Camp Casey Comes to Washington - The White House is Surrounded

[mr.perfecto]

You tell me. It seems you are using a definition of "ignore" I was unaware of. To ignore something means to NOT acknowledge it. This does not show concern. Remember, I didn't say he should necessarily base his actions on protests but as President he should take notice. You said ignore, not I.

Are you using a definition of "acknowledge" that I am not aware of? I'm saying he should not do anything that would suggest that the protesters are genuine or that their claims are valid. That does not indicate a lack of concern over why they are expressing those views, only his opinion of them.

[Osborn F Enready]

I watched some of the protests on C-Span last night.

They had some good coverage, but not a lot. What a shame no other media network has covered it at all except for small notations on their bottom news tickers.

That protest is a sign that even the corporate controlled media can't quell the voice of the people.

Mr Perfecto, you are in my eyes the epitome of the type of person I consider to be my citizen enemy.
Every statement you have made in this thread so far is against every shred of understanding I have of citizen rights, civic duty and my personal beliefs. That is not an insult, just a statement of clarification that I see not one point, not one argument you have brought to this thread can I find a shred of personal agreement with. Be that as it may, as much as I despise your position, your outlook and your voiced alliance, I still support your rights to petition, disagree, protest and organize for protest against my position. The fact that you can't seem to tolerate in good will the same to your ideological enemy, says a lot about your perceived strength of that position, and your ability to defend that position. It wreaks of intolerance, and it is exemplary of this administration as well as their goals to remove the rights within the Constitution and how they apply to the people in general.

[mr.perfecto]

Well, Osborn this may give me the opportunity for a teachable moment. What did I say that was so offensive to your sensibilities?

[RickSp]

Perfecto, so far you insulted me and claimed that the word sedition can mean anything you bloody well want it to mean.

If the gathering of what CSPAN estimated to be 500,000 Americans, in which a total of something like three people were arrested for disorderly conduct, does not qualify as peaceable assembly, as provided by the First Amendment, then words have no meaning. Of course, given your willingness to redefine sedition to mean any dissent, suggests that your words are pretty meaningless anyway.

[SteveA]

The term sedition itself can be used in a broad sense or a narrow one. The purpose of that protest is not to meet with the President and give him a list of complaints. It is to erode support for his policies. That may or may not be legal sedition. Historically, the laws governing it have been changed depending on the circumstances of the time. The bar for punishable sedition is usually set higher in periods of peace than war. He can't legally do anything about Americans protesting, but if outsiders are manipulating the movement he should know.

If having trying to voice your views regarding the legitimacy of the war is sedition, I'd say trying to encourage support for the war is even more seditious. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. So sedition would seem to be actions that threaten the safety of our citizens. I think current government policy is seditious from that perspective. Should we start rounding up people, have trials and toss people into prison? (I'm not the one suggesting this, BTW. I'm trying to get some people to have a little perspective)

[Scribbler1]

Are you using a definition of "acknowledge" that I am not aware of? I'm saying he should not do anything that would suggest that the protesters are genuine or that their claims are valid. That does not indicate a lack of concern over why they are expressing those views, only his opinion of them.

No, you said "ignore" which is a specific word with a specific meaning. If you meant something else, that's a different story. I go by what I read on the screen.

"ignore
v 1: refuse to acknowledge; "She cut him dead at the meeting" [syn: disregard, snub, cut] 2: bar from attention or consideration; "She dismissed his advances" [syn: dismiss, disregard, brush aside, brush off, discount, push aside] 3: fail to notice [ant: notice] 4: give little or no attention to; "Disregard the errors" [syn: neglect, disregard] 5: be ignorant of or in the dark about [ant: know]"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignore

[mr.perfecto]

Where have I said to start rounding up people? You are just throwing that out there, not actually suggesting that I said it, right?

[mr.perfecto]

No, you said "ignore" which is a specific word with a specific meaning. If you meant something else, that's a different story. I go by what I read on the screen.

"ignore
v 1: refuse to acknowledge; "She cut him dead at the meeting" [syn: disregard, snub, cut] 2: bar from attention or consideration; "She dismissed his advances" [syn: dismiss, disregard, brush aside, brush off, discount, push aside] 3: fail to notice [ant: notice] 4: give little or no attention to; "Disregard the errors" [syn: neglect, disregard] 5: be ignorant of or in the dark about [ant: know]"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignore

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=acknowledge

[Scribbler1]

The term sedition itself can be used in a broad sense or a narrow one. The purpose of that protest is not to meet with the President and give him a list of complaints. It is to erode support for his policies. That may or may not be legal sedition. Historically, the laws governing it have been changed depending on the circumstances of the time. The bar for punishable sedition is usually set higher in periods of peace than war. He can't legally do anything about Americans protesting, but if outsiders are manipulating the movement he should know.

Again, I may not know what your interpretation of any given word is unless you explain it and I don't see any "broad" interpretation for a word with is synonymous with overthrow of a ghovernment being applied to ANY protest.

If you can give me a reference to a legitimate definition supporting this interpretation I'd be happy to see it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr Perfecto said:
Well, Osborn this may give me the opportunity for a teachable moment. What did I say that was so offensive to your sensibilities?

I say:
Here is a list of quotes from you in this thread, that I find either factually offensive, or offensive to my perception of citizen rights and civic duty.

These are all direct copies of your words, and underlined what I found offensive.

Generally, the President should ignore them--just so long as the FBI is identifying the protesters.

Every attempt he has made to address the concerns of the anti-war movement has been meet with ridicule of his public speaking skills and charges he is the new Hitler. What do you want him to say to them?

The FBI should identify them because their actions are seditious and they should know whether outside agitators are involved.

Rick, you have a problem understanding the written word, don't you? Or is this just another example of the misrepresent and smear tactic?

The term sedition itself can be used in a broad sense or a narrow one. The purpose of that protest is not to meet with the President and give him a list of complaints. It is to erode support for his policies. That may or may not be legal sedition. Historically, the laws governing it have been changed depending on the circumstances of the time. The bar for punishable sedition is usually set higher in periods of peace than war.

I'm saying he should not do anything that would suggest that the protesters are genuine or that their claims are valid. That does not indicate a lack of concern over why they are expressing those views, only his opinion of them.

[mr.perfecto]

If having trying to voice your views regarding the legitimacy of the war is sedition, I'd say trying to encourage support for the war is even more seditious. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. So sedition would seem to be actions that threaten the safety of our citizens. I think current government policy is seditious from that perspective. Should we start rounding up people, have trials and toss people into prison? (I'm not the one suggesting this, BTW. I'm trying to get some people to have a little perspective)

The point is not that sedition = disagreement. They are not merely disagreeing with the administration, they are attempting to force a change in policy by using symbolic acts and propaganda.

[Scribbler1]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=acknowledge

OK, so...

acknowledge.
1."To admit the existence, reality, or truth of."

So, to REFUSE to acknowledge is to "ignore". and my post said "You tell me. It seems you are using a definition of "ignore" I was unaware of. To ignore something means to NOT acknowledge it."

Word games, Perfecto?