Concern trolling has a long and ignoble history.

[Truth2Tell]

To be sure, "concern" over the use of civil disobedience as a tool for social change didn't begin on DU or even on the internets. Plenty of "irresponsible" protesters have been admonished for their childish disruptions by self-styled "adults." Here's just one example:

"Like the threat to 'close down' Federal induction centers, Dr. Martin Luther King's plan to seek 'massive dislocation' of the national capital violates the principles of responsible protest. Dr. King insists that the massive civil disobedience campaign he plans in Washington next April will be nonviolent. But his proclaimed goal of massive dislocation belies Dr. King's profession of peaceful intent. If such a result were achieved, by whatever means, it would probably involve some overt violence and it would certainly violate the rights of thousands of Washingtonians and the interests of millions of Americans. This is one more case in which the means are not justified by the end."

-New York Times Editorial, "The Responsibility of Dissent," December 6, 1967, p. 46

http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH40/chase40.html

Can anyone think of any other examples? :shrug: :)

[JDPriestly]

1. But, King was protesting for a purpose.

The protesters in Denver don't seem to articulate their purpose. They appear to be a rag-tag bunch. They have the right to protest, but they are wasting their time and making the Democratic Party look bad. So, why?

If they want to get out of Iraq, they need to support Obama and then if he does not get us out, demonstrate. But Obama has said he will get us out of Iraq. He is proposing investment in alternative energy and affordable healthcare for all starting with children. What do the protesters want that Obama is not promising?

I could understand it if Obama had been elected along with a Democratic Congress and had failed to deliver. But, what are the protests about?

[skooooo]

3. a Democratic Congress

Well our (admittedly barely in the majority) Democratic congress failed to deliver for us - and Pelosi was it's ringleader. Sooo....

[Truth2Tell]

7. But don't you know...

protesting is for nutjobs...! :sarcasm:

[mike_c]

4. just because YOU can't discern their purpose doesn't mean...

...they don't have one or that it isn't meaningful. Notwithstanding that, it is their RIGHT to dissent, plain and simple, no matter who "looks bad" as a result. Most of those folks traveled to Denver at some considerable expense in time and funds, so it might be worthwhile to give them the benefit of the doubt about whether they have a "purpose" or not.

I've said before that the democratic party has failed the left far more times and in far worse ways than the republican party, so that in itself justifies protests in Denver, IMO. And as for Obama's promises, keeping the pressure on politicians has always been a good idea!

[Truth2Tell]

5. Have you read their signs?

Or just watched the MSM coverage? Many of the protesters in Denver want to do more than just get out of Iraq; they want to roll back US militarism worldwide. Many want to impeach Bush, rather than just criticize him. Those are just a few examples of where their views diverge with Obama and much of our currently accommodating and pro-militarism Democratic Party.

Their message has been deliberately defined as a "waste of time" and "meaning nothing," and they have been defined as "rag-tag," by the corporate sponsored media (and it's many echos on DU). The same EXACT things were said about MLK and many others in past movements for social change.

I support Obama, but I also understand the message of the protesters, maybe because I've taken the ten seconds required to look into what their message actually is. Of course, it's a mixed bag, including provocateurs and nuts, but when you make broad-brush characterizations about them you help the MSM define the debate, and you insure their actual positions will be further buried.

[JDPriestly]

8. As I said, the time to protest for those noble causes is after we

get a Democrat in the White House and after that Democrat refuses to take action.

At this point, the demonstrations just make Democrats look like an unruly bunch. I'm for impeachment. I'm for thoughtful demilitarization. I'm also against the FISA Amendment and for and against a lot of things that the Pelosi/Reid legislature has failed even to address. But, there is a time for everything. Right now, it is time to finally get a Democrat elected president before it is too late and the Republicans have installed a totally Fascist regime. The demonstrations are unseemly because they are untimely. Wrong place. Wrong time. Inappropriate.

The demonstrators need to grow up. They can demonstrate all they want after November.

[Truth2Tell]

9. Nice thing about America (for the moment)

is that we can agree to disagree. :hi:

[pinto]

2. Norman Vincent Peale on JFK's candidacy:

In a written manifesto Peale and his group also declared JFK would serve the interests of the Catholic church before the interests of the United States: "It is inconceivable that Roman Catholic president would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies with respect to foreign interests," and that the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale

(Peale subsequently was forced to recant his statements after broad blow back from 100 other religious groups and President Truman, among others.)

[Truth2Tell]

6. Great example! Thanks.

Peale was always very very concerned!