| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
We'll just have to disagree on that: just because a few opinion polls
suggest a majority of those interviewed "oppose the war" - which I do not believe to be the case anyway (what are the statistics and polls to which you refer?) does not mean that they all feel so strongly about it that they wish to disrupt the lives of ordinary people trying to go about their normal business in London. Here you go again, "ordinary people" are also protesters. Unless you "ordinary people" means people like yourself. By "ordinary people", I simply mean the tens of millions who would never go on ANY demonstration and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a day in slow-walking down Central London streets or listen to the likes of Benn, Galloway, Livingstone and fellow-travellers venting their anti-American diatribes. However lets look at your logic You start by condeming the demonstrators for inconveniencing your life. You then doubt the majority "oppose the war", stating that if they did they would they should show this by coming to London to do exactly what you condem in the first place. So, I oppose the war, are you saying I should come to London and demonstrate? What if I don't? Does that mean I do not "oppose the war"? You seem to have some difficulty in understanding a simple point. Let me try again. I do not accept that the majority of the population opposes or opposed the war. But even if a majority did oppose the war, I do not believe that that majority would take to the streets. I am not suggesting that they SHOULD demonstrate, just suggesting that most people do not feel so strongly about this (or other) issue that they are willing to demonstrate. By your logic you do not oppose the EU because you do not oppose according to arbitary criteria. Again, I don't see why it is difficult to understand what I wrote, but let me try again: I oppose the E.U. but do not believe in demonstrating, so do not. Instead, my opposition takes other forms, such as the way I vote, letter-writing, contributing to discussion and debate and so forth. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Mait001 wrote: By "ordinary people", I simply mean the tens of millions who would never go on ANY demonstration... Why would you think tens of millions of people "never go on ANY demonstration"? You're espousing the view that there are a million or two of the demonstrator category, and that they're a non-representative minority of trouble-makers who the rest tolerate. But you're wrong -- and dead wrong. People in this country like to demonstrate -- from all sections of society. Even governments are bright enough to realise that fact. Within the British Constitution, the right to demonstrate has been one of the most jealously guarded rights that people of this country have -- why is that? Aren't you really just making some very uninteresting comment about yourself? and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a day in slow-walking down Central London streets Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself. Well, who cares about you? Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to know when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late. Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who think. Feel free to join. -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
By "ordinary people", I simply mean the tens of millions who would never go
on ANY demonstration... Why would you think tens of millions of people "never go on ANY demonstration"? You're espousing the view that there are a million or two of the demonstrator category, and that they're a non-representative minority of trouble-makers who the rest tolerate. But you're wrong -- and dead wrong I'd hazard a guess that, of the 55 million or so, only about 1 to 3 million have EVER been on any demonstration of any sort. In fact, of my social circle, I have not met a single person who has ever been on one. People in this country like to demonstrate -- from all sections of society. Even governments are bright enough to realise that fact. Maybe in your social circle. Within the British Constitution, the right to demonstrate has been one of the most jealously guarded rights that people of this country have -- why is that? It's always puzzled me! Aren't you really just making some very uninteresting comment about yourself? Uninteresting or not, you choose to read and reply to it. and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a day in slow-walking down Central London streets Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself. Well, who cares about you? Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to know when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late. Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who think. Feel free to join. Utterly prejudiced nonsense. I have already stated an issue about which I feel passionately - not for selfish reasons but because it is causing grave damage to this Country's democratic traditions - the European Union. I just do not believe in demonstrations. I could CHOOSE not to earn a living and live off the backs of others, but I regard it as my DUTY to work to provide for me and those who depend on me. I should not be prevented from doing that. Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work? Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
So what are you saying, you can't be an "ordinary person" if you
demonstrate? No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe, the vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Mait001 wrote: Why would you think tens of millions of people "never go on ANY demonstration"? You're espousing the view that there are a million or two of the demonstrator category, and that they're a non-representative minority of trouble-makers who the rest tolerate. But you're wrong -- and dead wrong I'd hazard a guess that, of the 55 million or so, only about 1 to 3 million have EVER been on any demonstration of any sort. But that's just a guess. It's precisely the kind of guess I suggested you were making. Between poll tax, country alliance, cnd, anti-war, pensioners, petrol geeks etc etc, I'd say your guess is wrong. I'd say you're misjudging your fellow citizens. What do the rest of you think? In fact, of my social circle, I have not met a single person who has ever been on one. Is that supposed to be surprising? If your social circle is greater than say four, I'd say you'd need to ask around a bit more, before misrepresenting them here. People in this country like to demonstrate -- from all sections of society. Even governments are bright enough to realise that fact. Maybe in your social circle. It's nothing to do with my social circle, I just watch things carefully. Within the British Constitution, the right to demonstrate has been one of the most jealously guarded rights that people of this country have -- why is that? It's always puzzled me! Well there you go. I recommend that you look into that more closely Marc. Aren't you really just making some very uninteresting comment about yourself? Uninteresting or not, you choose to read and reply to it. I was making what I believe is a correction. and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a day in slow-walking down Central London streets Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself. Well, who cares about you? Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to know when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late. Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who think. Feel free to join. Utterly prejudiced nonsense. What is? If I said something wrong, please point it out -- precisely. I have already stated an issue But we're not talking about any issue. about which I feel passionately - not for selfish reasons but because it is causing grave damage to this Country's democratic traditions - the European Union. I just do not believe in demonstrations. Your beliefs, however, are not reason to trash Britain's age-old tradition. Nor does it make incorrect assumptions correct -- does it? I could CHOOSE not to earn a living and live off the backs of others, but I regard it as my DUTY to work to provide for me and those who depend on me. I should not be prevented from doing that. Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work? I'd say it is. Certainly it's more fundamental. Take it away, and you'd have difficulty justifying most other rights, (that had previously been taken for granted). -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a
day in slow-walking down Central London streets Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself. Well, who cares about you? Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to know when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late. Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who think. Feel free to join. Utterly prejudiced nonsense. What is? If I said something wrong, please point it out -- precisely. Okay, here goes:- 1. I do "give a ****" about lots of things apart from myself. 2. Lots of people care about me (or at least they say they do). 3. Your phrase ending with the words "****ed up the ass" is a bit obtuse for me - if you explain what you mean then I'll be able to reply. 4. Your implication that I do not think is misconceived: you confuse inability to think with disagreeing with your view. 5. I am a British subject already, so there is nothing for me to "join". Precise enough? Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work? I'd say it is. That's your opinion and, on it, we'l just have to differ. Certainly it's more fundamental. Take it away, and you'd have difficulty justifying most other rights, (that had previously been taken for granted). An interesting philosophical point, but as it happens I regard duty as more important than "rights" anyway, and it's not only a right to work, in my view, as long as one is able to do so, it is also a duty to work. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Mait001 wrote: and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a day in slow-walking down Central London streets Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself. Well, who cares about you? Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to know when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late. Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who think. Feel free to join. Utterly prejudiced nonsense. What is? If I said something wrong, please point it out -- precisely. Okay, here goes:- 1. I do "give a ****" about lots of things apart from myself. Ok. It's an affirmation, but I'll take you at your word for now. 2. Lots of people care about me (or at least they say they do). ditto. 3. Your phrase ending with the words "****ed up the ass" is a bit obtuse for me Phrases are not generally said to be "obtuse". It's not the first time today I heard the word used incorrectly. Perhaps you meant "abstruse", or perhaps, just not specific. In any case, "****ed up the ass" means doing something very bad to you -- like lying to you, or ****ing on your rights. - if you explain what you mean then I'll be able to reply. Yeah. 4. Your implication that I do not think is misconceived: you confuse inability to think with disagreeing with your view. I think your views, and particularly your WORDS here relating to the rights to demonstrate, illustrate a blockage in your thought process department. I'm willing to discuss that publicly with you, and in painful detail. 5. I am a British subject already, so there is nothing for me to "join". Specifically I was talking about those subjects who think. Precise enough? I think you'll find I am just that. Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work? I'd say it is. That's your opinion and, on it, we'l just have to differ. Certainly it's more fundamental. Take it away, and you'd have difficulty justifying most other rights, (that had previously been taken for granted). An interesting philosophical point... ....it wasn't just a "philosophical point" to the people of say Romania less than fifteen years ago -- was it? Your RIGHT to demonstrate is a lot more powerful than even your right to vote. The Romanians removed a dictator by demonstrating. but as it happens I regard duty as more important than "rights" anyway, Like the right to complain about European integration? Great. In that case just shut up. You have no rights, and you don't count. and it's not only a right to work, But who cares about rights? Duty to the Party is more important --isn't that what you're saying? Or what? in my view, Yep. as long as one is able to do so, For how long will that be? it is also a duty to work. Good. No rights for you then. Hands up -- anyone else? -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message ... So what are you saying, you can't be an "ordinary person" if you demonstrate? No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe, the vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever. Marc. Hear hear. I agree totally with you! Quite frankly it is wishful thinking to try to argue that the "anti-war" feeling was that strong. Given the total population of the UK, I do not recall the country grinding to a halt in a way it would have done so, had most of its adult population joined a demonstration. There are other ways of expressing opinions to parading in the streets. Robert Griffith |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"rob" wrote the following in:
"Mait001" wrote in message ... So what are you saying, you can't be an "ordinary person" if you demonstrate? No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe, the vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever. Marc. Hear hear. I agree totally with you! Quite frankly it is wishful thinking to try to argue that the "anti-war" feeling was that strong. Given the total population of the UK, I do not recall the country grinding to a halt in a way it would have done so, had most of its adult population joined a demonstration. There are other ways of expressing opinions to parading in the streets. What you write above is totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent. You argue that anti-war feeling wasn't strong because the UK didn't grind to a halt as a result of the demonstration. You then argue that there ways of expressing opinions other than demonstrating. If that's the case then why on earth are you trying to say that anti- war feeling wasn't strong on the basis of participation in a demonstration? 0/10 for intelligence -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Robin May" wrote in message .4... What you write above is totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent. You argue that anti-war feeling wasn't strong because the UK didn't grind to a halt as a result of the demonstration. You then argue that there ways of expressing opinions other than demonstrating. If that's the case then why on earth are you trying to say that anti- war feeling wasn't strong on the basis of participation in a demonstration? 0/10 for intelligence The sort of response I guess I should expect! Because I don't agree with your sentiments, my views are "totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent! and I get 0/10 for intelligence! Typical of those who force their views on others through demonstrating perhaps? Robert Griffith |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message
... So what are you saying, you can't be an "ordinary person" if you demonstrate? No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe, the vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever. Marc. Hear hear. I agree totally with you! Quite frankly it is wishful thinking to try to argue that the "anti-war" feeling was that strong. Given the total population of the UK, I do not recall the country grinding to a halt in a way it would have done so, had most of its adult population joined a demonstration. There are other ways of expressing opinions to parading in the streets. Robert Griffith Thanks, Robert. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Hear hear. I agree totally with you! Quite frankly it is wishful
thinking to try to argue that the "anti-war" feeling was that strong. Given the total population of the UK, I do not recall the country grinding to a halt in a way it would have done so, had most of its adult population joined a demonstration. There are other ways of expressing opinions to parading in the streets. What you write above is totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent. You argue that anti-war feeling wasn't strong because the UK didn't grind to a halt as a result of the demonstration. You then argue that there ways of expressing opinions other than demonstrating. If that's the case then why on earth are you trying to say that anti- war feeling wasn't strong on the basis of participation in a demonstration? 0/10 for intelligence -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! Allow me, if I may, to reply. Robin, you seem to have some difficulty in accepting a consistency between 2 totally consistent and coherent statements: 1. Anti-war feeling is lower than it has been hyped-up to be. 2. There are other ways of making one's anti-war feelings known other an public street demonstrations. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Robin May" wrote in message
. 1.4... What you write above is totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent. You argue that anti-war feeling wasn't strong because the UK didn't grind to a halt as a result of the demonstration. You then argue that there ways of expressing opinions other than demonstrating. If that's the case then why on earth are you trying to say that anti- war feeling wasn't strong on the basis of participation in a demonstration? 0/10 for intelligence The sort of response I guess I should expect! Because I don't agree with your sentiments, my views are "totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent! and I get 0/10 for intelligence! Typical of those who force their views on others through demonstrating perhaps? Robert Griffith Quite, Robert. You'd better get used to that sort of response for having the temerity to disagree with Robin! Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Steve" wrote in message ... "rob" wrote in : No they really were totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent for the reasons given. You are also getting dangerously close to Godwin. As I scored 0/10 for intelligence by your standard perhaps you could explain the "Godwin" reference. Yet again your response reveals the arrogance of those who force their views on others through demonstrations of this kind. Robert Griffith |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message ... Quite, Robert. You'd better get used to that sort of response for having the temerity to disagree with Robin! Marc. My pleasure Marc, I had to intervene because I find the arrogant assertions, that almost everyone in this country support this cause, to be so far from the truth! Robert |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"rob" wrote the following in:
"Robin May" wrote in message .4... What you write above is totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent. You argue that anti-war feeling wasn't strong because the UK didn't grind to a halt as a result of the demonstration. You then argue that there ways of expressing opinions other than demonstrating. If that's the case then why on earth are you trying to say that anti- war feeling wasn't strong on the basis of participation in a demonstration? 0/10 for intelligence The sort of response I guess I should expect! Because I don't agree with your sentiments, my views are "totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent! and I get 0/10 for intelligence! Not because you don't agree with me, but because what you said didn't make sense. You said: 1. That anti-war feeling isn't very strong because the number of people who demonstrated was a small percentage of the total population. 2. That there are ways of expressing opinion other than demonstrating. So in part 1 you only count those who demonstrated against the war as being anti-war. Then in part 2 you claimed there were other ways of expressing an anti-war opinion. This doesn't make sense: you claim there are other ways of expressing an opinion, and yet in part 1 you totally ignore these ways and only consider demonstration. Does this make sense? No. Typical of those who force their views on others through demonstrating perhaps? I've never attended a demonstration. -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
kedron wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that, of the 55 million or so, only about 1 to 3 million have EVER been on any demonstration of any sort. But that's just a guess. It's precisely the kind of guess I suggested you were making. Between poll tax, country alliance, cnd, anti-war, pensioners, petrol geeks etc etc, I'd say your guess is wrong. I'd say you're misjudging your fellow citizens. What do the rest of you think? I've been around for 43 years now and know no-one who has ever been on any kind of mass demonstration. Most people I know really don't care *that* much about the sort of things that demonstrations tend to cover - they, like me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to create a secure future for their families. Sure there are things I might feel are wrong or with which I might disagree (in my case this would, for example, include the recent war, the Bush visit and the fox hunting ban) but I certainly wouldn't go on a demonstration about them - I have better things to do with my time |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Stimpy wrote: kedron wrote: But that's just a guess. It's precisely the kind of guess I suggested you were making. Between poll tax, country alliance, cnd, anti-war, pensioners, petrol geeks etc etc, I'd say your guess is wrong. I'd say you're misjudging your fellow citizens. What do the rest of you think? I've been around for 43 years now... Deepest sympathies. and know no-one who has ever been on any kind of mass demonstration. Most people I know really don't care *that* much about the sort of things that demonstrations tend to cover - So WHO are all these people who demonstrate? How can you account for all those examples I provided above? I left a few examples out -- like trade union demonstrators, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc People are demonstrating all the time about all manner of things, many of which you never hear about...like this one which appeared in the news only yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...ds/3272961.stm I bet you if you asked around your friends, you might be surprised. they, like me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to create a secure future for their families. You think demonstrators don't do that as well? Sure there are things I might feel are wrong or with which I might disagree (in my case this would, for example, include the recent war, the Bush visit and the fox hunting ban) but I certainly wouldn't go on a demonstration about them - I have better things to do with my time And I'm not denying that there are many people like you who don't care enough about anything to want to do something about it. Nor am I saying I agree with every demonstrator. But I do agree with their right to demonstrate, and I believe far more people are exercising that right than you suppose. I also believe that they can make a difference. Like the one that's going to happen this week. The difference between caring enough and not caring enough is a world of a difference. And people who don't care enough shouldn't complain should their smug existences ever get tossed upside down -- because it will have happened in THEIR names. -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Quite, Robert. You'd better get used to that sort of response for having
the temerity to disagree with Robin! Marc. My pleasure Marc, I had to intervene because I find the arrogant assertions, that almost everyone in this country support this cause, to be so far from the truth! Robert Robert, indeed. I was tempted to intervene on your behalf in the discussion you are having about comparatively few people attending demonstrations and that, in any event, there are other ways to express one's feelings apart from demonstrating. Your point makes perfect sense to me - and I wish you luck in trying to explain it again to those who fail to grasp the simple issue that:- (a) not anything like the "majority" of the population opposed the war, (b) that those who did demonstrate cannot be said to represent anyone but themselves and (c) that some who did not demonstrate had other means to express their views, and (d) a combination of those groups does not represent "the majority" of the population anyway. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Steve wrote: "Stimpy" wrote in : Sure there are things I might feel are wrong or with which I might disagree (in my case this would, for example, include the recent war, the Bush visit and the fox hunting ban) but I certainly wouldn't go on a demonstration about them - I have better things to do with my time Alas your anti-war/bush feeling would not be counted according to some here because you did not demonstrate. Well you can't count something that never gets meaningfully expressed. Importantly, it seems that Stimpy (and others) either doesn't want to be counted, or doesn't really care if he isn't counted. Result: he doesn't count. -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
It wasn't because he'd disagreed with me. It was because what he said
genuinely didn't make sense. It contradicted itself and made no internal sense. It makes perfect sense to me, as I have explained in a separate message. I hope you understand the explanation I have given. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
kedron wrote:
In Steve wrote: "Stimpy" wrote in : Sure there are things I might feel are wrong or with which I might disagree (in my case this would, for example, include the recent war, the Bush visit and the fox hunting ban) but I certainly wouldn't go on a demonstration about them - I have better things to do with my time Alas your anti-war/bush feeling would not be counted according to some here because you did not demonstrate. Well you can't count something that never gets meaningfully expressed. Importantly, it seems that Stimpy (and others) either doesn't want to be counted, or doesn't really care if he isn't counted. Result: he doesn't count. That's about right... some of us have more important things to do than worry about 'being counted'. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
kedron wrote:
In Stimpy wrote: kedron wrote: But that's just a guess. It's precisely the kind of guess I suggested you were making. Between poll tax, country alliance, cnd, anti-war, pensioners, petrol geeks etc etc, I'd say your guess is wrong. I'd say you're misjudging your fellow citizens. What do the rest of you think? I've been around for 43 years now... Deepest sympathies. Much appreciated ;-) and know no-one who has ever been on any kind of mass demonstration. Most people I know really don't care *that* much about the sort of things that demonstrations tend to cover - So WHO are all these people who demonstrate? How can you account for all those examples I provided above? I don't know and don't really care. You asked what 'the rest' of us think and I replied. I can't really see the point in getting into an argument about someone else views. I was only trying to be polite by answering your question. I bet you if you asked around your friends, you might be surprised. Oddly enough, I was with 5 other friends last night and we discussed this very subject, apropos the Bush visit and the ongoing hunting ban debate. None of them had ever been on a demontrstation or would even consider it. Other friends I have known since school and/or university would also fall into that category. they, like me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to create a secure future for their families. You think demonstrators don't do that as well? Where did I say I thought that? Sure there are things I might feel are wrong or with which I might disagree (in my case this would, for example, include the recent war, the Bush visit and the fox hunting ban) but I certainly wouldn't go on a demonstration about them - I have better things to do with my time And I'm not denying that there are many people like you who don't care enough about anything to want to do something about it. Nor am I saying I agree with every demonstrator. But I do agree with their right to demonstrate, and I believe far more people are exercising that right than you suppose. I also believe that they can make a difference. Like the one that's going to happen this week. I agree. I don't recall stating I disagreed with the right to demonstrate. I was merely posting that *I* didn't know anyone who would ever attend such an event. Methinks you doth protest too much! And people who don't care enough shouldn't complain should their smug existences ever get tossed upside down -- because it will have happened in THEIR names. Ah-ha... so just because I don't have the time or inclination to demonstrate, that makes me smug does it? |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Mait001 wrote: (a) not anything like the "majority" of the population opposed the war, The population was lied to. Perhaps not anything like a majority were not stupid enough to be fooled. But the truth is coming out, as it always does, and look what's been happening to the popularity ratings. (b) that those who did demonstrate cannot be said to represent anyone but themselves So? The point was they represented themselves in massive number. and (c) that some who did not demonstrate had other means to express their views, But did they? Did you? How did you express your views? and (d) a combination of those groups does not represent "the majority" of the population anyway. Have you carried out a poll or something? You seem to be speaking with great authority. The demonstrators were the ones who knew they were being lied to. If we had not been lied to, do you think the outcome would have been same? -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Hang on sunshine! Please stop twisting my words to suit your beliefs. Marc
summed up the points I was making admirably. Clearly I failed to get them across to you, but then maybe that says more about your ability to understand an opposite view than my inability to articulate my thoughts! One final go, I believe: a. the active anti-war/antiBush support is exaggerated b. there are other ways to express ones disagreement rather than participating in yobbish demonstrations! yep yobbish! Robert Griffith Whilst I didn't use the word "yobbish", it is an excellent choice. My girlfriend, who opposed the war, and had planned to go on the February demonstration, immediately decided against it when she realised the sorts of fellow-travellers whom she would indirectly be supporting by doing so. And she also felt very strongly that the Police had better things to do with their time than indulging the demonstrators. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
I've been around for 43 years now and know no-one who has ever been on any
kind of mass demonstration. Indeed, that's exactly my feeling. Most people I know really don't care *that* much about the sort of things that demonstrations tend to cover - they, like me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to create a secure future for their families. Yes. Sure there are things I might feel are wrong or with which I might disagree (in my case this would, for example, include the recent war, the Bush visit and the fox hunting ban) but I certainly wouldn't go on a demonstration about them - I have better things to do with my time Exactly so. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
So WHO are all these people who demonstrate?
I think your subsequent sentence:- trade union demonstrators, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc gives the answer you were seeking, i.e. the usual rent-a-mob suspects. People are demonstrating all the time about all manner of things, Really? I bet you if you asked around your friends, you might be surprised. I have already stated that, amongst my friends, NONE of them has ever been on a demonstration. Now that I think of it, the same applies to my neighbours - the ones that I know. they, like me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to create a secure future for their families. You think demonstrators don't do that as well? Not at the same time that they are demonstrating! Which is why I started commenting on this thread: these people are most likely going to cost me a day's pay on the day them demonstrate. But I do agree with their right to demonstrate, and I believe far more people are exercising that right than you suppose. A 100,000 or even a million or so - hardly a significant number when compared with the population as a whole. Try as you will, all the hype against Bush and the war cannot change the basic facts. I also believe that they can make a difference. Like the one that's going to happen this week. I believe in fairies too! The difference between caring enough and not caring enough is a world of a difference. Well, perhaps those of us who supported the war and wish to welcome Bush should take a day off work and demonstrate our support for the war and him. I care passionately about the World in which I live. The anti-Bush and anti-war brigade do not have an exclusive on this subject. And people who don't care enough shouldn't complain should their smug existences ever get tossed upside down -- because it will have happened in THEIR names. The war did happen "in my name", which is why I take exception to those "not in my name" twits. Just because we don't take to the streets with "in my name" banners etc. does not mean our views are invalid or that we don't care about the World. Those who say "not in my name" legitimately represent nobody but themselves and they are exaggerating their own self-importance if they claim to be speaking on behalf of anyone else. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Mait001 wrote: I've been around for 43 years now and know no-one who has ever been on any kind of mass demonstration. Indeed, that's exactly my feeling. I'm not interested in your feelings. When I asked Stimpy to account for all the demonstrations that I cited by way of example, he said he didn't know, and didn't care. What say you? Feelings? -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
(a) not anything like the "majority" of the population opposed the war,
The population was lied to. Perhaps not anything like a majority were not stupid enough to be fooled. But the truth is coming out, as it always does, and look what's been happening to the popularity ratings. If you say so. (b) that those who did demonstrate cannot be said to represent anyone but themselves So? The point was they represented themselves in massive number. The "massive number" means nothing but that that number was willing to spend a day in London doing nothing better than marching and listeing to a few left-wingers speak in Traflagar Square. The even greater "massive number" that had nothing to do with the demonstration have legitimate views too - or do only people that "demonstrate" count? and (c) that some who did not demonstrate had other means to express their views, But did they? Did you? How did you express your views? I expressed my views by persuading my girlfriend not to demonstrate and by arguing, whenever the opportunty arose, in favour of the war which I supported. and (d) a combination of those groups does not represent "the majority" of the population anyway. Have you carried out a poll or something? You seem to be speaking with great authority. I have seen no survey that shows that "the majority" of the population was against the war, but many that showed "the majority" supported it. The demonstrators were the ones who knew they were being lied to. Maybe they were lied to, but I do not accept they could have "known" this at the time. If we had not been lied to, do you think the outcome would have been same? The Attorney General and other leading Counsel have advised that the war was lawful and, lawful or not, I believe it to have been justified. Yes, I believe the outcome, i.e. a war, would have been the same outcome whatever Blair and his cronies decided to tell the public. They could have chosen to make a good case for war on the basis of removing Saddam, which I wish they had done, and this would have removed the problem which many are now crowing about, i.e. whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
That's about right... some of us have more important things to do than worry about 'being counted'. Good point! Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
I've been around for 43 years now and know no-one who has ever been on any
kind of mass demonstration. Indeed, that's exactly my feeling. I'm not interested in your feelings. I didn't express my support for Stimpy for your benefit. When I asked Stimpy to account for all the demonstrations that I cited by way of example, he said he didn't know, and didn't care. What say you? Feelings? -- kedron Well, I do care, but do not condemn those that do not. But however much I care won't bring me onto the streets of London or support those that do. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
In Mait001 wrote: So WHO are all these people who demonstrate? I think your subsequent sentence:- trade union demonstrators, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc gives the answer you were seeking, i.e. the usual rent-a-mob suspects. Yeah, like pensioners. You're just a bigot. This is all about your dumb feelings, about yobs and people you think are beneath you -- isn't that right? People are demonstrating all the time about all manner of things, Really? Aren't they? I bet you if you asked around your friends, you might be surprised. I have already stated that, amongst my friends, NONE of them has ever been on a demonstration. Now that I think of it, the same applies to my neighbours - the ones that I know. So who are all those people? More than a million people is just a rent-a-mob? Or do you actually want people to take what you say seriously? they, like me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to create a secure future for their families. You think demonstrators don't do that as well? Not at the same time that they are demonstrating! Which is why I started commenting on this thread: these people are most likely going to cost me a day's pay on the day them demonstrate. So you'd rather get your day's pay than do something to prevent thousands of people from being slaughtered in a war, not sanctioned by the UN, and prosecuted based on pack of lies? Ok, so you agreed with the war -- but millions didn't. And many more are starting to realise they were conned. But I do agree with their right to demonstrate, and I believe far more people are exercising that right than you suppose. A 100,000 or even a million or so - hardly a significant number when compared with the population as a whole. Try as you will, all the hype against Bush and the war cannot change the basic facts. Not the "population as a whole". Millions couldn't demonstrate -- like children, people who live too far away, sick people, old people, and of course people who had no choice but to work. In the face of that, "a million or so" is a lot more significant than you are trying to suggest. I also believe that they can make a difference. Like the one that's going to happen this week. I believe in fairies too! Tell that to the Eastern Europeans. -- kedron |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Steve" wrote in message ... "rob" wrote in : "Robin May" wrote in message . 1.4... (Mait001) wrote the following in: Allow me, if I may, to reply. Robin, you seem to have some difficulty in accepting a consistency between 2 totally consistent and coherent statements: You have misunderstood the post to which I was replying. 1. Anti-war feeling is lower than it has been hyped-up to be. Robert Griffith didn't say this. What he said was that he didn't believe anti-war feeling was very strong. He said the reason he didn't believe this was because the demonstration was only a million strong and the population of the UK who could demonstrate was much bigger than that. 2. There are other ways of making one's anti-war feelings known other an public street demonstrations. But he himself only recognised anti-war feeling when it was expressed at a public street demonstration. Hang on sunshine! Please stop twisting my words to suit your beliefs. Marc summed up the points I was making admirably. Clearly I failed to get them across to you, but then maybe that says more about your ability to understand an opposite view than my inability to articulate my thoughts! One final go, I believe: a. the active anti-war/antiBush support is exaggerated Based on what? Speculation or in your own words: "Given the total population of the UK, I do not recall the country grinding to a halt in a way it would have done so, had most of its adult population joined a demonstration." Neither is credible. So on what evidence do you make point a? As I have said before, it is simply arrogance on your part to make dismissive statements like "Neither is credible". Why not? Give me your evidence if you believe it so important as to justify your approval of this demonstration. b. there are other ways to express ones disagreement rather than participating in yobbish demonstrations! yep yobbish! So now you are twisting your own words, noone mentioned yobbish before, now you feel the need to add it, sorry, it does not help you out of your hole. In what way am I twisting my words? Nobody may previously have used the words "yobbish" . So what? That is my view of many (not all) who flock to demonstrations (of any kind). As another poster said, most of us have better things to do with our time than inflict our opinions on the wider public. Robert Griffith |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Which is why I started commenting on this thread: these people are most
likely going to cost me a day's pay on the day them demonstrate. So you'd rather get your day's pay than do something to prevent thousands of people from being slaughtered in a war, not sanctioned by the UN, and prosecuted based on pack of lies? I do not for one moment live in the cloud cuckoo-land that tells me that those who demonstrate will " prevent thousands of people from being slaughtered in a war". Legal opinion is that the was was lawful and sanctioned by the United Nations. prosecuted based on pack of lies? That has not (yet) been proved to be the case, but I believe, with or without weapons of mass destruction, the war was justifiable. Ok, so you agreed with the war -- but millions didn't. And many more are starting to realise they were conned. Well, just because I happen to agree with the war, as opposed to opposing it, should I go on the streets to make my point? Not the "population as a whole". Millions couldn't demonstrate -- like children, people who live too far away, sick people, old people, and of course people who had no choice but to work. In the face of that, "a million or so" is a lot more significant than you are trying to suggest. There you go again, trying to spin a million (or whatever the actual number was) to represent many more than just themselves. I do not accept that, but even if they did, on your argument, represent say 10 million, that is still hardly the population as a whole or even "the mass of the population" or whatever other exaggeration you may care to use. I also believe that they can make a difference. Like the one that's going to happen this week. I believe in fairies too! Tell that to the Eastern Europeans. -- kedron The difference between the Eastern Europeans prior to the fall of the Russian Empire was that they had NO democratic process by which to vent their views. I do not accept that we, in the U.K. are in any way comparable to that situation. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message
... So what are you saying, you can't be an "ordinary person" if you demonstrate? No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe, the vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever. Marc. What exactly is an ordinary person? |
The UK march agaimst Bush
No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe,
the vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever. Marc. What exactly is an ordinary person? Someone who is not a member of the rent-a-mob that turns out for most demonstrations that take place. Marc. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk