not one damn dime day, silent protest Options

[banddorko]

here's the deal: on january 20th (president bush's inauguration), there is going to be a nationwide silent protest against the war in iraq. to participate all you have to do is not spend any money at all on that day- that's it.

for more information, go here.

one of my friends told me about this and i thought it was very cool. if you support this please tell everyone you know and try to get them to participate. put a link in your profile. start a chain email. make a topic on another forum. tell your friends. i obviously am going to be participating (and wearing my homemade "impeach bush" t-shirt ). i hope some of you will participate too.


if you don't think this is a good idea or don't agree with it, please don't post it here. i really don't want this to be a debate, i just wanted to inform you guys of it. thanks.

[magnificentmike]

funky buddha, if you dont give a shit about this protest then why the hell are you even posting in this gosh damn thread? don't you read? this thread was only made to inform, not for you to complain about it.

plus I dont want to listen to you saying that our comments are stupid if you cant be mature enough

well maybe if you don't want to listen to us saying that your comments are stupid, STOP COMING TO THIS THREAD!

what's really sad is that you won't stop arguing about it. that's very mature.

[Spirited Away]

funky buddha, if you dont give a shit about this protest then why the hell are you even posting in this gosh damn thread? don't you read? this thread was only made to inform, not for you to complain about it.

It's a FORUM, the creator of this thread comes here to spread news, and people from this thread can react to the news.

Hmmm, you know, the law that allows you all to do this silent prostest is the same one that allows people to show their dislike of the silent protest. You kids ever thought of that?

well maybe if you don't want to listen to us saying that your comments are stupid, STOP COMING TO THIS THREAD!

... is it that exclusive? If it is, then what is the point of spreading the news?

what's really sad is that you won't stop arguing about it. that's very mature.

And it's very mature of you to not allow people to express their opinion.





Obviously, I disagree with this idea only because if enough people participate, it will hurt us more than help us with anything.

[banddorko]

It's a FORUM, the creator of this thread comes here to spread news, and people from this thread can react to the news.
Hmmm, you know, the law that allows you all to do this silent prostest is the same one that allows people to show their dislike of the silent protest. You kids ever thought of that?
... is it that exclusive? If it is, then what is the point of spreading the news?

i understand that, but i asked people not to post negative comments because i knew a bunch little arguments would start up... which is exactly what happened. but i guess i shouldn't have even tried to stop them, because if someone really wants to express their opinion, they're going to do it.

[Spirited Away]

i understand that, but i asked people not to post negative comments because i knew a bunch little arguments would start up... which is exactly what happened. but i guess i shouldn't have even tried to stop them, because if someone really wants to express their opinion, they're going to do it.

I'm sorry but the FIRST negative comment came from you.

By saying that people who will disagree with you shouldn't post is negative. PERIOD. In society, you cannot stop someone from expressing their opinion just like how people can't stop you from spreading your dislike of Bush by wearing your "impeach Bush" shirt. You see, what goes around, comes around.

Yes, you cannot stop people from expressing their opinion or else you jepardize the right to express yours.

[banddorko]

I'm sorry but the FIRST negative comment came from you.

By saying that people who will disagree with you shouldn't post is negative. PERIOD. In society, you cannot stop someone from expressing their opinion just like how people can't stop you from spreading your dislike of Bush by wearing your "impeach Bush" shirt. You see, what goes around, comes around.

Yes, you cannot stop people from expressing their opinion or else you jepardize the right to express yours.

using that logic i can see how it is negative, but i wasn't FORCING them to not post. i asked politely that they didn't, because if they would've listened to that request, there would have only been one negative post in this thread (that one) compared to all the ones we have now. i do understand your point though- if i try to silence someone else, that gives them the right to try to silence me. the thing that is making me angry though is people keep posting the same reasons over and over again. i feel like yeah, i heard you guys the first time. if one person said "that's stupid because it won't do anything", i probably would've just replied to that one person and moved on and not cared. but i guess i'll take your advice and copy and paste my response to them over and over, haha.

To show you don't approve of the war? It's not like we have ANY control of it. There's NO POINT, no silent little protest is going to change anything. Putting a dent in the economy is sort of pointless also, because this date is clearly close and about 50% of the people who read this probably will not do anything, and not even 50 percent of america will most likely read it since my research concludes that only 70% of america uses the internet.

no other protest is going to change the fact that we're at war either, it's just letting other people and the government know that we don't like the decision they made. but guess what? YOU complaining about THIS protest won't change the fact that it's going to happen too. and i don't think that everyone in america will all of a sudden know about this because of this thread or that website, but i think combined they will both reach at least a couple hundred people.

[Spirited Away]

using that logic i can see how it is negative, but i wasn't FORCING them to not post. i asked politely that they didn't, because if they would've listened to that request, there would have only been one negative post in this thread (that one) compared to all the ones we have now.

Well, how would you like it if someone just politely ask that you not wear the "impeach Bush" shirt? You could return their polite demand by not wearing the shirt or you could wear it because you feel that you have a right to do so. Which would you do?

i do understand your point though- if i try to silence someone else, that gives them the right to try to silence me. the thing that is making me angry though is people keep posting the same reasons over and over again. i feel like yeah, i heard you guys the first time. if one person said "that's stupid because it won't do anything", i probably would've just replied to that one person and moved on and not cared. but i guess i'll take your advice and copy and paste my response to them over and over, haha.

Yes well, to defend the other side a bit, I feel that if you would ask why they think it won't do anything then they might (I would, but I'm not sure about the others) answer you fully. But sure, copying and pasting works. But you are right in that everyone, myself included had you asked, owes you more of an explanation about why we do not think it would work.


I think it is appropriate that I ask you now what you think this protest will accomplish. Awareness? Yes? Once you form that answer, I'd like you to think about other things... Like I said, if enough people participate, surely you all will be happy that you raised awareness of your dislike but, as other people have surmised, there'll be other complications in the economic sense.

However, I think it's great that you all are standing up for what you believe in. Aside from the possible hurt to our market if too many join the cause ( and making it a win-lose situation for you), it's a good thing that people know they can protest.

actually...it not always majority votes that win it for someone, it only depends on who voted more for who in each state and that candidate would get the electoral votes which are tha votes that really count

Chii, if you reread what Euphoria Rose wrote, she actually says that the majority voted for Bush, not that the majority vote always wins as you've tried to explain. She was simply pointing out that the majority approved or agree to some of the things or a lot of the things Bush was doing.