>> ^chilaxe:

Who's the guy with the hat and glasses?

Not exactly a dictator, but my guess would be P. W. Botha, second last president of apartheid South Africa.

Concise point. Now you'd have to agree that all of those protests and movements that got us somewhere had a precise focus that everybody could agree upon. They were marching, picketing, and protesting one specific cause, not a vague "boogie-man". I fail to see that aim within this "movement". In fact, I think the vagueness of it is why there are such numbers. I think if there were a specific aim, that some people might not agree with, they'd lose some strength in numbers. It's easy to just yell and shout that you're being fucked, but it's another thing to march organized towards one goal. That's all I'm saying, no focus, no work will get done.>> ^NetRunner:

@rottenseed and @Boise_Lib, I'm not arguing that boycotts never have an impact, but boycotts alone didn't end apartheid, and boycotts alone didn't desegregate the South. Boycotts didn't get us child labor laws, boycotts didn't get us the Civil Rights Act, and boycotts didn't get us the FDA.
Boycotts are no substitute for laws. You don't stop carjackers by boycotting car companies, or gunmakers. You stop them with law enforcement.

@rottenseed and @Boise_Lib, I'm not arguing that boycotts never have an impact, but boycotts alone didn't end apartheid, and boycotts alone didn't desegregate the South. Boycotts didn't get us child labor laws, boycotts didn't get us the Civil Rights Act, and boycotts didn't get us the FDA.

Boycotts are no substitute for laws. You don't stop carjackers by boycotting car companies, or gunmakers. You stop them with law enforcement.

Do you think nobody knows that corporations are in bed with the government? What are we, stupid? But try telling a poor person not to buy their clothes at walmart, or their groceries at a large chain grocery store. Boycotting isn't realistic for everybody and unfortunately corporate product is very tempting.>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^rottenseed:
So you're saying that boycotts DO work. So then why isn't that enough to force corporations to behave???>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.


Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.
Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa
rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712


Boycotts HAVE worked. After enough people are aware of the problems.

>> ^rottenseed:

So you're saying that boycotts DO work. So then why isn't that enough to force corporations to behave???>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.


Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.
Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa
rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712



Boycotts HAVE worked. After enough people are aware of the problems.

So you're saying that boycotts DO work. So then why isn't that enough to force corporations to behave???>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^rottenseed:
"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.


Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.
Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa
rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712

>> ^rottenseed:

"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.



Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.

Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712

>> ^GuyNumberOne:

"In an e-mailed statement, (U.S. Rep. Ed) Royce said he was angered by the presence of two keynote speakers at the event. Imam Siraj Wahhaj was named with 169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement. And Amir Abdel Malik Ali spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010 where he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group."

And that would be fine for them to protest over. I don't see the point of screaming obscenities at everyone who came to the event, including children.

These are the types of people I'd like to see Anonymous "investigate".

http://www.meetup.com/WeSurroundThemOC/
http://www.ocjewish.com/
http://www.meetup.com/NOCConservatives/

Appreciate the context, Guy. Can you provide a direct link to the story? Thanks!

>> ^GuyNumberOne:

I am in no way condoning what happened here, however as a resident of Orange County I was appalled enough to look into the backstory, as the protest simply seemed far too hateful given the amount of support it had.
From the Washington Post:
"In an e-mailed statement, (U.S. Rep. Ed) Royce said he was angered by the presence of two keynote speakers at the event. Imam Siraj Wahhaj was named with169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement. And Amir Abdel Malik Ali spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010 where he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group."
Again, I think this is disgusting, but the choice of keynote speakers seems odd given the purpose of the fundraiser.

I am in no way condoning what happened here, however as a resident of Orange County I was appalled enough to look into the backstory, as the protest simply seemed far too hateful given the amount of support it had.

From the Washington Post:

"In an e-mailed statement, (U.S. Rep. Ed) Royce said he was angered by the presence of two keynote speakers at the event. Imam Siraj Wahhaj was named with169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement. And Amir Abdel Malik Ali spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010 where he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group."

Again, I think this is disgusting, but the choice of keynote speakers seems odd given the purpose of the fundraiser.

Whoa. Although the racism here is apparent, the situation itself is still complex. Consent is absolutely consensual, and to compare the situation of a male withholding information to a women with its antipode is to ignore the reality of a patriarchal society where men benefit substantially for gender privilege. With that in mind, examining this situation requires one to look at what it means for a man to withhold information to a woman, explicitly for sexual purposes as alleged in this case. Under those conditions, the relationship becomes exploitative. And yes, this can occur the other way around, but that wouldn't be perpetuating an exploitative relationship that has been strong for hundreds of years now. We have to see this situation in the larger context, thats crucial in determining any moral critique. With that in mind, what was the information that was withheld? He was an Arab in an apartheid state. Is that grounds to declare rape?

We can't know what his intentions were. Was he moving for sex or was he in love? The context is vital to determining how exploitative their relationship was. If the alleged case is true, then he is at fault. However, the fact that he is an Arab and now is in prison shows two things. One, that the woman is playing an active part in maintaining the apartheid in Israel and two: their relationship didn't seem to have much substance.

word

amazon=http://www.amazon.com/Unspoken-Alliance-Israels-Relationship-Apartheid/dp/0375425462

This kind of action really pisses me off. It is a perfect representation of the Canadian government today. The unpopular minority government manipulates public opinion by any means they can. And shoves through policy after policy that the general public disagrees with. The Canadian political system is not working properly. The leadership of both the conservatives and liberals are US empire expansionist corporate hacks. Canada does not have a unique foreign policy anymore. We were on the right side of things with apartheid at the time, and an honest broker between Palestine and Israel, but not anymore.

That seems like the most reasonable response to this video on the page.>> ^tsquire1:

I can't tell how much of her responses are sarcasm, and that is the determiner for judging her responses. However, this Horowitz fella seems to be a pretty hardlined zionist. He places her in a situation where she can't state a middleground and sets up a false dichotomy. Hezbollah is responsible for some mean shit, but look at what their actions are against. Folks say that Israel doesn't want to exterminate anybody. Thats bullshit and shows a lack of study or critical analysis of the situation. Israel's entire existence is contingent on Imperialism. They are a modern example of "Manifest Destiny v. Native Americans". Fuck Israel, and fuck Horowitz for defending a racist, apartheid system. As far as the woman is concerned, her sarcasm was the incorrect approach to the situation, and she shouldn't have responded to the false dichotomy. Easy to say these things in my shoes though, not her's, at that moment n all that.

I guess it goes to the type of society you want to have.

I don't like the idea of banks, HMOs, real estate agents, home owners associations, and other private sector entities being able to create an apartheid society via exclusion of certain racial and ethnic groups.

What you say sounds somewhat good on paper, but where has it actually worked in real life? America has been down that road before; I for one, don't want to go back.>> ^blankfist:

Wow, we must be getting close to election time again, because the anti-popular-Republican smears are out in full force. Go partisanship!
I believe people should have the right to discriminate in the private sector. Why not? Isn't that part of freedom? I don't personally condone racism, but I wouldn't want to police it either.
People can be racist and discriminatory all they want as long as they don't inflict violence on someone. That's the point about that old-timey racism I think some of you are leaving out; the part where people were killed and made into slaves because of their skin color. There's a huge distinction between that and some bigot with a small business.
To me, this is a nonissue. And for the record I don't support Rand Paul.