It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Delusional Protesters and Their Delusional Protests

page: 6
90
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I didn't claim anything. I asked a question. How am I supposed to know what you do or do not protest given the information you provided?

Of course those whom this executive order affects is a shame. But the US isn't the only option the world has to offer. A country has a right to defend its people from threats.


I get that the country needs to defend itself.

I also get the conservative argument that refugees flooding Europe is not a good idea, en masse or without better checks. So, people don't want that to happen here. That's not crazy, although some people will say it is.

BUT, the Sudanese family in question has been here like 20 years. Parents are afraid to travel to see each other. These aren't Syrian refugees nor even newcomers.

Ah well, you know, most of us on either side are closer in view than we realize. It's the media and politicians that are dividing us.


Yes it's tough, I know. It will do us a great favour to remember real individuals are involved. But I think waiting and gathering information is the best response with the least amount of casualties. Sooner or later, whether it is the west or the "countries of concern", we need to band together to fight the very menace that causes the conditions in which we are now forced to operate.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Just because a few protesters got violent does not mean that the rest of the protesters are violent. Protesting is a civil right. It does make a difference. There have been numerous examples of Trump pulling back on some of his policies, for example, putting the climate data back on the EPA's website.

I don't agree with people who think Trump is not their President, however the people have the right to protest his policies, even if he did win. In the end, Clinton won the popular vote as well! And besides, the Democrats still get to play a role in making policy even if they are in the minority and don't have the Presidency.


No one is saying they cannot protest, just like no one is saying I have no right to criticize them. But where speech ends violence begins. To protest speech is to protest protesting.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The awakening... is key.. it's not left or right, it's that breakthrough to unleash YOUR OWN Thoughts... not repeat forcefed BS you hear, see, experience.. which is the easy way out...

We have a chance to unleash the next generation of thinkers....

I embrace the chance to encourage this... collectively a generation or two have fallen prey to a groupthink approach that has stripped our liberties....



True.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Left is slowly becoming Darth Vader; bringing about by their very actions the evil, dystopian world they envision in their nightmares. With George Soros as Emperor.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I guess I appreciate the thought of the OP, but.. honestly, raise your hand if you were at one of these "not my president!" protests. Anyone? So.. there are extreme dissenters in politics? Hmm.. go figure. Typical and why I loathe politics. The incredibly broad strokes of left vs. right brushes.

I doubt OP.. that your message is reaching its intended audience. Might reach 1 person here? Perhaps 2 if lucky I guess.

Personally I fully endorse Trump's win, although I did not vote for him. I still think he will be a laughable failure, sadly at great cost to our nation, but I guess we'll see over the next few years. I still support the process however. As do I suspect most. It is what it is.. we'll see where it goes.

OP imo is just another "I was right you were wrong" post. So much of that here in the last month, every political thread is full of it. People however post this stuff far too soon. Wait.. two years, perhaps three. That's when we'll really know.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

I write for myself. You're wrong, I'm right.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I don’t know. I have never really been a supporter of the “passivity is love” thing.
I do have a notion of positive aggressivity – that sometimes being aggressive is appropriate, and “loving”. Telling people that to be “good” they have to be obedient, silent, all embracing is very effective for shutting down those who are concerned with moral and ethical issues. You could really make that powerful by using the “unconditional love” term .

We Americans have a reputation for being blind obedient sheep, in the global community. I have the opportunity to speak with a lot of foreigners who have had the opportunity to work in the US for a period (a lot of people who go as a VIE for international experience). The thing they all repeat was their surprise to find out that despite the outer appearance of being independent individuals, they turned out to be the opposite when it comes to the work environment. Blinders on, no questioning of administration or those in power, an extreme sort of submission that seems like a slave mentality to foreigners. “Shut up and bow down to your superior no matter what they do” is the driving directive that people embrace there.
I am not sure it is so bad that the people starting changing views on that, and daring to imagine they have a right to object strongly. I don’t think it will do much, in a concrete way – surely, with the help of the “bow down” supporters, the government will put them down forcefully eventually and militarily. But I see some sort of merit in the individual who can at least know, for their own conscience, that they didn’t silently bow and obey as something they saw an atrocity happened.

The Resistance here in France didn’t get very far beyond just being a pain in the arse to the Nazi’s, but at least their children can say, my parents didn’t just bend over and obey. They kept their principles in sight. To me that has some merit and it is an idea that we could use a little of in our culture – that it isn’t the world’s biggest sin to question, object and protest.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I think too much is made of what is essentially and in the majority, people walking down the street and chanting a bit, then going home. Protests happen very frequently however these ones appear to have been discussed to death by 'political' commentators, mostly those against. They are just giving it more publicity and making it bigger than it is.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Call it a wild guess, but I get the feeling that you are still sore about having to accept the results of the election in the United States, and by default, anything that occurs after it.

LesMis


Stopped reading here due to lack of originality. Let's not forget republicans spent 8 years 'sore' and whining about birth certificates and Barry this and Barry that. The hypocrisy and self righteousness displayed in the face of Americans exercising their constitutional right to free speech is staggering.

As for the rest - tl;dr.


Yet here you are. Besides I doubt you know much about free speech. There is too much reading on the subject.

Thanks for sharing.


The irony of your reply is amusing. Free speech is fine when it's on your side of the fence, apparently.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Just because a few protesters got violent does not mean that the rest of the protesters are violent.

Protesting is a civil right.

It does make a difference. There have been numerous examples of Trump pulling back on some of his policies, for example, putting the climate data back on the EPA's website.


*RIOTING* isn't



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: underwerks

a reply to: underwerks


I'm fully insured, ...


Are you absolutely sure about that?

I'd take a closer look at all your policies paying special attention to the exclusion clauses; protip, look for the terms, "riot, strike, and/or civil strife."

You might not be as covered as you think you are. Just like all of these businesses and individuals who have had collateral damage visited upon them.

If that's the case, then so be it. The off chance something of mine might get destroyed in social unrest is no reason for me to support silencing other people's protest.

But then again, I've been handling firearms since I was a kid growing up in the country, so I defend my home against anything like that. As I would hope others would too.


There is the issue of the "heckler's veto". Do you believe an unruly mob should be able to silence someone's fundamental human rights?

No, not at all. But I have to question the motivations of anyone who allows their opinion to be silenced by heckling.


I think it is quite rational to self-censor one's own opinion in order to save his own skin or the skin of others. The true culprits, of course, are the ones threatening or coercing one to do so.
It may be rational, but it isn't honest.



To most families it would be a case of.....

Better a live coward than a dead hero??



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: underwerks

What about other peoples fundamental rights to walk down the street without morons attacking them? Or parking their car near the store without having to wonder if it's going to be there when they get back?

Do those rights matter?

Those aren't constitutionally protected rights. Freedom of speech and by extension protesting is.

Where do you live where you don't have to worry about your car getting taken from you or something happening? I'm not about trading imagined security for my rights. Or anyone else's.

Too many are flying out the window as is, and I'll be damned if I support the taking of any more. Under anyone's banner.

What's the solution? Fill me in if you know. All I know is criminalizing this aspect of free speech is wrong. Even if its messy and outrages you, it serves its purpose to release the pressure valve.

Or would you rather have armed coups and insurrections, like how it is in so many countries that don't allow public expressions of political anger?


My god, you got like ten stars for that post. This is horrifying.

Of course it is a constitutional right to safety. The declaration said we all have the right to "Life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness". Happiness entails well being.

en.wikipedia.org...

The preamble to the Constitution mentions to provide for the common defense. It is quite obvious that the founders intended people to have the right to live without fear of being attacked by mobs.

To suggest otherwise is such a outlandish statement that it is frightening.

So under your interpretation, we do not have the right to peaceably walk down the street, because other people, in the name of free speech, have the right to attack me for ideological reasons?

And if I die or suffer life altering injuries as a result of that, you are ok with it?

Do you feel that racist back in the day had the right to beat black people out of protest? It was just free speech after all, we wouldn't want the police interfering with the racists right to speak out against blacks and beat them.

No one is suggesting people can't protest! Did you see the womens march? I thought there was a lot of craziness, but guess what, no violence at all. This is perfectly acceptable.

How is it not obvious to you that your right to protest does not mean beating people for no reason, or destroying property?

Stopping people from attacking others is the most basic reason for law in the first place!

And you claim to be for free speech, yet you defend violent protests like at Berkely the other day, that are using violence to censor other speech!

I can't believe more than ten people starred this post. That fact shows just how correct the OP is.

I know there are extreme people on the left, but the fact that so many here, on ATS, feel that they have the right to destroy property and beat people for ideological reasons is absolutely baffling.

I only hope that none of you that believe this ever find yourself on the receiving end of someone excercise their free speech on you by assualting you.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

First off don't dump me into "you guys" as I am not trusting of any politician...I also made that very clear but reading comprehension isn't everyone's strong suit...However the guy has been in there 12 whole days. Just maybe we give him some time to show us what he's about. Hard to get an idea due to the Dems blocking everything he tries to do just cause it's him doing it...Even when it's policies from their own party. Also are you saying you liked it better when the President never addresses us with his own words but the words of a speech writer who wrote what he says by design to be what you want to hear even if it's not a realistic representation of reality? I think it is you who you should feel sorry for.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

I was happy that I had no beer in my hand like Natas0114, but now the thought of a high screechy voice has triggered me to crush some aluminium cans between my toes.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Let's not forget republicans spent 8 years 'sore' and whining about birth certificates and Barry this and Barry that. The hypocrisy and self righteousness displayed in the face of Americans exercising their constitutional right to free speech is staggering.


So, "whining" ≥ protesting/rioting/destroying property?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

THIS!...


How is it not obvious to you that your right to protest does not mean beating people for no reason, or destroying property?
Stopping people from attacking others is the most basic reason for law in the first place!
And you claim to be for free speech, yet you defend violent protests like at Berkely the other day, that are using violence to censor other speech!
I can't believe more than ten people starred this post. That fact shows just how correct the OP is.


bear in mind that he wrote on page 2
underwerks:


Go ahead. I'm fully insured, like I'm sure most people that have suffered damage so far are. But that's beside the point.


He rationilizes that destruction of property is ok as an inconsequential natural byproduct of protest as long as someone else foots the bill, namely the insurer

but when...

jadedANDcynical stated
Are you absolutely sure about that? I'd take a closer look at all your policies paying special attention to the exclusion clauses; protip, look for the terms, "riot, strike, and/or civil strife."

he reserves the right to defend "his" property by violent force


But then again, I've been handling firearms since I was a kid growing up in the country, so I defend my home against anything like that. As I would hope others would too.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Perfectly said. I read the post twice and found nothing I disagree with. Well done! Someone earlier said that they wished the protesters could see what will happen in the future if they continue, and that is correct on every level. Mob rule only leads to anarchy and then the rest of us have to correct the anarchy. I hope that we don't have to.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

We're putting you people up against the wall. It's only a matter of time now.

Your futile whining will only hasten your demise.

The purge is coming.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You can't expect people to bow to an administration that blatantly lies every week. Especially if they weren't fans of it in the first place.

I understand wanting to give Trump a chance, but he's not giving us a chance to give him a chance. Its one thing after another.

My advice to the Trump admin: stop making #### up. Then maybe some of us would take you seriously.


No.

The problem is people like you still believe the mass media. How about trying weaning yourself off of it so that you can see the world as it really is for a change? How can you even think straight when you're allowing yourself to be fed a constant stream of corporate media lies?
edit on 4-2-2017 by gernblan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Call it a wild guess, but I get the feeling that you are still sore about having to accept the results of the election in the United States

Of course!
The election was far from 'legitimate', as is, thus, the 'president'.
How Trumpish to demonize contradiction and other Perspectives!
Perhaps it is you who is delusional?
But no one who is delusional would ever admit it...
Delusional people see delusional people everywhere!
Something about mirrors...

Only healthy, intelligent, sane honest people are 'sore' over an illegitimate president's installation as if legitimate!
The Cheetos got their King...


Attacking people is no way to win an argument.



new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join