djcubez
14 years ago

The protesters have their rights to demonstrate, and by all accounts they have been doing it in a very respectful matter from the reports of the police monitoring it.

But then again.. I am sure you can slant any piece to fit your argument.. just as I am sure there are those demonstrating the fit all walks of life.. including those that are exploiting the cause for their own means..

"Pack93z" wrote:



Which is exactly my problem with this video. It's completely obvious he's just trying to put a bad face on the all the protesters with this video. If he really cared about the memorial why didn't he just respectfully ask them to take them down and stated his reasons? He didn't have to bring a camera and attack the people that made an ignorant mistake.
4PackGirl
14 years ago
what a joke!
Porforis
14 years ago

i agree, it seems the guy with the camera has his own agenda.

"dhpackr" wrote:



You know, kind of like every protester there. But it's an agenda you agree with, so suddenly it's okay but the camera guy's agenda is evil ;)

Oh, and thanks for completely derailing this topic.
djcubez
14 years ago

i agree, it seems the guy with the camera has his own agenda.

"Porforis" wrote:



You know, kind of like every protester there. But it's an agenda you agree with, so suddenly it's okay but the camera guy's agenda is evil ;)

Oh, and thanks for completely derailing this topic.

"dhpackr" wrote:



Well of course everyone has their own agenda. It just so happens that a lot of people have a certain aspect in common on their agendas and have gathered together in that aspect.

I have no problem with either person's opinion in this situation. Both parties have the right to voice and hold their opinions. However I disagree with the way the guy with the camera approached the situation. He seemed to be antagonizing the protesters and trying to get a rise out of them. He seemed to be trying to create a scene or solicit a negative reaction.

The protesters were very much innocently and peacefully going about their business and were not putting the posters on the memorial to deliberately disrespect it. The person with the camera was obviously trying to make it seem that that was the case. He was blatantly trying to shed a negative light on what has been a very positive protest.

If anyone I agreed with were to employ these tactics I would be ashamed to have to be associated with them.
Porforis
14 years ago

i agree, it seems the guy with the camera has his own agenda.

"djcubez" wrote:



You know, kind of like every protester there. But it's an agenda you agree with, so suddenly it's okay but the camera guy's agenda is evil ;)

Oh, and thanks for completely derailing this topic.

"Porforis" wrote:



Well of course everyone has their own agenda. It just so happens that a lot of people have a certain aspect in common on their agendas and have gathered together in that aspect.

I have no problem with either person's opinion in this situation. Both parties have the right to voice and hold their opinions. However I disagree with the way the guy with the camera approached the situation. He seemed to be antagonizing the protesters and trying to get a rise out of them. He seemed to be trying to create a scene or solicit a negative reaction.

The protesters were very much innocently and peacefully going about their business and were not putting the posters on the memorial to deliberately disrespect it. The person with the camera was obviously trying to make it seem that that was the case. He was blatantly trying to shed a negative light on what has been a very positive protest.

If anyone I agreed with were to employ these tactics I would be ashamed to have to be associated with them.

"dhpackr" wrote:



Of course the guy wanted to drum things up , it got posted on youtube so there was some intent there to portray things in a specific light. But as far as his reaction goes, I really don't think it was unreasonable or not indicative of someone who is legitimately offended.

He was offended, asked if they realized it was a war memorial, and was pretty much told to piss off when he asked them to take it down. As for the whole argument with the lady over memorials, if I was arguing with someone who refused to stop doing something I found to be deeply disrespectful who suddenly said "Well, I make _____" for a living I'd find it awfully suspect.

How was he supposed to go about this? "Hi, do you realize this is a war memorial? I find it offensive that you'd cover it up. No, you don't think so? Okay, can you please take it down? No? Please? Please?". The fact of the matter is that when you offend someone, intentionally or not, people are going to be upset. If you give this guy the benefit of the doubt, I think he showed a lot of restraint.
porky88
14 years ago

They should have stopped being so stubborn and just moved. If they think their little setup is going to make or break their cause, then they are full of it.

With that said, I was thinking the video was going to have sort of vandalism or disgraceful act and/or rhetoric. The title made it seem worse than what it was. Just sayin'

"Porforis" wrote:



The title said "WI Capitol protesters disrespect the Veterans Memorial". I'd say covering up a veterans memorial with political material is disrespectful. Kind of confused here.

"porky88" wrote:



Theyre guilty of being stubborn and stupid. The intent was not to cause any harm or disrespect the memorial. I wasn't there, so maybe the video isn't a good representation of their intent. But based on what I saw in this eight-minute video, I don't think they meant to disrespect.
IronMan
  • IronMan
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
14 years ago

The people that put the posters up were a bit dumb in the first place .

"djcubez" wrote:

Of course they were dumb. If they were smart they wouldn't have posted political messages all over a war memorial. Stupidity is no excuse.
Porforis
14 years ago

Theyre guilty of being stubborn and stupid. The intent was not to cause any harm or disrespect the memorial. I wasn't there, so maybe the video isn't a good representation of their intent. But based on what I saw in this eight-minute video, I don't think they meant to disrespect.

"porky88" wrote:



Negligence/ignorance isn't really an excuse in this case, although that falls more into the realm of opinion. Regardless, one would need to be pretty thick to take a look at a war memorial, then put posters on top of it without even thinking that "Hey, maybe this is kind of disrespectful". You just don't cover up memorials of any kind, period.
vikesrule
14 years ago

Keep it classy, Democrats....

"Porforis" wrote:



I honestly really don't care if it's a war memorial or not.
I'd put a sign on it. These people seem to care way too much about a simple symbolic piece of glass and rock.....

"djcubez" wrote:



Interesting that the two of you, on opposing sides of the issue, have both managed to tick me off.

Porforis, your disclaimer doesn't cut it.
I did not see/hear anywhere in that video anything about any of them being "Democrats". Not that that matters.
You are obviously of the Rush Limbaugh ilk and lump all Democrats in one category.
Your brief statement, sans "disclaimer" insinuates that I have no class...
I am a Democrat.
I am a Veteran.
I am a combat Veteran, wounded in action, but that is nothing compared to the friends that I saw killed around me.
Thank you....


djcubez
What you said really pisses me off. You have no fucking idea what these memorials mean to so many, many people.
I saw a very good friend of mine die in April of 1971 in a firefight in a shithole called Vietnam.
He was a couple of months short of his 21st birthday, and left behind an 18 month old daughter.
His name is on the Wall in Washington DC.
If I were there and you hung a protest sign of any kind on the memorial to him and the thousands of others, I would end up in jail.
Cause even at my age, I would go fucking ballistic on your ass.


These people have every right to protest, it is exactly one of the basic freedoms and rights that some of my friends and so many others fought and died for.
But they must remember and respect those who gave their all for that right.

As far as who is responsible that video, Ann Althouse is a twit.
Dulak
14 years ago
hmmm talked to my mom about the protests the other day. Shes a school teacher in illinois (was in wisconsin). I think she supports em; and she voted republican the last couple of elections.

I find politics a little 'amusing' ... seems when there are actions done by the government there always appears to be another agenda then the one that is presented.

Like I have to wonder about the strong response countries have on libya ... is it just because their feelings on human rights violations? or is it again because of the Oil ...

anyways ... not much to do with the OP -
Fan Shout
dfosterf (1h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo
Zero2Cool (2h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha
wpr (2h) : Tomorrow is almost here.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?
packerfanoutwest (3h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him
Zero2Cool (5h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.
packerfanoutwest (15h) : don't care
Zero2Cool (20h) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
wpr (22-Apr) : now 3
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?
beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20h / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

22h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.