We didn't "take to the streets" after JFK, Bobby, MLK and many others

[KoKo]

were killed under "odd" circumstances. We didn't "take to the streets" after Gore was trashed by the Supremes....

Why should we "take to the streets now?" And, what about those of us who DID "take to the streets" about Iraq Invasion.

Either "taking to the streets works...or it doesn't." Who knows...but we didn't do it before an when we did it we weren't even covered by the "MSM"...so what the f**k does it matter what we do..one way or the other?

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. They will not count the votes

they will not cover the demonstrations...

They will count the dollars

Economic activism, USE the Power you have, as a consumer

Oh and civil disobedience will NOT be noticed in the begining, it takes a while, marching iS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, thiugh not the most effective tool

[bullimiami]

2. If we let them take it from us

we dont deserve it. Sad.

Especially when we are on the right and honest side.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Where were you in '68?

If you think there weren't riots after MLK's assassination, you must not have lived in a city with an integrated population. As for Bobby's death, I remember heated meetings and a lot of stress and tension.

[fortyfeetunder]

8. I agree

There were massive demonstrations after MLK's assassination, at least near the Nation's Capital (Poor People's March, Resurrection City), and I recall many activist events....and how about the protests at the RNC in Chicago, 68?

[MADem]

16. The ONLY reason Boston didn't go up in flames

...is because of James Brown. He had a concert scheduled in Beantown, and he agreed to let PBS simulcast it. Gave a helluva show. Everyone stayed in to watch it.

[patrice]

4. Stometimes you do things because you must.

Not necessarily for some narrow definition of success.

We are on the streets with our signs here in Kansas City because "what are you going to do? Nothing?"

[tmooses]

7. I agree, sometimes you make a stand for no reason connected to ..

success. That is what takes the most courage-to take a stand when there is no immediate tangible reward. Unfortunately, I think we are in a period where it's going to take alot of courage from many people. I, personally, feel an obligation to those who have fought for similar goals over the past years in this country. You're right, doing nothing is exactly what the people in power now want us to do.

[bush_is_wacko]

9. What do your signs say?

And where in Kansas City. I live in Kansas for 8 years. Only in Kansas City can you find a true liberal. My brother graduated from The Art Institute!

[missouri dem 2]

13. Speaking Truth to power is never a failure.

Keep up the good work. I wish that I could join you. I know that you won't forget Gandhi and the protests in the south that ended segregation. We must speak out.

[KoKo]

17. I agree and protested everything....but I wonder does it work without the

media. I had to do it. I will do it again, but I had this nagging doubt about it working now or did it ever work. Violence back in the 60's got the media's attention, but none of the folks I've demonstrated with or myself wants any part of that. I feel things will be in more of a lock down now that Bush has Selected himself again, though.

I think we got a free pass demonstrating before, but the last large protests had demonstrators arrested...and that will get worse I think.

So...I'm sort of thinking...does it work to sway public opinion, and if we get arrested for non-violent behavior in Bush Regime II will that turn opinion away from us, or towards us?

I'm just trying to see what others think about this.

[patrice]

23. We get media now and then, but one of the things that keeps us going

is the reactions of the traffic. Many people honk and wave at us. We are there for them too.

[GarySeven]

5. Perhaps another form of politcal action is more effective ...

And perhaps that was the one chosen by those who silenced the great leaders you mentioned.

[illflem]

6. We're too busy

with Xmas shopping and programing our Tivos to bother with taking to the streets.

[American Tragedy]

10. Walking in the streets before the Iraq war did nothing, frankly

At best, it gave me a chance to bitch on local television, and flatter my intellectual vanity by publicly destroying the counter-protesters' flimsy arguments. It sure as hell didn't postpone or stop the war.

What do the parasites in Washington care for what we think?

[KoKo]

18. I hope that it gave some pause to the Bushies about pushing on into Iran

or Syria. I think they thought they could make a clean sweep.

I like to think it accomplished something....maybe it did..maybe we won't know yet. Or maybe it didn't. Someone in Political control on both sides had to notice. Perhaps we gave some back up to the people who came forward from the Administration who wrote the books critical of Bush. They knew there was an audience because of the Anti-Iraq Invasion protests. They sure wouldn't have known from the high poll numbers Bush had after 9/11 and the media wouldn't tell them. But thousands in the streets and petitions and calls to congress might have alerted them. And the attention Senator Byrd got.

I like to think they don't want us to know that the demonstrations worked, but they did through a little sand in their plans. :shrug:

[Jim__]

11. If I remember correctly, after MLK, people did take to the streets.

I think there were widespread riots.

But, for me, the question is, what can we do to stop this war?

[Minstrel Boy]

14. And ironically, Bobby called for calm and visited

the inner cities.

Six weeks later, the fascists took him out, too.

Photographs from the RFK funeral train:

[KoKo]

21. Yes..there were riots after MLK assassination. But the media said..

Riots in the "Inner Cities." (code word for the African-American or Black population.)
It's more than the "Inner Cities" angry about Iraq and Bush/PNAC policies now. It's everywhere and people of all colors and backgrounds...Half the country and more.

[deutsey]

12. As the CIA wrote in a training manual for the Contras

killing the leaders of a movment is an effective way to destabilize a movement.

Which is why I'm becoming convinced that we need to embrace the Wobbly philosophy that we are all leaders. That's how the Wobblies responded in 1916, I think, when a sheriff asked a boatload of them who their leaders were. They all answered in unison: "We are all leaders."

Stop looking to Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Jackson, Phil Intheblank, to lead us; start leading where you are.

[KoKo]

19. I agree with you there. We have to be our own leaders but we do have

to rely on "organizers" of the massive protests like in DC and NYC/LA/etc.

But, following someone these days is difficult. Who does one trust to be "THE LEADER?" It's us.

[Minstrel Boy]

15. Time's passed to "take to the streets." It's time to "take the streets."

Big difference between a one-off demonstration, however massive, and filling the public squares AND NOT LEAVING until tyrants fall.

Look to other nations. America is not so different. That's how regimes change.

[KoKo]

20. Somehow I don't think the Bushies would go even if we camped out on

the Washington mall in the hundreds of thousands. They would deal with us promptly..... Don't think we want to get into that.. At least I don't. :scared:

[KoKo]

22. I replied to you "minstrel boy" in the post above...posted in wrong spot..

about "Taking the streets."

[mountainvue]

24. We were already in the

street protesting the war, having sit ins that shut down colleges, rioting at conventions, etc.