Verified answer

Protests in the U.S. are the modus operendus of Socialists , Anarchists, and those who have too much time on their hands because they don't work for a living. It gives a voice to mostly extremist minorities who could never get what they advocate through the Democratic process.

Protesting a policy is everyones right.

However, whenever a large group assembles it's very difficult to keep it peaceful when the emotions are aroused,,,,especially if un-armed protestors including woman & children are present, and are confronted by people in full battle gear.

A mother comforting a screaming baby could spark someone that can't see why the baby is crying, into thinking the baby is being harmed and cause a full fledged riot.

I lived in Japan for a while and the Japanese had a very sensible way to handle mass protests.

The protesters would assemble with banners and "Without any weapons", but dressed in clothes that would offer some protection against rough & tumble actions.

The uniformed police would arrive in similar attire, without sticks or weapons, and many times the 2 sides would fight it out.

On-lookers stayed away and were warned to stay away. If their was a big enough fight it would make the news.

Seldom did property get damaged.

Reminds me of many of the sporting events we pay to watch now-a-days....Pro football comes to mind.

What the mass protests and football games both accomplish is news media coverage.

Then the news media gives their opinion of the events, which unfortunately are not always absolutely correct.

I would say mass protests are a way frustrated people have a way of handle-ing mass frustrations....Do you think Americans killing American students at Kent state was justified? I don't but it did hasten the ending of the loong drawn out Viet Nam war.

Thanks for reading.

Yes I do think that mass protests can have an impact, look at the march on Washington by Martin Luther King and what Gandhi did in India. But what you say is true about the Marxist agenda. They first start by creating a media frenzy, and make them sympathetic to their cause. For example, everyone is in favor of a fair day's wage for all worker, and this is how they begin the deception, by taking an common idea and exploiting it the way they do their citizens. Marxist start feeding the press all types of information in order to create havoc. The media reports, but they fall into the romance of revolutions and never see the real side of the issues. the labor movement has been hijacked by the Marxist and the first thing the Marxist do when they take over is eliminate free press and worker's rights are trashed. That's what happened in the Soviet Union, Cuba, China Etc.

What the reporters don't realize is that a disruption of commerce is a disruption of the common man's ability to feed his family. The Marxist understand this perfectly and will disrupt capitalism as much as possible.

However, peaceful mass demonstration have changed the world and brought some world powers to their knees. But they were very peaceful and organized they were in no way violent.

I am all for the first amendment, so I fully support PEACEFUL protests that don't violate anyone elses rights. So I agree with you on the fact that protests that turn violent need to end with everyone being arrested.

And for the guy above me ^ no protest didn't "END" the Vietnam War, it just ensured we lost it, and ensure we lost it losing as many American lives as possible. One thing that history will teach our future generations is that Wars should not be fought by politicians and protesters. History is repeating itself with Iraq, and I hope a study group analyzes the Vietnam and Iraq wars to come up with hard and fast policies that prevent those occurances from ever happening again.

Civil protests can be very effective and draw a lot of vital attention to an important cause - but protests that devolve into violence or rioting only hurt their cause.

Sometimes a small amount of civil disobediance - such as trespassing to hang a giant banner on a building or ship, or staging a sit-in to restrict access to a site - is a "necessary evil" to get your logical and reasonable argument heard, if it is silenced or ignored in the regular, legal channels.

But yes, you're right, attempting to silence opponents through your own stridency, demanding simplistic solutions to complex problems, laying direct blame on indirect parties, engaging in violence, or demanding a self-serving solution instead of a fair compromise, are all negative options and should be avoided.

ever heard of the g-20 summit riots? human beings wont protest through fact with each and all of the terrorism interior the international the law enforcement officers will only initiate taking photos questioning that it relatively is possible or anarchy and individuals do no longer desire to possibility there lives

Doesn't do anything for whatever cause they are protesting for or against. Just makes everyone who is sane against whatever the protesters are for

Didn't end Viet Nam war that was defeatacrats/ Democrat cowards

A. No one cares about columbia anymore- theyre a lost cause

B. Today they do nothing- Presidents cannot be impeached without high crimes (treason and such)- and the President was elected my the majority (so deal with your vote wisely)

Really, how dare you say that that it is okay for a multinational corporation like Coke to kill people???!!! You have got to be kidding me! I've never heard anything so insulting to humanity before.

Ended a war in Vietnam!

Of course the National Guards murdering of three Kent State students was a real catalyst! They should have been hung!