I know neither of these statements will surprise you.
- I disagree with some of the Liberal commenters regarding the following MinnPost article.
- The MinnPost moderators and I have a difference of opinion regarding what is an acceptable comment...
So here we go...
Now for the first concept I can not get past Moderators..."I don't understand what is happening in this country. Nor do I like it. Maybe it's a generational thing, but lawlessness isn't the answer.These protestors were warned by MOA letters, and personal police visits, that they would be BREAKING the LAW, as the MOA is private property. So they all should have been arrested on site.Also, all of my adult life~I'm a Sr~it was commonly known (and perhaps the law) that while one could protest peacefully, one could not 'impede commerce'. So no blocking of highways or entrances or exits of businesses. No physical damage, either. Etc.I don't know when things changed. Or if they officially have. But getting involved proactively in the formal processes is a far better use of one's time and energy than mob mentality protests. And one has to wonder why so many folks have so much time to spend protesting, too. Do they not have jobs, and have homes & families to attend to? Or volunteer activities to participate in?I don't see any positive gains in all of these protests. In the case of ongoing protests still in Missouri, who is paying for all of it?? The extra police presence, the store & other property damage? That is normally a tax payer expense. But again, if many of the protestors aren't working, they aren't paying taxes....We all need to be grown ups and learn to calmly discuss issues and work on and negotiate practical resolutions that work well for the masses. Not to just always REACT." LK"First, let me note that the protestors did not block entrances or exits of stores, that is was the police and the mall security that did so.Second, let me note that American history is replete with protests that not only impeded commerce but also did physical damage, but if you are over 250 years of age you may possibly remember a time when our country was not like this.Our nation was born of protest that impeded trade and actually damaged property, that being of course the Tea Party. In fact, pretty much nothing about our nation's birth was 'legal'.The illegal protests, sometimes including damage to property or actual violence, went on to such things as the whisky rebellion all the way to the labor movement riots in the early 20th century.The 60's of course hardly need to be mentioned as an example of not just protests but violent riots.There was no time in American history devoid of protests, and in fact this point in time is relatively quiet compared to some. Things have not changed- a nation born in protest continues in protest- and even gainfully employed people with homes and families do have time to engage in them." Theo"I am fine if people choose to break the law to make a point or generate publicity.That is if they are fine accepting the punishment for choosing to break the law.To break the law and assume there should be no punishment "because they arre protesting" seems silly.I hope they enjoy their time in jail, paying restitution and/or paying fines. And that the publicity they gained was adequate to justify these expenses." G2A"I'm not sure if your statement above was really a reply to mine or a separate point altogether because I'm not seeing a connection. Are you somehow thinking my argument was that nobody should be punished...because I'm not sure how you could from what I wrote(?).My understanding is that about a dozen protestors got arrested, and they are therefore being punished. Going after the organizers for further punishment is ridiculous. Nobody participating in the protests are under the organizer's control, they all made individual decisions to participate and each took on the individual risk of arrest and some of them took the punishment that such risk can result in." Theo
"Theo, So are you saying that people should be free to organize events that they know are illegal with no fear of consequences? Does this make sense? Does this mean someone could plan crimes without risk prosecution? As long as they don't commit the crime..." G2ANow here is the other string.
"I wouldn't find it very amusing for people to protest on my private property. Illegal activity should have consequences." AlfredAnd my response...
"Protests on my property would not last long." Pavel
"Is that a challenge? Post the location of your private property and let's see how long it does last." Matthew
"Matthew, If you owned a business, would you really allow people to protest on your property? Even if by doing so you may annoy or alienate your paying customers who disagree or are indifferent to the protestor's message?Thoughts?