Where is the line for you????

Protesting for me is if the Trump Administration continues to use "Alternate Facts", that just screams Orwellian and I am not down for that. Fake news is bad enough as it is.

Trying to eradicate the 2nd Amendment.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: neo96
Where is the line that if the US government crossed , it would cause you to take to the streets protesting or worse?


There isn't one.

If people haven't figured out by now protesting doesn't change anything.

How can you call yourself an American and say this?

I mean, the country came about out of protest - people standing up for what they believed in the face of the law.

Fairly certain it took riots and a revolution for the country to "come about" because protest wasn't getting anywhere.

Riots and Revolution is the ultimate protest: to put your life on the line for freedom. Like in Selma...

Riots in pursuit of freedom is one thing. Riots as an adult form of temper tantrum is something else entirely. So while I agree with your point, I think a distinction needs to be made in light of recent events.

So a protest only counts as a protest if you agree with the message?

I said riots. You said protests. You do realize they're two different things, yes?

Indeed they are. We are discussing protests, though.

So, what is your point in bringing up riots, if not to paint protests as riots?

The comment I replied to, which is the one you replied to with something irrelevant, mentioned riots and revolution. That comment was in response to my comment that it took riots and revolution to start the country. That comment was in response to you claiming protest started the country, which it didn't. At no point did I paint riots and protests as the same thing. You claiming I did is one of the more idiotic comments I've ever seen on ATS, since the comment you're replying to is me quite literally pointing out a difference between riots and protest.

You should try and keep up. Makes discourse easier.

a reply to: Greven

Not one protest I've ever attended has achieved it's objectives, but riots are a different kettle of fish for sure.

In 89/90 Brits rioted over a new tax known as the community charge. It was part of Thatchers downfall, she resigned and the tax was repealed shortly afterwards.

Protests and riots both have their place, and riots are the natural successor when enough people care about the protest failing...as they generally do.

That is one very assinine thing say. His administration has killed more that 30,000 millitants since he took office. And that is giving you a under statement of how many "they" did get rid of. Get you facts straight.a reply to: angryproctologist

originally posted by: olaru12
It's just a matter of time until Trump trashes the constitution. That's crossing the line imo.

Really?

Where were you when Obamacare and the Patriot Act went through?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: neo96
Where is the line that if the US government crossed , it would cause you to take to the streets protesting or worse?


There isn't one.

If people haven't figured out by now protesting doesn't change anything.

How can you call yourself an American and say this?

I mean, the country came about out of protest - people standing up for what they believed in the face of the law.

Fairly certain it took riots and a revolution for the country to "come about" because protest wasn't getting anywhere.

Riots and Revolution is the ultimate protest: to put your life on the line for freedom. Like in Selma...

Riots in pursuit of freedom is one thing. Riots as an adult form of temper tantrum is something else entirely. So while I agree with your point, I think a distinction needs to be made in light of recent events.

So a protest only counts as a protest if you agree with the message?

I said riots. You said protests. You do realize they're two different things, yes?

Indeed they are. We are discussing protests, though.

So, what is your point in bringing up riots, if not to paint protests as riots?

The comment I replied to, which is the one you replied to with something irrelevant, mentioned riots and revolution. That comment was in response to my comment that it took riots and revolution to start the country. That comment was in response to you claiming protest started the country, which it didn't. At no point did I paint riots and protests as the same thing. You claiming I did is one of the more idiotic comments I've ever seen on ATS, since the comment you're replying to is me quite literally pointing out a difference between riots and protest.

You should try and keep up. Makes discourse easier.

You should realize that 'riot' is a fairly broad term, one general label for groups engaged in lawless behavior.

However, this entire thread is about a very narrow focus - when we individually might protest 'or worse.'

A protest is a statement/act objecting to something (taking to the streets).
A riot in the context we're talking about is a protest in violation of the law (failing to disperse/violence).
A revolution is a step up from a protest-turned-riot, where people rise up in revolt against those in power.

What you are alluding to ('adult tantrum') as a riot is something akin to a sports riot, where people aren't out protesting but celebrating, albeit with other characteristics of protests-turned-riots.

It seems like you know that there are differences ("riots in pursuit of freedom"). So, why go down the path of 'adult tantrum' to begin with?

Oh, right, the bit I was talking about

Riots as an adult form of temper tantrum is something else entirely. ... I think a distinction needs to be made in light of recent events.

What other recent events would you be referring to?

Indeed, "You should try and keep up. Makes discourse easier."

a reply to: ketsuko

Speaking of healthcare, I won't get into the which is best argument as it would be off topic, but I'd bet my house and all my possessions that if the UK government tried to bring in a US style system then there would be much rioting.

There are some things which Brits will fight with violence, and cessation of universal tax funded healthcare is one of them, for sure.

a reply to: Greven

I don't consider torching cars and destroying property "celebrating" anything, whether your team win the Stanley Cup or not. The law doesn't consider it celebrating, either. It's a riot.

A riot is a riot. Riots are also protests, but with an element of violence. Protests are protests, and not necessarily riots. One is protected by law, the other isn't. These are widely, commonly accepted definitions and all you're doing is attempting to split hairs in an effort to turn what I said in to what you wish I had actually said in pursuit of some sort of 'gotcha!' moment. It's not going to work.

And please, don't try to flip your own confusion into somehow being mine. Only one of us is painting the other's words as something they aren't, and that's you.

a reply to: grainofsand

Well of course. No one wants their gravy train to end. The idea of being responsible for one's self is very scary.

You guys will fight until governmental bankruptcy forces the hard truth on you.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven

I don't consider torching cars and destroying property "celebrating" anything, whether your team win the Stanley Cup or not. The law doesn't consider it celebrating, either. It's a riot.

A riot is a riot. Riots are also protests, but with an element of violence. Protests are protests, and not necessarily riots. These are widely, commonly accepted definitions and all you're doing is attempting to split hairs in an effort to turn what I said in to what you wish I had actually said in pursuit of some sort of 'gotcha!' moment. It's not going to work.

And please, don't try to flip your own confusion into somehow being mine. Only one of us is painting the other's words as something they aren't, and that's you.

Perhaps this will clear things up:

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Riots as an adult form of temper tantrum is something else entirely. ... I think a distinction needs to be made in light of recent events.

Hmm what recent events are going on... oh, right: Protests against Donald Trump, which you seem to be characterizing as riots.

originally posted by: Greven
So a protest only counts as a protest if you agree with the message?

(AKA calling the protests above riots).

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I said riots. You said protests. You do realize they're two different things, yes?

Yeah, uh, that was my point, that you seem to be calling protests riots.

originally posted by: Greven
Indeed they are. We are discussing protests, though.

So, what is your point in bringing up riots, if not to paint protests as riots?

Again, pointing at your riots / recent events discussion...

I am not confused. Are you and I on the same page, yet?

a reply to: ketsuko

Come on Kets, I wasn't going down the road of best system etc, I said as such in my post.
My completely on topic opinion was about an example of something Brits would riot over.
I didn't criticise the US system...your response dissapoints me...kind of expected better of you.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: JesusXst
The likelyhood of Muslim internment camps is about as likely as Godzilla taking New York.

Gun owners will be in them before muslims.

Or the bankers,ceos.

That is the silliest thing ever...

Who would enforce a gun confiscation??

The us army? Nope...

Local Police?? Nope..

Gun bans and confiscation are scare tactics. It is political suicide to even mention it.

Worst case and all that has been put forward, has been a ban on NEW assault rifles. Grandfathering in any already owned.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven

I don't consider torching cars and destroying property "celebrating" anything, whether your team win the Stanley Cup or not. The law doesn't consider it celebrating, either. It's a riot.

A riot is a riot. Riots are also protests, but with an element of violence. Protests are protests, and not necessarily riots. These are widely, commonly accepted definitions and all you're doing is attempting to split hairs in an effort to turn what I said in to what you wish I had actually said in pursuit of some sort of 'gotcha!' moment. It's not going to work.

And please, don't try to flip your own confusion into somehow being mine. Only one of us is painting the other's words as something they aren't, and that's you.

Perhaps this will clear things up:

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Riots as an adult form of temper tantrum is something else entirely. ... I think a distinction needs to be made in light of recent events.

Hmm what recent events are going on... oh, right: Protests against Donald Trump, which you seem to be characterizing as riots.

originally posted by: Greven
So a protest only counts as a protest if you agree with the message?

(AKA calling the protests above riots).

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I said riots. You said protests. You do realize they're two different things, yes?

Yeah, uh, that was my point, that you seem to be calling protests riots.

originally posted by: Greven
Indeed they are. We are discussing protests, though.

So, what is your point in bringing up riots, if not to paint protests as riots?

Again, pointing at your riots / recent events discussion...

I am not confused. Are you and I on the same page, yet?

Evidently we aren't since you persist in trying to paint my comments as conflating riots and protests as one in the same, when I haven't and have in fact done the exact opposite of that. Even your own wiki source says "protests and riots occurred." It refers to disruptJ20 as "rioters" and then explains that they committed violent acts. Even salon.com refers to the protesters who are committing acts of violence and vandalism as rioters or participating in riots, and refers to the violent protests as riots.

Why is everybody else, including me and the law, capable of seeing the distinction between simple protest and a riot, yet you persist in trying to claim I'm saying they're the same thing?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The same.
Won't happen WE have this:

a reply to: Shamrock6
I'm not trying to paint anything.

You continue to mistake questioning for assertions.

If you're referring to the small instances of rioting, that's fine.

It's the "recent events" comment which is, like "riot," rather general.

a reply to: Greven

Nope.

You continue to ask the same question over and over again, despite the fact that it's been answered. Which means you're now asserting that I meant something other than what I've said time and time again.

There have been riots recently. Ergo, riots are covered in "recent events." The fact that you interpreted that to mean "any and everything against Trump is a riot" is entirely your fault, not mine.

a reply to: Shamrock6
That's a very bizarre way of reasoning.

'Hey you asked what I meant a couple of times and I wasn't really clear so clearly you were trying to say I said something I didn't."

a reply to: JoshuaCox

That is the silliest thing ever...

I guess someone missed the outright calls for bans during the DNC convention.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Shamrock6
That's a very bizarre way of reasoning.

'Hey you asked what I meant a couple of times and I wasn't really clear so clearly you were trying to say I said something I didn't."

Not at all, bub. I was quite clear about what I consider to be a riot. Scroll up, if you're still confused.

I don't consider torching cars and destroying property "celebrating" anything, whether your team win the Stanley Cup or not. The law doesn't consider it celebrating, either. It's a riot.

Evidently we aren't since you persist in trying to paint my comments as conflating riots and protests as one in the same, when I haven't and have in fact done the exact opposite of that. Even your own wiki source says "protests and riots occurred." It refers to disruptJ20 as "rioters" and then explains that they committed violent acts. Even salon.com refers to the protesters who are committing acts of violence and vandalism as rioters or participating in riots, and refers to the violent protests as riots.

You claiming I did is one of the more idiotic comments I've ever seen on ATS, since the comment you're replying to is me quite literally pointing out a difference between riots and protest.

That's three examples on this page alone of a) me making a distinction between riots and protests and b) stating that riots have some form of criminal activity taking place at them. How it is that after multiple examples on this page of what I meant by riots and what riots are and what riots are not you're still confused about what I said is, frankly, "a bizarre way of reasoning."

"Hey I know I asked why you brought up riots and you explained it step by step as to why you did it, but why did you really do it?"

"Hey I know I asked why you're trying to paint protests as riots and you've explained that that's exactly what you're not doing, but why are you doing it?"

In any event, I've explained it ad nauseam. I'm not really interested in continuing to explain something I didn't even say or do to the person who's claiming I did.