Upper income people on salaries do not.

Not the greatest strategy here.

It's to the point that I don't even bother. There aren't going to be any protesters or slowdowns (unless they're caused by deer or loose cattle) on my route to work, so I just don't worry about it.

given your history your concern is laughable.

as long as it doesn't affect me.

the protesters should just STFU.

I would imagine it's the highly paid salaried workers that scream the loudest about stuff like this.

who are paid hourly and will now be docked pay and fired for this.

Thanks white knights.

Im salary, and If Im an hour late I still get all my pay.

A lot of hourly employees would lose an hour of pay and have a smaller paycheck.

I imagine many people prioritize their personal convenience over that of civil rights... I often refer to more them more accurately as 'self-absorbed'

police.

They were not idiots, and neither are these people.

Theyre harming the very people whose interest they claim to be protecting. Idiots are going to cause children to go hungry, working class folks to lose hours and pay, and maybe get run over by a semi-truck.

hope the owners of businesses dont take it too hard. just hard enough would be good.
make 'em think.

in a hypersegregated city like milwaukee wisconsin where i live shutting a freeway is an excellent idea.

I imagine the same was stated in regards to all the people blocking traffic in Paris earlier this week. Too bad you weren't there to tell them of their misdeeds.

if protests are never to make anyone unhappy then ghandi was wrong
then king was wrong

and we should still be a colony

OK, you have made your position very clear.

interstate indeed. Not eveybody in Mass., can drive texting, reading a newspaper, drinking coffee, put on makeup, sometimes they get distracted.

If so, please post the link to this rule and I will self-delete the posts. If not, I will leave them up as it is such a perfect response. Who would want to whitesplain to that dude that blocking the highway is more important than him losing his job?

maybe somebody missed it...

What objective information leads you to allege his response is "typical?"

I see... 'typical' from a pre-determined sample. Convenient.

My meeting for 10am was canceled because of it.

There's a reason that Martin Luther King never blocked highways with his protests.

If you had seen it you would know that it focuses on a series of marches led by Martin Luther King in which they marched across the Edmund Pettus bridge, an act which certainly blocked traffic. Sometimes the cause is more important than how fast traffic moves on a given day.

The marches Dr. King organized were orderly and peaceful. Routes were laid out and alternate plans were made by the proper authorities. (If you were around then, you'd know that) He would never have risked lives on a busy interstate.

This fiaso in Boston was carried with total disregard to the safety and well being of others. A box truck stops in the middle of an Interstate and starts dumping mysteriously marked 55 gallon drums and people into the roadyway, to the bewilderment of motorists. In light of the Paris massacre last week, did they ever stop to think they might be mistaken for terrorists? On top of that, a level one emergency was in progress and an ambulance had to divert a patient to a lesser-equipped hospital.

This protest was the height of irresponsibility, and it backfired big time. All they've done is piss off a lot of people that might otherwise be sympatheic to them.

He led a march which blocked traffic on a major bridge leading out of Selma. You can argue that he handled it better than these protesters did, but you can not claim that he never participated in a demonstration which shut down a highway.

Dr. King, unlike these fools, whom he would have condemned, did it the right way. You know, with permits, organization, and the like.

And I remember vividly when he did it.

Strapping yourself to something that looks like an oil barrel and blocking a road does not exactly indicate
a protest against police violence.

I somehow doubt that blocking traffic for hours on a major interstate generated a lot of sympathy and support for their cause, living here in the Northeast I expect that the protesters mostly made people angry.

I also expect that there is a good chance of them seeing jail time and major fines. They will almost certainly spend the next 3 days in jail since the courts are closed Monday.

How dare these malcontents try to make a political statement without running it past us first?

1. Write your member of Congress
2. GOTV!!1!
3. Like this video/facebook post
4. Vote in this unscientific poll
5. FUCK RON PAUL!!
6. Cross a picket line if it inconveniences you
7. Offer unsolicited advice to black people on how to gain your sympathy

There is a big difference between blocking streets and blocking limited access interstates.

backed up due to a sporting or some other event. Or because people have to slow down and gawk at somebody changing their tire on the shoulder.

Cops direct traffic and keep routes clear for emergency vehicles.

Not the case when dumbasses throw concrete barrels on the highway.

"Not the case when dumbasses throw concrete barrels on the highway...."

Or celebrate freedom of speech in the middle of Paris.

like a major sporting event would be.

All of the pictures I saw were on streets.

while delayed by these morons, I would sue them until there was no tomorrow.

I doubt these morans do.

and most people have strong opinions about which ones are important to them.

Most people have the common sense to not do something this extreme that so negatively affects the lives of so many people, especially when their cause will actually be harmed by their selfish behavior.

Right now, those selfish people that blocked the traffic in a major city aren't part of the solution for anything; they are now major participants in what's wrong with this world.

Must not be black men doing the protesting.

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

since you brought it up.

Afterall this is liberal Boston. And we all like to think that we and our neighborhoods are above this sort of thing. Like when Prof. Gates was harassed by Cambridge PD. If you can't cite specific examples that get reiterated by the press. Probably not going to have much impact beyond grumbling about another college prank.

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

And I expect the protesters are going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise when charges are filed. I fully expect felony charges filed against most, if not all, of them. I wonder how many have enough money to make bail?

I doubt they're in for an unpleasant surprise. They did this to get arrested.

They wore adult diapers - they were in this for the long haul.

Between the police processing them and the prosecutors deciding on what to prosecute them for, I don't see them getting before a judge today.

I think they expected a slap on the wrist and released with a promise to appear, I'm expecting either felony charges or serious misdemeanor charges that require bail and could result in jail time.


On edit, for some reason I thought today was Friday and I clicked on the link after I already responded and they have already been released. If my predictions were 100% right, I'd be rich now.

Boston Metro woke up to very large scale black ice issue today. Heavy Fog and dropping temps made driving to work today very hazardous. This protest just compounded a very dangerous situation. Not very well thought out. Their message will be lost in the anger of the moment, and the sheer stupidity of a half asses plan.

Protesting the killling of innocent people by putting other innocent people in harms way works how?

Poorly planned protest.

Personally, I think this was idiotic.
Even if I put all the danger and inconvenience out of the
way, I still can't believe that it does any more than
polarize people, which is definitely not constructive.
Pats on the back from those that would support
nearly any form of protest, and contempt from those
that already didn't agree....or even those who were
just on the fence.
As a protest target, it also has no relevance or relation
to the problem as far as I can see.


I'd be interested in how many people called Christie's
stunt "reckless, dangerous, idiotic" who think this is great.

What if this had caused a pile-up? If I'm not
mistaken, it was icy and foggy that morning
(though they can happen anytime).
Sure, nothing terrible seems to have happened,
but that doesn't mean, "oh, they're fine,
nothing happened." It just means they
are reckless and lucky.
This just seems like pretty poor means
to an end. It just doesn't seem like it has/had
the desired effect. If you're trying to convince
people of something, you can't just raise
awareness, you also have to win them over
to your cause. It's just a hunch, but I'd say,
at best, they won over as many as they
turned off (and likely, won far less).
Actually, did they even raise awareness?
everybody (even us here) talked about
what they did, not why they
did it.

Anyway, consequence-wise, their actions
and Christie's were the same. Someone who
dies in a car crash isn't going to care whether
their crash was a result of protest or spite.

Just my thoughts.

Like I said, we aren't even talking about the "why,"
just "what."

Seems pretty clear it was dangerous (not just
an "inconvenience"....as some minimize).
Whether or not it was worth it is a matter of
opinion...but mine is that endangering others
unnecessarily deprives them of right to life
and safety.

If this had been an open carry guy on
the interstate and disrupting traffic, I doubt
you'd be defending his right to do so.

...but I can see this event has (as I
noted) polarized us and completely
bypassed the issue it was intended to
publicize, so I don't think there's much
more constructive to talk about.

Q: And what, exactly, is a "just cause"?

A: Whatever WE think is "just".

Of course.


Someday a group of people with totally different political beliefs from most here may stage a similar protest on a busy public highway.

They'll stop traffic, create dangerous conditions, probably hold up emergency vehicles, etc.

Might be a gun-rights group. Or a "Right to Life" group.

Doesn't matter. As long as these people think their cause is "just".


I would bet that quite a few here justifying the barrel protestors' acts would be really pissed off if it was a group with a cause they didn't support.

Personally, I don't care who's doing it. People got a beef? They want to protest? Great. Go protest somewhere that's not going to endanger (or even "inconvenience&quot innocent people.

Die-ins, "hands up don't shoot", and traditional (or what's considered traditional) street protests all make their point without a lot of effort on the part of the audience. Sitting in a barrel, while wearing an adult diaper, and blocking morning traffic does not.

News crews outside the courthouse where the protesters were being arraigned.

Reporters being reporters, were asking those being charged various questions about their actions.

One of the 'heroes' was visibly upset, and got pissy with the journalists because they were impeding
their movement.

The real icing on the cake was one 20 something girl with her arm in a sling, sobbing "get out of my way.
I have to go to the hospital".

I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander to these assholes.

Is this new? And if it is new, where did it come from.

I just wonder why people are trying a protest strategy that drives people away from their cause. Who told them this (instead of the proven techniques of civil rights era) would work?

They want the support of these people but pissing them off is not the way to do it. One of the most effective things I have experienced was people at several intersections handing out a few papers with the information on their cause along with personal stories and some poems.