Can we have peaceful, national protests yet?

MilanPan!c

Phoebas wrote: »

The thing I remember most about the pensioners campaign was the fact that they could mobilise their ranks to take to the streets - if a person is willing to physically get out and protest its a sure sign that they're also willing to use their vote to advance that goal. If you have large numbers, in a demographic who do cast their vote, then you have political strength.
The fact that they could get thousands of people out on the streets was a key part of the PR strategy that got their representatives onto TV and radio.

Mind you, I can't see a threat by the typical anti austerity protesters that they wont vote for the establishment parties in the next election if they don't get their way having the same impact.

If you had a time machine, what you'd see was over a week of constant media attention before the March. The concessions were made before the people took to the streets. The march was most an afterthought.

MilanPan!c

zoomaway wrote: »

I can't actually believe what you have written ' protests only irritate the right minded citizen.'

As for home economics classes for those struggling to eat I think that is extremely patronising.

Perhaps you should take a few classes in empathy and how to lose a self righteous attitude.

Because telling the poor that they can affect change through marching - ie lying to them - is a much more moral approach?

zoomaway

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Because telling the poor that they can affect change through marching - ie lying to them - is a much more moral approach?

Sounds like you feel very threatened by the thought of anybody marching, the boat getting rocked.

MilanPan!c

zoomaway wrote: »

Sounds like you feel very threatened by the thought of anybody marching, the boat getting rocked.

Yes, that and dragon attack are my two biggest fears.

I'm about as scared of people marching as politicians are. Not at all.

MadYaker

zoomaway wrote: »

I can't actually believe what you have written ' protests only irritate the right minded citizen.'

As for home economics classes for those struggling to eat I think that is extremely patronising.

Perhaps you should take a few classes in empathy and how to lose a self righteous attitude.

zoomaway wrote: »

Sounds like you feel very threatened by the thought of anybody marching, the boat getting rocked.

Ah yes, when your arguement fails resort to personal attacks.

zoomaway

MadYaker wrote: »

Ah yes, when your arguement fails resort to personal attacks.

Hi nice to meet you too.
Are you just trolling?

zoomaway

zoomaway wrote: »

I can't actually believe what you have written ' protests only irritate the right minded citizen.'

As for home economics classes for those struggling to eat I think that is extremely patronising.

Perhaps you should take a few classes in empathy and how to lose a self righteous attitude.

I'm not the only one who thinks like this. It's a positive move, more helpful than all the protesting in the World.
http://www.barnardos.ie/media-centre/news/latest-news/help-is-on-hand-for-parents-as-new-family-supports-launch-in-limerick-city.html

MilanPan!c

zoomaway wrote: »

Hi nice to meet you too.
Are you just trolling?

So more insults? I suppose you don't see the irony.

zoomaway

MilanPan!c wrote: »

So more insults? I suppose you don't see the irony.

First of all I am not a troll.
I am someone who cares about the state of my country and have said from the outset that I would be in favour of peaceful protest.
Secondly,
I see a conserted effort on this thread to silence anyone who wishes to do so.
Thirdly,
What many people do not see or perhaps do not wish to see is that the never ending government cuts are creating a two tier society in Ireland and widening the gap between rich and poor. This will have grave social consequences for Irish society as a whole in the future in my opinion.


At the end of the day it depends on which kind of society Irish people want to live in and be part of. I rest my case.

MadYaker

Ok. The cuts will stop eventually. Is there evidence of a widening gap between rich and poor? The middle classes are certainly being squeezed alright but I think overall things are improving slowly. We are certainly better off now than we were when this government took over. Like it or not they will probably get reelected in 2016 if things continue to improve.

twowheelsgood

zoomaway wrote: »

What many people do not see or perhaps do not wish to see is that the never ending government cuts are creating a two tier society in Ireland and widening the gap between rich and poor. This will have grave social consequences for Irish society as a whole in the future in my opinion.

At the end of the day it depends on which kind of society Irish people want to live in and be part of. I rest my case.

But you haven’t made a case. You have pointed out the difficulties that austerity is causing many people but you haven’t suggested an alternative.

Even if you think austerity is a bad policy (and many do but this is not our call at national level) we had no real alternative.

We had (have) a massive deficit and nobody would lend us money to continue spending as we had been doing.

What would you propose we should have done differently?

marienbad

zoomaway wrote: »

First of all I am not a troll.
I am someone who cares about the state of my country and have said from the outset that I would be in favour of peaceful protest.
Secondly,
I see a conserted effort on this thread to silence anyone who wishes to do so.
Thirdly,
What many people do not see or perhaps do not wish to see is that the never ending government cuts are creating a two tier society in Ireland and widening the gap between rich and poor. This will have grave social consequences for Irish society as a whole in the future in my opinion.


At the end of the day it depends on which kind of society Irish people want to live in and be part of. I rest my case.

I think you can take it we all care about out country and some of us care enough about it to continue paying taxes through what is our 3rd major recession , so you can stop patting yourself on the back for that one.

There is no effort to silence anyone and to say so is just chip on the shoulder stuff of the highest order.

Now as for the never ending cuts and creating a two tier society - that we can agree on. What we don't agree on is how we got into this mess and how we can get out of it.

The current crowd didn't create it and are doing a better than expected job in getting us out of it. That is all posters are saying .

Have you an alternative that doesn't ignore reality ?

MilanPan!c

My point, so we're all clear:

Let's put aside all ideology, and discuss tactics.

Marching around to influence people in power does not work and hasn't for ages. There's been endless protests in Ireland for the last 4-5 years and they've basically had no effect; government and politicians don't care.

They know something the protestors don't seem to understand; if you ignore the protestors nothing bad happens. They don't get voted out, it doesn't escalate and the average voter doesn't care about marchers.

So.

Put aside WHY you want change or WHAT change you want, if you want to succeed and accomplish your goals, marching doesn't work.

Claiming that people against marching don't want change is an insult to people's intelligence.

There are EASY ways to accomplish almost any goal, if enough Irish people were willing to choose to sacrifice - they CLEARLY are not.

So.

Until that point, any discussion about ideology is meaningless.

Jonny7

MilanPan!c wrote: »

There are EASY ways to accomplish almost any goal, if enough Irish people were willing to choose to sacrifice - they CLEARLY are not.

So.

Until that point, any discussion about ideology is meaningless.

To accomplish what goal precisely?.. is the goal the same for all?.. what is the measure of success?.. do average people know more about economics than economic experts and advisors to make these kind of calls in this current climate?

And no, many people are not willing to sacrifice - to change their life, change their livelihoods, the livelihoods of their family, children, to risk everything - for example Ukraine, it can be a huge risk

Have a look at Greece.. their output is down 25%, their unemployment is getting close to 30%, there is a shortage of drugs at pharmacies, the country is experiencing a huge "brain drain" as crucially needed experts leave the country.. changing the government or hanging the last lot isn't going to realistically help their situation - it's more likely to hinder it

Also, how much of the complaints here are just an obsession with the antics of a few politicians? or perhaps those who simply don't understand that things could have been (or could be) much.. much worse

It's all relative.

MilanPan!c

Jonny7 wrote: »

To accomplish what goal precisely?.. is the goal the same for all?.. what is the measure of success?.. do average people know more about economics than economic experts and advisors to make these kind of calls in this current climate?

And no, many people are not willing to sacrifice - to change their life, change their livelihoods, the livelihoods of their family, children, to risk everything - for example Ukraine, it can be a huge risk

If you're asking me, my answer is that I'm not espousing a specific ideology.

However.

If people wish to accomplish change - whatever that means to them - they can't do it via marching about.

Jonny7

MilanPan!c wrote: »

If you're asking me, my answer is that I'm not espousing a specific ideology.

However.

If people wish to accomplish change - whatever that means to them - they can't do it via marching about.

There are plenty of examples of protests affecting/changing policy, even bringing down entire governments

MilanPan!c

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of protests affecting/changing policy, even bringing down entire governments

There's no modern examples of people marching down the street making government change.

You carefully use the word protest, but that's not the same as marching. I.E. A salmon is a fish, but not all fish are salmon.

Revolutions often start as non-violent protest, but are wildly different to marching around.

Like I have said there's plenty of ways to force change; marches aren't one of them.

marienbad

MilanPan!c wrote: »

There's no modern examples of people marching down the street making government change.

You carefully use the word protest, but that's not the same as marching. I.E. A salmi is a fish, but not all fish are salmon.

Revolutions often start as non-violent protest, but are wildly different to marching around.

Like I have said there's plenty of ways to force change; marches aren't one of them.

I wouldn't go that far now. Marching and protesting have brought about some of the greatest changes in modern history , from Gandhi and Rev.King
tight up the of French farmers putting off the inevitable in the EU. The protests in the UK against the Iraq war may at first not appear to have made much difference but you can be sure the politicians were well aware of them in vetoing the involvement in Syria .

And on the negative side we had the Sunningdale agreement brought down by public protest .

Jonny7

MilanPan!c wrote: »

There's no modern examples of people marching down the street making government change.

There are many. And it's not just literally "people in the streets", change can be effected by one person, or by huge groups - tractors in Paris, sit ins, walk-outs, boycotts, strikes, union marches, etc

There are hundreds of marches going on around the world every week - from the smallest issues to the largest - their effectiveness can range from having absolute no effect to bringing down an entire government as I mentioned before

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far now. Marching and protesting have brought about some of the greatest changes in modern history , from Gandhi and Rev.King
tight up the of French farmers putting off the inevitable in the EU. The protests in the UK against the Iraq war may at first not appear to have made much difference but you can be sure the politicians were well aware of them in vetoing the involvement in Syria .

And on the negative side we had the Sunningdale agreement brought down by public protest .

Well now wait.

If you're gonna call what Ghandi did a "march" then it's you that's going a bit too far.

Rev King and the civil rights movement wasn't just some marching either, was it?

The French farmer protests are neither marches nor are they proven to be successful.

Calling the riots, strikes and protests that destroyed Sunningdale a "march" is also, frankly, nonsense. And it was 40 years ago.

MilanPan!c

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are many. And it's not just literally "people in the streets", change can be effected by one person, or by huge groups - tractors in Paris, sit ins, walk-outs, boycotts, strikes, union marches, etc

There are hundreds of marches going on around the world every week - from the smallest issues to the largest - their effectiveness can range from having absolute no effect to bringing down an entire government as I mentioned before

Well aside from the fact that you've again ignored my point, you've also managed to conflate all sorts of protests into one protest-y muddle.

Of course some sorts of protesting can make change. Marching around does not.

Jonny7

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Of course some sorts of protesting can make change. Marching around does not.

Ah, you're making a distinction, you're talking about a specific form of protest, a group of people marching from point A to point B

You have no way of knowing what proportion of these marches have an effect or not nor what that effect is - there must be hundreds that take place across the world on a weekly basis - all with massively varying results depending on each scenario, ranging from merely highlighting the issue, to full change either immediately or in the future

marienbad

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Well now wait.

If you're gonna call what Ghandi did a "march" then it's you that's going a bit too far.

Rev King and the civil rights movement wasn't just some marching either, was it?

The French farmer protests are neither marches nor are they proven to be successful.

Calling the riots, strikes and protests that destroyed Sunningdale a "march" is also, frankly, nonsense. And it was 40 years ago.

Well I am only calling it what Ghandi called it - the famous 'march to the sea '

As for Rev King - what was it if not a march again it is in the name - the million man march in 1963.

Of course the French farmers and Sunningdale protest involved marches and by their lights were successful . The fact that violence was never far from the scene is a complicating factor but dos'nt invalidate the process .

As for being 40 years ago ? So what - The anti Iraq war protests in the UK were not 40 years ago. Or the Shannon Airport protest were not 40 years ago.

MilanPan!c

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ah, you're making a distinction, you're talking about a specific form of protest, a group of people marching from point A to point B

You have no way of knowing what proportion of these marches have an effect or not nor what that effect is - there must be hundreds that take place across the world on a weekly basis - all with massively varying results depending on each scenario, ranging from merely highlighting the issue, to full change either immediately or in the future

You can easily see that the hundreds of marches against austerity haven't had any affect at all.

If you want people to believe marching is effective then list examples.

There's an endless supply of examples where it has done exactly nothing.

Just saying, "ah sure somewhere in the world it's doing something" is a massive cop out.

If it had been effective then there should be many readily available examples.

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

Well I am only calling it what Ghandi called it - the famous 'march to the sea '

As for Rev King - what was it if not a march again it is in the name - the million man march in 1963.

Of course the French farmers and Sunningdale protest involved marches and by their lights were successful . The fact that violence was never far from the scene is a complicating factor but dos'nt invalidate the process .

As for being 40 years ago ? So what - The anti Iraq war protests in the UK were not 40 years ago. Or the Shannon Airport protest were not 40 years ago.

He called on aspect of a decade long struggle a march. If it had only been a march it wouldn't have done anything. You're disrespecting him to claim otherwise.

Rev King's march was part of a decades long civil rights struggle. You need to learn history.

The Iraq war march: failure

Shannon airport march: failure

It matter because old tactics don't always work forever.

Jonny7

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You can easily see that the hundreds of marches against austerity haven't had any affect at all.

What a ridiculous thing to say, of course they've had an effect.

When I was taking part in the marches against the Iraq war, I didn't actually think the war was going to stop the next day, I doubt anyone there did either - however the effects have been very far-reaching, for opposition politicians, for future governments, for future policy, for the way we judge and view intelligence, for the credibility of people in power - an indirect spin-off is the vote against limited action re Syria in UK parliament

Don't think those vast marches in Spain are not having an effect just because the acting government doesn't immediately reverse policy or do a u-turn

marienbad

MilanPan!c wrote: »

He called on aspect of a decade long struggle a march. If it had only been a march it wouldn't have done anything. You're disrespecting him to claim otherwise.

Rev King's march was part of a decades long civil rights struggle. You need to learn history.

The Iraq war march: failure

Shannon airport march: failure

It matter because old tactics don't always work forever.

I doubt very much if you could teach me anything about history ,so please drop the condescending tone .

In the case of Rev King -A decades long struggle involving peaceful protests with organised marches at its core

Similarly with Gandhi . I don't know why you would even question that .

Gandhi marched in South Africa in 1913 against the pass laws , Rev.King marched in 1963 Civil Rights and in 1965 against the Vietnam war. All achieved their objectives either in part or in total .

As for the Iraq war marches in the UK being a failure - I don't know how you can say that . They were effectively too late to prevent Britains involvement but they played a huge part in destroying the Labour government not to mention any 'legacy' Tony Blair hoped to leave and their memory ensured there would be no involvement in Syria .

As for the Shannon Protests, they were totally successful . The focused on the issue of US Troops transiting Shannon and they achieved that aim at huge economic cost to the region.


It is foolish to say that every protest or march achieves its aims, but it is equally foolish to say they never do.

MilanPan!c

Jonny7 wrote: »

What a ridiculous thing to say, of course they've had an effect.

When I was taking part in the marches against the Iraq war, I didn't actually think the war was going to stop the next day, I doubt anyone there did either - however the effects have been very far-reaching, for opposition politicians, for future governments, for future policy, for the way we judge and view intelligence, for the credibility of people in power - an indirect spin-off is the vote against limited action re Syria in UK parliament

Don't think those vast marches in Spain are not having an effect just because the acting government doesn't immediately reverse policy or do a u-turn

This is called delusion ^^

You can't show any REAL DEMONSTRABLE effects of your marching around, nor did you even think your marching would accomplish the goals the marches set out to accomplish.

But.

Still.

You claim there's OBVIOUSLY some meaningful effect.

Just one you can't quantify beyond vague murmurings.

And people should believe your belief because...

Well there's no reason at all except self-delusion.

If there was a meaningful affect, you could point to it. You can't. Simple.

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

I doubt very much if you could teach me anything about history ,so please drop the condescending tone .

In the case of Rev King -A decades long struggle involving peaceful protests with organised marches at its core

Similarly with Gandhi . I don't know why you would even question that .

Gandhi marched in South Africa in 1913 against the pass laws , Rev.King marched in 1963 Civil Rights and in 1965 against the Vietnam war. All achieved their objectives either in part or in total .

As for the Iraq war marches in the UK being a failure - I don't know how you can say that . They were effectively too late to prevent Britains involvement but they played a huge part in destroying the Labour government not to mention any 'legacy' Tony Blair hoped to leave and their memory ensured there would be no involvement in Syria .

As for the Shannon Protests, they were totally successful . The focused on the issue of US Troops transiting Shannon and they achieved that aim at huge economic cost to the region.


It is foolish to say that every protest or march achieves its aims, but it is equally foolish to say they never do.

Marching was not at the "core" of what Gandhi did. That's ridiculous.

As for the civil rights movement, you're absolutely out of your mind if you think any of the marches in themselves changes the political landscape in America. The marches were a symbol of how America was changing - they didn't change America.

And.

Even if you want to pretend that all the racists and their political power was somehow magically evaporated by marching, those examples are still basically ancient in a political sense.

Heres a great website which shows how delusional you are about Shannon:

www.shannonwatch.org/page/military-use-shannon-airport

70,000 US troops went through Shannon just in 2013.

Victory eh.

Finally, you claim the Iraq war protests were a victory, because one government in one country lost one election afterwards.

Of course the marches were held in hundreds of cities worldwide, they didn't achieve their goals and Labour would've lost without the march, considering the unpopularity of the war and Labour in general at that point.

Unless you're claiming labour would've won again if that one march hadn't occurred. Certainly you're not claiming that.

marienbad

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Marching was not at the "core" of what Gandhi did. That's ridiculous.

As for the civil rights movement, you're absolutely out of your mind if you think any of the marches in themselves changes the political landscape in America. The marches were a symbol of how America was changing - they didn't change America.

And.

Even if you want to pretend that all the racists and their political power was somehow magically evaporated by marching, those examples are still basically ancient in a political sense.

Heres a great website which shows how delusional you are about Shannon:

www.shannonwatch.org/page/military-use-shannon-airport

70,000 US troops went through Shannon just in 2013.

Victory eh.

Finally, you claim the Iraq war protests were a victory, because one government in one country lost one election afterwards.

Of course the marches were held in hundreds of cities worldwide, they didn't achieve their goals and Labour would've lost without the march, considering the unpopularity of the war and Labour in general at that point.

Unless you're claiming labour would've won again if that one march hadn't occurred. Certainly you're not claiming that.

Are you saying the Civil Rights marches in In America were ineffective ?

Are you claiming Gandhi marches in Africa and India were ineffective ?

Are you claiming the same for the UK anti Iraq protests and the Shannon protests ?

And effectiveness is not measured in terms of total victory or total defeat but to deny that all these protests did not have consequences is just wrong.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

As for Rev King - what was it if not a march again it is in the name - the million man march in 1963.

The million man march wasn't King or '63. It was Farrakhan and '95.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

Are you claiming the same for the UK anti Iraq protests and the Shannon protests ?

And effectiveness is not measured in terms of total victory or total defeat but to deny that all these protests did not have consequences is just wrong.

What are the 'consequences' you're claiming for either of those? Since it's clearly not the lack of British participation in the Iraq war, or the ending of US military stopovers in Shannon, it's obviously something else, but quite what eludes me.

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

Are you saying the Civil Rights marches in In America were ineffective ?

Are you claiming Gandhi marches in Africa and India were ineffective ?

Are you claiming the same for the UK anti Iraq protests and the Shannon protests ?

And effectiveness is not measured in terms of total victory or total defeat but to deny that all these protests did not have consequences is just wrong.

I am claiming two things:

The effectiveness of those movements was not based in the marches alone.

And.

Those examples are both ancient in a political sense, and complete outliers.

There's probably been hundreds of anti-austerity marches in the last five years, in at least a dozen countries. Net outcome: 0

Two decades old examples, which are at very best dubious, don't cut it.

marienbad

alastair wrote: »

The million man march wasn't King or '63. It was Farrakhan and '95.

It was both

MilanPan!c

alastair wrote: »

The million man march wasn't King or '63. It was Farrakhan and '95.

Speaking of which:

In 2013, the Economic Policy Institute launched a series of reports around the theme of "The Unfinished March". These reports analyze the goals of the original march and assess how much progress has been made.[123][124] They echo the message of Randolph and Rustin that civil rights cannot transform people's quality of life unless accompanied by economic justice. They say that many of the March's primary goals—including housing, integrated education, and widespread employment at living wages—have not been accomplished. They argue that although legal advances were made, black people still live in concentrated areas of poverty ("ghettoes"), where they receive inferior education and suffer from widespread unemployment.[125]

Dedrick Muhammad of the NAACP writes that racial inequality of income and homeownership have increased since 1963 and worsened during the recent Great Recession.[126]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

It was both

It wasn't.

The march in 1963 was never called that. At least I've never heard it called that (I lived in America for 20+ years). And less than 300K showed up to it.

The Farrakhan march was called that however.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

It was both

'Fraid not.

Jonny7

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Well there's no reason at all except self-delusion.

If there was a meaningful affect, you could point to it. You can't. Simple.

You can easily see that the hundreds of marches against austerity haven't had any affect at all.

I pointed out effects of anti-Iraq protests which you didn't address, except to label as delusional

Thousands took to the streets and marched during the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia. Likewise, thousands took to the streets in Tunisia which culminated in Ben Ali fleeing the country, marches were at the heart of protests when Milosevic fell, the Rose revolution in Georgia and the Orange revolution in Ukraine

That fact that marches have been at the heart of most modern protests means you have to get very deep into semantics and personal definitions in order to claim they have no effect

marienbad

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I am claiming two things:

The effectiveness of those movements was not based in the marches alone.

And.

Those examples are both ancient in a political sense, and complete outliers.

There's probably been hundreds of anti-austerity marches in the last five years, in at least a dozen countries. Net outcome: 0

Two decades old examples, which are at very best dubious, don't cut it.

I never contended that they were based on marches alone ,but marches were a huge part of it . There is nothing dubious about it at all .

And to call them outliers is just ridiculous. There is a long history of bringing about social change through public protest , going right back to Daniel O'Connell in our own country right through the Civil Rights and anti war movement in the USA and the CND and anti war protests in the UK.

Some were ahead of their time but set the seed for later change, or made acceptable what was previously thought unthinkable , votes for catholics African Americans, an end to Apartheid and so on. To deny this is just ignoring history.

And if you read the thread you would know that I agree that the anti austerity marches in Ireland are pointless . That is not to say that they need remain so .

The reason they are pointless is not in any way to disparage the effectiveness of public protest.

MilanPan!c

Jonny7 wrote: »

I pointed out effects of anti-Iraq protests which you didn't address, except to label as delusional

The communist government fell after the marches of the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia. Thousands took to the streets in Tunisia which culminated in Ben Ali fleeing the country, marches were at the heart of protests when Milosevic fell, the Rose revolution in Georgia and the Orange revolution in Ukraine

That fact that marches have been at the heart of most modern protests means you have to get very deep into semantics and personal definitions in order to claim they have no effect

I did address them. You've just ignored that I guess...?

I also see you're conflating various forms of protest again huh?

Look at one of your preposterous examples, Tunisia:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution

Note that no one but you is claiming that marching forced anyone to do anything.

If something like this happened in Ireland, things would change.

So I'll just wait for the first few public suicides - something you've equated to marching - before I take note.

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

I never contended that they were based on marches alone ,but marches were a huge part of it . There is nothing dubious about it at all .

And to call them outliers is just ridiculous. There is a long history of bringing about social change through public protest , going right back to Daniel O'Connell in our own country right through the Civil Rights and anti war movement in the USA and the CND and anti war protests in the UK.

Some were ahead of their time but set the seed for later change, or made acceptable what was previously thought unthinkable , votes for catholics African Americans, an end to Apartheid and so on. To deny this is just ignoring history.

And if you read the thread you would know that I agree that the anti austerity marches in Ireland are pointless . That is not to say that they need remain so .

The reason they are pointless is not in any way to disparage the effectiveness of public protest.

I have in no way ever said that protest won't work. You should pay attention.

I have repeatedly said that marches on their own - which is all that happens here - will have any affect.

You have not in any way shown that to be wrong. Because it's not possible to show it's wrong.

Marches are meaningless on their own. And change can easily come without marching.

marienbad

alastair wrote: »

'Fraid not.

semantics one was modelled on the other.

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

semantics one was modelled on the other.

Ehhhhhhhhhh.....


The Big Mac was modelled on a hamburger, but no one goes around calling all burgers Big Macs.

This new line of "argument" is wildly dishonest.

Just admit you got it wrong and move on.

yosserhughes

twowheelsgood wrote: »

If you are going to argue that a publication is a propaganda organ it is generally best that you don't then immediately reference the same organ is support of your own argument, don't you think?

Just fighting fire with fire,thats all.

marienbad

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Ehhhhhhhhhh.....


The Big Mac was modelled on a hamburger, but no one goes around calling all burgers Big Macs.

This new line of "argument" is wildly dishonest.

Just admit you got it wrong and move on.

Jeez,how old are you ?? Read up on it.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

semantics one was modelled on the other.

Eh, Major Quimby is modelled on JFK, but I don't hear anyone claiming Spingfield's finest as having given a speech in Berlin. But whatever makes you happy.

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

Jeez,how old are you ?? Read up on it.

Old enough to know you've dug a hole and aren't big enough to admit your mistake.

2Mad2BeMad

I can see it now
making a protest sign saying

"What do we want? JOBS"
"When do we want them? ASAP please" :L protests don't work here, we don't ever bother following through with it, and if we do, sure theirs always less then a thousand or so people at them.

We tend to just go with the flow

marienbad

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Old enough to know you've dug a hole and aren't big enough to admit your mistake.

So I take it you concede the points on the validity of public protest and demonstrations then ?

marienbad

alastair wrote: »

Eh, Major Quimby is modelled on JFK, but I don't hear anyone claiming Spingfield's finest as having given a speech in Berlin. But whatever makes you happy.

Actually Quimby is modelld mainly on Ted Kennedy , but that is just nit picking ,but your analogy is quite apt with Louis F. trying to grab the mantle of MLK .