New Lib term for violent protest = GOOD TROUBLE

The Boston riots in 1770, against law & order of the Govt, and the good Tories, are now deemed good trouble by trouble makers, those malcontents, tax cheats and vandals who poured tea, (private property ) into the sea, blamed the Indians..

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

The statement was made by law enforcement, if you believe your law enforcement officers would lie about it, then you have more in common with the protesters than you think.

Was it?

The statement was more of the same “sources familiar to the matter.”

So no, until I hear it from the mouth of a person in uniform, the statement was not made by law enforcement.

P.S. how does the shill pay in 2020 compare to the shill pay from 2016?

So because 99% of antifa are white, they are now white supremacists, makes sense and true, but still antifa and not right wing groups.

Good trouble until it arrives at your home... like what happened to the TV broadcaster in Seattle. Now he's an advocate for buying a gun to protect your family.

I saw first hand how instigators operate. 48 years ago at Stanford, after the mining of Haiphong harbor.

It has nothing to do with protests. It was very peaceful, though disruptive, until they showed up.

Violence is not Good Trouble. Never was. Whoever is doing it has their own agenda. Separate from that of the peaceful protests.

I’m gonna get me some bricks and head downtown for some ‘good trouble’... who’s coming with?
a reply to: panoz77

a reply to: kingparrot

What's your agenda?

I don’t have one just wondering if I’d used the phrase correctly. Judging by your reply I’m assuming I did.
a reply to: Phage

I built a mail box from bricks once cause the kids in the area kept stealing my wooden one. It was ‘good’ fun but I had ‘trouble’ getting it square. That works too I guess

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: kingparrot

You didn't.

The original post was sarcasm, I guess that doesn’t translate well via text.
a reply to: Phage

Apparently good trouble is:

1. Spray painting everything in sight with the F word
2. Throwing rocks, human feces, explosives and fireworks at the police
3. Blinding people with lasers
4. Stabbing and shooting people
5. Murdering people, even themselves
6. Beating people with sticks and rocks
7. Trying to burn down buildings
8. Looting local businesses
9. Wearing black and carrying an umbrella - Apparently they are also fans of Mary Poppins if she were more the goth type

a reply to: panoz77

Apparently good trouble is:

Incorrect.

That has nothing to do with what Lewis spoke of.

originally posted by: panoz77
Listening to CNN while they are doing the honor guard for John Lewis and started hearing them talking about the "good trouble" being conducted by "protestors" nearby. Interesting that we are now calling violent riots "good trouble".

That sounds a Bit Like Think/Speak . Did Out Chocolate Rations Go Up from 6 Grams a Week to Four Grams a Week just Now ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: panoz77

Apparently good trouble is:

Incorrect.

That has nothing to do with what Lewis spoke of.

I'm using today's new progressive definition, you're just not progressive enough to understand

a reply to: panoz77

No. You're making stuff up.

No one is calling the violence "good trouble."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: panoz77

No. You're making stuff up.

No one is calling the violence "good trouble."

www.speaker.gov...
Nancy equates the "peaceful protests" to good trouble, the only trouble is that almost every "protest" turns into a riot after 9 pm.
"How fitting it is that even in the last weeks of his battle with cancer, John summoned the strength to visit the peaceful protests where the newest generation of Americans had poured into the streets to take up the unfinished work of racial justice."

"May his memory be an inspiration that moves us all to, in the face of injustice, make ‘good trouble, necessary trouble.’"

a reply to: panoz77

Yes. Peaceful protests are "good trouble." Violence is not.

The instigators of violence, whoever they are and whatever their agenda, have nothing to do with "good trouble."

Rational people can understand the difference.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: panoz77

Yes. Peaceful protests are "good trouble." Violence is not.

The instigators of violence, whoever they are and whatever their agenda, have nothing to do with "good trouble."

Rational people can understand the difference.

So who here has opposed peaceful protests? Not one single person. The elephant in the room is that these daytime peaceful protests, where the police are ESCORTING the protestors, are not the problem. The elephant is that the dems and MSM are ignoring the protests that turn to riots EVERY SINGLE DAY for the last 2 months. By characterizing these protests as only peaceful is dishonest and shameful.

a reply to: panoz77

The elephant is that the dems and MSM are ignoring the protests that turn to riots EVERY SINGLE DAY for the last 2 months.

Everywhere? Every day?

By characterizing these protests as only peaceful is dishonest and shameful.

Conflating the violence with "good trouble" is dishonest and shameful. You are playing into the hands of the instigators. Reacting the way they want you to.