Somebody Loves Bush

[Livetrueordie]

http://www.protestwarrior.com/
I just thought this was funny and ridiculous

[Zingu]

I heard the protest warrior group at the ingauration protests got owned by the anarchists, anyone know about this?

[JazzRemington]

What I remmeber hearing was one of the Protest Warriors "infiltrated" an anarchist group and held up a pro-Bush sign, and as result got pwnz0red by them.

[Latin America]

Look what I found!!!


Protesting the Protesters
Small Band of Conservatives Comes to Town to Answer Anti-Bush Groups

By Robert MacMillan
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, January 20, 2005; 5:59 PM

Ten minutes after telling his fellow protesters to stay safe, Gil Kobrin lay huddled in the slush and mud as two anarchists repeatedly kicked him in the back.

How he got from point A to point B is simple enough. Kobrin, accompanied by a dozen members of the conservative group ProtestWarrior, crashed a rally of hundreds of anti-Bush demonstrators at Meridian Park in Washington, D.C. Holding aloft signs that read "Say no to war unless a Democrat is president" and "Not to brag, but Bush won, so shove it!" they had set off earlier on inauguration morning in search of their opposites.

The ProtestWarrior contingent didn't have to search for very long; the party came to them.

"You can go a [expletive] half-mile away and stand on the first street corner you see!" shouted a self-described anarchist, dressed all in black with a bandana covering his face. As they taunted and threatened and liberally profaned Kobrin and the rest of the group, a member of the D.C. Anti-War Network (DAWN) -- the official organizers of the rally -- tried to break it up.

"Your purpose is to instigate people. You're going to have to leave!" shouted the "marshal," DAWN's term for their ad hoc security force.

"We're staying here," Kobrin replied.

Then he went down under a hail of black boots. Once the marshals pulled the anarchists away, ProtestWarrior sued for peace and made for the exit. Their chant of "Four more years!" was answered by the anarchists' reply: "Wah wah wah!"

It wasn't much of a contest. ProtestWarrior's contingent numbered 13, the other side in the hundreds. If they won any hearts and minds, no one said so.

"I expected it, but I didn't expect to be kicked in the back," Kobrin said later. His boyish, twentysomething face wore a wry smile and he stood upright, but conceded that he was in some pain.

Kobrin is a dedicated member of ProtestWarrior, a two-year-old group formed to demonstrate against the demonstrators. A theology student from Far Rockaway, Queens, he was the organizer of the group's inauguration day action, code-named "Operation Hail to the Chief."

It was modeled on ProtestWarrior's primary M.O.: mingle with protesters, mix, await angry abuse and epithets and then label the peaceniks as aggressive hypocrites. Meanwhile, a ProtestWarrior videographer records the whole affair to post on the Web site later. Videos already on the site show off ProtestWarrior counter-protests in places such as San Francisco and in New York during the Republican National Convention last August.

The group was founded by Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton when the self-described conservatives, both 30, were living in San Francisco and desperate for a political counterweight to their "overwhelmingly liberal community."

ProtestWarrior might be a bastion of conservative ideals, but its brand of humor is better suited to the hip left, and Alfia wouldn't be out of place in the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog. Born in Tel Aviv, his photo shows he has a face and body built either for a beefcake calendar or a recruitment poster for the Israeli army. Lipton's photo reflects a younger, cooler, better-fed Bill Gates with snazzier glasses.

The group's symbol, meanwhile, is a bare-chested, musclebound hero wielding a sword. It looks like it sprang, Athena-like, from the paperback cover of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

ProtestWarrior's members see themselves as a baker's dozen dedicated to balancing out DAWN, Turn Your Back on Bush, International ANSWER and the myriad other organizations that took to the streets to denounce the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and just about every other liberal bogeyman.

"They hate freedom and hate America," said ProtestWarrior's Dana Forehand, 24, a graphic designer with long brown hair who came down from Astoria, Queens, to mix with the other side of the ideological street.

"I like the idea of reminding these people that they're not the overwhelming majority," said David LaRue, 24, of Humboldt County, Calif. LaRue, unlike a majority of the other ProtestWarrior members, is on his first "infiltration" as they call it. He's worried because he heard that some of their opponents were planning to hurl water balloons at them, a chilling prospect on a sub-freezing morning.

After the scuffle, one young anarchist hurled a snowball, laced with dirt and pebbles and whatever else he could scoop of the ground, at the retreating ProtestWarrior members. The anarchist, who declined to offer his name, said he did not believe in violence, but insisted that "Throwing a snowball... is not going to hurt anybody."

Patrick McKale, 22, an anarchist from Baltimore, said he was pleased that ProtestWarrior members took a few licks. He said he saw no irony in beating people up at a peace rally. "Just because you're anti-imperialist doesn't mean you're against violence."

Kobrin and several of his comrades held their remaining signs aloft -- under the protection of several D.C. police officers -- as the anti-Bush demonstrators formed a parade to march down 16th Street to McPherson Square.

"Dude, you got your ass kicked," one of them taunted at the ProtestWarrior group. Several anarchists, their bile neutered by the police presence, resorted to creative hand signs. It brought to mind something Kobrin had said in an earlier interview: "Ideally it should be a nice, cordial, open dialogue."

Some in the anti-Bush crowd said they resented the fact that ProtestWarrior's "man bites dog" schtick eats up a disproportionate amount of press attention.

"They're taking the media away from us!" exclaimed one angry protester.

After the fight television crews popped up out of nowhere and reporters rushed to the ProtestWarrior members. But just as soon, they melted away, chasing after the legions of anti-war demonstrators banging on drums and soda cans and carrying cardboard boxes done up as coffins draped in American flags as they hoofed it down 16th St.

Kobrin and the ProtestWarrior crew hung out for a few more minutes before reconnoitering at their car and heading down to 4th and Pennsylvania to get another dose of the action. The drubbing from a few minutes before didn't seem to act as much of a deterrent.

"We're going to hang tight," he said.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"Just because you're anti-imperialist doesn't mean you're against violence."

Dead on, haha.
You know, it's funny, Protest Warrior advocates aggressive violence (inherent in their defense of the Bush regime, and conservative ideology in general), but, when it gets turned against them, they cry like babies.
Personally, I think, rather than a few kicks in the back, a clusterbomb would have served the motherfuckers right.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

Good point Molotov.

Also, the protestwarriors claim that the leftist protestors "hate freedom", yet their group's name shows that they are in fact "warring" against protest, one of an American's essential freedoms.

Fucking hypocrites. :huh:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 14 2005, 07:40 AM
Protest Warrior advocates aggressive violence...but, when it gets turned against them, they cry like babies.
A bit you like you lot (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32619), eh ?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:28 AM
I heard the protest warrior group at the ingauration protests got owned by the anarchists, anyone know about this?
Watch the video.

The anarchists were so peace-loving, mature, and secure in their ideas that they reacted to people who expressed opposing thoughts with violence.

Really sounds like a movement I'd like to get behind.

If I were a psych major I'd do a study on anarchists and ask them about their relationship with their parents. I'm willing to bet the evidence will show that
the little *****es need to break stuff and punch people so they'll get the attention mommy and daddy never gave them.

I blame the parents, really.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:54 AM
Good point Molotov.

Also, the protestwarriors claim that the leftist protestors "hate freedom", yet their group's name shows that they are in fact "warring" against protest, one of an American's essential freedoms.

Fucking hypocrites. :huh:
They war against protest by bringing their own childish signs.

The anarchists are the ones who resort to violence.

:rolleyes:

[Livetrueordie]

Look at this on some different Forum
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php...forum=1&start=0 (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=52166&forum=1&start=0)
they're comin for us

[JazzRemington]

well, I say throw up the barricades, comrades!

But maybe they would like a taste of their own medicine, what with all the infiltrations and what not.

[Ele'ill]

It's funny that the only one i'm agreeing with in this thread is the apparent conservative troll. You go to an anti war demonstration you don't attack anybody. Not cops, not someone with an opposing view. Yeah, 'ho ho their name is protest warrior how ironic' yeah that is ironic, so is kicking the protester with the opposing ideology (god forbid another view on things) on the ground at a protest, where they're protesting against WAR and state VIOLENCE
fucking absurd.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:13 AM
It's funny that the only one i'm agreeing with in this thread is the apparent conservative troll. You go to an anti war demonstration you don't attack anybody. Not cops, not someone with an opposing view. Yeah, 'ho ho their name is protest warrior how ironic' yeah that is ironic, so is kicking the protester with the opposing ideology (god forbid another view on things) on the ground at a protest, where they're protesting against WAR and state VIOLENCE
fucking absurd.
You're one of the few posters here who shows evidence of using more than just their brainstem.

There may be hope for you yet, young Jedi.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What are you whing about anyway?

You got your asses kicked by Anarchists. Then you whine that it's a violation of "freedom of speech", but you support the PATRIOTIC ACT, the imprisonment of innoncents in torture institions. But guess those damn negroes and sandniggers don't count.

You feel sorry that your "I-am-a-pathetic-middleclass-I-won't-join-the-army-but-l-am-a-brave-pcwarrior" ass got kicked. But you have no trouble with 100.000 dead Iraqi's from 2003 on. With 500.000 dead Iraqi children due to DU. Fuck you and your hypocricy! Meet my boots reactiontionary ****!

Or do you prefer the DU treatment?

[Don't Change Your Name]

I honestly don't give a damn about anarchists hitting them. They could kill them and I won't mind.


The anarchists are the ones who resort to violence.

The anarchists are not the ones who invade countries to get rid of a dictator they once supported using as an excuse that the dictator has WMDs that were never found. Oh, and the anarchists are not the ones exploiting people. Oops!

[t_wolves_fan]

What are you whing about anyway?

I'm not whining, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.


You got your asses kicked by Anarchists. Then you whine that it's a violation of "freedom of speech", but you support the PATRIOTIC ACT, the imprisonment of innoncents in torture institions. But guess those damn negroes and sandniggers don't count.

Well let's see...protest warriors stand there and hold signs.

Those imprisoned under the patriot act have at least some evidence against them that they've engaged in terrorist-related crimes against the U.S.

That's quite a LLLLLLLLLEEEEEAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPP


You feel sorry that your "I-am-a-pathetic-middleclass-I-won't-join-the-army-but-l-am-a-brave-pcwarrior" ass got kicked.

I don't feel sorry for them, in fact I don't even care.

I simply find it humorous that a bunch of people who are "against the violence of war" resort to violence against those with whom they disagree.

You're all fucknuts to me, frankly.


But you have no trouble with 100.000 dead Iraqi's from 2003 on. With 500.000 dead Iraqi children due to DU.

First of all, I don't support the war.

Second, I believe the civilian casualties add up to a lot less than 100K (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

Do I have a problem with their deaths? Absolutely. Their deaths are the result of our failues in foreign policy.

Do I hope, now that we are there, that maybe some good can come out of it? Absolutely. To do otherwise is sadistic because it means you want every death in Iraq to be for nothing.

End of story.


Fuck you and your hypocricy! Meet my boots reactiontionary ****!

Or do you prefer the DU treatment?

Wow, you're pretty angry dude.

To think if only mommy and daddy had hugged you once in a while. I'm sure this gets their attention though.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:13 PM
It's funny that the only one i'm agreeing with in this thread is the apparent conservative troll. You go to an anti war demonstration you don't attack anybody. Not cops, not someone with an opposing view. Yeah, 'ho ho their name is protest warrior how ironic' yeah that is ironic, so is kicking the protester with the opposing ideology (god forbid another view on things) on the ground at a protest, where they're protesting against WAR and state VIOLENCE
fucking absurd.
What's "funny" about it?

Those morons at "Protest Warrior" are boys playing soldier. If you actually go look at their site, you can see for yourself how they :wub: military terminology.

The clear purpose of their group is to glorify U.S. imperialism.

If those Stormtrooper-wannabes had weapons, they'd shoot us down like dogs.

(Or try to...their own feet would probably suffer more wounds than we would.)

You want to "play fair" with them?

Let them hide behind the pigs where they belong.

And I warmly congratulate the anarchists in Washington, D.C., for setting an excellent example in how to deal with fascist scum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

I simply find it humorous that a bunch of people who are "against the violence of war" resort to violence against those with whom they disagree.

I don't know if they were "against the violence of war", merely that they were against this specific war.


Not really because Saddam would have murdered them anyway.

Oh brilliant.

So Hitler was justified in killing millions of Russians, because Stalin would have murdered them anyway?

You cannot defend the murder of civilians by claiming Saddam would have done it anyway.

Believe it or not, self-proclaimed "free" nations are held to a higher standard than the "butcher of Baghdad!


What's DU?

Depleted Uranium.

Effecitvely, big hunks of radioactive metal lobbed into civilian population centers.

*EDIT*

Oh I see you cut out the "Saddam would have murdered them anyway" part of your post and replaced it with "Do I have a problem with their deaths? Absolutely. Their deaths are the result of our failues in foreign policy."
:)

Good thinking there! I guess you were a little too honest the first time. Better keep that genocidal part of you well hidden, wouldn't want everyone to know how you feel, now would you?

:lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

I don't know if they were "against the violence of war", merely that they were against this specific war.

In my experience they're against whatever the establishment is doing at all times.

Most of them would complain if you wrote them a check for $2 million.


So Hitler was justified in killing millions of Russians, because Stalin would have murdered them anyway?

You cannot defend the murder of civilians by claiming Saddam would have done it anyway.

True, but that is not the reason I edited that out. I did some editing and forgot to put that back in.

The difference is, the civilians we kill are accidental.


Believe it or not, self-proclaimed "free" nations are held to a higher standard than the "butcher of Baghdad!

Abso-fucking-lutely. That's why I'm glad the idiots from Abu Ghirab are going to prison and another reason I no longer support Bush.




Depleted Uranium.

Effecitvely, big hunks of radioactive metal lobbed into civilian population centers.

I see. I certainly don't support our use of that.

Even when we try to do good things it seems we fuck them up lately.

:(

[LSD]

The difference is, the civilians we kill are accidental.

Absolutely.

Again, I am not saying there is moral parity between Bush and Hussein.

But.. the US's actions in Iraq have hardly been..um... let's say...well designed to avoid civilian casualties.


In my experience they're against whatever the establishment is doing at all times.

That's simplistic and overgenarlized.

There are many legitimate complaints with both the invasion of Iraq and the handling of the aftermath. Dismissing any critisisims as immature rabble-rousing is dangerous and short-sighted.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It wasn't hypocricy. Anarchists in general aren't pacifists, they are more often anti-capitalists/imperialists. There is no hypocricy there.

And no, people locked up in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram to name a few famous, are not per se guilty of "terrorism" (however you define it, this time.) They are guilty untill proofen innoncent. Ofcourse, you don't feel sympathy for innoncent victims, you are a Cappie!

Iraqi Bodycount only counts those reported in the Media. To name an example; Fallujah, lots of people died, but there were no accurate mediareports. So the dead went uncounted.

What good can come out of the occupation of Iraq? What direction is it heading? Don't you find it hypocrit to tolerate the occupation, but be against the war?

Ofcourse, I am a pretty angry dude when I speak with capitalist apologists. Appareantly all workingclass people are lazy and dumb. Furthermore, I am actually quite friendly - even to my parents!

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

"I-am-a-pathetic-middleclass-I-won't-join-the-army-but-l-am-a-brave-pcwarrior"
-lmfao :lol:

[Ele'ill]

What's "funny" about it?

Those morons at "Protest Warrior" are boys playing soldier. If you actually go look at their site, you can see for yourself how they military terminology.

The clear purpose of their group is to glorify U.S. imperialism.

If those Stormtrooper-wannabes had weapons, they'd shoot us down like dogs.

(Or try to...their own feet would probably suffer more wounds than we would.)

You want to "play fair" with them?

Let them hide behind the pigs where they belong.

Funny was sarcasm.
They are protesters, just like the anarchists. There is no revolution going on. It was not a war zone. That was a street fight at an antiwar demonstration. "playing fair" is vague. What is fair and what is the situation? Physically attacking them was immature and extremely irrational seeing how it took place at an anti war demonstration.
Trying to justify using violence against someone responsible for supporting attrocities, at a PROTEST, is in fact not justifiable. Yes, those protest warriors are immature, the name of their group is absurd, and look what the anarchists did. They responded with the same ferocity that this government does. No patience, no common sense, fucking childish. When you go to a protest you are not there to battle anyone. Those that do are there for the wrong purpose. It is not a revolution, it isn't some grand spectacle where they will be on banners and worshipped around the world. It is an event that will be over within the day, or possibly a few days.


The clear purpose of their group is to glorify U.S. imperialism.

Well the anarchists showed the world what they'd do in a confrontational situation, they'd lash out with physical force. Then they turn around and whine about the 'police state'. Give me a break. I know this little fight thing in no way represents anarchists or their beliefs although all the public sees is violence.


And I warmly congratulate the anarchists in Washington, D.C., for setting an excellent example in how to deal with fascist scum
By participating in the same brute force tactics that these 'fascist scum' engage in.
Oh what a future we have ahead of us after this great revolution that is on it's way. :rolleyes:

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

The Iraqis who were killed in the U.S. invasion and occupation were innocent. The fascist protestwarriors weren't innocent, and got kicked. Shit happens.

[Ele'ill]

The Iraqis who were killed in the U.S. invasion and occupation were innocent. The fascist protestwarriors weren't innocent, and got kicked. Shit happens

That still does not justify the use of violence. The use of force against another, to control and dominate should be something all anarchists are opposed to. But I guess in this case it was in their ideological favor so it was ok. As long there is something as potent as violence existing in this world, everyone will use it and abuse it's power. There never will be a justifed excuse as to why they resorted to violence at an anti war demonstration. YES the iraqis are killed, YES the american government abuses many of it's powers to control others. So if you are so opposed to these things, why participate in it?

[Anarchist Freedom]

Ever seen some of those protests? The PW go into a protest that isnt for them and instiagte problems and they know it somebodys heads going to get cracked. They come into a protest and start causing trouble and wont leave by peaceful means then fuck them.

[Ele'ill]

Ever seen some of those protests? The PW go into a protest that isnt for them and instiagte problems and they know it somebodys heads going to get cracked. They come into a protest and start causing trouble and wont leave by peaceful means then fuck them.

:lol:
Sort of like palestinians protesting at a check point that isn't 'for them' (in the eyes of the Israeli soldiers. They won't leave peacfully, 'then fuck them' *TATA*. Three children dead. Police won't leave you alone, they are not letting you march down the street, they start swinging battons, in come the horse mounted samurai. Chaos ensues. Generally public event, protests going on against the WAR and VIOLENT occupation. Many bush supporters are in the area, some with signs, some by themselves, others in 'activist groups'. The pro occupation, war, oppression whatever, individuals refuse to leave. A group of protesters, with an ideological belief that individual domination and control of others by brutal force is WRONG, ATTACK the pro war/oppression protester, kicking him while he's on the ground. This is domination through the use of brutal force.


If you have such little self control that you abandon your beliefs because some immature 'others' decide to confront you; You may need to sit down and rethink your ideology. Please do.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

Most people aren't against the Iraq war, just for the fact that violence is involved. They're against it because it's an unjust war. To many, kicking a right-winger wouldn't be unjust use of violence at all. I see your point that an anti-war protest is an ironic place for it to happen, but emotions run high at such things. I know that's not an excuse, but there just aren't excuses for a lot of things that happen in this world.

I just really don't see violence going away during the future course of humanity.

[Elect Marx]

Kobrin is a dedicated member of ProtestWarrior, a two-year-old group formed to demonstrate against the demonstrators. A theology student from Far Rockaway, Queens, he was the organizer of the group's inauguration day action, code-named "Operation Hail to the Chief."

It was modeled on ProtestWarrior's primary M.O.: mingle with protesters, mix, await angry abuse and epithets and then label the peaceniks as aggressive hypocrites. Meanwhile, a ProtestWarrior videographer records the whole affair to post on the Web site later. Videos already on the site show off ProtestWarrior counter-protests in places such as San Francisco and in New York during the Republican National Convention last August.

They got what they deserved or at least a taste of it as VMC said. They are depriving others of their rights and infringing on a protest; they are vile hypocrites, so fuck them :angry:

[Ele'ill]

They got what they deserved or at least a taste of it as VMC said. They are depriving others of their rights and infringing on a protest; they are vile hypocrites, so fuck them

No, actually the anarchists violate THEIR right to protest by using aggressive measures to do what? Drive them away? Change their beliefs? I will say it again, who is so hypocritical to use dominating force against another? The 'right wingers' are all for domination through brute force. Anarchists are opposed to that. The anarchists are the ones that engaged in this activity, not the "protest warriors".



They're against it because it's an unjust war

Yes, however think of the groups involved in the anti war protest. Anarchists are the ones of discussion so we'll use them. They are against the war not only because it's unjust but because it involves the exploitation of others. Cliche I know but it is very true. They are opposed to domination as I have said 20 times in the past 2 posts yet they resorted to using that potent fruit they have condemnd. Power, Domination, Exploitation. "Their ideological views are WRONG, lets beat them up and kick them out". Same thing the US government does. As far as i'm concerend, on that particular day, they were capitalists wearing black masks. I can only hope this does not become a trend.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:25 PM

Ever seen some of those protests? The PW go into a protest that isnt for them and instiagte problems and they know it somebodys heads going to get cracked. They come into a protest and start causing trouble and wont leave by peaceful means then fuck them.

:lol:
Sort of like palestinians protesting at a check point that isn't 'for them' (in the eyes of the Israeli soldiers. They won't leave peacfully, 'then fuck them' *TATA*. Three children dead. Police won't leave you alone, they are not letting you march down the street, they start swinging battons, in come the horse mounted samurai. Chaos ensues. Generally public event, protests going on against the WAR and VIOLENT occupation. Many bush supporters are in the area, some with signs, some by themselves, others in 'activist groups'. The pro occupation, war, oppression whatever, individuals refuse to leave. A group of protesters, with an ideological belief that individual domination and control of others by brutal force is WRONG, ATTACK the pro war/oppression protester, kicking him while he's on the ground. This is domination through the use of brutal force.


If you have such little self control that you abandon your beliefs because some immature 'others' decide to confront you; You may need to sit down and rethink your ideology. Please do.
What?

Why are you so interested in "fair-play"?

Fuck'm. It's our goal to win, it's not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary.

[Ele'ill]

What?

Why are you so interested in "fair-play"?

Fuck'm. It's our goal to win, it's not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary.


You are putting words in my mouth. I never said i'm interested in fair-play. I am however interested in rational thought. Violence is ironic enough at an anti war protest. Participating in the domination of others, while your core beliefs stand against it, is too much irony in one day. As I said, they were capitalists wearing masks. The reason for my concern is because I am indeed aware that this is not a 'fuckin game'. I wouldn't call defecting from your own ideology 'putting salt in their wounds'. This was not a revolution. It was a time to voice your opinion on the way this country is run. Both sides in this case did that however the anarchists choose to silence not only the opposition but the significance of their entire ideology. Mind you when I say anarchists i'm refering to those that participated in the pathetic spectacle. Not every anarchist. If it's your goal to win then you sure as hell better decided which side's ethics you are supporting because that was no anarchist action. That was 'thuggery'.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

I'm seeing the anarchists' motivation in a different light. They weren't trying to change their ideas, or control them, they were trying to get the instigating protest warriors out of their face. A simple kick, isn't something you do to silence someone. It's what you do to get an annoying stray animal away from you. I wouldn't get in the face of right-wing protestors without expecting at least mild physical retaliation. It's like jumping into a cage with a lion, screaming at it, and blaming it when it bites you.

[Ele'ill]

they were trying to get the instigating protest warriors out of their face. A simple kick, isn't something you do to silence someone. It's what you do to get an annoying stray animal away from you.

So when I see activists throwing things at the police, or taunting them, swearing at them, and they get a douse of pepper spray, this is justified. Because to the police, those protesters are nothing but an 'annoying stray animal'. In essence yes, the anarchists did silence the PW. And yes, they acted as the brutal police state does. Through force and intimidation, they hoped that 'annoying stray animal' won't come back. They decided to take the moment to adopt some things from capitalist culture. Violence, intimidation and domination. To them it was ok to do because they were 'fighting for their ideology'. They should have been fighting for rational thought. The whole fiasco with the PW is petty. The anarchists were brought down to the PW's level. Had the anarchist been seriously assaulted first, this is a different story. This is not the case.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:37 PM

They got what they deserved or at least a taste of it as VMC said. They are depriving others of their rights and infringing on a protest; they are vile hypocrites, so fuck them

No, actually the anarchists violate THEIR right to protest by using aggressive measures to do what?
To stop people from infiltrating their group! If right wingers join our protest groups, they are attempting to make a mockery of our rights to protest. They are also trying to distract and subvert our actions; fuck them! I wouldn't give a shit if that reactionary died; I do not advocate killing generally but if the right forces us, we must defend our self by kicking them out of our protest by ANY means necessary.


Drive them away? Change their beliefs?

Yes drive them out of a group they are attacking. "Change their beliefs?" What the fuck are you talking about? This is about their actions.


I will say it again, who is so hypocritical to use dominating force against another?

"Dominating?" They refused to leave and they refused to allow the protestors their rights; this is self defense. Do you think we should allow the rightwing to overrun our protests!?


They are opposed to domination as I have said 20 times in the past 2 posts yet they resorted to using that potent fruit they have condemnd. Power, Domination, Exploitation. "Their ideological views are WRONG, lets beat them up and kick them out". Same thing the US government does. As far as i'm concerend, on that particular day, they were capitalists wearing black masks. I can only hope this does not become a trend.

"Power, Domination, Exploitation!?" They were fucking defending their rights; you must have proof otherwise because the materials show even the capitalists admit they where invading the protest.


Violence is ironic enough at an anti war protest.

Not at all; it is anti-war not a pacifist rally.


As I said, they were capitalists wearing masks.

Fucking prove it.


It was a time to voice your opinion on the way this country is run.

So the anti-protesters were attempting to suppress that; FUCK THEM!


Both sides in this case did that however the anarchists choose to silence not only the opposition but the significance of their entire ideology.

You seem to be pretending this is something that we have no reason to believe; how did they "silence not only the opposition but the significance of their entire ideology?"
They kicked the reactionaries out; that is all I see the evidence supporting.


Mind you when I say anarchists i'm refering to those that participated in the pathetic spectacle.

When you rally (I hope you do), we may see what kind of "pathetic spectacle," you put on when people come to minimalize and override your rights; I suggest you do what you must.


If it's your goal to win then you sure as hell better decided which side's ethics you are supporting because that was no anarchist action. That was 'thuggery'.

If defending myself is thuggery, then I am a thug.


So when I see activists throwing things at the police, or taunting them, swearing at them, and they get a douse of pepper spray, this is justified. Because to the police, those protesters are nothing but an 'annoying stray animal'So when I see activists throwing things at the police, or taunting them, swearing at them, and they get a douse of pepper spray, this is justified. Because to the police, those protesters are nothing but an 'annoying stray animal'. In essence yes, the anarchists did silence the PW.So when I see activists throwing things at the police, or taunting them, swearing at them, and they get a douse of pepper spray, this is justified. Because to the police, those protesters are nothing but an 'annoying stray animal'.

How the hell do you compare this? This is not infiltrating the police?


In essence yes, the anarchists did silence the PW.

Not at all; if they wanted to do any of the things you claim, they would have taken those boots to the PW heads and I think anyone that suppresses the rights of others, has it coming.


And yes, they acted as the brutal police state does.

Whatever; I will act as "brutal" as I must if you attack me.


Through force and intimidation, they hoped that 'annoying stray animal' won't come back.

You are just making this up :angry:


They decided to take the moment to adopt some things from capitalist culture.

Bullshit; violence predates capitalism and is used as defense as well.


Violence, intimidation and domination. To them it was ok to do because they were 'fighting for their ideology'.

Prove they we "dominating," or did you just through that in for good measure?


They should have been fighting for rational thought.

?! Like: PW people let us share the protest so you can silence us? That is your idea of rational?


The whole fiasco with the PW is petty. The anarchists were brought down to the PW's level. Had the anarchist been seriously assaulted first, this is a different story. This is not the case.

Yes, self-defense is petty. They should have welcomed the PW's and just waited to be attacked/overrun!

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:53 PM
The Iraqis who were killed in the U.S. invasion and occupation were innocent. The fascist protestwarriors weren't innocent, and got kicked. Shit happens.
Innocent/guilty of what ?

[HardDrive]

Ironic that you care so much for yourselves that you would kill others to gain what you please, but call it an outrage when it happens to someone, the most imperial tactic i can think of.

If you have to kill groups of people to achieve what you want, you arent fighting for anything but yourselves. certainly while youre planning your utopian societies you want people to be there, which they wont if you kill them all. Allies quickly turn to enemies when you just randomly kill off people for their political ideals among other things. Anarchy is one of those random things people would use an excuse to get into power.
Stalin, for example, hid his true ideals behind communism and established a draconian dictatorship. Unless you can somehow sway the people to your new system, a revolution will simply become a fading battle, and exercising violence on protesters isnt exactly one of the things you should probaly be doing.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 17 2005, 10:44 PM
Why are you so interested in "fair-play"?

Fuck'm. It's our goal to win, it's not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary.

Proving that inside the closet of every socialist is a sociopath screaming to be let out.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 17 2005, 07:34 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 17 2005, 07:34 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 17 2005, 10:44 PM
Why are you so interested in "fair-play"?

Fuck'm. It's our goal to win, it's not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary.
Hopefully, next May 1st, the police will gun down anyone stupid enough to hold anti-capitalist marches.

Fair-play sucks ! Anything is necessary ! [/b]
Big talk... will you be there? Oh, that's right, you hide behind the police; coward.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Feb 18 2005, 12:43 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Feb 18 2005, 12:43 AM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2005, 07:34 PM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 17 2005, 10:44 PM
Why are you so interested in "fair-play"?

Fuck'm. It's our goal to win, it's not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary.
Hopefully, next May 1st, the police will gun down anyone stupid enough to hold anti-capitalist marches.

Fair-play sucks ! Anything is necessary !
Big talk... will you be there? Oh, that's right, you hide behind the police; coward. [/b]
I'm not the one issuing the threats, "worker's warrior".

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 17 2005, 07:34 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 17 2005, 07:34 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 17 2005, 10:44 PM
Why are you so interested in "fair-play"?

Fuck'm. It's our goal to win, it's not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary.

Proving that inside the closet of every socialist is a sociopath screaming to be let out. [/b]
:lol: Caught you before you changed your post. Must be your cowardly “nature.”

[HardDrive]

If you think the majority of the united states is against capitalism, You obviously live in your own world in which you take the injustices that happen to you and apply them to everyone.

Capitalism is a system of free trade within a body. Communism is a governed system of trade (which some people have the delusion of thinking can somehow be governed without leaders.) Communism has quite a bad history of producing dictators, at least capitalist governments allow you to be the whiny people that you are. I guess some of you forget the secret police and general dictatorship that comes with communism, or at least has on every ocassion it has been attempted.

anarchy will never be accepted by the masses, because youre trying to enact a total honor system on a society which doesnt trust their own family. generally, taking any sense of comfort(false or not) out from other people is a bad idea.

[LSD]

I'm not the one issuing the threats, "worker's warrior".

*cough* "Hopefully, next May 1st, the police will gun down anyone stupid enough to hold anti-capitalist marches." *cough*

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 18 2005, 12:48 AM
:lol: Caught you before you changed your post. Must be your cowardly “nature.”
I'm so f*cking scared. :rolleyes:

I was merely pointing out your own hypocrisy.

[Ele'ill]

To stop people from infiltrating their group! If right wingers join our protest groups, they are attempting to make a mockery of our rights to protest. They are also trying to distract and subvert our actions; fuck them! I wouldn't give a shit if that reactionary died; I do not advocate killing generally but if the right forces us, we must defend our self by kicking them out of our protest by ANY means necessary.


'infiltrating their group'? are you kidding? This is a protest, not a covert guerrilla operation. So because of them mocking your right to protest you attack their right to protest. Logic Check. I don't care if you wouldn't mind them dead. YOU are not the only one at these protests. Stop being selfish. ANY means necessary is a cliche. Once again, it is a simple protest, not revolution on some grand scale. They had just as much right to protest as you. What right do you have to kick them out? You are no better than the police that restrict permits to march.


Yes drive them out of a group they are attacking. "Change their beliefs?" What the fuck are you talking about? This is about their actions

I am criticising the actions of the anarchists, and questioning their objective for assault.


"Dominating?" They refused to leave and they refused to allow the protestors their rights; this is self defense. Do you think we should allow the rightwing to overrun our protests!?


I still fail to see how they were restricting the anarchist's right to protest. They were on the same field or whatever. So what, stop the 5th grade recess bullshit and grow up. Self defense? This is equivilent to the police storming and beating activists that are locked down in the street. The anarchists attacked and used everything they stand against to get their own ideological way with things. That is hypocricy. No, the right wing will not overrun the protests. That is an absurd statement.


"Power, Domination, Exploitation!?" They were fucking defending their rights; you must have proof otherwise because the materials show even the capitalists admit they where invading the protest.


defending their rights by assaulting someone with opposing ideas? Right. YOU must have proof that the PW were restricting the anarchists rights. They were not. They were crashing the anarchists little anti inaugural party, legally, just as the anarchists were crashing the inaguruation, legally. Invading the protest? Everybody has the right to protest, not just activists.


Not at all; it is anti-war not a pacifist rally

This is not legitimate. There were mixed groups at this 'rally'. I do not know the percentage that were pacifist or non-violent however i'd imagine it was considerably high since it was an ANTI WAR DEMONSTRATION. and War generally is not non-violent.


As I said, they were capitalists wearing masks.

Apparently you missed the blatant irony leading to this cynical statement. They adopted capitalist brute force tactics, they assaulted some protesters, they were basically capitalists wearing masks on that day. If you still do not understand this, give up and move on.



You seem to be pretending this is something that we have no reason to believe; how did they "silence not only the opposition but the significance of their entire ideology?"
They kicked the reactionaries out; that is all I see the evidence supporting

They kicked them out of an area they had a legal permit for. They had a right to be there just as the anarchists did. What the anarchists did was show everyone that they do not seriously believe in their no domination no brutality views, by starting a fight.


When you rally (I hope you do), we may see what kind of "pathetic spectacle," you put on when people come to minimalize and override your rights; I suggest you do what you must.

I do on occasion. You are assuming i'm going to put on some pathetic spectacle? What an assumption. You dont' understand that EVERYONE shares these rights to free speech and assembly ect.. Not just you. So there CAN be others protesting with opposing ideas. Get over it.


If defending myself is thuggery, then I am a thug.

No, that was not self defense. It was offense. Unjustified aggressive behavior. They lack self control, and do not belong in a revolutionary movement.


Whatever; I will act as "brutal" as I must if you attack me.

The anarchists were kicking him on the ground. I'd say the anarchists attacked first.


Prove they we "dominating," or did you just through that in for good measure?

Prove? What am I to do, come over to your house and reread the news snippet to you? They attacked someone and kicked him on the ground. That is domination through use of force on an individual obviously not willing to fight back physically. I've noticed an absurd trend in your post. You claim this whole event was self defense. Which is insane to put it lightly. They have a right to protest just as you do.


Yes, self-defense is petty. They should have welcomed the PW's and just waited to be attacked/overrun!

It was a few hundred anarchists vs how many PW? Self defense? hahah :rolleyes:
You just refuse to except fault of any kind made by anyone with similar ideological views as yourself. Those anarchists violated their own beliefs on that day. Nobody was overrunning them, there was no serious threat until the anarchists used violence.


How the hell do you compare this? This is not infiltrating the police?


What? Those were examples. When the palestininas are voicing their opinion, the Israelis open fire. When the PW's voiced their opinion and challenged the opposistion the anarchists retaliated in the same manner. The same manner that the police state retaliates in. Using Violence, Numbers to their advantage ect.. and yes, brute force violence has been used and predates capitalism. So that means the anarchists support it? :lol:


I do not mean to fight directly with you, I appreciated your lengthy response although I dont' agree with a word of it. I am simply giving a critique. ;)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 12:49 AM

I'm not the one issuing the threats, "worker's warrior".

*cough* "Hopefully, next May 1st, the police will gun down anyone stupid enough to hold anti-capitalist marches." *cough*
That's not a threat, moron. I'm not a policeman.

What's wrong with gunning down the opposition anyway ? To quote comrade "bastard" :


"Why are you so interested in "fair-play"? Fuck'm. It's our goal to win, it's not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary."

[LSD]

I was merely pointing out your own hypocrisy.

...riiiiight...

But you're the one who issued the threat and then erased it....


That's not a threat, moron. I'm not a policeman.

"Hopefully, next May 1st, the police will gun down anyone stupid enough to hold anti-capitalist marches."

I'd certainly call that a threat, at the very least its an indication of your desire to see harm caused to others: "Hopefully, next May 1st..."

hmmm... calling for harm to another... yup, I'd call that a threat!

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 12:56 AM
But you're the one who issued the threat and then erased it....

"Hopefully, next May 1st, the police will gun down anyone stupid enough to hold anti-capitalist marches."


No threat was issued. That was not a threat.


I'd certainly call that a threat, at the very least its an indication of your desire to see harm caused to others: "Hopefully, next May 1st..."

Incorrect, but if it wasn't, it would simply be retalliation for the "threat" issued by NSB.


hmmm... calling for harm to another... yup, I'd call that a threat!

Buy a dictionary.

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:54 AM

To stop people from infiltrating their group! If right wingers join our protest groups, they are attempting to make a mockery of our rights to protest. They are also trying to distract and subvert our actions; fuck them! I wouldn't give a shit if that reactionary died; I do not advocate killing generally but if the right forces us, we must defend our self by kicking them out of our protest by ANY means necessary.


'infiltrating their group'? are you kidding? This is a protest, not a covert guerrilla operation. So because of them mocking your right to protest you attack their right to protest. Logic Check. I don't care if you wouldn't mind them dead. YOU are not the only one at these protests. Stop being selfish. ANY means necessary is a cliche. Once again, it is a simple protest, not revolution on some grand scale. They had just as much right to protest as you. What right do you have to kick them out? You are no better than the police that restrict permits to march.


Yes drive them out of a group they are attacking. "Change their beliefs?" What the fuck are you talking about? This is about their actions

I am criticising the actions of the anarchists, and questioning their objective for assault.


"Dominating?" They refused to leave and they refused to allow the protestors their rights; this is self defense. Do you think we should allow the rightwing to overrun our protests!?


I still fail to see how they were restricting the anarchist's right to protest. They were on the same field or whatever. So what, stop the 5th grade recess bullshit and grow up. Self defense? This is equivilent to the police storming and beating activists that are locked down in the street. The anarchists attacked and used everything they stand against to get their own ideological way with things. That is hypocricy. No, the right wing will not overrun the protests. That is an absurd statement.


"Power, Domination, Exploitation!?" They were fucking defending their rights; you must have proof otherwise because the materials show even the capitalists admit they where invading the protest.


defending their rights by assaulting someone with opposing ideas? Right. YOU must have proof that the PW were restricting the anarchists rights. They were not. They were crashing the anarchists little anti inaugural party, legally, just as the anarchists were crashing the inaguruation, legally. Invading the protest? Everybody has the right to protest, not just activists.


Not at all; it is anti-war not a pacifist rally

This is not legitimate. There were mixed groups at this 'rally'. I do not know the percentage that were pacifist or non-violent however i'd imagine it was considerably high since it was an ANTI WAR DEMONSTRATION. and War generally is not non-violent.


As I said, they were capitalists wearing masks.

Apparently you missed the blatant irony leading to this cynical statement. They adopted capitalist brute force tactics, they assaulted some protesters, they were basically capitalists wearing masks on that day. If you still do not understand this, give up and move on.



You seem to be pretending this is something that we have no reason to believe; how did they "silence not only the opposition but the significance of their entire ideology?"
They kicked the reactionaries out; that is all I see the evidence supporting

They kicked them out of an area they had a legal permit for. They had a right to be there just as the anarchists did. What the anarchists did was show everyone that they do not seriously believe in their no domination no brutality views, by starting a fight.


When you rally (I hope you do), we may see what kind of "pathetic spectacle," you put on when people come to minimalize and override your rights; I suggest you do what you must.

I do on occasion. You are assuming i'm going to put on some pathetic spectacle? What an assumption. You dont' understand that EVERYONE shares these rights to free speech and assembly ect.. Not just you. So there CAN be others protesting with opposing ideas. Get over it.


If defending myself is thuggery, then I am a thug.

No, that was not self defense. It was offense. Unjustified aggressive behavior. They lack self control, and do not belong in a revolutionary movement.


Whatever; I will act as "brutal" as I must if you attack me.

The anarchists were kicking him on the ground. I'd say the anarchists attacked first.


Prove they we "dominating," or did you just through that in for good measure?

Prove? What am I to do, come over to your house and reread the news snippet to you? They attacked someone and kicked him on the ground. That is domination through use of force on an individual obviously not willing to fight back physically. I've noticed an absurd trend in your post. You claim this whole event was self defense. Which is insane to put it lightly. They have a right to protest just as you do.


Yes, self-defense is petty. They should have welcomed the PW's and just waited to be attacked/overrun!

It was a few hundred anarchists vs how many PW? Self defense? hahah :rolleyes:
You just refuse to except fault of any kind made by anyone with similar ideological views as yourself. Those anarchists violated their own beliefs on that day. Nobody was overrunning them, there was no serious threat until the anarchists used violence.


How the hell do you compare this? This is not infiltrating the police?


What? Those were examples. When the palestininas are voicing their opinion, the Israelis open fire. When the PW's voiced their opinion and challenged the opposistion the anarchists retaliated in the same manner. The same manner that the police state retaliates in. Using Violence, Numbers to their advantage ect.. and yes, brute force violence has been used and predates capitalism. So that means the anarchists support it? :lol:


I do not mean to fight directly with you, I appreciated your lengthy response although I dont' agree with a word of it. I am simply giving a critique. ;)
YOU SUCK

[LSD]

No threat was issued. That was not a threat.

Buy a dictionary.

Threat:
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.

I think your comment was a bit of both actually!


ncorrect, but if it wasn't, it would simply be retalliation for the "threat" issued by NSB.

Oh, so it was a "retaliatory threat".

How very moral of you.

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by HardDrive+Feb 18 2005, 01:03 AM--> (HardDrive @ Feb 18 2005, 01:03 AM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 12:54 AM

To stop people from infiltrating their group! If right wingers join our protest groups, they are attempting to make a mockery of our rights to protest. They are also trying to distract and subvert our actions; fuck them! I wouldn't give a shit if that reactionary died; I do not advocate killing generally but if the right forces us, we must defend our self by kicking them out of our protest by ANY means necessary.


'infiltrating their group'? are you kidding? This is a protest, not a covert guerrilla operation. So because of them mocking your right to protest you attack their right to protest. Logic Check. I don't care if you wouldn't mind them dead. YOU are not the only one at these protests. Stop being selfish. ANY means necessary is a cliche. Once again, it is a simple protest, not revolution on some grand scale. They had just as much right to protest as you. What right do you have to kick them out? You are no better than the police that restrict permits to march.


Yes drive them out of a group they are attacking. "Change their beliefs?" What the fuck are you talking about? This is about their actions

I am criticising the actions of the anarchists, and questioning their objective for assault.


"Dominating?" They refused to leave and they refused to allow the protestors their rights; this is self defense. Do you think we should allow the rightwing to overrun our protests!?


I still fail to see how they were restricting the anarchist's right to protest. They were on the same field or whatever. So what, stop the 5th grade recess bullshit and grow up. Self defense? This is equivilent to the police storming and beating activists that are locked down in the street. The anarchists attacked and used everything they stand against to get their own ideological way with things. That is hypocricy. No, the right wing will not overrun the protests. That is an absurd statement.


"Power, Domination, Exploitation!?" They were fucking defending their rights; you must have proof otherwise because the materials show even the capitalists admit they where invading the protest.


defending their rights by assaulting someone with opposing ideas? Right. YOU must have proof that the PW were restricting the anarchists rights. They were not. They were crashing the anarchists little anti inaugural party, legally, just as the anarchists were crashing the inaguruation, legally. Invading the protest? Everybody has the right to protest, not just activists.


Not at all; it is anti-war not a pacifist rally

This is not legitimate. There were mixed groups at this 'rally'. I do not know the percentage that were pacifist or non-violent however i'd imagine it was considerably high since it was an ANTI WAR DEMONSTRATION. and War generally is not non-violent.


As I said, they were capitalists wearing masks.

Apparently you missed the blatant irony leading to this cynical statement. They adopted capitalist brute force tactics, they assaulted some protesters, they were basically capitalists wearing masks on that day. If you still do not understand this, give up and move on.



You seem to be pretending this is something that we have no reason to believe; how did they "silence not only the opposition but the significance of their entire ideology?"
They kicked the reactionaries out; that is all I see the evidence supporting

They kicked them out of an area they had a legal permit for. They had a right to be there just as the anarchists did. What the anarchists did was show everyone that they do not seriously believe in their no domination no brutality views, by starting a fight.


When you rally (I hope you do), we may see what kind of "pathetic spectacle," you put on when people come to minimalize and override your rights; I suggest you do what you must.

I do on occasion. You are assuming i'm going to put on some pathetic spectacle? What an assumption. You dont' understand that EVERYONE shares these rights to free speech and assembly ect.. Not just you. So there CAN be others protesting with opposing ideas. Get over it.


If defending myself is thuggery, then I am a thug.

No, that was not self defense. It was offense. Unjustified aggressive behavior. They lack self control, and do not belong in a revolutionary movement.


Whatever; I will act as "brutal" as I must if you attack me.

The anarchists were kicking him on the ground. I'd say the anarchists attacked first.


Prove they we "dominating," or did you just through that in for good measure?

Prove? What am I to do, come over to your house and reread the news snippet to you? They attacked someone and kicked him on the ground. That is domination through use of force on an individual obviously not willing to fight back physically. I've noticed an absurd trend in your post. You claim this whole event was self defense. Which is insane to put it lightly. They have a right to protest just as you do.


Yes, self-defense is petty. They should have welcomed the PW's and just waited to be attacked/overrun!

It was a few hundred anarchists vs how many PW? Self defense? hahah :rolleyes:
You just refuse to except fault of any kind made by anyone with similar ideological views as yourself. Those anarchists violated their own beliefs on that day. Nobody was overrunning them, there was no serious threat until the anarchists used violence.


How the hell do you compare this? This is not infiltrating the police?


What? Those were examples. When the palestininas are voicing their opinion, the Israelis open fire. When the PW's voiced their opinion and challenged the opposistion the anarchists retaliated in the same manner. The same manner that the police state retaliates in. Using Violence, Numbers to their advantage ect.. and yes, brute force violence has been used and predates capitalism. So that means the anarchists support it? :lol:


I do not mean to fight directly with you, I appreciated your lengthy response although I dont' agree with a word of it. I am simply giving a critique. ;)
YOU SUCK [/b]
Just kidding. n00b. <3

[Ele'ill]

Just kidding. n00b. <3

<3 j00 hd
kekekeke~

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 01:06 AM
Oh, so it was a "retaliatory threat".

How very moral of you.
Of course retalliation is moral. What do you want me to do ?

Turn the other cheek ?

[LSD]

Of course retalliation is moral. What do you want me to do ?

Turn the other cheek ?

Considering that this is an internet message board, sure&#33; Why not?

But, besides, the real immorality on your part was the hypocrisy of:
1.) Making this "retaliatory threat",
2.) Erasing it
3.) Denying that it ever was a threat
4.) Finally admitting that it was "retalliation"

and all the while accusing us of being hypocrites&#33;&#33; :lol:


I think there are probably 3 distinct layers of hypocrisy right there&#33;

[Ele'ill]

What about the original topic of the thread, and all the responses to it?
This thread is hijacked. :unsure:

[Invader Zim]

YOU SUCK

Just kidding. n00b. <3

Why are you spamming? Why don&#39;t you try posting something constructive? You could then actually be an asset to discussion rather than a hindrance.

[Ele'ill]

Enigma, he already did. Last page and earlier on this page. he was apparently spamming with the hijacked thread portion of this page. I do not know why












actually i do

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mari3L
They are protesters, just like the anarchists. There is no revolution going on. It was not a war zone. That was a street fight at an antiwar demonstration. "playing fair" is vague. What is fair and what is the situation? Physically attacking them was immature and extremely irrational seeing how it took place at an anti war demonstration.

If you think so, then don&#39;t take part.

I agree with the old KPD slogan myself: smash the Nazi wherever you find him&#33;

Accusations of "immaturity" and "extreme irrationality" are always made against those who demand revolutionary change.

From other posts that you&#39;ve made here, I take it that you are a reformist and a pacifist.

With such an outlook, I would not expect you to be able to grasp why the Washington, D.C. anarchists did what they did...or why it was the right thing to do.

Should you live long enough to actually see a massive revolutionary uprising in the United States, I think you will be "on the other side" of the barricades...along with the "Protest Warriors".

Forgive me if that seems "too harsh"...but, at this point, that&#39;s my honest opinion.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 18 2005, 01:34 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 18 2005, 01:34 AM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 17 2005, 10:44 PM
Why are you so interested in "fair-play"?

Fuck&#39;m. It&#39;s our goal to win, it&#39;s not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary.

Proving that inside the closet of every socialist is a sociopath screaming to be let out. [/b]
Funny, coming from a pcwarrior who supports torture and stateterrorism.

[Ele'ill]

Accusations of "immaturity" and "extreme irrationality" are always made against those who demand revolutionary change.


Attacking another group of protesters is far from &#39;revolutionary change&#39;.



From other posts that you&#39;ve made here, I take it that you are a reformist and a pacifist.


I am far from it. I in fact care about what direction a revolution would go in. Which is why I criticise. I believe a revolution is not currently logical for this time period. I could be very wrong; but this explains why I come across as a pacifist, and a reformist. If one should take place, and I see legitimacy in it&#39;s motives, I will stand with whoever else is rising up. I will not automatically assume, that because group X calls for a revolution and rises up and revolts, that it is the best for humanity. I will not be this naive. A lot of people want revolutionary change, however not all of them want it to take place violently, and not all of them agree on a replacement for the system.


With such an outlook, I would not expect you to be able to grasp why the Washington, D.C. anarchists did what they did...or why it was the right thing to do.


It wasn&#39;t the right thing to do. What did it accomplish? Prove to me that it accomplished something &#39;revolutionary&#39;.


Should you live long enough to actually see a massive revolutionary uprising in the United States, I think you will be "on the other side" of the barricades...along with the "Protest Warriors".

Forgive me if that seems "too harsh"...but, at this point, that&#39;s my honest opinion

"other side of the &#39;barricades&#39;"? :rolleyes: a revolution is a bit different from a protest. As I stated before, my view on the Protest Warriors is that they are immature and out to aggrivate. As they suceeded in doing by finding another group of immature people, that happend to be anarchists. The anarchists responded in the manner that the PW&#39;s wanted. Both sides were eager for confrontation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mari3L
I will not automatically assume, that because group X calls for a revolution and rises up and revolts, that it is the best for humanity. I will not be this naive. A lot of people want revolutionary change, however not all of them want it to take place violently, and not all of them agree on a replacement for the system.

"Best for humanity", eh?

Well, that is a tough one. On the one side, we have the American Empire, its lackeys (like "Protest Warriors"), etc. that have demonstrated an unlimited capacity for violence, oppression, exploitation, etc., etc., etc.

And, on the other side are a whole lot of different kinds of groups, individuals, etc. with different ideas about what should happen after the revolution, etc. but who agree that it should be destroyed.

Even some pacifists are in that camp...they just (optimistically) think that enormous acts of massive civil disobedience will be sufficient to get the job done.

So, to coin a phrase, which side are you on?

That we should struggle for the kind of future society that we think will most benefit humanity is indisputable...win or lose, we should fight for what we really want, and not for what someone tells us we "have" to "settle for" in accordance with their particular dogma.

But you seem to imply that, at least in some cases, you would prefer the existing social order to some kinds of revolutionary alternatives.

In particular, anarchist ones.

You take the position that the anarchists in Washington, D.C. somehow "broke the rules" by kicking reactionary ass. I find this a frankly incomprehensible position from anyone seriously interested in revolutionary change of any kind.

Epithets like "childish" or "immature" do not serve to explain your position...much less justify it.

I am not asking you (much less expecting you) to go out and demonstrate your "revolutionary commitment" by beating up the first right-winger you run into.

Nor do I or any sane person think that the revolution is "on the agenda" or will be for many decades to come.

But when there are people right now who are ready to show some (mildly) violent resistance to the prevailing social order, how can you not express solidarity with them?

Revolution begins with resistance.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

But, besides, the real immorality on your part was the hypocrisy of:
1.) Making this "retaliatory threat",

How is retalliation immoral ?


2.) Erasing it

How is not wishing to induce a flame war immoral ?


3.) Denying that it ever was a threat

It isn&#39;t, technically.


4.) Finally admitting that it was "retalliation"

Retalliation, yes, but not an initiatory threat.


and all the while accusing us of being hypocrites&#33;&#33; :lol:

You are.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 19 2005, 11:54 AM
Funny, coming from a pcwarrior who supports torture and stateterrorism.
I don&#39;t support either. On the other hand, when the torture committed bt Saddam comes into discussion, you prefer to go into "ostrich mode" and still insist that his removal was wrong. What does that suggest ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:17 PM
But when there are people right now who are ready to show some (mildly) violent resistance to the prevailing social order, how can you not express solidarity with them?
Then why aren&#39;t you expressing solidarity with the likes of Timothy McVeigh and Charlie Manson ? After all, they showed "violent resistance" to the "prevailing social order" too, didn&#39;t they ?

Red&#39;s ethics involve rallying behind any moron who uses violence to get what they wants and who also happens to oppose capitalism (or the US etc, which would explain the whole anti-war/pro-islamic fascism/pro-Baathist movement) in some way or another, regardless of their methods or credentials.

[LSD]

How is retalliation immoral ?

Retalliation, yes, but not an initiatory threat.

With all this talk of "retaliation", can we establish what exactly you were "retaliating" to?

From what I can see, your comment was in response to: "Fuck&#39;m. It&#39;s our goal to win, it&#39;s not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary."

Which, by your own logic, is not a threat directed against you but is rather a "retaliatory threat" to the "Protest Warriors" mentioned in the initial posting.

No one threateend you.

So... again, what were you "retaliating" to?


Then why aren&#39;t you expressing solidarity with the likes of Timothy McVeigh and Charlie Manson ? After all, they showed "violent resistance" to the "prevailing social order" too, didn&#39;t they ?

You honestly see no difference between mass murder and assaulting some self-acknowledged instigators?

To quote you, "How is retalliation immoral ?"


Red&#39;s ethics involve rallying behind any moron who uses violence to get what they wants and who also happens to oppose capitalism (or the US etc, which would explain the whole anti-war/pro-islamic fascism/pro-Baathist movement) in some way or another, regardless of their methods or credentials.

ummm... moneybags..

Did you really need 3 posts for this?

You do know about the "Edit" button, right?

So when you come up with more brilliant insights you forgot to put in your initial post, you can "edit" that post instead of needlessly flooding the thread...

[Ele'ill]

He has already accomplished what he wanted. Which was to hijack this entire thread. All four pages of it.



But you seem to imply that, at least in some cases, you would prefer the existing social order to some kinds of revolutionary alternatives.

In particular, anarchist ones.


My beliefs are mixed. I feel strongly for alternative ways of living however I always question them. I enjoy putting people on the spot to have them respond to my criticisms. It helps me learn more through direct conversation.


You take the position that the anarchists in Washington, D.C. somehow "broke the rules" by kicking reactionary ass. I find this a frankly incomprehensible position from anyone seriously interested in revolutionary change of any kind.

Epithets like "childish" or "immature" do not serve to explain your position...much less justify it.


There are morals, and fighting at a protest is not moral considering there was no physical threat from the PW. The whole event was simply not worth it. The lack of restraint on both sides was indeed childish and immature; As the two tend to go hand in hand.



But when there are people right now who are ready to show some (mildly) violent resistance to the prevailing social order, how can you not express solidarity with them?

Revolution begins with resistance.

I could go and torch a mobil station. Go out and target individuals of this govnerment. What will this do for any type of revolutionary movment? Not much. The two I listed above are extreme examples. The incident with the pw&#39;s was not extreme. It was boring, and that&#39;s still giving it too much attention. The only thing that did was show how mob tactics come into play. It wasn&#39;t the violent neo cons that resorted to this mob tactic. It was the anarchists. And once again, by anarchists I do not mean the global movment or ideology. I mean the idiots that attacked the other protesters.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 19 2005, 07:28 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 19 2005, 07:28 PM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 19 2005, 11:54 AM
Funny, coming from a pcwarrior who supports torture and stateterrorism.
I don&#39;t support either. On the other hand, when the torture committed bt Saddam comes into discussion, you prefer to go into "ostrich mode" and still insist that his removal was wrong. What does that suggest ? [/b]
Right, I didn&#39;t see you get upset when widespread torturereports were brought out, or pictures. I don&#39;t see you condemn the actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nicaragua etc.

And that&#39;s so lame. Yes, you guessed that right: Everyone who doesn&#39;t support the US, automaticly supports Saddam. The whole world is divided into two camps and is black/white&#33; We are all damn freedom haters&#33; What more do you want to hear?

[Ele'ill]

http://www.thebedrockjeepers.com/channel4/images/smilies/hijacked.gif

[Anarchist Freedom]

When PW goes into a Protest that is being carried out for more freedoms they go in claiming its there freedom and right to take away other peoples freedom Because they are doing it for america&#33;


Facists? :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mari3L+--> (Mari3L)There are morals, and fighting at a protest is not moral...[/b]

Wha???

Moses came down from Sinai with stone tablets and one of Yahweh&#39;s commandments was "Thou shalt not fight at a protest".

That is such a bizarre comment that you&#39;ve totally lost me.

I can&#39;t even begin to imagine what your "moral code" must be like...and I don&#39;t think I really want to know. :unsure:


Professor Moneybags
Red&#39;s ethics involve rallying behind any moron who uses violence to get what they want and who also happens to oppose capitalism (or the US etc, which would explain the whole anti-war/pro-islamic fascism/pro-Baathist movement) in some way or another, regardless of their methods or credentials.

And what of your ethics, my young greedy-puss?

Violence is "bad"...except when used by U.S. imperialism to conquer more territory, mineral wealth, etc., right?

As I remarked in a similar thread in this forum, pass me another helping of that double-standard...it tastes good and it&#39;s good for you. :lol:

Why don&#39;t you be honest and drop all this endless drivel about "ethics"...you&#39;re partisan. You&#39;ll support anything the ruling class does against us or anyone else who challenges their hegemony. You have the ethical standards of a shark.

Well, so do I...at least when it comes to you bastards. I don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass who brings your fucking empire down...as long as it gets brought down&#33; Afterwards will be time enough to settle my differences with Islamic "fascism", the Baathists, etc.

(Who, by the way, probably can&#39;t do it...though they can certainly weaken the empire -- which is good enough for me until even stronger and more revolutionary opposition emerges.)

I&#39;m just as partisan as you are...but a hell of a lot more honest about it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

There are morals, and fighting at a protest is not moral considering there was no physical threat from the PW
I am not sure why you have to take what I say out of context. Fighting at an anti war protest is in fact very ironic. Especially if it&#39;s the side protesting that&#39;s doing the fighting. That is what i&#39;ve said atleast four times in this thread.

That is such a bizarre comment that you&#39;ve totally lost me

My simple &#39;fighting at a protest is not moral&#39; comment was aimed at the petty forms of fighting i&#39;ve seen so far.


I don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass who brings your fucking empire down...as long as it gets brought down&#33; Afterwards will be time enough to settle my differences with Islamic "fascism", the Baathists, etc.

I can tell from that statment that you care about the future . I for one do care deeply about who brings down this empire as it could have been the fascists in germany a while back that did the trick. This &#39;anything but the current system&#39; talk is senseless. Afterwards will be time enough? :rolleyes: I&#39;m sure they will all sit down with YOU at a table and discuss this future. Disagree with you, kill you and your family and any of your followers. Yes, there will be enough time.

Edit: As a quick continuation, if your views are based along the lines of &#39;as long as this empire goes down, it dosn&#39;t matter who&#39;s doing it&#39;, and all presidencies and government in general have been corrupt, wouldn&#39;t it be feasible to support a bad president, such as bush and his administration which will make so many enemies while in office that the country is not able to repair itself? I am not a bush supporter or anything along those lines. Just a thought.

I asked earlier in this thread some where if any existing evidence is available supporting the claim that the anarchists&#39; physical assault on another group of protesers some how helped their cause.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mari3L
I am not sure why you have to take what I say out of context.

Because the general statement is so completely bizarre. Your little qualification -- "considering there was no physical threat from the PW" -- is meaningless.

Are you saying that we must wait for the right-wing to attack us before we&#39;re "morally allowed" to counter-attack them?

That&#39;s just as bizarre as your general statement.


Fighting at an anti war protest is in fact very ironic.

The anarchists at the inaugural were not simply "anti-war"...they were "anti" the whole system -- and its lackeys like PW.


I for one do care deeply about who brings down this empire as it could have been the fascists in Germany a while back that did the trick.

Yes, that was then and this is now.

We are "Germany" now.

Understand???


...wouldn&#39;t it be feasible to support a bad president, such as Bush and his administration which will make so many enemies while in office that the country is not able to repair itself?

It&#39;s not our job to attempt to manipulate the ruling class into choosing its worse possible alternatives...they can do that by themselves.

Our job is to attack them all&#33;


I asked earlier in this thread some where if any existing evidence is available supporting the claim that the anarchists&#39; physical assault on another group of protesters [sic] somehow helped their cause.

I&#39;m sure it boosted their morale as well as demoralizing the PW morons.

Beyond that, who knows? It was one of millions of tiny battles that take place daily under capitalism...and this time the good guys won.

You have a problem with that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:30 AM

There are morals, and fighting at a protest is not moral considering there was no physical threat from the PW
I am not sure why you have to take what I say out of context. Fighting at an anti war protest is in fact very ironic. Especially if it&#39;s the side protesting that&#39;s doing the fighting. That is what i&#39;ve said atleast four times in this thread.

It wasn&#39;t a pacifist march. I sincerely doubt that most people who walk into these demonstrations do so to abondon all violence, more often they demonstrate against a particular war, not war or violence in general.

What&#39;s the problem anyway? These middle-class wannabe warriors wanted their asses kicked and they got it kicked. They even felt the "joy of war" for a second.

As our good friend, "Professor" Moneybags would say: shoot them and they say that they were intiating force against you.

And what morals? Where did you get morals from?

[Ele'ill]

Because the general statement is so completely bizarre. Your little qualification -- "considering there was no physical threat from the PW" -- is meaningless.

Are you saying that we must wait for the right-wing to attack us before we&#39;re "morally allowed" to counter-attack them?

That&#39;s just as bizarre as your general statement

If a group of people with opposing ideas came up to me at an event where emotions were high, I would not launch an attack on them. It was at a protest. There was not a gun battle in the street, the winner would take the capitol and the dictator would be over thrown. It was a protest.
I am saying yes, if someone is not posing a threat, why the hell would you attack them? This isn&#39;t a guerrilla war, it would serve no positive purpose to do this. And hasn&#39;t served one yet.





The anarchists at the inaugural were not simply "anti-war"...they were "anti" the whole system -- and its lackeys like PW.

I understand this, the highlight of bush&#39;s office term(s) is the iraq war, the public knows there is opposistion, the media highlights anarchists assaulting a group of protesters. Selfish for the anarchists to do that. They do not have the right to speak for everyone opposed to the bush regeim and with actions like that, they are going to be in the spot light. Atleast those people were on that day.



Yes, that was then and this is now.

We are "Germany" now.

Understand???

That still does not explain the attitude of &#39;whoever topples the tower as long as it&#39;s toppling&#39;. If I was a jew in germany THEN, I would still think twice about who would be taking over.



It&#39;s not our job to attempt to manipulate the ruling class into choosing its worse possible alternatives...they can do that by themselves.

Our job is to attack them all&#33;

yes, they can do that by themselves, which is my point. There is a lot of talk about capitalism toppling from it&#39;s own excess. Why not improve on certain areas until this toppling occurs?


I&#39;m sure it boosted their morale as well as demoralizing the PW morons.

Beyond that, who knows? It was one of millions of tiny battles that take place daily under capitalism...and this time the good guys won.

You have a problem with that?


The event was as legitimate if not less than that of a recess school yard fight.
Yes, I do have a problem with it. Revolutions cater to the masses, and I have a problem with self proclaimed revolutionaries dictating who the good guys are and aren&#39;t.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Mari3l you obviously havent seen or heard PW. IF you have you would know they arent there to play nice. They are there to stomp on others peoples freedoms like Facist scum.
They go into a protest yelling at the protesters. They go into a group of protesters and then raise a sign being counter to what is being supported there fucking asking for a boot to the face plain and simple.Thats like going into the ghetto with a KKK outfit on its fucking stupid and will likely end up with you in serious trouble.

[Ele'ill]

IF you have you would know they arent there to play nice. They are there to stomp on others peoples freedoms like Facist scum.

Show me articles or video of this occuring. Not saying it isn&#39;t true but evidence is a nice thing. I&#39;m actually not debating whether it happens or not i&#39;m debating the significance of the reactionaries&#39; response. If the PW go to events with the objective of exciting and aggrivating others, they succeeded. Had the anarchists ignored them and moved on with the demonstration, they would have won.


Thats like going into the ghetto with a KKK outfit on its fucking stupid and will likely end up with you in serious trouble.

Are you saying only black people live in the &#39;ghetto&#39;?
Have you ever been to a city?
Wearing a kkk outfit would get you into serious trouble anywhere, as african americans are not generally isolated to the cities.
That is not really a valid example however I understand what you are saying and i&#39;m simply giving you a hard time for my own amusment. Cruel but honest. ;)

[Anarchist Freedom]

Im not implying that only blacks live in the ghetto im saying that well a ghetto is a place compromised of mostly races that arent white. BTW check out the PW website.

[Anarchist Freedom]

The PW also go in there to stamp out other peoples freedoms


Facists....

[Ele'ill]

The PW also go in there to stamp out other peoples freedoms


Facists....

Did you want me to reply to this? I am sorry. The reason I simply have replied to this view with &#39;ironic that the anarchists did the stamping of the freedom&#39; is because I feel a new thread should be started reguarding the issue i&#39;m about to state. I have noticed a trend on this forum and in the Left media that portrays protest as revolutionary change. Protests are very healthy, and they give a peace of mind, but they themselves are not going to change things. Why exert all this energy into "combating rival protesters&#33;&#33;&#33;111" It just seems almost embarrassing to be a part of. Couldn&#39;t the PW or the Anarchists see past that moment into the future, could they not see the real issues at hand?

I would still like evidence of other events in which the PW&#39;s have posed a significant enough of a physical threat to warrant mob assault. Bottom line is, if they have permits, they are legal. Contact the state and talk with them about the PW&#39;s conduct if there are problems.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Permits mean nothing They walk into a protest with the specific purpose of inciting violence. A Protest is meant to bring about awareness to your cause. The PW go into the protest with the purpose of stamping out freedoms.

[Ele'ill]

So do something about it. Make those permits mean something.
Also lets keep this relativly on topic, discussing the thread topic not a side bar about permits that could go on for pages.


A Protest is meant to bring about awareness to your cause. The PW go into the protest with the purpose of stamping out freedoms

Well the anarchists did a good job of bringing awarness to their cause by violently assaulting a smaller group of , to the public, peaceful protesters.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

Fighting at an anti war protest is in fact very ironic. Especially if it&#39;s the side protesting that&#39;s doing the fighting. That is what i&#39;ve said atleast four times in this thread.-

Just because you&#39;ve said it four times in the thread, doesn&#39;t make it any more correct or rational.

If the Anarchists declared war on a third-world country during the protest, that would be fucking ironic. If they were protesting against violence in protests, it would be ironic. BUT THEY WERE NOT. I really don&#39;t see how they did anything that conflicts with what they&#39;re protesting. It&#39;s pretty much a non-argument.


I am saying yes, if someone is not posing a threat

They WERE posing a threat, even if it was too subtle for you to detect it. Everything the protest-warriors stand for is threatening to leftists.

[Elect Marx]

Ignore this extra post... or someone can delete it :ph34r:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Mari3L

To stop people from infiltrating their group&#33; If right wingers join our protest groups, they are attempting to make a mockery of our rights to protest. They are also trying to distract and subvert our actions; fuck them&#33; I wouldn&#39;t give a shit if that reactionary died; I do not advocate killing generally but if the right forces us, we must defend our self by kicking them out of our protest by ANY means necessary.


&#39;infiltrating their group&#39;? are you kidding?

Read the quote:


Kobrin, accompanied by a dozen members of the conservative group ProtestWarrior, crashed a rally of hundreds of anti-Bush demonstrators at Meridian Park in Washington, D.C. Holding aloft signs that read "Say no to war unless a Democrat is president" and "Not to brag, but Bush won, so shove it&#33;" they had set off earlier on inauguration morning in search of their opposites.

They where attempting to mineralize the protest.


This is a protest, not a covert guerrilla operation.

Irrelevant.


So because of them mocking your right to protest you attack their right to protest.

They are making an attempt to deprive others of their rights, not just mocking; they wouldn&#39;t be interrupting the protest if they where just "mocking."
They are "protesting," our right to protest, so yes; FUCK THEIR "RIGHTS," to deprive us of our rights.


Logic Check. I don&#39;t care if you wouldn&#39;t mind them dead. YOU are not the only one at these protests. Stop being selfish.

Logic check; stop being an ass and just discuss the issues.


ANY means necessary is a cliche.

It is a well know phrase and I like to use it so people can relate to my statements. If you do not understand it or want to debate its legitimacy, please do; otherwise you are just pointing out the obvious.


Once again, it is a simple protest, not revolution on some grand scale. They had just as much right to protest as you.

No; I offer them no “right” to attack my voice or suppress our movement for radical social change and I didn&#39;t bring revolution up; you are just shifting the focus <_<


What right do you have to kick them out? You are no better than the police that restrict permits to march.

You are no better than a Nazi for supporting their rights to suppress others.
Is the time for stupid assertions over now?

I have the right to defend our movement and I will do what I must to be heard and effect radical social change for the benefit of humanity. Anyone that states opposition to this movement should be prepared, for they have just declared their opposing status to us in the class war.



"Dominating?" They refused to leave and they refused to allow the protestors their rights; this is self defense. Do you think we should allow the rightwing to overrun our protests&#33;?


I still fail to see how they were restricting the anarchist&#39;s right to protest.

They were intentionally distracting the protest and attempting to silence them by building an anti-protest group. I would say they deserve more than a few kicks in the back.


They were on the same field or whatever. So what, stop the 5th grade recess bullshit and grow up. Self defense?

So I think those that "mudsling" in the place of rational debate show themselves to be hypocrites when they tell others to "grow up."


This is equivilent to the police storming and beating activists that are locked down in the street.

No it is not; you are just propagandizing now. The protesters did not seek out the PW and attack them; the PW would not leave and allow them their right to protest.


The anarchists attacked and used everything they stand against to get their own ideological way with things.

No; they did not. Try proving your points; it sometimes helps.


That is hypocricy. No, the right wing will not overrun the protests. That is an absurd statement.

:blink: Did you just say that? No, I am SURE the right won&#39;t EVER infringe on anyone&#39;s rights. I was under the impression that you where a leftist :unsure:



"Power, Domination, Exploitation&#33;?" They were fucking defending their rights; you must have proof otherwise because the materials show even the capitalists admit they where invading the protest.


defending their rights by assaulting someone with opposing ideas? Right.

Someone forcibly attacking their rights... yes; they were right to use force back.


YOU must have proof that the PW were restricting the anarchists rights. They were not. They were crashing the anarchists little anti inaugural party, legally, just as the anarchists were crashing the inaguruation, legally. Invading the protest? Everybody has the right to protest, not just activists.

They where infringing on the anarchist rights as I have explained many times (see you have to prove my points wrong). Are you now defending laws&#33;? You can legaly be arrested for speaking your mind outside of a "free speach zone," are you fucking okay with that?



Not at all; it is anti-war not a pacifist rally

This is not legitimate. There were mixed groups at this &#39;rally&#39;. I do not know the percentage that were pacifist or non-violent
however i&#39;d imagine it was considerably high since it was an ANTI WAR DEMONSTRATION. and War generally is not non-violent.

So if their where fascists in a rally you joined; you would be in a fascist rally?
This is like saying because you are against poaching, you don&#39;t eat any meat... you are seriously generalizing.



As I said, they were capitalists wearing masks.

Apparently you missed the blatant irony leading to this cynical statement. They adopted capitalist brute force tactics, they assaulted some protesters, they were basically capitalists wearing masks on that day. If you still do not understand this, give up and move on.

Apparently YOU missed my point that you have not proved your statement and capitalism is not equivalent to violence so you aren&#39;t even making sense.
If you refuse to offer a provable explanation for your statements, I suggest you, "give up and move on."



You seem to be pretending this is something that we have no reason to believe; how did they "silence not only the opposition but the significance of their entire ideology?"
They kicked the reactionaries out; that is all I see the evidence supporting

They kicked them out of an area they had a legal permit for. They had a right to be there just as the anarchists did.

Fuck the law and fuck them; they had no right to silence the protest.


What the anarchists did was show everyone that they do not seriously believe in their no domination no brutality views, by starting a fight.

Prove any part of that statement; Mr. Propagandist.



When you rally (I hope you do), we may see what kind of "pathetic spectacle," you put on when people come to minimalist and override your rights; I suggest you do what you must.

I do on occasion. You are assuming i&#39;m going to put on some pathetic spectacle? What an assumption.

I made no assumption; you will likely make some sort of action "when they come" and by your definition or mine, it will likely be pathetic.


You dont&#39; understand that EVERYONE shares these rights to free speech and assembly ect.. Not just you. So there CAN be others protesting with opposing ideas.

You don&#39;t understand that I am against "free speech" for everyone. I am not for those that speak prejudicial and political threats against those that seek a just society. Our movement fights those individuals and we silence those that seek to deprive others of their rights for whatever agenda (we do not sanction their hate speech).


Get over it.

Maybe if fascist are allowed free speech and attain power by their means of indoctrinating the young and undeveloped, we can see how you get over that.



If defending myself is thuggery, then I am a thug.

It was offense. Unjustified aggressive behavior. They lack self control, and do not belong in a revolutionary movement.

They where defending their rights and they only harmed someone when they refused to allow them their rights; self-defense.
In a revolution, many capitalists would likely be harmed as they tried to escape with the wealth of the people and starve them. Revolutionaries would do more than kick them in the back if they needed to.



Whatever; I will act as "brutal" as I must if you attack me.

The anarchists were kicking him on the ground. I&#39;d say the anarchists attacked first.

"kicking him on the ground" = "the anarchists attacked first?" I would say you skipped the part with the rational argument. The PW&#39;s attacked their right to protest.



Prove they we "dominating," or did you just through that in for good measure?

Prove? What am I to do, come over to your house and reread the news snippet to you? They attacked someone and kicked him on the ground.

They where attacked first; self-defense.


That is domination through use of force on an individual obviously not willing to fight back physically.

Here we go, I will do some of the work for you:


dom•i•na•tion (d¼m”…-n³“sh…n) n. 1.a. Mastery or supremacy over another or others. b. The exercise of such mastery or supremacy.

So how did the hold "Mastery or supremacy over another or others?" They simply stopped someone from infringing on their right to protest.


I&#39;ve noticed an absurd trend in your post. You claim this whole event was self defense.

Good to see you are following along; now you just need to prove me wrong but I see your points as absurd... so prove my argument wrong; your opinions are not proof.


Which is insane to put it lightly. They have a right to protest just as you do.

You are making wild assertions "to put it lightly." Prove my points wrong or you are proven wrong.



Yes, self-defense is petty. They should have welcomed the PW&#39;s and just waited to be attacked/overrun&#33;

It was a few hundred anarchists vs how many PW? Self defense? hahah :rolleyes:

Oh, so it is not self-defense if the group has less people in it? How do you accuse be of making insane points?


You just refuse to except fault of any kind made by anyone with similar ideological views as yourself.

You just refuse to prove your statements. Hey look, another unproven assertion...


Those anarchists violated their own beliefs on that day. Nobody was overrunning them, there was no serious threat until the anarchists used violence.

If you make the same argument 1000 times no amount of validity is added.


What? Those were examples. When the palestininas are voicing their opinion, the Israelis open fire. When the PW&#39;s voiced their opinion and challenged the opposistion the anarchists retaliated in the same manner.

They shot them? You are making less and less sense all the time; a good comparison should make sense.


The same manner that the police state retaliates in. Using Violence, Numbers to their advantage ect.. and yes, brute force violence has been used and predates capitalism. So that means the anarchists support it? :lol:

You know, I think capitalists and fascists have used hammers too. Have you ever used a hammer? You must be a capitalist and a fascist&#33;


I do not mean to fight directly with you, I appreciated your lengthy response although I dont&#39; agree with a word of it. I am simply giving a critique. ;)

Well thank you but I have to, "fight directly with you," when you play the "mudslinging game." Nothing personal, I just don&#39;t accept that kind of "debate."
You have made some points that deserve explanation and I would like to respond to a challenging debate as opposed to flaming. As I see it, this could go either way.
I started off debating the issues and I think we can continue in that manner :hammer:

[Professor Moneybags]

They are making an attempt to deprive others of their rights, not just mocking; they wouldn&#39;t be interrupting the protest if they where just "mocking."

How are they "depriving others of their rights" ?


They are "protesting," our right to protest,

No, they weren&#39;t.


No; I offer them no “right” to attack my voice or suppress our movement for radical social change

So in other words, opinions other than yours should not be allowed (whatever happened to freedom of speech ?).


You are no better than a Nazi for supporting their rights to suppress others.

Then what are you doing ? They&#39;re not supressing any of your "rights", however, you have made quite clear that you intent to suppress theirs.


They were intentionally distracting the protest and attempting to silence them by building an anti-protest group.

How is a counter-demonstration "silencing" you ? How is "distracting" the protest "silencing" you ?


I would say they deserve more than a few kicks in the back.

English translation : All dissent must be crushed.

You&#39;re no different from the nazis you supposedly hate.


No it is not; you are just propagandizing now. The protesters did not seek out the PW and attack them; the PW would not leave and allow them their right to protest.

PW&#39;s presence was not affecting their right to protest.


They where infringing on the anarchist rights as I have explained many times (see you have to prove my points wrong).

You haven&#39;t explained anything beyond making making baseless assertions. How are your rights being infringed ?


Fuck the law and fuck them; they had no right to silence the protest.

They weren&#39;t silencing it.


Our movement fights those individuals and we silence those that seek to deprive others of their rights for whatever agenda (we do not sanction their hate speech).

No one is depriving you of your rights.


They where defending their rights and they only harmed someone when they refused to allow them their rights; self-defense.

See above.


"kicking him on the ground" = "the anarchists attacked first?" I would say you skipped the part with the rational argument. The PW&#39;s attacked their right to protest.

No, they didn&#39;t. Anarchist attacked first. It was the anarchists who were pulling down PW&#39;s banners, not the other way round. It was the PW&#39;s freedom of speech/right to protest that was being surpressed.


They where attacked first; self-defense.

See above. The anarchists attacked first and they did it because they didn&#39;t like what was being said i.e. they do not beleive in freedom of speech, unless it conveys a message they agree with.

<snip the rest of the drivel>

[Professor Moneybags]

With all this talk of "retaliation", can we establish what exactly you were "retaliating" to?

From what I can see, your comment was in response to: "Fuck&#39;m. It&#39;s our goal to win, it&#39;s not a fuckin game. Put salts in their wounds, stab them in the back, whatever there is necessary."

He was claiming that any action was permissible (i.e. violence) to anyone who doesn&#39;t agree with him (i.e. me).


Which, by your own logic, is not a threat directed against you but is rather a "retaliatory threat" to the "Protest Warriors" mentioned in the initial posting.

The PW&#39;s were not issuing a threat to begin with, so it cannot be retaliatory.


You honestly see no difference between mass murder and assaulting some self-acknowledged instigators?

The difference is only one of scale, not principle. PW&#39;s were not violating your rights, but your lot were violating theirs (ie. by assulting then).

[Professor Moneybags]

Right, I didn&#39;t see you get upset when widespread torturereports were brought out, or pictures. I don&#39;t see you condemn the actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nicaragua etc.

I do condemn them.


And that&#39;s so lame. Yes, you guessed that right: Everyone who doesn&#39;t support the US, automaticly supports Saddam. The whole world is divided into two camps and is black/white&#33; We are all damn freedom haters&#33; What more do you want to hear?

You said it, not me.

[Professor Moneybags]

When PW goes into a Protest that is being carried out for more freedoms

That&#39;s the very last thing your lot were carrying it out for.


they go in claiming its there freedom and right to take away other peoples freedom Because they are doing it for america&#33;

They are not doing that.

[Professor Moneybags]

And what of your ethics, my young greedy-puss?

Violence is "bad"...except when used by U.S. imperialism to conquer more territory, mineral wealth, etc., right?

Show me where I have suggested this.


As I remarked in a similar thread in this forum, pass me another helping of that double-standard...it tastes good and it&#39;s good for you. :lol:

There is no double standard.


Why don&#39;t you be honest and drop all this endless drivel about "ethics"...

Ethics beyond you&#39;re comprehension, huh ? Common affliction on this message board, sot it would seem.


you&#39;re partisan. You&#39;ll support anything the ruling class does against us or anyone else who challenges their hegemony. You have the ethical standards of a shark.

I&#39;m sure you&#39;d love to believe that. Show me where I have suggested this.


Well, so do I...at least when it comes to you bastards. I don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass who brings your fucking empire down...as long as it gets brought down&#33; Afterwards will be time enough to settle my differences with Islamic "fascism", the Baathists, etc.

The truth is finally coming out into the open &#33;


I&#39;m just as partisan as you are...but a hell of a lot more honest about it.

Don&#39;t drag me down to your level.

[Professor Moneybags]

Are you saying that we must wait for the right-wing to attack us before we&#39;re "morally allowed" to counter-attack them?

Yes, it&#39;s called the non-intiation of force principle. You know, the same thing you&#39;ve just condemned the US for, for supposedly violating...

[Professor Moneybags]

It wasn&#39;t a pacifist march. I sincerely doubt that most people who walk into these demonstrations do so to abondon all violence, more often they demonstrate against a particular war, not war or violence in general.

What&#39;s the problem anyway? These middle-class wannabe warriors wanted their asses kicked and they got it kicked.

I don&#39;t recall seeing any banners with "Please kick our asses" written on them. Or did they "deserve it" for having the "wrong opinion" ?


As our good friend, "Professor" Moneybags would say: shoot them and they say that they were intiating force against you.

They were not initiating force, not that you&#39;d care anyway.

Like I said : Sociopath.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2005, 08:11 AM

They are making an attempt to deprive others of their rights, not just mocking; they wouldn&#39;t be interrupting the protest if they where just "mocking."

How are they "depriving others of their rights" ?
They are protest warriors... they are warring against the left, against the right of the people to form a just society.



No; I offer them no “right” to attack my voice or suppress our movement for radical social change

So in other words, opinions other than yours should not be allowed (whatever happened to freedom of speech ?).

Ah, very selective quoting there; try reading the parts where I explained more. I will respond to questions that omit the information I have already given.



You are no better than a Nazi for supporting their rights to suppress others.

Then what are you doing ? They&#39;re not supressing any of your "rights", however, you have made quite clear that you intent to suppress theirs.

I am for suppressing the "right" to suppress others. That quote was sarcasm as you should know from the explanation.



They were intentionally distracting the protest and attempting to silence them by building an anti-protest group.

How is a counter-demonstration "silencing" you ? How is "distracting" the protest "silencing" you ?

That was their agenda as PW&#39;s; Have you seen their site?



I would say they deserve more than a few kicks in the back.

English translation : All dissent must be crushed.

You&#39;re no different from the nazis you supposedly hate.

No ur a Nazi :lol: Do you know what Nazi means? Kind of like, "faggot?" Just something you call people you disagree with?

That is a drunken translation; those that stand against the movement for a just society must be stopped. You aren&#39;t gong to, "catch," me with that, I meant it&#33;


PW&#39;s presence was not affecting their right to protest.

How could it not? That was the point wasn&#39;t it; to be disruptive? Maybe they just wanted to hang out?



They where infringing on the anarchist rights as I have explained many times (see you have to prove my points wrong).

You haven&#39;t explained anything beyond making making baseless assertions. How are your rights being infringed ?

Actually I have, likely even before that post.



Fuck the law and fuck them; they had no right to silence the protest.

They weren&#39;t silencing it.

Not since they where stopped ;)


No, they didn&#39;t. Anarchist attacked first. It was the anarchists who were pulling down PW&#39;s banners, not the other way round. It was the PW&#39;s freedom of speech/right to protest that was being surpressed.

The PW&#39;s, "right," to come and attack the anarchist&#39;s rights?


The anarchists attacked first and they did it because they didn&#39;t like what was being said i.e. they do not beleive in freedom of speech, unless it conveys a message they agree with.

It may be more like they believe in freedom of speech, unless it conveys a message they disagree with. In which case "disagree with," might better be stated as "are agianst," because anarchists are against the threatening and dominating speech of authoritarians.


<snip the rest of the drivel>

Yes; the more in-depth statements are just to specific and defined to deal with.

[Professor Moneybags]

They are protest warriors... they are warring against the left,

How ? They&#39;re complaining that you&#39;re not all you say you are and they your ideas are wrong ? That&#39;s hardly violating your rights.


against the right of the people to form a just society.

I don&#39;t see them stopping you from doing that.


Ah, very selective quoting there; try reading the parts where I explained more. I will respond to questions that omit the information I have already given.

You haven&#39;t explained anything.



How is a counter-demonstration "silencing" you ? How is "distracting" the protest "silencing" you ?

That was their agenda as PW&#39;s; Have you seen their site?

Repeat : How is a counter-demonstration "silencing" you ? How is "distracting" the protest "silencing" you ?

I doubt that they are trying to silence anyone, otherwise they would have been the ones using violence against the protestors.


No ur a Nazi :lol: Do you know what Nazi means? Kind of like, "faggot?" Just something you call people you disagree with?

I get that from socialists daily. (The videos on PW&#39;s site was absoloutely rife with it. (Didn&#39;t you hear your comrades chanting "Nazi" ? I do not recall seeing any swastikas...)


The PW&#39;s, "right," to come and attack the anarchist&#39;s rights?

They were not attacking the anarchist&#39;s rights.


It may be more like they believe in freedom of speech, unless it conveys a message they disagree with. In which case "disagree with," might better be stated as "are agianst," because anarchists are against the threatening and dominating speech of authoritarians.

...A label which they place on anyone who disagrees with them.


Yes; the more in-depth statements are just to specific and defined to deal with.

They&#39;re neither specific nor defined. How are their rights being surpressed ?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2005, 02:39 PM

As our good friend, "Professor" Moneybags would say: shoot them and they say that they were intiating force against you.

They were not initiating force, not that you&#39;d care anyway.

Like I said : Sociopath.
I was talking about Iraq actually. Appareantly Iraq was about to invade the US, or had Nukes at the ready, but they all "magically" dissapeared.

I really really wouldn&#39;t care how you call me. According to you I am a "freedom hater", "terrorist", "genocidist" - this all coming from a capitalist apoligst.

Actually the whole point of them standing there with a camera, was to be attacked. Why do you expect tolerance for apologists of the oppressor?

[Ele'ill]

Just because you&#39;ve said it four times in the thread, doesn&#39;t make it any more correct or rational

No it just means I have yet to recieve a rational explanation for any of the said questions.


They WERE posing a threat, even if it was too subtle for you to detect it. Everything the protest-warriors stand for is threatening to leftists

Anarchists are not the only group on the left. Not everyone agrees on assaulting other protesters.

Next response:



Read the quote:

I did, that&#39;s how I responded through four pages on this thread.



They where attempting to mineralize the protest.


As the anarchists were attempting to &#39;mineralize&#39; the bush supporters and the inauguration as a whole. (Which i&#39;m not saying is bad or positive at this time as it would shift the discussion elsewhere.)




Irrelevant.

Not quite. I was implying that protests are taken to seriously. In fact I believe I mentioned that further back in this thread as well.



They are making an attempt to deprive others of their rights, not just mocking; they wouldn&#39;t be interrupting the protest if they where just "mocking."
They are "protesting," our right to protest, so yes; FUCK THEIR "RIGHTS," to deprive us of our rights.



Sorry let me rephrase that. So because they non violently attacked the right to protest, that gave the anarchists the right to physically assult their right to protest?
:rolleyes:



It is a well know phrase and I like to use it so people can relate to my statements. If you do not understand it or want to debate its legitimacy, please do; otherwise you are just pointing out the obvious.


I apparently do understand it. I mean I made a comment reguarding it and what I thought about it. Right? My opinion is that it has become a very vague phrase that is wielded to justify irrational actions.



No; I offer them no “right” to attack my voice or suppress our movement for radical social change and I didn&#39;t bring revolution up; you are just shifting the focus


I appologize for the confusion in reguards to revolution. I will explain further if you wish but for now I am going to stay on topic. You say you offer them no right to attack your voice or suppress &#39;our&#39; movment i&#39;m just curious how you define &#39;our&#39;. In detail, because its dangerous to speak for others. I would hardly call a counter protest (which ironically was being done against the inauguration) an attack on your voice. Although I partially agree that the PW are complete man childs with too much time on their hands.





I have the right to defend our movement and I will do what I must to be heard and effect radical social change for the benefit of humanity. Anyone that states opposition to this movement should be prepared, for they have just declared their opposing status to us in the class war.

:rolleyes: :P

You are going to defend this movment? &#39;our&#39; movment? What if I don&#39;t want YOU defending me. "Anyone that states opposistion" :lol: ok mr bush
I like the reference to class war. Class meaning literal wealth heirarchy? or political status?, where are you on that heirarchy and why do you assume I am some place different, if not in a more logical place to wage this &#39;class war&#39;.





They were intentionally distracting the protest and attempting to silence them by building an anti-protest group. I would say they deserve more than a few kicks in the back.



Distracting? did these anarchists have severe A.D.D? Could they not have laughed and walked away as most adults would have. I would say the only thing that deserves a kick in the back is a kick in the back.



So I think those that "mudsling" in the place of rational debate show themselves to be hypocrites when they tell others to "grow up."


I only tell others to grow up when I see them acting in a manner that portrays them as less mature than their current age. How is this hypocritical?



No it is not; you are just propagandizing now. The protesters did not seek out the PW and attack them; the PW would not leave and allow them their right to protest.


Allow them the right to protest. How did they restrict them their right to protest? Did they run around with handcuffs and duct tape and physically restrain the anarchists?



No; they did not. Try proving your points; it sometimes helps

If I didn&#39;t prove a point, what exactly are you responding to with "No; they did not."
They used numbers, force, and aggression to suppress others right to protest. The PW were there being loud. Great, you don&#39;t lash out with physical violence. The right to protest isn&#39;t granted to the minorities exclusivley.



Did you just say that? No, I am SURE the right won&#39;t EVER infringe on anyone&#39;s rights. I was under the impression that you where a leftist


:lol: now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the right won&#39;t EVER infringe on anyone&#39;s rights. I said they are not going to &#39;over run the protests&#39;. As in, thousands of PW&#39;s children running around yelling. The whole idea of this happening is comical.



Someone forcibly attacking their rights... yes; they were right to use force back.

forcibly attacking? The PW were using their voice. The anarchists used physical violence. Lets not get this twisted.



They where infringing on the anarchist rights as I have explained many times (see you have to prove my points wrong). Are you now defending laws&#33;? You can legaly be arrested for speaking your mind outside of a "free speach zone," are you fucking okay with that?


Your idea that the anarchists belonged there, and the PW didn&#39;t is perverse. Once again, the right to demonstrate is not given exclusivley to the left. I&#39;m not sure what you mean in the second half.




So if their where fascists in a rally you joined; you would be in a fascist rally?
This is like saying because you are against poaching, you don&#39;t eat any meat... you are seriously generalizing.


I am saying they should be respectful of others around them. A common courtesy. Why would there be fascists in a rally I joined? This is an extreme example and is not applicable to this conversation. There are multiple movements within the LEFT all striving for change. They are not green peace marching with fascists. They are leftists marching with leftists. Very similar ideologies. My original statement still stands in this reguard.



This is not legitimate. There were mixed groups at this &#39;rally&#39;. I do not know the percentage that were pacifist or non-violent
however i&#39;d imagine it was considerably high since it was an ANTI WAR DEMONSTRATION. and War generally is not non-violent.


That is my quote, simply saying they were mixed in with the rest of the leftist movments. They should have common courtesy and not do things that draw negative attention. They failed to have the restraint and maturity needed at this simple protest.





Apparently YOU missed my point that you have not proved your statement and capitalism is not equivalent to violence so you aren&#39;t even making sense.
If you refuse to offer a provable explanation for your statements, I suggest you, "give up and move on."


How did I miss your point? I blatantly responded to it. By capitalism I was refering to this current system. What else must I say for you to understand my statments? You responded with a page response to it, you obviously understand what i&#39;m saying, you just disagree with it.



Fuck the law and fuck them; they had no right to silence the protest.


They did in fact have a right to protest against the protest. As protesting is still LEGAL.


What the anarchists did was show everyone that they do not seriously believe in their no domination no brutality views, by starting a fight.

I am assuming the anarchists are for freedom of speech, by any means neccisary and all that stuff. Well maybe the PW are too. And maybe, the anarchists in this situation, only wanted the freedom of speech and the freedom to march, by any means neccisary of course, to apply to them. They used numbers and violent retaliation to combat against protesters that they did not agree with. There you go.





I made no assumption; you will likely make some sort of action "when they come" and by your definition or mine, it will likely be pathetic.

I have noticed you are targeting me directly as a person in these post. Why?


You don&#39;t understand that I am against "free speech" for everyone. I am not for those that speak prejudicial and political threats against those that seek a just society. Our movement fights those individuals and we silence those that seek to deprive others of their rights for whatever agenda (we do not sanction their hate speech).

So you are there to make the decision who has this right and who dosn&#39;t? This doesn&#39;t seem fair. In nazi germany, they did the same thing, they thought they were right. &#39;OUR&#39; movment...once again, are you refering to anarchism, or the left as a whole, either way i&#39;m sure there are many people in both that do not want YOU to decide who has the right to free speach and who does not. So if you are fighting against those that deprive others the right to free speech, wouldn&#39;t you fight against those anarchists that deprived the PW&#39;s of their right to free speech?
Ah yes but they must be in the &#39;no free speech for you&#39; group that you decided on. Thanks for that btw. I&#39;m sure it will make this country better still having one group of people dictating who has the right to common practices such as freedom of speech.


Maybe if fascist are allowed free speech and attain power by their means of indoctrinating the young and undeveloped, we can see how you get over that.


They would be doing the exact same thing you would be doing. Just with a different ideology. Neither would favor the masses.




They where defending their rights and they only harmed someone when they refused to allow them their rights; self-defense.

They were defending their ideology not their right. Had they been defending their right they wouldn&#39;t have physically assaulted the PW. As it is the right of the PW to march as well. Once again, by any means neccisary. Funny how tactics and phrases are good until the other side uses them. Then everything has to be questioned.


"kicking him on the ground" = "the anarchists attacked first?" I would say you skipped the part with the rational argument. The PW&#39;s attacked their right to protest.

I would say you skipped the part where the PW&#39;s were legally protesting without physical violence.


So how did the hold "Mastery or supremacy over another or others?" They simply stopped someone from infringing on their right to protest.

. The exercise of such mastery or supremacy.
They simply stomped and kicked one person on the ground, because to them, their ideology is superior.



You are making wild assertions "to put it lightly." Prove my points wrong or you are proven wrong

That is not a response. To me, your points already are proven wrong, and to you my points are proven wrong. This isn&#39;t about proving someone wrong, I see it as much more important, it&#39;s about exchanging ideas through debate. Most ideas will not be excepted however maybe a few will. And then something has been accomplished.


Oh, so it is not self-defense if the group has less people in it? How do you accuse be of making insane points

Why would it be imperative that the anarchists lash out with physical violence against a smaller group of stated non violent protesters?



If you make the same argument 1000 times no amount of validity is added

There is plenty of validity in it. I asked it &#39;1000&#39; times and not once did I get a legitimate response.


You know, I think capitalists and fascists have used hammers too. Have you ever used a hammer? You must be a capitalist and a fascist&#33;

If I spoke out against using a hammer, because of the way the fascists used this hammer, and then myself used it in the same way, yes, that would indeed make me a hypocrit.



Logic check; stop being an ass and just discuss the issues.

I am not being an ass. I am criticising &#39;your&#39; movment. This is a very big issue at hand one small group doing anything good or bad affects the leftist revolutionary movment as a whole.



Nothing personal, I just don&#39;t accept that kind of "debate."
You have made some points that deserve explanation and I would like to respond to a challenging debate as opposed to flaming. As I see it, this could go either way.
I started off debating the issues and I think we can continue in that manner






What kind of debate is this? I am calmly asking questions. I think this is a challenging debate, as it has been dragged out across four pages. No flaming, I am a leftists as well I however enjoy seeing people think. Actually Everyone on here started off debating the issues. Not just you. I would love to continue, as I respect your responses although I do not agree with all of them. ;)

[colombiano]

LOL, nothing more than a re-packaged Lynch Mob or Ku Klux Klan.Spewing hatred for anything different than themselves.

[Ele'ill]

Are you responding to a particular post, or the thread topic?

[Professor Moneybags]

I was talking about Iraq actually. Appareantly Iraq was about to invade the US, or had Nukes at the ready, but they all "magically" dissapeared.

Irrelevent. Iraq was a dictatorship and had no right to exist in its present form.


I really really wouldn&#39;t care how you call me. According to you I am a "freedom hater", "terrorist", "genocidist" - this all coming from a capitalist apoligst.

You are; and an apologist of dictatorships to boot.


Actually the whole point of them standing there with a camera, was to be attacked.

You mean they had signs saying "attack us" ? Or were they "asking for it" for having the "wrong opinion" ?


Why do you expect tolerance for apologists of the oppressor?

They are hardly oppressors.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:48 PM
LOL, nothing more than a re-packaged Lynch Mob or Ku Klux Klan.Spewing hatred for anything different than themselves.
I&#39;m sure all anarchists aren&#39;t like that.

[LSD]

Irrelevent. Iraq was a dictatorship and had no right to exist in its present form.

:lol:

So why aren&#39;t y&#39;all invading China or Saudi Arabia or half of Africa&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2005, 10:43 PM
So why aren&#39;t y&#39;all invading China or Saudi Arabia or half of Africa&#33;
Hopefully, all in good time.

Won&#39;t stop you lot from accusing the US of imperialism, though, I shouldn&#39;t imagine.

[LSD]

Hopefully, all in good time.

Won&#39;t stop you lot from accusing the US of imperialism, though, I shouldn&#39;t imagine.

You mean, if the US decided to invade half of the world?

:lol:

Yeah, I think the word "imperialism" might come to mind&#33;

[Severian]

You can look at this on two different levels.

As a bar fight, or better yet a high-school hallway fight: some assholes got what they had coming. They set out to provoke a fight, and got one.

As a political action, beating up people because they express a view different from yours is a really bad habit. For reasons that have nothing to do with pacificism, and everything to do with democracy.

Self-proclaimed "anti-authoritarians" sometimes have a hard time with this concept.

I think the marshals acted correctly in herding the rightists away from the protest; they can go exercise their right to free speech....a distance away. But of course they didn&#39;t come to do that but to provoke fights, as they admit themselves. If their goal was honest counterprotest rather than provocation, they would seek some separation.

As a tactical matter, the anarchists&#39; approach also gave "Protest Warrior" what they wanted: attention. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the media&#39;s motto, so this action by a handful of mooks, by successfully provoking a fight, was probably able to divert a lot of attention away from the message of the protest.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:38 PM

Just because you&#39;ve said it four times in the thread, doesn&#39;t make it any more correct or rational

No it just means I have yet to recieve a rational explanation for any of the said questions.
Riight; well, let us just get on with the debating.



They WERE posing a threat, even if it was too subtle for you to detect it. Everything the protest-warriors stand for is threatening to leftists

Anarchists are not the only group on the left. Not everyone agrees on assaulting other protesters.

Many leftist agree on using violence if necessary. If a group is opposed to your rights, you should do all you can to stop that group because the are attacking your abilities to improve society. Maybe if the PW&#39;s were simply stupid jingoist that chant "USA, USA," the anarchists wouldn&#39;t have felt compelled to act but as it turns out they were part of a group that leads a focused effort to curtail the rights of the left.


As the anarchists were attempting to &#39;mineralize&#39; the bush supporters and the inauguration as a whole. (Which i&#39;m not saying is bad or positive at this time as it would shift the discussion elsewhere.)

I wasn&#39;t talking about minimizing in that sense, I meant minimize in general. When I go to a protest and counter-protesters are there, I am fighting to be heard, not fighting to make them not heard (unless they are attempting to stifle me).



Irrelevant.

Not quite. I was implying that protests are taken to seriously. In fact I believe I mentioned that further back in this thread as well.

When you explain your intentions you have a point but initially you had irrelevant commentary. The real question is: "why do you believe they are taken to seriously?" These protests show the left in action and obviously you are demonstrating that you care a great deal.



They are making an attempt to deprive others of their rights, not just mocking; they wouldn&#39;t be interrupting the protest if they where just "mocking."
They are "protesting," our right to protest, so yes; FUCK THEIR "RIGHTS," to deprive us of our rights.


Sorry let me rephrase that. So because they non violently attacked the right to protest, that gave the anarchists the right to physically assult their right to protest?
:rolleyes:

I give them no, "right," to protest our right to protest. If they where simply protesting the issues, that would be fine so long as they don&#39;t infringe on us but they had an agenda to silence us.



It is a well know phrase and I like to use it so people can relate to my statements. If you do not understand it or want to debate its legitimacy, please do; otherwise you are just pointing out the obvious.


I apparently do understand it. I mean I made a comment regarding it and what I thought about it. Right? My opinion is that it has become a very vague phrase that is wielded to justify irrational actions.

I would say it is a broad phrase use in the context of matters of militant force.
My justification was completely separate and I just used that phrase to tie my statements together. It was in no way a justification.



No; I offer them no “right” to attack my voice or suppress our movement for radical social change and I didn&#39;t bring revolution up; you are just shifting the focus


I appologize for the confusion in reguards to revolution. I will explain further if you wish but for now I am going to stay on topic. You say you offer them no right to attack your voice or suppress &#39;our&#39; movment i&#39;m just curious how you define &#39;our&#39;. In detail, because its dangerous to speak for others.

Thank you; this is not really much of an in-detail concept. By, "our," I mean the radical left. I am not "speaking for," I am simply stating that I am against those that attack out rights and giving them the, "right," to threaten us.


I would hardly call a counter protest (which ironically was being done against the inauguration) an attack on your voice. Although I partially agree that the PW are complete man childs with too much time on their hands.

The PW&#39;s are against our voices and they have made that clear. Their demonstration is one of anti-protestors (of the left).



I have the right to defend our movement and I will do what I must to be heard and effect radical social change for the benefit of humanity. Anyone that states opposition to this movement should be prepared, for they have just declared their opposing status to us in the class war.

:rolleyes: :P

You are going to defend this movment? &#39;our&#39; movment?

I said I have the right to.


What if I don&#39;t want YOU defending me.

I am not defending you at all; I am defending the right to our movement. Which are actually your rights and if you don&#39;t like me defending your rights; too bad.


"Anyone that states opposistion" :lol: ok mr bush

Hey now, no more flaming. I have already explained what I meant by that as, "mr bush," so rarely does.


I like the reference to class war. Class meaning literal wealth heirarchy? or political status?

I am glad; class meaning the supremacy of one group of people: the rulers and so the hierarchy/political domination they hold.


where are you on that hierarchy and why do you assume I am some place different, if not in a more logical place to wage this &#39;class war&#39;.

How did I make such an assumption? I think we are still in the process of proving logical positions.


Your idea that the anarchists belonged there, and the PW didn&#39;t is perverse.

Not at all; one group was protesting, the other was attacking their right to protest.


Once again, the right to demonstrate is not givenexclusivley to the left. I&#39;m not sure what you mean in the second half.

I never said it was "givenexclusivley to the left;" how do you manage to completely avoid my points? I am saying those that threaten the rights to improve society; should be stopped (I can explain it out again if you really need me too).



So if their where fascists in a rally you joined; you would be in a fascist rally?
This is like saying because you are against poaching, you don&#39;t eat any meat... you are seriously generalizing.

I am saying they should be respectful of others around them. A common courtesy. Why would there be fascists in a rally I joined?

They have no reason to "respect" those that have no regard for their efforts to improve society and fascists was just an extreme example; they could be in an anti-US government rally: maybe they want a different hierarchy. Anyway, you are imbuing the expectation you have of some protesters on everyone else; so by your reasoning, any rally you attend with fascists, makes you a fascist.


This is an extreme example and is not applicable to this conversation. There are multiple movements within the LEFT all striving for change. They are not green peace marching with fascists. They are leftists marching with leftists. Very similar ideologies. My original statement still stands in this reguard.

Different ideologies sometimes march. Authoritarians sometimes march with anti-authoritarians, just as pacifists march with militant radicals.



They were intentionally distracting the protest and attempting to silence them by building an anti-protest group. I would say they deserve more than a few kicks in the back.



Distracting? did these anarchists have severe A.D.D? Could they not have laughed and walked away as most adults would have. I would say the only thing that deserves a kick in the back is a kick in the back.

Walking away never solved anything; you avoided my point that the PW&#39;s where there to distract and disrupt. I would say if someone is making an attempt to attack your protest, they deserve a kick in the back if they refuse to leave.



So I think those that "mudsling" in the place of rational debate show themselves to be hypocrites when they tell others to "grow up."


I only tell others to grow up when I see them acting in a manner that portrays them as less mature than their current age. How is this hypocritical?

Because you were, "mudsling," which was immature and so hypocritical. Not to mention that you told me to, "grow up," without any valid reason.



No; they did not. Try proving your points; it sometimes helps

If I didn&#39;t prove a point, what exactly are you responding to with "No; they did not."

An assertion.



Did you just say that? No, I am SURE the right won&#39;t EVER infringe on anyone&#39;s rights. I was under the impression that you where a leftist

:lol: now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the right won&#39;t EVER infringe on anyone&#39;s rights. I said they are not going to &#39;over run the protests&#39;. As in, thousands of PW&#39;s children running around yelling. The whole idea of this happening is comical.

Though that is not what you said; I was commenting on what you said.



Someone forcibly attacking their rights... yes; they were right to use force back.

forcibly attacking? The PW were using their voice. The anarchists used physical violence. Lets not get this twisted.

Does it matter? The PW&#39;s where still attacking their rights and they refused to stop.



Apparently YOU missed my point that you have not proved your statement and capitalism is not equivalent to violence so you aren&#39;t even making sense.
If you refuse to offer a provable explanation for your statements, I suggest you, "give up and move on."


How did I miss your point? I blatantly responded to it. By capitalism I was refering to this current system. What else must I say for you to understand my statments? You responded with a page response to it, you obviously understand what i&#39;m saying, you just disagree with it.

Because I proved you wrong; you could always respond to it.

Here: anarchism does not = capitalism - violence


They did in fact have a right to protest against the protest. As protesting is still LEGAL.

Why are you justifying the law?


I am assuming the anarchists are for freedom of speech, by any means neccisary and all that stuff.

Maybe you should not make such assumptions.


Well maybe the PW are too. And maybe, the anarchists in this situation, only wanted the freedom of speech and the freedom to march, by any means neccisary of course, to apply to them. They used numbers and violent retaliation to combat against protesters that they did not agree with. There you go.

So you are re-hashing the issues; that doesn&#39;t advance our debate at all.



I made no assumption; you will likely make some sort of action "when they come" and by your definition or mine, it will likely be pathetic.

I have noticed you are targeting me directly as a person in these post. Why?

You accused me of making an assumption and I just provided a clear example; it just happened to be you.



You don&#39;t understand that I am against "free speech" for everyone. I am not for those that speak prejudicial and political threats against those that seek a just society. Our movement fights those individuals and we silence those that seek to deprive others of their rights for whatever agenda (we do not sanction their hate speech).

So you are there to make the decision who has this right and who dosn&#39;t?

People make decisions everyday on who is the oppressor and who must stand against them. I am not infallible and am willing to listen to those that do not threaten me; because those that threaten me have brought it upon themselves as the only actions I take are against those depriving or hurting others.


This doesn&#39;t seem fair. In nazi germany, they did the same thing, they thought they were right.

So what? They thought they where right and I am against everything Nazis stand for; what is your point?


i&#39;m sure there are many people in both that do not want YOU to decide who has the right to free speach and who does not.

I am deciding for myself, not for them; they can agree or disagree.


So if you are fighting against those that deprive others the right to free speech, wouldn&#39;t you fight against those anarchists that deprived the PW&#39;s of their right to free speech?

NO, because they where only defending against the threatening views expressed by the PW&#39;s.


Ah yes but they must be in the &#39;no free speech for you&#39; group that you decided on.

Yes; all that speak threats. I am not saying they shouldn&#39;t be allowed to speak, just not their hate speech.


Thanks for that btw. I&#39;m sure it will make this country better still having one group of people dictating who has the right to common practices such as freedom of speech.

I never suggested anything of the sort.



Maybe if fascist are allowed free speech and attain power by their means of indoctrinating the young and undeveloped, we can see how you get over that.


They would be doing the exact same thing you would be doing. Just with a different ideology. Neither would favor the masses.

Bullshit; they would be forcing their views on others and we would allow others to decide their views by learning about any ideology they like. Don&#39;t forget about the fascist tendency to mass murder; where we would obviously not kill people for convenience.


They were defending their ideology not their right.

Exactly, and their ideology is one of individual rights; that is what was attacked; rights.



So how did the hold "Mastery or supremacy over another or others?" They simply stopped someone from infringing on their right to protest.

. The exercise of such mastery or supremacy.
They simply stomped and kicked one person on the ground, because to them, their ideology is superior.

You are making up motives.



You are making wild assertions "to put it lightly." Prove my points wrong or you are proven wrong

That is not a response. To me, your points already are proven wrong, and to you my points are proven wrong. This isn&#39;t about proving someone wrong, I see it as much more important, it&#39;s about exchanging ideas through debate. Most ideas will not be excepted however maybe a few will. And then something has been accomplished.

Alright, on with the debate.

I will edit in more later...

[Ele'ill]

Many leftist agree on using violence if necessary. If a group is opposed to your rights, you should do all you can to stop that group because the are attacking your abilities to improve society. Maybe if the PW&#39;s were simply stupid jingoist that chant "USA, USA," the anarchists wouldn&#39;t have felt compelled to act but as it turns out they were part of a group that leads a focused effort to curtail the rights of the left.

I am sure many do, but many also do not. I am not against physical action. Just this particular event was not justified nor was it worth the effort that the anarchists put into it.



The real question is: "why do you believe they are taken to seriously?" These protests show the left in action and obviously you are demonstrating that you care a great deal.

I believe protests have become a drug. They generally make individuals feel good about their beliefs and they do have a sense of accomplishment however i&#39;d argue their actual significance. They are in fact significant in the sense that they allow the left to meet and organize which is a very healthy thing. To see others around you standing by you in the tear gas gives one great hope. In my opinion, this is why demonstrations are a key to any type of revolution. The aspect of organizing, being with like minds, being a minority and uniting. I will pursue this farther if you want but for now i&#39;m going to move on.



I give them no, "right," to protest our right to protest. If they where simply protesting the issues, that would be fine so long as they don&#39;t infringe on us but they had an agenda to silence us.

It all boils down to the fact that they were still utilizing their right to protest. Fascists are allowed to protest, and wave their banners in the wake of a few million jews and minorities being murdered. It does seem absurd however they still have this right.





The PW&#39;s are against our voices and they have made that clear. Their demonstration is one of anti-protestors (of the left).

Just as many in the left are against the PW&#39;s voices, and against the bush administration speaking for this country through actions, mainly foreign policy.



I said I have the right to.

You don&#39;t neccisarly. You do have the right to defend your beliefs, however when the left organizes into a demonstration there are many different &#39;comrades&#39; there with many different beliefs that should not be overlooked simply because YOU want to do something. Such as physical violence.



I am not defending you at all; I am defending the right to our movement. Which are actually your rights and if you don&#39;t like me defending your rights; too bad

I am part of that movment and I am opposed to what those anarchists did at that particular time. It isn&#39;t as much that you are defending my rights, it&#39;s how you are doing so. Bush for example (not a continuation of the so called &#39;flame&#39;) will defend americas rights and freedoms by engaging in war. &#39;Not in my name&#39;. Same thing, just on a lesser scale. Still very important to take into consideration though.



Hey now, no more flaming. I have already explained what I meant by that as, "mr bush," so rarely does.

This isn&#39;t a flame. You are obviously very different from bush. However, you have not really explained what you meant, and what you said was not a very wise thing to say as it will generally bring questioning; as I have done.



I am glad; class meaning the supremacy of one group of people: the rulers and so the hierarchy/political domination they hold.

That was sarcasm actually. I wasn&#39;t really glad.


How did I make such an assumption? I think we are still in the process of proving logical positions.

We are still in that process. It was something you said however I feel it would be too much back tracking into the thread for current discussion. If you insist, I will explain.



Not at all; one group was protesting, the other was attacking their right to protest

One group was protesting against bush, the others against the opposistion. One group was rowdy yet peaceful the other was blatantly violent.



I never said it was "givenexclusivley to the left;" how do you manage to completely avoid my points? I am saying those that threaten the rights to improve society; should be stopped (I can explain it out again if you really need me too).

By saying the PW should not have the right to protest is in fact saying only the anarchists should have been there. It does not matter what they are protesting against, they still have that right to be there. Once again, there are very intersting groups, that have very harsh ideologies, and they still have that right to protest. this right is not exclusivley given to the left, or to those you personally would deem worthy of it.



Anyway, you are imbuing the expectation you have of some protesters on everyone else; so by your reasoning, any rally you attend with fascists, makes you a fascist.

The point I was making was that there are other leftists at these demonstrations. Be courteous and dont&#39; disrespect them by engaging in violence, if there are anti war or pacifist demonstrators at the same demonstration. We can debate this later as i&#39;m not sure what the entirety of this particular point was through out this thread.



Different ideologies sometimes march. Authoritarians sometimes march with anti-authoritarians, just as pacifists march with militant radicals

I believe this was tied in with the above argument. You just restated what I stated to you. Groups will march together on a certain issue, such as the bush administration. This does not mean that at a pacifist/militant rebel march the militant rebels should engage in aggressive behavior at that demo. It would not be justified.



Walking away never solved anything; you avoided my point that the PW&#39;s where there to distract and disrupt. I would say if someone is making an attempt to attack your protest, they deserve a kick in the back if they refuse to leave.

I most definatly did not avoid your point. I simply disagreed with it. They were there, protesting, trying to disrupt the bush opposistion. Just as the anarchists were there, disrupting the bush administration. The PW&#39;s did not act violently, and the anarchists responded with violence. Walking away has solved many thing. Lives even. Doing something on a large scale at a demonstration which isn&#39;t fully organized or inhabited by your own ideological &#39;kind&#39; is selfish and immature.


Because you were, "mudsling," which was immature and so hypocritical. Not to mention that you told me to, "grow up," without any valid reason

Yes, if you see this type of thing, in my posts, I mean them more as an interjecting exclamation. This was not a personal attack although I should have clarified this.



Though that is not what you said; I was commenting on what you said

Do you mean this literally? I don&#39;t understand. You said I wrote something that I didn&#39;t. You put words in my mouth. Or my fingers onto my keys.. ect



The PW&#39;s where still attacking their rights and they refused to stop.

They were not attacking anyone&#39;s rights. They were exercising their own right and the anarchists violently attacked them.



Here: anarchism does not = capitalism - violence

You didn&#39;t prove me wrong. At all. I was confused as to what was in question.
I didn&#39;t mean to imply that anarchism is capitalism without violence. If you want to debate this further, post my entire response or statement that you disagree with. Not a snippet.


Why are you justifying the law?

Freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate are legal rights in this country. That is all I meant.


Well maybe the PW are too. And maybe, the anarchists in this situation, only wanted the freedom of speech and the freedom to march, by any means neccisary of course, to apply to them. They used numbers and violent retaliation to combat against protesters that they did not agree with. There you go.

That was me debating one of your statements. Not me rehashing the issues. Telling me i&#39;m &#39;re-hasing the issues&#39; is not proving me wrong, nor advancing the debate. Once again, if we are going to declare this point valid, from either of our perspectives, repost it in a response and we will continue.



You don&#39;t understand that I am against "free speech" for everyone. I am not for those that speak prejudicial and political threats against those that seek a just society. Our movement fights those individuals and we silence those that seek to deprive others of their rights for whatever agenda (we do not sanction their hate speech).

The above is what you said earlier.


So you are there to make the decision who has this right and who dosn&#39;t? This doesn&#39;t seem fair. In nazi germany, they did the same thing, they thought they were right. &#39;OUR&#39; movment...once again, are you refering to anarchism, or the left as a whole, either way i&#39;m sure there are many people in both that do not want YOU to decide who has the right to free speach and who does not. So if you are fighting against those that deprive others the right to free speech, wouldn&#39;t you fight against those anarchists that deprived the PW&#39;s of their right to free speech?
Ah yes but they must be in the &#39;no free speech for you&#39; group that you decided on. Thanks for that btw. I&#39;m sure it will make this country better still having one group of people dictating who has the right to common practices such as freedom of speech

Those were my points and statements to their entirety.



You accused me of making an assumption and I just provided a clear example; it just happened to be you.

I actually had no idea what you were talking about. I foolishly responded in what I thought would lead to further explaination. As of right now, I still do not know what you meant.



So what? They thought they where right and I am against everything Nazis stand for; what is your point

I am saying that every person from every different ideological background thinks they are right. This does not mean they have the right to speak for, or act for, the masses. I was not calling you a nazi or anything along those lines.


I am deciding for myself, not for them; they can agree or disagree.

Where ever you are, you should be aware that your actions affect the movement as a whole. What i&#39;m implying here, to avoid confusion, is if you&#39;re at a protest with others, your actions affect the movement/demonstration ect..



NO, because they where only defending against the threatening views expressed by the PW&#39;s.

Ah yes. Those threatening views. To the bush administration, anarchists&#39; views are very threatening. Their police brutality at these protests must be justified then. Correct?


Yes; all that speak threats. I am not saying they shouldn&#39;t be allowed to speak, just not their hate speech.

So if I explained to you, under your system that you have devised, that you are allowed to speak, just not your anarchist views that would probably make you very angry. Their views are that of hate (I suppose) Your views are that of X. Both have a right to express them.



I never suggested anything of the sort

You very much did

You don&#39;t understand that I am against "free speech" for everyone. I am not for those that speak prejudicial and political threats against those that seek a just society. Our movement fights those individuals and we silence those that seek to deprive others of their rights for whatever agenda (we do not sanction their hate speech).

The whole thing, and then "we silence those that seek to deprive others of their rights for whatever agenda.."



Exactly, and their ideology is one of individual rights; that is what was attacked; rights.

Above is your statement followed by one of my previous statements.


. The exercise of such mastery or supremacy.
They simply stomped and kicked one person on the ground, because to them, their ideology is superior.

And then your statement...


You are making up motives

:rolleyes:



I hope to see a response and not an edit as I would have to go back and edit this to fit all of your editing which would be tedius and not fun. :P Through out this post, I have stated if you want to further pursue this, ask me. This is not because I have been proven wrong, or that I am disreguarding the validity of your respones, it is because these posts are becoming bloated with side bar conversations on specific aspects of certain ideologies. If you wish to pursue these. Just ask.

[Wiesty]

i like how they call them selves libertarians, then there like, those damn jews, taking up the middle east :lol:

damn anti-semites

and i think they hate black people to

you have no flippin idea how i&#39;d like to watch the Revleft Admin team and the Protestwar/stormfront team, just debate it out till the death.

man, talk about celebrity deathmatch, im talkin bogz vs. Der Professor
lmao

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:38 PM

Many leftist agree on using violence if necessary. If a group is opposed to your rights, you should do all you can to stop that group because the are attacking your abilities to improve society. Maybe if the PW&#39;s were simply stupid jingoist that chant "USA, USA," the anarchists wouldn&#39;t have felt compelled to act but as it turns out they were part of a group that leads a focused effort to curtail the rights of the left.

Assuming I am reading this right (and please correct me if I am wrong), this is the most fucked-up thinking I&#39;ve ever seen.

It appears you are claiming that becaue the PWs are "opposed" to what you believe to be "improving society", you have a right to commit violent acts against them.

You do realize that in the reverse, this grants conservatives the right to commit violent acts against you. After all, in their mind, they are trying to "improve society" and your existence as opposition to that effort, according to the logic you espouse above, violates their rights.

The PWs did not, from any evidence I&#39;ve seen, attempt to deny your right to protest. They were on a public street with signs and a videotape. That does not come close to denying your right or anyone else&#39;s right to free speech - therefore you had no right to commit violent acts against them.



I wasn&#39;t talking about minimizing in that sense, I meant minimize in general. When I go to a protest and counter-protesters are there, I am fighting to be heard, not fighting to make them not heard (unless they are attempting to stifle me).

The PWs were not fighting to deny your right to protest.



They are making an attempt to deprive others of their rights, not just mocking; they wouldn&#39;t be interrupting the protest if they where just "mocking."
They are "protesting," our right to protest, so yes; FUCK THEIR "RIGHTS," to deprive us of our rights.


Ummm...no they weren&#39;t. Do you have any evidence that they were physically trying to remove you from the streets?

Their voice as opposition is not enough - they had to physically attempt to remove you, which they did not do.



You people seem to think you have the right to protest without opposition.

You&#39;re truly scary.

[Ele'ill]

You do realize that in the reverse, this grants conservatives the right to commit violent acts against you. After all, in their mind, they are trying to "improve society" and your existence as opposition to that effort, according to the logic you espouse above, violates their rights.



Ah yes. Those threatening views. To the bush administration, anarchists&#39; views are very threatening. Their police brutality at these protests must be justified then. Correct?


I think this is one of the most valid points stated and should be answered first in a response; as it directly ties in and breaks down into freedoms and rights.

[Professor Moneybags]

And what happened to my lengthy reply to this ? Did you lot have a HD crash or something ?

[bed_of_nails]

Isnt it Ironic that Protest Warrior, a hardcore right wing group, has a half-naked man as their pet? On a psychological basis... The sword is a phallic symbol also. *In best Freudian voice* I believe zis iz showing someting about zeir psyche. Hippocracy is beautiful :)

These... "intellectual beings" (term used loosely)... Find Hippocracy in all of our crazy left-wing statements aparently. I would love to know more about these contradictions in behavior and words. More accusations without examples.

The Right wing warriors are posting that communism has taken millions of lives, but never state how many people die because of capitalism. How many people die starving, homeless, or die as god-damn "Collateral damage" in another country. They say the United States is defending the freedom of its people, but how do you do that by killing the Iraqi&#39;s they claim to save? If Bush sees this, I have one message for him: People arent collateral damage you stupid fuck.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:07 PM
Isnt it Ironic that Protest Warrior, a hardcore right wing group, has a half-naked man as their pet? On a psychological basis... The sword is a phallic symbol also. *In best Freudian voice* I believe zis iz showing someting about zeir psyche. Hippocracy is beautiful :)

These... "intellectual beings" (term used loosely)... Find Hippocracy in all of our crazy left-wing statements aparently. I would love to know more about these contradictions in behavior and words. More accusations without examples.

The Right wing warriors are posting that communism has taken millions of lives, but never state how many people die because of capitalism. How many people die starving, homeless, or die as god-damn "Collateral damage" in another country. They say the United States is defending the freedom of its people, but how do you do that by killing the Iraqi&#39;s they claim to save? If Bush sees this, I have one message for him: People arent collateral damage you stupid fuck.
I used to post a lot at PW and yes, most of them spew a lot of hypocrisy. It&#39;s been my experience that pretty much everyone on the radical fringes of the political spectrum, and/or those who hold pretty dogmatic political beliefs, tend to be extremely hypocritical. They always find lots and lots of evidence of wrong-doing by the other side but always ignore wrong-doing by their side. It&#39;s one big game of "gotchya&#33;".

Blech.

:angry:

[Anarchist Freedom]

I love how the PW will call us facists if we ban them once they join. Yet the PW will ban you after 1 post and flame you. If anything there the facist scum.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
It&#39;s been my experience that pretty much everyone on the radical fringes of the political spectrum, and/or those who hold pretty dogmatic political beliefs, tend to be extremely hypocritical. They always find lots and lots of evidence of wrong-doing by the other side but always ignore wrong-doing by their side. It&#39;s one big game of "gotchya&#33;".

The other possibility, of course, is that it&#39;s not "hypocritical" at all.

In PW&#39;s eyes, the cop that beats up a lefty is "doing the right thing"...she "had it coming to her".

And in my view, the anarchists who beat up that PW bastard were "doing the right thing"...he "had it coming to him".

Partisanship is intrinsic to class struggle...you are on one side or you are on the other, period.

Granted, most Americans "don&#39;t understand" that...though they are certainly learning. The official mythology suggests that we should all be "reasonable people" who will "negotiate our differences" in a "spirit of compromise"...overlooking the material fact that the upper classes always "negotiate" from a position of strength and the lower classes from a position of weakness.

And bastards like PW want to keep it that way.

People like me wish to completely reverse that arrangement.

Social interactions don&#39;t exist in a vacuum...or up in the Platonic heavens somewhere.

When something is done, whatever it might be, the question is not "is it right or is it wrong", it&#39;s cui bono? -- who benefits?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Anarchist Freedom]

ok cappies think of it this way. Imagine your a group of protesters being perfectly fine not doing anything bad.Then some facist scum come into to opress your rights. If I remember correctly the country that this took place in they did the exact same thing&#33; :D.The british where stomping on there rights soo they fought back.The anarchists did the same thing they fought for there rights and they won they kicked the shit out of those facist douchebags

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 23 2005, 04:51 PM
ok cappies think of it this way. Imagine your a group of protesters being perfectly fine not doing anything bad.Then some facist scum come into to opress your rights. If I remember correctly the country that this took place in they did the exact same thing&#33; :D.The british where stomping on there rights soo they fought back.The anarchists did the same thing they fought for there rights and they won they kicked the shit out of those facist douchebags
Exactly how did the PW&#39;ers attempt to oppress your rights?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:53 PM




The other possibility, of course, is that it&#39;s not "hypocritical" at all.

In PW&#39;s eyes, the cop that beats up a lefty is "doing the right thing"...she "had it coming to her".

And in my view, the anarchists who beat up that PW bastard were "doing the right thing"...he "had it coming to him".

If you&#39;re both making generalizations then you&#39;re both hypocrites and both idiots.


Partisanship is intrinsic to class struggle...you are on one side or you are on the other, period.

Another simplistic generalization. You have quite an impressive arsenal of them.

Why did so many poor southerners and other Red Stater&#39;s vote for George W. Bush then?

The fact they did refutes your assertion.

God I love saying that.


Granted, most Americans "don&#39;t understand" that...though they are certainly learning.

Right....that&#39;s why the Republican party is in control of nearly everything.

Your teaching efforts are sure paying off.


The official mythology suggests that we should all be "reasonable people" who will "negotiate our differences" in a "spirit of compromise"...overlooking the material fact that the upper classes always "negotiate" from a position of strength and the lower classes from a position of weakness.

But it&#39;s not always a conflict of the classes&#33; There are rich pro-choice people and there are rich pro-life people. There are rich environmentalists and there are rich advocates of industry. So on and so on and so on...

And bastards like PW want to keep it that way.


People like me wish to completely reverse that arrangement.

Social interactions don&#39;t exist in a vacuum...or up in the Platonic heavens somewhere.

When something is done, whatever it might be, the question is not "is it right or is it wrong", it&#39;s cui bono? -- who benefits?

What a selfish way to look at the world.

[Anarchist Freedom]

There whole motto is oppression. There goal is to come into a protest to shut it down. and Make everyone look like assholes and to make them look like they where doing everyone personal favor.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:07 PM
The sword is a phallic symbol also. *In best Freudian voice* I believe zis iz showing someting about zeir psyche. Hippocracy is beautiful :)

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Freud.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:53 PM
When something is done, whatever it might be, the question is not "is it right or is it wrong", it&#39;s cui bono? -- who benefits?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
...and they sit there, baffled at why communism always turns totalitarian.

[Professor Moneybags]

ok cappies think of it this way. Imagine your a group of protesters being perfectly fine not doing anything bad.Then some facist scum come into to opress your rights.

Just like what the anarchists did to the PWs ?


The anarchists did the same thing they fought for there rights and they won they kicked the shit out of those facist douchebags

The anarchists were the ones violating PW&#39;s rights, not fighting for them.

[Professor Moneybags]

There whole motto is oppression.

Evidence ?


There goal is to come into a protest to shut it down.

Hardly. PW would have been the ones using violence if that was the case.

[Ele'ill]

There whole motto is oppression. There goal is to come into a protest to shut it down. and Make everyone look like assholes and to make them look like they where doing everyone personal favor.

Most of the other points have been already stated although i&#39;d like to mention that If I wasn&#39;t aware that you were talking about the PW, I would think you were talking about activists from any part of the political spectrum. Anti fascists try and shut down nazi rallies. Anti capitalists shut down pro bush rallies (when bush is actually there, still a pro bush rally with pro bush &#39;activists&#39;) Simply because you have choosen a side, and are hell bent on defending it, does not mean the world revolves around you and your beliefs. If you do not take a step back, and force yourself to criticise your own ideology, you are just as brainwashed as your enemy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 23 2005, 08:08 PM
There whole motto is oppression. There goal is to come into a protest to shut it down. and Make everyone look like assholes and to make them look like they where doing everyone personal favor.
You still provide no evidence they did anything to attempt to disrupt your protest or "oppress your rights" other than simply exist.

The PWs presence on a public street doesn&#39;t quite equate to trying to shut you down, sport.

Did they try to steal your signs? Did they threaten you with violence if you didn&#39;t leave? Did they actually use violence against you?

Seems to me the only folks who violated anyone&#39;s right to protest were on your side.

This is what you far-left whackjobs don&#39;t understand. The "right to assemble" or protest doesn&#39;t mean the right to get your way at all times and face zero opposition.

Do you understand that at all?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Why did so many poor southerners and other Red Stater&#39;s vote for George W. Bush then?

Why did so many Germans vote for Hitler?

They believed in myths like "greater Germany", "the Jews are our misfortune", "Hitler is all that stands between us and Jewish Bolshevism", etc.

Just as Bush voters believe in "the war against terrorism", the "right of Christian world domination", etc.

You really can, as Lincoln said, "fool most of the people some of the time".

It&#39;s a damn shame...and the source of nearly endless misery, but there you are.


But it&#39;s not always a conflict of the classes&#33; There are rich pro-choice people and there are rich pro-life people. There are rich environmentalists and there are rich advocates of industry. So on and so on and so on...

Class struggle may not always be present on the surface of social conflict...but if you dig for it, you&#39;ll usually find it.

In fact, it&#39;s sometimes present beneath the meaning of the words themselves. A rich environmentalist wants unspoiled wilderness for himself...a working class environmentalist wants the factories in his town to clean up their act.

A rich "pro-life" person knows that she can fly to Europe for an abortion if she needs one...something that ordinary women can&#39;t do. A working class "pro-life" person is still caught in the chains of superstition...and thus irrational by definition.


What a selfish way to look at the world.

How can a supporter of capitalism object to that?

I know...you think that selfishness, like everything else, should be "reserved" for the ruling class -- while folks on the bottom should "give until it hurts".

There are a fair number of naive lefties who think that communism "is" some kind of "mega-charity"...but they&#39;re wrong.

Proletarian revolution is collective selfishness on a scale without precedent; we intend to take everything and leave nothing for our former masters.

Depending on our mood, maybe not even their lives.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

In fact, it&#39;s sometimes present beneath the meaning of the words themselves. A rich environmentalist wants unspoiled wilderness for himself...a working class environmentalist wants the factories in his town to clean up their act.

Or maybe the rich enviromentalist wants the wilderness for others. Just as the working class would.




Proletarian revolution is collective selfishness on a scale without precedent; we intend to take everything and leave nothing for our former masters.

Depending on our mood, maybe not even their lives.

This is where the selfish part comes in. You are basing the &#39;up coming&#39; revolution off the assumption that the majority will be with you.

[Anarchist Freedom]

In order to hold a revolution you need mass support soo why not?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:39 AM
Why did so many poor southerners and other Red Stater&#39;s vote for George W. Bush then?
Trying to draw a major conclusion from whether somewhat more people in some area voted for Tweedledee or Tweedledum is pretty pointless.

I gotta disagree with Redstar here: when working people vote for some capitalist candidate, it&#39;s usually not because they believe in all his myths. They may believe in some of them, but that&#39;s not why.

It&#39;s usually because they hope that bastard will use a little more vaseline when he screws us. A little more than the other bastard will, that is.

It often seems like a bit of a tossup, which is why so many people don&#39;t bother to vote. And why working people are less likely to vote than the rich and middle classes.

****

Something I said earlier may be open to misinterpretation, so I wanna clarify it.

I said you can look at this incident on two different levels, with opposite conclusions. To clarify, I think it&#39;s more important to look at things - especially an incident at a political protest - politically than as a bar fight or high school hallway fight.

[t_wolves_fan]

In fact, it&#39;s sometimes present beneath the meaning of the words themselves. A rich environmentalist wants unspoiled wilderness for himself.

That&#39;s the most idiotic assertion I think I&#39;ve ever heard.

Can you provide me some evidence? Being you that I&#39;m requesting this from, I shan&#39;t hold my breath.

Rich environmentalists fight for improved national (i.e. public - open to everyone) forests and parks. They aren&#39;t out there demanding that they be granted title to public forest, park, or shoreline areas, you idiot.

But again, show me the evidence.




A rich "pro-life" person knows that she can fly to Europe for an abortion if she needs one...something that ordinary women can&#39;t do. A working class "pro-life" person is still caught in the chains of superstition...and thus irrational by definition.

How tolerant and open-minded of you.



Proletarian revolution is collective selfishness on a scale without precedent; we intend to take everything and leave nothing for our former masters.

Depending on our mood, maybe not even their lives.

So, with this statement, you essentially admit your only real goal is power. The "rich" have the power, you don&#39;t, you want it, and you&#39;ll kill everyone who disagree with you for it.

How does that make you any better than them, exactly?

You&#39;re pretty much the same thing as the people you hate, which is probably the basis for your plethora of psychological problems.

You need some good old fashioned...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/health/oldect.jpg

[Ele'ill]

Proletarian revolution is collective selfishness on a scale without precedent; we intend to take everything and leave nothing for our former masters.

Depending on our mood, maybe not even their lives.


Take everything and do what with it? You have no more right to take their lives as they have the right to take someone&#39;s from the third world. Hypocrit.
When you embrace your own beliefs tight enough, and convince yourself that you have the right to kill, it&#39;s called ideological supremecy. The epicenter of selfishness.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Proletarian revolution is collective selfishness on a scale without precedent; we intend to take everything and leave nothing for our former masters.

Depending on our mood, maybe not even their lives.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
So, with this statement, you essentially admit your only real goal is power.

If you wish to look at it that way, I don&#39;t mind.

I would phrase it differently: my only real goal is the emancipation of the working class from wage slavery.

Your own support of capitalism makes your views as relevant to me as the views of an anti-bellum slaveholder would merit thoughtful consideration by a runaway slave.

And speaking of slaves who have yet to run away...


Mari3L
Take everything and do what with it? You have no more right to take their lives as they have the right to take someone&#39;s from the third world. Hypocrite.

When you embrace your own beliefs tight enough, and convince yourself that you have the right to kill, it&#39;s called ideological supremacy. The epicenter of selfishness.

Or, "let&#39;s be nice to the masters...they&#39;re people too".

Why don&#39;t you start a group?

Call it the "League of Socialist-Capitalist Friendship". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:46 AM
I would phrase it differently: my only real goal is the emancipation of the working class from wage slavery.

Your own support of capitalism makes your views as relevant to me as the views of an anti-bellum slaveholder would merit thoughtful consideration by a runaway slave.
You still have yet to verify this premise that workers are "enslaved" simply because life requires productive effort and that some people have to work for others to achieve it.

Coming up next : How workers are enslaved by gravity.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
You still have yet to verify this premise that workers are "enslaved" simply because life requires productive effort and that some people have to work for others to achieve it. -- emphasis added.

Yes, life does require productive effort.

No, massah, we don&#39;t have to work for you&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:07 PM
Yes, life does require productive effort.

No, massah, we don&#39;t have to work for you&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Go and work for yourself then. What are you waiting for ?

[Ele'ill]

Or, "let&#39;s be nice to the masters...they&#39;re people too".

Why don&#39;t you start a group?

Call it the "League of Socialist-Capitalist Friendship".

Who are these &#39;masters&#39; and how are they not people?

Call it League of Non-labled rational thinking.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Then why do you have a redstar and a wildcat as your avatar?

[Ele'ill]

Wildcat strikes.
More of a tactic.
I also enjoy the coloration and the way the design looks. It is artistic. I was pondering swapping it with something less political. Help me decide if I should.

[Ele'ill]

I think I have decided on this avatar. What do you think?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+--> (Professor Moneybags)Go and work for yourself then. What are you waiting for?[/b]

The means of production, of course...which presently seem to be in the hands of the masters.

But not forever. :D


Mari3L
Who are these &#39;masters&#39; and how are they not people?

They are called capitalists and their intentions towards us are (and have always been) exploitative and murderous.

Unless you enjoy being a slave, then you resist them now in every way you can...until the day comes when you can overthrow them and destroy their power forever.

Given your militaristic ambitions, you may possibly think that wage slavery is "rational" and should be "accepted".

I disrespectfully disagree.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

The means of production, of course...which presently seem to be in the hands of the masters.

Why don&#39;t you make your own "mean of production" ? Oh, I forgot; that would require work. Stealing is far easier.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

:lol: Yeah Capitalists "make" their own machines. :lol: Sure thing "Professor".

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:10 PM

Why did so many Germans vote for Hitler?

They believed in myths like "greater Germany", "the Jews are our misfortune", "Hitler is all that stands between us and Jewish Bolshevism", etc.

Just as Bush voters believe in "the war against terrorism", the "right of Christian world domination", etc.

You really can, as Lincoln said, "fool most of the people some of the time".

It&#39;s a damn shame...and the source of nearly endless misery, but there you are.

http://img59.exs.cx/img59/1153/hitlersiganimate7gm.gif

[redstar2000]

And also began the world-wide crusade against smoking tobacco.

Looks like he&#39;s winning that one. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bed_of_nails]

What did we learn today kids? People who say they are doing good things, could be bad guys&#33; Wow... I just imagined Bush as the child molester telling the kid that he has candy and puppies in his car. Bush, the Molester of happiness.

[Ele'ill]

They are called capitalists and their intentions towards us are (and have always been) exploitative and murderous.


They are actually people. They are the general populace that holds managment posistions, they are young kids right now that will grow up to be exploitive. They are the oil tycoons and the retail workers and consumers. They are the union workers and foremen. Your mom and dad, friends and family.


Unless you enjoy being a slave, then you resist them now in every way you can...until the day comes when you can overthrow them and destroy their power forever.

I do not enjoy being forced to take part in capitalism. I think it is naive to assume an overthrow and abolishment of their power would lead to better things.


Given your militaristic ambitions, you may possibly think that wage slavery is "rational" and should be "accepted".

I disrespectfully disagree.

I am assuming this is sarcasm directed at my non-violent views.
You may think that violent revolution is "rational" and that your particular ideology should be "accepted".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mari3L
They are actually people. They are the general populace that holds management positions, they are young kids right now that will grow up to be exploitive. They are the oil tycoons and the retail workers and consumers. They are the union workers and foremen. Your mom and dad, friends and family.

That one speaks for itself. :angry:


I think it is naive to assume an overthrow and abolishment of their power would lead to better things.

Yeah, maybe it&#39;s better just to kiss their asses and hope they&#39;ll be nicer to us because "we&#39;re people too".

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

That one speaks for itself.

Yes it does. Quite real wasn&#39;t it?



Yeah, maybe it&#39;s better just to kiss their asses and hope they&#39;ll be nicer to us because "we&#39;re people too".

I simply never said that.



They are called capitalists and their intentions towards us are (and have always been) exploitative and murderous.



They are actually people. They are the general populace that holds management positions, they are young kids right now that will grow up to be exploitive. They are the oil tycoons and the retail workers and consumers. They are the union workers and foremen. Your mom and dad, friends and family


That was basically my point, again. As you stated in other posts elsewhere, you are for the total abolishment of imperialism and it&#39;s supporters. I can only imagine your tactics for winning rapport with the masses.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 26 2005, 01:07 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 26 2005, 01:07 PM)
Professor Moneybags
You still have yet to verify this premise that workers are "enslaved" simply because life requires productive effort and that some people have to work for others to achieve it. -- emphasis added.

Yes, life does require productive effort.

No, massah, we don&#39;t have to work for you&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
How would any other system be any different?

I mean, are you suggesting that if any worker produces anything that is used by others, he or she is a slave to that person?

Does that mean I have to build every product I want myself and do every service I want myself?

I fail to see how some "collective" that builds television sets to be given away to people is much less of a slave to the person who gets the TV than some employee of a capitalist concern.

Enlighten me, oh omnipotent one.

:lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 27 2005, 09:31 AM
:lol: Yeah Capitalists "make" their own machines. :lol: Sure thing "Professor".
Yeah, the "means of production" just fell out of the sky.

[redstar2000]

Correction

I wrote this in response to a post by Mari3L...


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Given your militaristic ambitions, you may possibly think that wage slavery is "rational" and should be "accepted".[/b]

Whoops&#33; Wrong guy&#33; :o

It is, of course, the odious Iepilei who wants to sign on with U.S. imperialism and "defend freedom" around the world.

In my dotage, I confused the two. :P


t_wolves_fan
I mean, are you suggesting that if any worker produces anything that is used by others, he or she is a slave to that person?

It&#39;s not a matter of things being "used by others"; it&#39;s a matter of being compelled to work for a privileged class...capitalists.

The slave-owner could live (and live well) from the labor of his slaves. The capitalist can live on a scale that you or I can&#39;t even imagine...from the labor of his "employees" -- wage slaves.

This is not something easily grasped by defenders of capitalism...including fake "lefties" like Mari3L. He "thinks" we&#39;re all "just folks" -- "oil tycoons and union workers" running happily through the green fields of global capitalism "forever and ever".


Enlighten me, oh omnipotent one.

You tempt me to remind you of a famous quote: Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:20 PM



It&#39;s not a matter of things being "used by others"; it&#39;s a matter of being compelled to work for a privileged class...capitalists.

What difference will it make if I&#39;m compelled to work for the good of society? Either way I&#39;m compelled to work, aren&#39;t I? I mean not everyone can individually produce their own bread, drinking water, house, bed, clothes, etc. etc. etc.

And by the way, nobody is "compelled" to work for the privileged class. They can choose to work for the government, a non-profit association (as I do), a union, a church, etc. etc. etc.

So, add another assertion of yours that has been refuted. You&#39;ve got quite an impressive list going.


The slave-owner could live (and live well) from the labor of his slaves. The capitalist can live on a scale that you or I can&#39;t even imagine...from the labor of his "employees" -- wage slaves.

Nobody is a wage slave in a capitalist system. They are free to quit, they are free to exit the job market, they are free to start their own business.

Tell me, who are sole proprietors slaves to?



You tempt me to remind you of a famous quote: Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. :lol:

I know, why I continue to try to debate with you is a good question.

Answer my simple questions:

1>Under capitalism, are people allowed to start their own business?

2>If they do, to whom are they wage slaves?


Now, since we both (hopefully) realize that the answers are: 1>Yes and 2>Nobody, then your assertion that people are wage slaves in capitalism is refuted.

You can&#39;t deny that, though I will enjoy watching you try.

[encephalon]

1>Under capitalism, are people allowed to start their own business?

2>If they do, to whom are they wage slaves?


1) "allowed" and "able" are far from the same. Before the US civil war, african slaves were allowed to buy their own "freedom." Yet the system itself prevented them from doing so for the great majority. I am "allowed" to buy a rolls royce. I am far from able.

2) To those who are both allowed and able.

[Ele'ill]

I wrote this in response to a post by Mari3L...


QUOTE (redstar2000)
Given your militaristic ambitions, you may possibly think that wage slavery is "rational" and should be "accepted". /quote



Whoops&#33; Wrong guy&#33;

It is, of course, the odious Iepilei who wants to sign on with U.S. imperialism and "defend freedom" around the world.


So that was a response to me? Why the "Whoops&#33; Wrong guy&#33;"