to the bail out of banks?

I'm sure the banks will somehow survive without our combined contributions. I take the point that our Governments have decided where to spend our taxes without asking us but they have been doing that for years.

But that is our Government supporting the banks. Our individual actions are what should matter as those we can control. I have no problem with the bailouts as they have saved many poor people from destitution and will eventually reap rich rewards for the tax payer. A collapse of the banking system is a very bad thing.

[gug]

I have no problem with the bailouts as they have saved many poor people from destitution and will eventually reap rich rewards for the tax payer.

You're new here (to this planet) right ?

I'm actually quite interested on how you were personally inconvenienced by the occupy LSX protestors. You seem to claim that your life was disrupted in some way (apart from frothing at the mouth during news reports maybe?)

According to your posts above, the "vast majority" have been inconvenienced.
You'll forgive me if i point out that thats bollocks?

[JavaScriptDonkey]

JSD - what happens if you are a 'vocal minority' one day, say if Communists were elected to power in the UK? Wouldn't you want the right to protest a Communist government?

As is evidenced on this board I am frequently a minority of one. I protest but I don't go around disrupting other people's lives to do it. They are entirely free to ignore me.