Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Anti-Iraq War Vets Pulled From Parade

Iraq Anti-War Vets Parade

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 12:38 AM

Norville, on Nov 16 2003, 10:53 PM, said:

I have things to say re: Delvo, since I've apparently become one of his favorite targets. I'd like this to be the last time I have any comment on him at all.
History shows that you'll undoubtably attack me again in the future, both singularly and by generalization.

Quote

Yes, and stop attempting to read people's minds, Delvo, because you're not doing it very well.
Not their minds, just their words. It's all right there in this thread. Conservatives are said to treat all opposition to them as treason or anti-patriotism eight times. And this pattern continues in many other threads, probably at an average rate of more than once per day. My response was to that general pattern, of which this thread is the latest example.

Quote

I wasn't actually speaking to you at all, Delvo, just reflecting that I'm acquainted with a former military pilot who's against the Iraq war, and then gave a troublemaking comment to Lil about being a traitor. Where did you come into it at all, Delvo?
It's the generalization thing; the accusation of treating all non-conservatives as traitors and such has been routinely aimed at conservatives in general, and at me individually, in the past, so I took its repetition yet again here, in general, as including me, because it had before.

Quote

Now, Delvo, attempt to understand me here: I constantly search for truth and *always* question authority. That's what my beliefs in life teach me to do. You've attacked me before about not being interested in truth. That makes *you* a liar.
I remember that occasion. You had stated something as a fact which you later admitted you had no factual basis to believe, after I showed the facts that contradicted it, and when you deleted it, you called it an "inaccurate statement".

Quote

to prove that Delvo may not pay attention... am I always predictably attacking conservatives?
Not always, but a simple search of your posts would show that a pretty hefty percentage of them end with sarcastic lines indicating what a conservative would supposedly say to attack you for your beliefs. That's quite a long list of generalized accusations that are true for some of us but false for most. (Meanwhile, when you do post on the more conservative side, I haven't yet seen you do that thing to mock supposed liberal reactions.)

Edited by Delvo, 17 November 2003 - 10:20 AM.


#42 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 11:17 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Delvo:
I just haven't had to because people I meet in real life don't behave that way in the first place.

!!!  Really?  You know, Delvo… that is a very interesting statement.  Up till now I had been unsure of which way it went with you – if you were constantly getting into these kinds of fracas with people in real life, or if in real life people responded differently to you.  I know that people have the same opinions in real life as are expressed on this board, even if where you are the majority of the people are conservative – you have to occassionally come across some who aren’t – AND – given the original non-partisan statement you made – I have to assume that you at least come across some conservative “freedom-of-speech-is-dead whiners.”  SO – how is it that you don’t have these problems in real life?  (That’s a real question.)

I’ve often wondered if in real life you have a sardonic way about you that softens the blow of some of your otherwise harsh statements.  I’ve wondered if there is a funny little way you smile when you say things, or if you are more soft-spoken than you appear in text, or if, when you say things like “Jumpin’ jamolies!” or “gewd gawd” you have a funny expression that makes people smile rather than be offended.  I’ve suspected without knowing, that this just might be the case. (Oh – and I think that answers ’Hawk’s beach query about Ex Islers we’d love to meet.)  Your comment here seems to suggest that in fact this IS the case – that there are some visual cues that we don’t have access to that change the entire tone of what you say – because I find it nearly impossible to believe that you don’t at least on occasion, but more likely, fairly regularly, have reason to be expounding on things with your characteristic Delvoid bluntness.

Perhaps you can find a way to give us some visual cues or some literary ones that will substitute for whatever you do so successfully in real life?

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#43 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 11:43 AM

Delvo, on Nov 16 2003, 08:25 PM, said:

HubcapDave, on Nov 16 2003, 05:13 PM, said:

It looks to me like the free speech aspect of this issue hinges directly on whether or not the parade wasa organized by the city, or privately.
How? Keep in mind that by doing this, the parade organizers didn't take a stand about the war one way or the other; they prevented a stand on one side from being made for them. Why don't local governments have just as much of a right as businesses and other private oganizations to prevent their own public events from being made into a forum for one political side? Why don't you see something wrong with any one particular political group having the access and influence to flagrantly get away with using a government institution or event for its own purposes?
A Veterns parade where Vets aren't allowed to march because of what they believe.

Delvo, I think the Bush administrastion could put Tanks in our own streets, and you would support it. It makes it very difficult to take you seriously on any issue when you come up with stuff like this.

This is America, we have a right to protest, it's one of the things that help seperate us from other countrys, but if you protest the war, you are unamerican, even if you have fought in a war yourself.

Edited by Kosh, 17 November 2003 - 11:44 AM.

Can't Touch This!!

#44 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 12:26 PM

Kosh, on Nov 17 2003, 10:43 AM, said:

Delvo, I think the Bush administrastion could put Tanks in our own streets, and you would support it...

This is America, we have a right to protest, it's one of the things that help seperate us from other countrys, but if you protest the war, you are unamerican, even if you have fought in a war yourself.
This is precisely the kind of BoguS mudslinging that started all of this. And then I dared to stand up for myself, and a few other people didn't like that.

Your first sentence is a wild and extreme accusation without any sort of basis in reality. I know it can't have one because it actively contradicts the fact that I have been quite opposed to Bush on numerous issues, and I wouldn't have said anything indicating that I do always support Bush, because I don't say things I don't think, and that's just not how I think. I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you just don't happen to have read one of those other posts of mine, but pretending you have any rational reason to make this accusation against me would just be going too far for you. Thus, since it can't possibly be based on anything in reality, the only other option is that you made it up. When people make up tripe like that about me and then tout it like that, how am I supposed to react?

The second sentence I quoted is another false accusation; you know perfectly well I dont say crap like that (no I won't stoop to USL's routine vocabulary). So what does it say about YOU that you said it anyway?

Perfect examples, Kosh. Well done.

And that, right there, is the answer to the Queen's question. Most people simply don't have this vile, hostile, flagrantly dishonest mean streak that dominates the personalities of a few certain people here... neither to make up attacks like this in the first place, nor to get all huffy and pissy when the target of such attacks dares to stand up for himself instead of just withering and retreating.

#45 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 12:51 PM

Kosh, on Nov 17 2003, 11:43 AM, said:

A Veterns parade where Vets aren't allowed to march because of what they believe.

Delvo, I think the Bush administrastion could put Tanks in our own streets, and you would support it. It makes it very difficult to take you seriously on any issue when you come up with stuff like this.

This is America, we have a right to protest, it's one of the things that help seperate us from other countrys, but if you protest the war, you are unamerican, even if you have fought in a war yourself.
Wow.  Until now, I think Delvo was losing this argument, having read more into some statements than were actually there.  But here is the proof positive that the statements in question could in fact imply Delvo himself!!!  (And I say that without claiming that Norville, Lil, or VT endorse these statements by Kosh... I'm only saying that Delvo's perception that these kinds of statements eventually point back at him are proven true when SOMEONE takes it upont themselves to make the link.)

Kosh - this is indeed just as meanspirited and dishonest as Delvo suggests.   What specifically has Delvo EVER said to justify these remarks?

Restating his position - which I agree with - the parade was not a parade to make any political statement whatsoever.  It was a parade to honor vets.  The vets who were against the war were NOT thrown out because they are against the war - they were thrown out because they were using the parade to make that statement, and the parade organizers decided that it was inappropriate for their parade.  

Know what?  These veterans could have organized their OWN parade.  Or they could have had a press conference separate from the event.  Or thrown a party. Whatever.  But the parade organizer of THIS parade did not want any politicizing of the honor veterans are due.  Explain to me why this parade organizer didn't have the right to make that call?  And then go on to explain how making that call makes the parade organizer someone who calls others "unamerican."  And explain how Delvo's posts in this thread in ANYWAY reflected a view that people who are against the war are unamerican?

I leave the challenge open for you.  I'm rather disappointed here - I believe we are all better than this - and I don't like what I'm seeing here.

For the record - I think that Delvo jumped the gun in his criticisms on this thread.  I think his own sensitivities to the negative attitude toward the conservative view point that has been prevalent here at Ex Isle gave rise to a misreading of some posts.  But there can be no misreading of your post here.  

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#46 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 01:22 PM

Adding one additional thought to Kosh's accusation.  

Who stopped these vets from PROTESTING?  What was wrong with them doing what other people who protest parades do - namely standing on the sidelines and PROTESTING?  The issue here (and if I'm wrong PLEASE correct me) is that these vets were protesting WHILE MARCHING IN THE PARADE.  That constitutes unfair usage.

Going back to Lil's KKK march analogy - what if the NAACP decided to march IN THE KKK parade?  Or - better yet - what if during a Black History Month parade, the KKK decided to march IN THE PARADE?  Do you mean to say that preventing this from happening are wrong?  No - people have a right to stand on the sidelines and protest the parade.  ANd the parade organizers have a right to have the parade be about whatever they decided it was about.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#47 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 01:39 PM

QueenTiye, on Nov 17 2003, 11:51 AM, said:

Restating his position - which I agree with - the parade was not a parade to make any political statement whatsoever.  It was a parade to honor vets.  The vets who were against the war were NOT thrown out because they are against the war - they were thrown out because they were using the parade to make that statement, and the parade organizers decided that it was inappropriate for their parade.
Actually, the article doesn't say that. In fact, it doesn't give enough information to know exactly why the anti-war vets were ejected.

Quote

from the article:
Parade chairman Ken Conroy, a Korean War veteran, said he ejected the anti-war veterans because they were offensive and because Tallahassee police also wanted them removed. He offered to refund their $10 registration fee and said he was not suppressing the group's free speech rights.

...and later in the article, a police spokesman says they weren't involved at all, suggesting that Mr. Conroy stretched the truth a bit in his interview.

So he pulled them out of the parade because they were "offensive," but doesn't say how he was offended by them. It could be that, as Delvo originally stated, he was offended by their use of the parade to make a political statement, or it could just be the anti-Iraq war statement itself that he was offended by.

Quote

Know what?  These veterans could have organized their OWN parade.  Or they could have had a press conference separate from the event.  Or thrown a party. Whatever.  But the parade organizer of THIS parade did not want any politicizing of the honor veterans are due.  Explain to me why this parade organizer didn't have the right to make that call?

If that was the call he was making, one could say that he did have the right to decide it. But I would submit in that case that his decision was distateful in at least two ways:

- one was waiting until twenty minutes into the parade before pulling out the protestors, like they were second class citizens or something,

- and the second distasteful element of his decision would be the idea that a good parade is somehow politically neutral. According to the article, there were non-veterans in the parade who were there to advertise a local business (Hooters), which shows that, even in a so-called neutral parade, there are still marchers and floats that are trying to promote a specific agenda - you can't take them all out and expect to have anything interesting left for people to see. After all, what's the point of a parade where people say nothing and do nothing but wave and smile politely? Its boring as heck.

And if the Chairman threw them out because he doesn't agree with their political stance, then that is really offensive, because he would then be trying to muzzle them. Veterans who fought for their country have earned the right to say whatever they want, imo. They shouldn't be muzzled and forced to obey some parade chairman's idea of what's correct to say.

Quote

And then go on to explain how making that call makes the parade organizer someone who calls others "unamerican."  And explain how Delvo's posts in this thread in ANYWAY reflected a view that people who are against the war are unamerican?

I don't think Delvo was saying that, but if Mr Conroy was throwing veterans out of a parade that was set up to honour veterans because he found their beliefs offensive, it could be construed that their beliefs somehow blemished the veterans at the parade and Mr. Conroy's action was similar in intent to the bans imposed by radio stations on the Dixie Chicks.

#48 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 02:18 PM

Kevin Street, on Nov 17 2003, 01:39 PM, said:

Actually, the article doesn't say that. In fact, it doesn't give enough information to know exactly why the anti-war vets were ejected.

Fair enough.  Then it is equally true that we don't know if they were pulled out BECAUSE of thier anti-war stance.

Quote

Quote

Know what?  These veterans could have organized their OWN parade.  Or they could have had a press conference separate from the event.  Or thrown a party. Whatever.  But the parade organizer of THIS parade did not want any politicizing of the honor veterans are due.  Explain to me why this parade organizer didn't have the right to make that call?

If that was the call he was making, one could say that he did have the right to decide it. But I would submit in that case that his decision was distateful in at least two ways:

- one was waiting until twenty minutes into the parade before pulling out the protestors, like they were second class citizens or something,

- and the second distasteful element of his decision would be the idea that a good parade is somehow politically neutral. According to the article, there were non-veterans in the parade who were there to advertise a local business (Hooters), which shows that, even in a so-called neutral parade, there are still marchers and floats that are trying to promote a specific agenda - you can't take them all out and expect to have anything interesting left for people to see. After all, what's the point of a parade where people say nothing and do nothing but wave and smile politely? Its boring as heck.

Going around with this again.  

So says YOU.  Obviously - the organizer of the parade doesn't think that it is boring to throw a parade that doesn't say anything but look at the people we are honoring.

Further - I think it's just crazy to compare advertising with politicising!  I don't think you mean to actually be making that statement - so I won't make a big deal of it...


Going to the pulling out 20 minutes into the parade - again we don't know all the facts, do we?  Do we know if they were told NOT to politicize things ahead of time, and agreed not to, only to show up with stuff that was political?  I've been in parades - figuring out what's going on in one from one end to the next is quite a logistical challenge - and then figuring out how to fix what's wrong is another one.  I agree that it doesn't LOOK good for it to be done after commencement of the parade - but I'm not going to judge one way or another if it was distasteful, until I've got all the facts.

Quote

And if the Chairman threw them out because he doesn't agree with their political stance, then that is really offensive, because he would then be trying to muzzle them. Veterans who fought for their country have earned the right to say whatever they want, imo. They shouldn't be muzzled and forced to obey some parade chairman's idea of what's correct to say.

O.k. And I ask again - who muzzled them?  They were pulled OUT of the PARADE.  Their signs were not confiscated, were they???  So why couldn't they make their statement while NOT MARCHING in the parade?

Quote

I don't think Delvo was saying that, but if Mr Conroy was throwing veterans out of a parade that was set up to honour veterans because he found their beliefs offensive, it could be construed that their beliefs somehow blemished the veterans at the parade and Mr. Conroy's action was similar in intent to the bans imposed by radio stations on the Dixie Chicks.

That would be one possible interpretation.  I agree.  It has nothing to do with anyone calling anyone unamerican on THIS board. :angry:

QT

Edited by QueenTiye, 18 November 2003 - 08:57 AM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#49 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 02:36 PM

QueenTiye, on Nov 17 2003, 01:18 PM, said:

Kevin Street, on Nov 17 2003, 01:39 PM, said:

- and the second distasteful element of his decision would be the idea that a good parade is somehow politically neutral. According to the article, there were non-veterans in the parade who were there to advertise a local business (Hooters), which shows that, even in a so-called neutral parade, there are still marchers and floats that are trying to promote a specific agenda - you can't take them all out and expect to have anything interesting left for people to see. After all, what's the point of a parade where people say nothing and do nothing but wave and smile politely? Its boring as heck.

Going around with this again.  

So says YOU.  Obviously - the organizer of the parade doesn't think that it is boring to throw a parade that doesn't say anything but look at the people we are honoring.

Further - I think it's just crazy to compare advertising with politicising!  I don't think you mean to actually be making that statement - so I won't make a big deal of it...
How is it crazy? Both groups are present in the parade to present a specific agenda and influence people, and isn't that what we imagine the parade chairman is offended by?

Quote

Going to the pulling out 20 minutes into the parade - again we don't know all the facts, do we?  Do we know if they were told NOT to politicize things ahead of time, and agreed not to, only to show up with stuff that was political?  I've been in parades - figuring out what's going on in one from one end to the next is quite a logistical challenge - and then figuring out how to fix what's wrong is another one.  I agree that it doesn't LOOK good for it to be done after commencement of the parade - but I'm not going to judge one way or another if it was distasteful, until I've got all the facts.

I don't think any more facts are forthcoming, since this was a fairly small incident it probably wasn't written up much. Imo, the parade chairman just wasn't aware that the anti-Iraq war group was included in the parade, and he reacted badly when he found out.

Quote

O.k. And I ask again - who muzzled them?  They were pulled OUT of the PARADE.  Their signs were not confiscated, were they???  So why couldn't they make their statement while NOT MARCHING in the parade?

They were forced out of the parade itself (after filling out all the required forms and going through the procedures), and relegated to the sidewalk where only a few peole would see or hear them. Imo, that's muzzling or at least marginalization. It certainly sends the message that their statement is somehow unnaceptable.

#50 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 02:57 PM

Not to take away Delvo's fun or anything, but I'd like to get back to the point of the thread.

These veterans EARNED the right to march in this parade and say whatever they want to about the war in Iraq. I'd be willing to be that none of the Hooter representatives served in any conflicts, aren't veterans, and therefore have a lot less right to march in this parade.

Of course, this sort of discrimination is predictable in Florida.  :ermm:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#51 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 03:22 PM

QueenTiye, on Nov 17 2003, 10:22 AM, said:

Going back to Lil's KKK march analogy - what if the NAACP decided to march IN THE KKK parade?  Or - better yet - what if during a Black History Month parade, the KKK decided to march IN THE PARADE?  Do you mean to say that preventing this from happening are wrong?  No - people have a right to stand on the sidelines and protest the parade.  ANd the parade organizers have a right to have the parade be about whatever they decided it was about.

QT
The key distinction is that the "protesters" were also veterans.  

As I said in my post about the Skokie case, the issue is safety (not fair useage).  I think that parade organizers might very well be able to establish that allowing the KKK to march IN a Black History Parade constitutes a very real safety hazard.  

I personally don't think that the same kind of safety issues were present in the case of the veteran's parade.

Lil
Posted Image

#52 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 12:24 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 17 2003, 03:22 PM, said:

The key distinction is that the "protesters" were also veterans. 

As I said in my post about the Skokie case, the issue is safety (not fair useage).  I think that parade organizers might very well be able to establish that allowing the KKK to march IN a Black History Parade constitutes a very real safety hazard. 

I personally don't think that the same kind of safety issues were present in the case of the veteran's parade.

Lil
If indeed you are right - I'm very sorry about the state of free speech in our country.  

I really would HATE to see the day when my hard work and effort to create something that furthers a belief I hold obligates me to further a belief I DON'T.  When a black history parade happens - the organizers cannot stop the Klan or any other detractors from standing along the sidelines hurling epithets and holding signs.  They can't prevent them from making noise with the intent to drown out the parade.  But I would HOPE that they CAN prevent them from MARCHING in the parade.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#53 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 12:28 AM

Well I think they COULD prevent it.  Because I think there IS a safety issue.  I still remember studying the Skokie case way back when and being roundly chastized by my classmates for agreeing with the Supreme Court.  But that's the thing about free speech.  It's not just there to protect speech we agree with.
Posted Image

#54 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 12:34 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 18 2003, 12:28 AM, said:

Well I think they COULD prevent it.  Because I think there IS a safety issue.  I still remember studying the Skokie case way back when and being roundly chastized by my classmates for agreeing with the Supreme Court.  But that's the thing about free speech.  It's not just there to protect speech we agree with.
You are still missing my point.  In what way am I hindering the free speech rights of someone else by ensuring that MY venue does what I want it to do, and not what someone else wants it to?

Said another way - if THAT'S the case - how come political ads don't FORCE people to state both sides?  The AD is private.  The AIRWAVES, on the other hand - are deemed public - and therefore each candidate has a right to their equal share of time.  BUt they DON'T have the right to hijack each other's advertisement!!!

A parade, unless sponsored by the city - is a private matter hosted by private citizens with a public permit.  The city is obligated to allow any and all parades within the reasonable time constraints etc.... and they are also obligated to safeguard the rights of the paradees AND the protestors... but they are NOT obligated (in my opinion) to impose protestors ON a private venue.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#55 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 12:51 AM

Well that's the thing.  If you were holding a private gathering or a gathering at a non public venue (pr paying for advertising space on a non "state" television station) then you're absolutely right.  The issue changes in a public venue. That's the point I'm making and that's why there's so much case law about free speech in the parade context.  A public street is NOT "your" venue.  

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 18 November 2003 - 12:52 AM.

Posted Image

#56 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 12:55 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 18 2003, 12:51 AM, said:

That's the point I'm making and that's why there's so much case law about free speech in the parade context.  A public street is NOT "your" venue. 

Lil
O.k. Poor choice of words.  In the analogy you are right.  The parade ISN'T the venue - the streets are.  The streets aren't private - and so no one can say that on the same street someone can't protest the parade.  But the parade is the ad - a private statement made by someone.  And a protest is ANOTHER ad - ANOTHER private statement made by someone.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#57 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 12:58 AM

And if I want to walk down fifth avenue on Easter Day carrying a sign that says the Catholic Church is evil, I'm allowed to.  It may be rude of me.  It may be insensitive of me.  But it's also the cornerstone of this nation.

If those anti war veterans wanted to walk down the same time as all the other veterans, no one had any business preventing it.

Lil
Posted Image

#58 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 01:05 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 18 2003, 12:58 AM, said:

If those anti war veterans wanted to walk down the same time as all the other veterans, no one had any business preventing it.

Lil
THAT statement I agree with.

Which is very different from the one being made all along - that they had a right to BE IN THE PARADE.  

If they were walking down the street clearly NOT a part of the parade - clearly their OWN entity - then yes - I agree that their free speech rights were violated.  IF they knowingly and willfully imposed their views on a parade that asked them NOT to - then I think it was the parade organizer's rights that have been infringed.  

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#59 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 01:17 AM

But that's just it QT, walking down the street INCLUDES pushing through the crowd and walking along side, say, a float, if you feel like it.  Without being stopped and thrown out.

Lil
Posted Image

#60 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 18 November 2003 - 01:19 AM

QueenTiye, on Nov 18 2003, 12:05 AM, said:

Which is very different from the one being made all along - that they had a right to BE IN THE PARADE.
Actually, I'm not sure anyone has been arguing that.

Imo, they had a moral right to be there, if not a legal one. If it was a publicly sponsored parade, they'd have both.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, Anti-War, Vets, Parade

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users