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.

 

Hey WaPo if they are throwing things they arent protestors

page: 1
35
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+22 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 11:50 AM
link   

a few protesters threw rocks or fireworks


This is how WaPo verbally describes a protestor.

This is not a protestor, it is a rioters. A violent criminal

Protestors are limited to peaceable and lawful exercise of speech. This means no physical contact. No throwing any item. No threatening any person. Not blocking pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

If all those above don't describe a person at a protest, then they are a criminal not a protestor.

Thanks for the snippits I can use against you though WaPo!




posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 12:06 PM
link   
SnF

You sir, have common sense and logic.......NO racists or hatred speech here in OP!



a reply to: JBurns



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Agreed also breaking windows stealing or catching things on fire. These are not the actions of a protestor they are the actions of thugs and criminals. S+F thank you for your wise words




posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




Protestors are limited to peaceable and lawful exercise of speech. This means no physical contact. No throwing any item. No threatening any person. Not blocking pedestrian or vehicular traffic.


Protests are meant to uncomfortable for TPTB. Further, the 1st Amendment right to protest and demand redress for grievances from the government is directly tied to the 2nd Amendment.

ETA
I'm just going to leave this here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ---

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ---

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ---

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


edit on 1-8-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Peaceably assemble or be met with the water canon.

Mmk?



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Do they even need to be throwing rocks. From the ACLU itself.
www.aclunc.org...


The government can't stop you from talking generally about ideas or future events. But it may ban speech that’s "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'


As far as I can tell, these protests are literally about creating a state of lawlessness across the country.

Cities just need to start stepping down on this #


Cities may charge for the actual costs of a demonstration, including the costs of processing permits, traffic control, certain narrow insurance requirements and some clean-up costs


Haven't seen a whole lot of this in any of the protest videos...much the opposite


You have the right to approach willing passersby to hand them a leaflet, engage them in conversation, or ask them to sign a petition. But you may not obstruct or harass passersby after they have informed you that they are not interested


See these aren't protests the ACLU has a whole section on what these are...it's called civil disobedience


Civil disobedience is the active refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of protest.


And as stated on their own site, those engaging in civil disobedience should expect consequences


Take time to familiarize yourself with the practical consequences of civil disobedience, and with the steps you can take to minimize your chances of an extended stay in jail



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

So...I'm under the impression, that you seem to disagree with Henry David Thoreau's opinion, that he "did not rule out using violence against an unjust government."

Am I correct in my assumption?

en.wikipedia.org...(Thoreau)




edit on 1-8-2020 by Erno86 because: added vid



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Star from me, sookie.

I disagree that present circumstances warrant that response, but I do generally agree here



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

SWEET! so if I want to burn down some buildings, all I need is a BLM sign and some buddies?
We have been doing all this so wrong for so long.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

Negative. I agree with it

But you had better damn we'll be right it had better be serious enough to warrant total war AND you better show up ready to fight because the government sure will.

None of this vanilla revolutionary over mean words on social media stuff

I support the right to revolt and replace a bad government. But losing an election is not a casus belli for total war.
edit on 8/1/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Star from me, sookie.

I disagree that present circumstances warrant that response, but I do generally agree here


these re-rees missed the boat. Seconds after that video made it's way to the public, they could have collectively asked for just about anything, and the world would have tripped over themselves to make it happen. But they didn't do that. they decided to burn down democratic run cities. (no, I don't know why either) and now the entire thing has that as a lasting image. It's a shame Antifa isn't real, if they were, someone could be angry at them for hijacking this movement.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Ain't it the truth!

Leave it to antifa to take a 99% majority opinion and erode a good 30-40%

It's a shame because the shock of Floyd's murder didn't deserve the hijacking



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: JBurns

So...I'm under the impression, that you seem to disagree with Henry David Thoreau's opinion, that he "did not rule out using violence against an unjust government."

Am I correct in my assumption?

en.wikipedia.org...(Thoreau)




Private businesses are NOT unjust Gov. Innocent business owners have lost because they are targeted, this has nothing to do with protesting!
edit on 1-8-2020 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Don't you know if you are a liberal you can push down an old man and kick him on the ground if the old man has a red hat on and you are a hero in the eyes of the liberal left.

Don't you know if you are a liberal you can throw an incendiary device inside a federal building and you are a peaceful protestor and you are a hero and role model in the eyes of the liberal left.

Don't you know you can storm the house of conservatives and if they try to defend themselves have them convicted as criminals while the liberal is lauded as a peaceful protestor for shouting death threats and making violent gestures toward the house of any conservative and you are a role model and hero to the liberal left.

That is the way the liberal left rolls these days.

WAPO is correct by todays standard of behavior as set forth by the liberal left. Any liberal who destroys the property of or attacks the person of any conservative or any public business at all in the name of liberalism and progressivism is a peaceful hero and role model for the liberal left movement. THAT IS THE WAY IT IS - so just get over it and accept the new normal truth - or you are next - on the liberal hit parade.

Don't you know if you are a liberal you can shoot and kill children as long as they are of your own race and the lives of those children don't matter to the liberal left even if the little children are black. Because to say the lives of these children matter is to divert attention to the larger message of the liberal progressive left.




edit on 8/1/20 by The2Billies because: addition



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: JBurns

So...I'm under the impression, that you seem to disagree with Henry David Thoreau's opinion, that he "did not rule out using violence against an unjust government."

Am I correct in my assumption?

en.wikipedia.org...(Thoreau)






Private businesses are NOT unjust Gov. Innocent business owners have lost because they are targeted, this has nothing to do with protesting!


In the eyes of the liberal left
ALL business owners are capitalist oppressors

If a poor man has a bodega downtown
he is a capitalist oppressor
and therefore is not innocent
and deserves to have his livelihood
destroyed as a symbol
of the oppression of capitalism

So goes liberal/progressive/Democratic Party ideology

So of course the little boutique
a woman saved up her entire life to open
is a symbol of the governmental oppression
of capitlaism
and deserves to be destroyed

So of course the little pizza shop
an immigrant scrimped and saved
to open is now a symbol of "the man"
of governmental oppression
of capitalism
and deserves to be destroyed.

Didn't you learn anything in the government
classes in College/Univ?

That is the fact of what these protestors
are taught in public schools

So according to BLM, ANTIFA, these business
owners are symbolic of
government oppression
and inequality because they participate
in capitalism, the most evil form of
government on the face of the planet.
That is liberal/progressive ideology and firmly
entrenched in these young brains.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You make my point about liberal ideology

You say protests are supposed to make people uncomfortable, and I seem to get the impression you think this justifies graffiti, broken windows, looting, jumping on cars as perfectly ok as long as it is a protest that should make people uncomfortable.

So destroying a person's business they have spent their entire life building is simply a casualty of the justifiable making people uncomfortable. If the business happens to be where a protest is held.

So shaking and jumping on cars with little crying children inside terrified they are going to be killed is justifiable in making people uncomfortable. If the person driving happened to turn down the wrong road and get "stuck" near the protest.

Sure if one is BLM or ANTIFA or liberal, or a Democrat violence and terrorizing innocents and ruining the livelihood of innocents is totally and completely justified because the protest was supposed to make people uncomfortable. Well I'm not sure this new morality, of what is right and what is wrong, of the liberal left is something I find acceptable.

What do I know. That seems to be the liberal/progressive way of thinking these days for sure. Violence and terrorizing people is ok as long as it is done to make a liberal/progressive/Democrat Party political point. Ok, well the new moral code of the left is perplexing to me.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies




You say protests are supposed to make people uncomfortable, and I seem to get the impression you think this justifies graffiti, broken windows, looting, jumping on cars as perfectly ok as long as it is a protest that should make people uncomfortable.

So destroying a person's business they have spent their entire life building is simply a casualty of the justifiable making people uncomfortable. If the business happens to be where a protest is held.


Where would we be if the Sons of Liberty politely protested the Tea Tax, and didn't destroy American's private property in protest during the infamous Boston Tea Party?

Don't think for a second that America's Founding fathers were above the destruction of private property for their cause.

Your problem revolves around whether or not the 2020 protesters' grievances meet the threshold required to justify such violence.

To be clear, I never said that they do. I'm merely defending the core values imparted by the 1st and 2nd Amendments of the US Constitution, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.



edit on 1-8-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

You just found some random poet that no one has thought about since 8th grade to make your point? Why should anyone care what Henry David Thoreau thinks about anything. Walden sucked. I said it and I meant it. Why don’t we ask Ralph Waldo Emerson what he thinks of protests? Or how about Walt Whitman? Or Walt Disney for that matter?
Am I missing something? Was Henry David Thoreau a founding father? Or just some twink with an opinion and an ink quill?



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

In this spirit I wholeheartedly agree with you



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

It's a tricky and volatile subject. So much so that we actually had a whole Civil War and we still can't agree on thresholds of justification on so many, many social and civil fronts.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<<   2 >>

log in

join