One of the most infurating videos I've ever seen.

[Jesus Christ!]

http://www.protestwarrior.com/videos/liberty_rising.php

I figured I'd post this here because it is about opposing ideologies. Man this filth makes me sick.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@May 8 2005, 07:28 PM
http://www.protestwarrior.com/videos/liberty_rising.php

I figured I'd post this here because it is about opposing ideologies. Man this filth makes me sick.
Hey tell me you got to find it hilarious. It is sooooo funny to see peace activist full of hate. Did you see the peace activist commit assault and battery?

[JazzRemington]

All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.

[Invader Zim]

I haven't seen the video, nor am I going to, they have a shit connection apparently, and i can only get 250kbs/ps and when its a 400mg file that takes the piss. It will take me at least 25 mins to download, I have better things to do with my connection.

Why get son angry about it anyway? A bunch of immature conservatives (who accuse the left of being childish :rolleyes: ) trying to wreck some rallies. Sure, they are a bunch of dicks, but what do you expect from a site which advocates such childish behaviour? If they get a few punches thrown at them, I feal no sympathy, they are deliberatly trying to derail another groups protest, what do they expect to happen? The only compaint I have is that the idiot protestors fell for the bait these asshats were dropping.

Just ignore them, or if you have to watch that film, just laugh at how immature these 'adults' really are.

They aren't worth giving the time of day.


Did you see the peace activist commit assault and battery?

Nope, and nor do I care. I wouldn't even care if the peace ativist had crusified them. Like i said, what do they expect? If I had been at the rally, I would have just laughed at the 'protestwarriors' like the uneducated, immature, morons they clearly are.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
:lol:

They brilliantly point out how concerned the hardcore left really is with "free speech", "diversity", and "tolerance".

Which is to say, not at all.

When you attempt to engage a bunch of angry children, this is usually the result.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
No right to complain? According to the law when they do get beat up, they do have the right to complain. Not only complain, but file criminal charges against the people who beat them up. Assault is strictly defined as the first person who touches another person. I can walk up to you, fix your colar, and that is legally assault. The peace activist did more than that to the protestwarrior folks.

Yes from a strictly ethical point of view you can claim that they don't have the right to complain, but that is the whole point of protestwarrior. They are showing YOU that leftist don't practice the same ethics that form Jeffersonian democracy, part of which is the ethics of free speech and tollerance.

[t_wolves_fan]

But remember, ahh money is comfort, the communists are right. They represent the people. And the people have a right to be out in the streets. So nobody has a right to challenge them.

Or something like that.

[Anarchist Freedom]

The protest warrior punks. Need to give daddy back his credit card. Time to bust up this slumber party.

[cormacobear]

Then why is that it is always the protester and not the police who go to jail when police try to break up a protest. The police are almost always the first person to make contact.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:37 PM
Then why is that it is always the protester and not the police who go to jail when police try to break up a protest. The police are almost always the first person to make contact.
Watch the video. I think it is the hyper picture second from bottom. You will clearly see a peace activist having a verbal exchange with a protestwarrior, then slap him.

That is assault.


The whole point, again is to show the what the real ethical convictions of a leftist peace activist in the video. The ethical convictions are not the same convictions as an ideal citizen practicing Jeffersonian ideals of citizenship, which is tollerance.

Then you will see also numberous peace activist with really really bad karma. The kind of karma that you can tell if no one was looking, they would gladly beat the protestwarriors. That kind of karma does not make peace.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Protest Warrior advocate violence as a means of acheiving political goals, and have no right to complain when met on their own terms.

Hell, I don't know why we're stopping half-way - motherfuckers deserve to feel the full weight of what they advocate. I'd like to see them get clusterbombed. :lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2005, 05:11 PM
Protest Warrior advocate violence as a means of acheiving political goals, and have no right to complain when met on their own terms.

Hell, I don't know why we're stopping half-way - motherfuckers deserve to feel the full weight of what they advocate. I'd like to see them get clusterbombed. :lol:
Where do they advocate violence?

[RASH chris]

I have had confrontations with the protest warriors before. One of my friends said he thinks I'm in the video from the innauguration, whatever.

I understand what the protest warriors are doing, and the reasons behind it, but they are confused and quite obviously don't understand a few things. I'll elaborate:

An anti-war rally does not indicate that the participants are pacifists in any way shape or form. Even a peace rally, does not mean that all people there are pacifists.

The people who normally confront the PWs are anarchists and revolutionary communists. Both of whom believe in class war, the PWs are the class enemy, they see us as the bad guys, and we see them as the bad guys.

Free speech, you have your rights to free speech. I can remember standing next to a guy in DC who told the PWs "walk outta the park and 150 feet up the road to the first damn street corner and have fun". The PWs come to a place that they are not welcome, displaying an absurd level of ignorance of those who they insult. When you come into a situation where you're not welcome, and you act in an agressive manner, any normal person is going to react the same. They're gonna get you outta there.

Also on the issue of free speech, this again serves as proof that PWs don't understand leftist theory, communists believe in class supression. That means reactionary and right wing forces don't have the right to free speech, political organisations, or anything which would give them the power to undermine the workers. (though the same is not tru for anarchists, most anarchists are still proponents of class war, which again, as stated earlier, the PWs don't seem to understand)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:19 PM

Free speech, you have your rights to free speech. I can remember standing next to a guy in DC who told the PWs "walk outta the park and 150 feet up the road to the first damn street corner and have fun". The PWs come to a place that they are not welcome, displaying an absurd level of ignorance of those who they insult. When you come into a situation where you're not welcome, and you act in an agressive manner, any normal person is going to react the same. They're gonna get you outta there.


Don't look now but you just made the argument for the D.C. police to restrict your "right to free speech" during the inauguration.

Certainly, the hard-core leftist protesters were A>in a place they were not welcome, since the goal of the event was to celebrate the inauguration of the President, while your whole purpose was to ruin that celebration B>guilty of the same absurd level of ignorance about President Bush and C>many certainly acted aggressively.

Therefore based on your logic, not only did the police have every right to bar you from entering the parade route (which they didn't do), they also had every right to start cracking dreadlocked dirty skulls of those who got aggressive.

In other words, your qualifications on "free speech" are absurd. Everyone has the right to make their voices known regardless of how knowledgeable or ignorant about a subject they are - do you want the government to be determining who is and is not ignorant? Of course not, and that's why even idiots should get to stand on street corners and talk about whatever topic they desire.

Second, your band of protesters were on public property. Therefore a Protest Warrior has no obligation to make sure they are "welcome" by your group before setting foot in the same public square and making their views known. They had every right to be on the same patch of public property as you were and make their views known.

Third, I'd really like to see your side live up to your "aggression" principle, for instance by not instigating violence with the police nor smashing windows of businesses they do not like.

Basically, you and people like you are for "free speech" when it's convenient for you but are not interested in protecting such a right for those who disagree with you.

[RASH chris]

No sir, I am not in favor of free speech. I fully believe in class supression. I don't think that people like you should have the right to attepmt to subvert the revolution.

I believe the radical left knows far more about bush/cheney and thier beliefs than the PWs know about the radical left's beliefs. I mean, PW thinks all lefties are pacifists, that alone demonstrates and extreme lack of knowledge of the radical left.

No the police do not have the right to impede my free speech by my logic, that is your logic. As the police are not the workers, they do not have the right to class supression by my logic. According to you the rich have the right to supress and oppress the poor. Not according to me.

Rarely are we the ones being agressive towards the police. As I was within the first three rows of the block in DC I know what happend. The police get in our way, they instigate. If they moved out of the street and let us go where we wanted then we wouldn't try and fight them. Instead they try to tell us where we can and cannot go, even though we (the workers) are the majority and they (the rulers and thier lap dogs) are the minority. Again, if you stand in somebody's way and act agressively you're gonna get a violent reaction 9 times out of 10.

No, I don't want the government determining shit, cause I don't want a government. Surely, after having been on this site so long you know that.

They have every right to be there, but they shouldn't be suprised by the response they get. We advocate class war against them, they come to us, we kick thier asses, what is difficult to grasp about that?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:22 PM
No sir, I am not in favor of free speech. I fully believe in class supression. I don't think that people like you should have the right to attepmt to subvert the revolution.

I believe the radical left knows far more about bush/cheney and thier beliefs than the PWs know about the radical left's beliefs. I mean, PW thinks all lefties are pacifists, that alone demonstrates and extreme lack of knowledge of the radical left.

No the police do not have the right to impede my free speech by my logic, that is your logic. As the police are not the workers, they do not have the right to class supression by my logic. According to you the rich have the right to supress and oppress the poor. Not according to me.

Rarely are we the ones being agressive towards the police. As I was within the first three rows of the block in DC I know what happend. The police get in our way, they instigate. If they moved out of the street and let us go where we wanted then we wouldn't try and fight them. Instead they try to tell us where we can and cannot go, even though we (the workers) are the majority and they (the rulers and thier lap dogs) are the minority. Again, if you stand in somebody's way and act agressively you're gonna get a violent reaction 9 times out of 10.

No, I don't want the government determining shit, cause I don't want a government. Surely, after having been on this site so long you know that.

They have every right to be there, but they shouldn't be suprised by the response they get. We advocate class war against them, they come to us, we kick thier asses, what is difficult to grasp about that?
You were not invited in to the inuragal. You were being supressed. You should not be supprised by the similiar response you got.

Any of this sound familiar to you?

Do you also understand that 'not infavor of free speech' makes you a criminal? It makes you one of the most highest criminals we have. You are a civil rights violator.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 9 2005, 05:50 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 9 2005, 05:50 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
:lol:

They brilliantly point out how concerned the hardcore left really is with "free speech", "diversity", and "tolerance".

Which is to say, not at all.

When you attempt to engage a bunch of angry children, this is usually the result. [/b]
Ok they want free speech they can make their own march, or protest, instead of mooching off of other people, oh wait they dont have their own ideas, they just counter things blindly and ignorantly. They are fucking idiots, zionist scum, they should be crucified, thats letting them off easy. Free speech doesnt include things that arent true, like all of their signs show

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:00 AM
You will clearly see a peace activist having a verbal exchange with a protestwarrior, then slap him.

thats the least he deserved

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by workersunity+May 9 2005, 09:51 PM--> (workersunity @ May 9 2005, 09:51 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:50 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
:lol:

They brilliantly point out how concerned the hardcore left really is with "free speech", "diversity", and "tolerance".

Which is to say, not at all.

When you attempt to engage a bunch of angry children, this is usually the result.
Ok they want free speech they can make their own march, or protest, instead of mooching off of other people, oh wait they dont have their own ideas, they just counter things blindly and ignorantly. They are fucking idiots, zionist scum, they should be crucified, thats letting them off easy. Free speech doesnt include things that arent true, like all of their signs show [/b]
You are right free speech does not protect lies. Until you prove they are lying, it is an opinion, just as valid as yours.

All the violence you express is EXACTLY what they are protesting. They are protesting your HYPOCRACY. They are protesting your alleged fight for peace and justice. Everything you just proposed with violence is NOT justice and it is not peace. In the end your just evil. Peace does not come from evil karma. You have plenty of evil karma.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by workersunity+May 9 2005, 09:52 PM--> (workersunity @ May 9 2005, 09:52 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 10:00 AM
You will clearly see a peace activist having a verbal exchange with a protestwarrior, then slap him.

thats the least he deserved [/b]
No one deserves violence for speaking an opinion. Only evil fascist think like that.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Since when do you cappies care about people or freedom of speech. You already testified that you are willing to kill for oil and have no respect to private property.

[KC]

No one deserves violence for speaking an opinion. Only evil fascist think like that.

I actually agree with you on this. Nobody does deserve violence for speaking an opinion. Anybody that encounters protestwarrior should just be able to laugh them off as a joke instead of letting them get to them. They have freedom of speech just as much as anyone else; when you start going around saying people can't have certain opinions, it becomes fascist. I've never actually seen a protestwarrior video, nor do I ever really want to; what a waste of time. If they are harassing people, though, they do deserve what they get. Freedom of speech doesn't protect the freedom to harass whoever you want.

People need to understand that everyone has the freedom to say whatever they want. In this instance, if people didn't let protestwarrior get to them, they would have fallen on deaf ears, considering the fact that they are so few against so many. It would have been a joke, no violence was needed to show them that nobody cares.

During the Cuban revolution, when Fidel Castro's guerrilla force took prisoners they didn't beat them or impose harsh conditions; they treated them many times better than themselves. They educated their prisoners about what they were fighting for, fed them well, kept them comfortable, and then released them. This had an enormous effect on the guerrilla's support. Of course this won't work on everybody, but the people it doesn't work on will not number enough to be able to do much. Revolutionary leftists need to learn that education is a much more powerful tool than violence. But just because protestwarrior won't come around to the ways of the left doesn't mean that they deserve violence. If we stick to this principle, then people with these views will be the extreme minority.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 10 2005, 01:17 AM
Since when do you cappies care about people or freedom of speech. You already testified that you are willing to kill for oil and have no respect to private property.
What ever you think I have done or not done does not prove your point is just or rightous. Your ideas must stand on thier own merits.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:30 AM

No one deserves violence for speaking an opinion. Only evil fascist think like that.

I actually agree with you on this. Nobody does deserve violence for speaking an opinion. Anybody that encounters protestwarrior should just be able to laugh them off as a joke instead of letting them get to them. They have freedom of speech just as much as anyone else; when you start going around saying people can't have certain opinions, it becomes fascist. I've never actually seen a protestwarrior video, nor do I ever really want to; what a waste of time. If they are harassing people, though, they do deserve what they get. Freedom of speech doesn't protect the freedom to harass whoever you want.

People need to understand that everyone has the freedom to say whatever they want. In this instance, if people didn't let protestwarrior get to them, they would have fallen on deaf ears, considering the fact that they are so few against so many. It would have been a joke, no violence was needed to show them that nobody cares.

During the Cuban revolution, when Fidel Castro's guerrilla force took prisoners they didn't beat them or impose harsh conditions; they treated them many times better than themselves. They educated their prisoners about what they were fighting for, fed them well, kept them comfortable, and then released them. This had an enormous effect on the guerrilla's support. Of course this won't work on everybody, but the people it doesn't work on will not number enough to be able to do much. Revolutionary leftists need to learn that education is a much more powerful tool than violence. But just because protestwarrior won't come around to the ways of the left doesn't mean that they deserve violence. If we stick to this principle, then people with these views will be the extreme minority.
I agree that the proper thing that should have been done if you believe in freedom of expression is to NOT use violence. That is exactly what leftist in the videos did NOT do.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 9 2005, 06:50 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 9 2005, 06:50 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
:lol:

They brilliantly point out how concerned the hardcore left really is with "free speech", "diversity", and "tolerance".

Which is to say, not at all.

When you attempt to engage a bunch of angry children, this is usually the result. [/b]
If you engage then when they are NOT in a state of hightened emotions and don't call their ideas stupid or ignorant, you probably won't get attacked. But if you go up to someone at a protest and start calling them stupid, you can't not expect to get attacked. That's not violating freedom of speech. No one is preventing them from doing it, but you cannot start shouting violations of freedoms of speech when they get their asses kicked for essencially taunting them.

Was it called violating freedom of speech when during the Young Republicans convention a few years back protesters snuck into the convention, displayed an anti-Republican sign, and got beaten up by a republican, whcih was caught on video?

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 9 2005, 10:13 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 9 2005, 10:13 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
No right to complain? According to the law when they do get beat up, they do have the right to complain. Not only complain, but file criminal charges against the people who beat them up. Assault is strictly defined as the first person who touches another person. I can walk up to you, fix your colar, and that is legally assault. The peace activist did more than that to the protestwarrior folks.

Yes from a strictly ethical point of view you can claim that they don't have the right to complain, but that is the whole point of protestwarrior. They are showing YOU that leftist don't practice the same ethics that form Jeffersonian democracy, part of which is the ethics of free speech and tollerance. [/b]
But the Protest Warriors are completely 100% innocent, even though they practically instigated the confrontation? If rightists were at a protest and getting really into it, and I came up to them and started calling their ideas stupid and ignorant, I can garuatee you that even they would attack me.

As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left.

[t_wolves_fan]

If you engage then when they are NOT in a state of hightened emotions and don't call their ideas stupid or ignorant, you probably won't get attacked. But if you go up to someone at a protest and start calling them stupid, you can't not expect to get attacked. That's not violating freedom of speech. No one is preventing them from doing it, but you cannot start shouting violations of freedoms of speech when they get their asses kicked for essencially taunting them.

Yes, I'm afraid you can.

By the way, this does not only happen when a protest warrior or other conservative insults the leftist nutjob. I've seen plenty of instances where a conservative simply asks a question, or makes a statement of opinion that is not personal, and the result is pretty much the same: the leftist launches into a tirade of insults.



Was it called violating freedom of speech when during the Young Republicans convention a few years back protesters snuck into the convention, displayed an anti-Republican sign, and got beaten up by a republican, whcih was caught on video?

Depends. The convention was probably on private property or in public property that was leased for their purposes, and so their right to assemble peacefully trumps, in my opinion. I don't advocate beating anyone up, that's not appropriate, unless the protesters refused peaceful requests to leave. If it was on a public sidewalk or street, or in a square or park, then yes the YRs would have been wrong as the same principle applies.

Was it in Boston? If so, I had a bunch of friends there.

[t_wolves_fan]

Since when do you cappies care about people or freedom of speech. You already testified that you are willing to kill for oil

Um, so what? Killing for oil isn't the same as killing because someone has a different opinion.



and have no respect to private property.

Huh? What are you talking about? It's you folks who are opposed to the idea of public property.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by anarchopunkchris
No sir, I am not in favor of free speech. I fully believe in class supression. I don't think that people like you should have the right to attepmt to subvert the revolution.

Whoa, a control freak.

:o


I believe the radical left knows far more about bush/cheney and thier beliefs than the PWs know about the radical left's beliefs. I mean, PW thinks all lefties are pacifists, that alone demonstrates and extreme lack of knowledge of the radical left.

I bet you don't know the first thing about G.W. Bush or about Cheney.

But please, away with the list of your assumptions...


No the police do not have the right to impede my free speech by my logic, that is your logic. As the police are not the workers, they do not have the right to class supression by my logic. According to you the rich have the right to supress and oppress the poor. Not according to me.

Uhhh, no, I didn't say that. Please stick to what I said instead of making things up, whacko.


Rarely are we the ones being agressive towards the police. As I was within the first three rows of the block in DC I know what happend. The police get in our way, they instigate. If they moved out of the street and let us go where we wanted then we wouldn't try and fight them. Instead they try to tell us where we can and cannot go,

You idiots tried to go through or over a security fence, even though you could have gotten into the area in question simply by waiting in line.


even though we (the workers) are the majority and they (the rulers and thier lap dogs) are the minority. Again, if you stand in somebody's way and act agressively you're gonna get a violent reaction 9 times out of 10.

Hm. So by your logic, whites should get to push minorities around, since we're in the majority and all.


No, I don't want the government determining shit, cause I don't want a government. Surely, after having been on this site so long you know that.

With your maturity level we're going to need a government to baby you, since your parents obviously failed to do it.


They have every right to be there, but they shouldn't be suprised by the response they get. We advocate class war against them, they come to us, we kick thier asses, what is difficult to grasp about that?

Oooh, the bad ass punk syndrome is powerful with this one.

So angry and so unsure of where to direct that anger.

Mommy and daddy didn't pay much attention to lil' commie Chris, did they?

Lil' commie Chris got picked on a lot by the popular kids in school, didn't he? And now he's gonna show how tough he is by kicking all the rich, popular kids' asses.

Do yourself a favor before you make a bigger ass out of yourself in front of the whole world - back away from the computer, turn up the Rage, and cry yourself to sleep.

[Professor Moneybags]

Protest Warrior advocate violence as a means of acheiving political goals, and have no right to complain when met on their own terms.

They weren't using violence. Your lot were.


Hell, I don't know why we're stopping half-way - motherfuckers deserve to feel the full weight of what they advocate. I'd like to see them get clusterbombed. :lol:

Perhaps you ought to feel the full weight of what you advocate- life-long slavery and execution if you compain. Just like in the good old USSR... :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

EDIT - Withdrawal of that comment. That comment actually shocked me!

[Professor Moneybags]

No the police do not have the right to impede my free speech by my logic, that is your logic. As the police are not the workers, they do not have the right to class supression by my logic. According to you the rich have the right to supress and oppress the poor. Not according to me.

Polylogic rears its ugly head.


Instead they try to tell us where we can and cannot go, even though we (the workers) are the majority and they (the rulers and thier lap dogs) are the minority.

This has no relevence whatsoever. You're out to violate people's rights, the police are there to protect them. It's as simple as that.


They have every right to be there, but they shouldn't be suprised by the response they get. We advocate class war against them, they come to us, we kick thier asses, what is difficult to grasp about that?

The fact that you start whining when the police do the same to you.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 10 2005, 01:17 AM
Since when do you cappies care about people or freedom of speech. You already testified that you are willing to kill for oil and have no respect to private property.
Is this the (privately owned) oil that Iraq illegally nationalized (i.e. stole) ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:16 PM
EDIT - Withdrawal of that comment. That comment actually shocked me!
Too late, comrade.

You've proven that you only need to point out some unpleasant facts to a commie and out come the firing squads. Or in this case, nooses.

[RedAnarchist]

Actaully, my comment wasnt aimed personally at you. I was saying that in the USSR people like you wouldnt have survived for long.

Anyway, i was actually shocked at that comment. It sounded way too Stalinist for an Anarcho-Communist to be saying!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by JazzRemington+May 10 2005, 05:54 AM--> (JazzRemington @ May 10 2005, 05:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:13 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
No right to complain? According to the law when they do get beat up, they do have the right to complain. Not only complain, but file criminal charges against the people who beat them up. Assault is strictly defined as the first person who touches another person. I can walk up to you, fix your colar, and that is legally assault. The peace activist did more than that to the protestwarrior folks.

Yes from a strictly ethical point of view you can claim that they don't have the right to complain, but that is the whole point of protestwarrior. They are showing YOU that leftist don't practice the same ethics that form Jeffersonian democracy, part of which is the ethics of free speech and tollerance.
But the Protest Warriors are completely 100% innocent, even though they practically instigated the confrontation? If rightists were at a protest and getting really into it, and I came up to them and started calling their ideas stupid and ignorant, I can garuatee you that even they would attack me.

As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you. [/b]
But remember, we are the pro-war people. We want war, right?

But don't you see the hypocracy of peace marchers getting violent?

[Forward Union]

My main problem is not that these protest warriors are doing something like this. But that they clearly don't understand what they are attacking. They used the term "freedom haters" to describe Anarchists? yet they feel it ok to physically beat people for spitting on the statue of liberty?


They are hypocrites that have no understanding of what they are doing. Killing them might not be bad thing, they are dangerous. Someone that confused needs to take education, not action.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 10 2005, 02:54 PM
My main problem is not that these protest warriors are doing something like this. But that they clearly don't understand what they are attacking. They used the term "freedom haters" to describe Anarchists? yet they feel it ok to physically beat people for spitting on the statue of liberty?


They are hypocrites that have no understanding of what they are doing. Killing them might not be bad thing, they are dangerous. Someone that confused needs to take education, not action.
I think you just made my point, thank you.

[RASH chris]

Whoa, a control freak

I thought it was us immature commies who resorted to petty insults during debate?


I bet you don't know the first thing about G.W. Bush or about Cheney

I know that the administration lied to get us into a war. I know that the administration had knowledge that there was going to be a large-scale terrorist attack and they didn't do anything to warn us. I know that the administration exists, and that mere existence is counter to my political ideology. But I bet the average PW couldn't tell you the first thing about anarchism or communism.


Uhhh, no, I didn't say that. Please stick to what I said instead of making things up, whacko.

You said that according to my logic the police had the right to supress my speech and actions. My logic is the exact opposite, my logic is about class, not in general.


You idiots tried to go through or over a security fence, even though you could have gotten into the area in question simply by waiting in line.

No, we were not trying to charge an entrance point or fence. We were simply marching down the street. There was another march who we were going to meet up with. The police then came out into the middle of the road and formed up a line to stop us from meeting up with the other march. At this point we had done nothing wrong, we were still on blocked off streets, and we hadn't done anything illegal. The police got in our way, we asked them to move, they didn't.


Hm. So by your logic, whites should get to push minorities around, since we're in the majority and all.

Again, you know full well that I am refering to classes, not races. Not to mention I even specified that in the segment you quoted.


With your maturity level we're going to need a government to baby you, since your parents obviously failed to do it.

Again, petty insults do not make you correct, nor do they serve any purpose but to display your lack of intelligence.


So angry and so unsure of where to direct that anger

I am not unsure of where to direct my anger. If you're going to insult me you could at least come up with good insults.


Mommy and daddy didn't pay much attention to lil' commie Chris, did they?

Oh wow, you've discovered why people become communists and anarchists. Our parents didn't hug us! Thank you ever so much, now all I have to do is go to therapy and I'll be a straight-laced good little cappie like you, just what I've always wanted.


Lil' commie Chris got picked on a lot by the popular kids in school, didn't he? And now he's gonna show how tough he is by kicking all the rich, popular kids' asses.

Actually I was quite popular in high-school, especially since my values and political ideology led me to share with people. And in my experience, young republicans are a far cry from the cool popular kids.


Do yourself a favor before you make a bigger ass out of yourself in front of the whole world - back away from the computer, turn up the Rage, and cry yourself to sleep.

It looks to me like you're the one who is viewed like an ass. Would you like to take a vote?

[t_wolves_fan]

I thought it was us immature commies who resorted to petty insults during debate?

Generally yes, unless I'm around.


I know that the administration lied to get us into a war.

No you don't. You have the speculation of a million anti-War, anti-U.S., anti-Bush types who have various quotes and anecdotal evidence that, when taken out of context, suggests Bush may have lied.

To know he lied, you'd have to have been around him a good chunk of the time before the war started.

You weren't around him, were you?

I didn't think so.

Read Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward. He is a respected, non-partisan journalist, not someone with a hatchet to bury.


I know that the administration had knowledge that there was going to be a large-scale terrorist attack and they didn't do anything to warn us.

No you don't. You know the Administration had intelligence that Al Queda was planning something, possibly involving hijacked aircraft. When or where this attack would happen and what would be done as a result was completely unknown.

What would you have done, Chris? Would you have warned the American public that foreign terrorists were looking to hijack American planes? First of all, there was no intelligence indicating that would definitely happen, nor where, nor when. Second of all, anyone with half a brain knows it's a possibility when flying. Third, to warn the public of such a threat based on unreliable intelligence would have massively fucked with the economy, which was already in the tank.


I know that the administration exists, and that mere existence is counter to my political ideology. But I bet the average PW couldn't tell you the first thing about anarchism or communism.

So far the only thing you've been right about is that it exists, which of course the PW'ers know about you too.



You said that according to my logic the police had the right to supress my speech and actions. My logic is the exact opposite, my logic is about class, not in general.

Claiming that only one class has the right to oppress another but not vice versa is not logic, it's opinion. And it's stupid.


No, we were not trying to charge an entrance point or fence. We were simply marching down the street. There was another march who we were going to meet up with. The police then came out into the middle of the road and formed up a line to stop us from meeting up with the other march. At this point we had done nothing wrong, we were still on blocked off streets, and we hadn't done anything illegal. The police got in our way, we asked them to move, they didn't.

Then you should have obeyed the police.


Again, you know full well that I am refering to classes, not races. Not to mention I even specified that in the segment you quoted.

Doesn't matter. Logically since class is a group then your premise should get to apply to other groups. Thus if one group that is in the "majority" gets to push another class around, so another majority group of different characteristics gets to push another minority around.

Again, your assertion isn't based on logic, it's based on your opinion.


Again, petty insults do not make you correct, nor do they serve any purpose but to display your lack of intelligence.

But they're fun. And, since I'm dealing with someone whose opinions are completely idiotic, it seems appropriate.


I am not unsure of where to direct my anger. If you're going to insult me you could at least come up with good insults.

So you are angry then.


Oh wow, you've discovered why people become communists and anarchists. Our parents didn't hug us! Thank you ever so much, now all I have to do is go to therapy and I'll be a straight-laced good little cappie like you, just what I've always wanted.

It's got to be more useful than being angry all the time and fighting for an ideology that is dead as a doornail.


Actually I was quite popular in high-school, especially since my values and political ideology led me to share with people. And in my experience, young republicans are a far cry from the cool popular kids.

Funny I'm not a Republican.


It looks to me like you're the one who is viewed like an ass. Would you like to take a vote?

Of this board or of a group of moderately intelligent people?

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 10 2005, 06:31 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 10 2005, 06:31 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left. [/b]
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 10 2005, 09:49 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 10 2005, 09:49 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:13 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 02:52 AM
All Protest Warrior does is goto leftist activities, confront people with what they hate in a moment of hightened emotion, get beat up, and then complain about it when they have no right to complain.
No right to complain? According to the law when they do get beat up, they do have the right to complain. Not only complain, but file criminal charges against the people who beat them up. Assault is strictly defined as the first person who touches another person. I can walk up to you, fix your colar, and that is legally assault. The peace activist did more than that to the protestwarrior folks.

Yes from a strictly ethical point of view you can claim that they don't have the right to complain, but that is the whole point of protestwarrior. They are showing YOU that leftist don't practice the same ethics that form Jeffersonian democracy, part of which is the ethics of free speech and tollerance.
But the Protest Warriors are completely 100% innocent, even though they practically instigated the confrontation? If rightists were at a protest and getting really into it, and I came up to them and started calling their ideas stupid and ignorant, I can garuatee you that even they would attack me.

As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
But remember, we are the pro-war people. We want war, right?

But don't you see the hypocracy of peace marchers getting violent? [/b]
You do know there is a difference between peaceful and pacifism?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Fair enough, but that begs the question:

Why do we see so many more left-wingers losing their emotional shit than we do right-wingers?

[RASH chris]

I'm disappointed. I figured that for a capitalist to come onto this website they would be intelligent and capable of debate. But all I've seen you do (twolves) is to deny and insult. You have made no real arguements in support of the Protests Warriors, and the reason for that is clear, there is no way to justify the idiocy of thier organisation. Even most people on the right admit that the PWs are silly.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 10 2005, 11:38 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 10 2005, 11:38 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Fair enough, but that begs the question:

Why do we see so many more left-wingers losing their emotional shit than we do right-wingers? [/b]
How could you possibly prove such a statement?

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 10 2005, 01:38 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 10 2005, 01:38 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Fair enough, but that begs the question:

Why do we see so many more left-wingers losing their emotional shit than we do right-wingers? [/b]
probably because leftists are seen more often than rightists, thus it would seem that more leftist loose their tempers than rightists.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 10 2005, 02:31 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 10 2005, 02:31 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 10 2005, 01:17 AM
Since when do you cappies care about people or freedom of speech. You already testified that you are willing to kill for oil and have no respect to private property.
What ever you think I have done or not done does not prove your point is just or rightous. Your ideas must stand on thier own merits. [/b]
What is the problem anyway. They go to protests to annoy people, so they get beat up and then can whine about "leftist oppresssion". The "Warriors" got what they want. To put it into context it's like going to a NRA meeting and yelling "Jesus was a faggot". Ten bucks that you get atleast beat up.

The beating up of the fake-warriors didn't have anything to do with leftist opppression rather with how much irritation people can endure.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+May 10 2005, 09:03 PM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ May 10 2005, 09:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:31 AM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 10 2005, 01:17 AM
Since when do you cappies care about people or freedom of speech. You already testified that you are willing to kill for oil and have no respect to private property.
What ever you think I have done or not done does not prove your point is just or rightous. Your ideas must stand on thier own merits.
What is the problem anyway. They go to protests to annoy people, so they get beat up and then can whine about "leftist oppresssion". The "Warriors" got what they want. To put it into context it's like going to a NRA meeting and yelling "Jesus was a faggot". Ten bucks that you get atleast beat up.

The beating up of the fake-warriors didn't have anything to do with leftist opppression rather with how much irritation people can endure. [/b]
Sorry, complaining? If it helps you sleep at night, OK.

But....

Don't you see the hypocracy of a peace protester getting violent?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by JazzRemington+May 10 2005, 06:36 PM--> (JazzRemington @ May 10 2005, 06:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:31 AM

[email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left.
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting? [/b]
Young republicans getting violent?

But we are the pro-war people.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 10 2005, 06:38 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 10 2005, 06:38 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Fair enough, but that begs the question:

Why do we see so many more left-wingers losing their emotional shit than we do right-wingers? [/b]
Right wingers are pro-gun. Were packing heat, if we did loose it they would all be dead.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

There is only to a certain extent that you can make generalizing comments. There aren't statistics for "more leftwingers then rightwingers" loosing their "emotional-shit". I would have guessed the other way around. Don't bullshit.

Yes, I can see the hypocricy of beating people up at a peace rally. However my point was that these fake-warriors irritated people on porpuse. All people have a certain limit to how much they can get irritated, before they loose control. So this immediatly dismisses the objective of the "warriors" that leftism is some kinds of dictatorship.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 10 2005, 10:18 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 10 2005, 10:18 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:31 AM

[email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left.
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Young republicans getting violent?

But we are the pro-war people. [/b]
Sicne when did anti-war automatically mean anti-violence?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by JazzRemington+May 11 2005, 05:07 AM--> (JazzRemington @ May 11 2005, 05:07 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:31 AM

[email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left.
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Young republicans getting violent?

But we are the pro-war people.
Sicne when did anti-war automatically mean anti-violence? [/b]
Sorry Chief, I really don't get what your saying.

Why are YOU anti-war? Why are anti-war people against war?

Could it be the killing and violence?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I walked into plenty of anti-iraq war demo's. But I am not a pacifist, nor are most people who walk into these demo's. The thing about these demo's is, that they are targeted against specific wars and not wars in general. I am against wars which serve the upperclass and fuck up the workingclass. I would be all pro-war if there was a war which would serve the workingclass, but fuck up the upperclass. But unfortunatly those are rare.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 10 2005, 02:25 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 10 2005, 02:25 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 10 2005, 01:17 AM
Since when do you cappies care about people or freedom of speech. You already testified that you are willing to kill for oil and have no respect to private property.
Is this the (privately owned) oil that Iraq illegally nationalized (i.e. stole) ? [/b]
That in no way excuses coalition atrocities.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 11 2005, 07:54 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 11 2005, 07:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:31 AM

[email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left.
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Young republicans getting violent?

But we are the pro-war people.
Sicne when did anti-war automatically mean anti-violence?
Sorry Chief, I really don't get what your saying.

Why are YOU anti-war? Why are anti-war people against war?

Could it be the killing and violence? [/b]
There are reasons people go to war. The Iraq war had shit reasons.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:10 PM
I'm disappointed. I figured that for a capitalist to come onto this website they would be intelligent and capable of debate. But all I've seen you do (twolves) is to deny and insult. You have made no real arguements in support of the Protests Warriors, and the reason for that is clear, there is no way to justify the idiocy of thier organisation. Even most people on the right admit that the PWs are silly.
LOL, you speak of an inability to debate and then conveniently dismiss everything I've said.

You're definitely chair of the "Big Winners Society" this week.

http://www.topfunpages.com/imgs/page_imgs/hf0402/laughing.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+May 10 2005, 08:24 PM--> (DyerMaker @ May 10 2005, 08:24 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:38 AM

[email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Fair enough, but that begs the question:

Why do we see so many more left-wingers losing their emotional shit than we do right-wingers?
How could you possibly prove such a statement? [/b]
Not sure I can.

But about the only times I've seen right-wingers lose their shit was when a protester got his ass whooped at the GOP convention in New York and when those GOP clowns stormed that county office in Florida during the 2000 recounts.

On the other hand, I get to see left-wingers lose their shit pretty much quarterly here in DC.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 10 2005, 12:45 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 10 2005, 12:45 PM)
anarchopunkchris
No sir, I am not in favor of free speech. I fully believe in class supression. I don't think that people like you should have the right to attepmt to subvert the revolution.

Whoa, a control freak.

:o


I believe the radical left knows far more about bush/cheney and thier beliefs than the PWs know about the radical left's beliefs. I mean, PW thinks all lefties are pacifists, that alone demonstrates and extreme lack of knowledge of the radical left.

I bet you don't know the first thing about G.W. Bush or about Cheney.

But please, away with the list of your assumptions...


No the police do not have the right to impede my free speech by my logic, that is your logic. As the police are not the workers, they do not have the right to class supression by my logic. According to you the rich have the right to supress and oppress the poor. Not according to me.

Uhhh, no, I didn't say that. Please stick to what I said instead of making things up, whacko.


Rarely are we the ones being agressive towards the police. As I was within the first three rows of the block in DC I know what happend. The police get in our way, they instigate. If they moved out of the street and let us go where we wanted then we wouldn't try and fight them. Instead they try to tell us where we can and cannot go,

You idiots tried to go through or over a security fence, even though you could have gotten into the area in question simply by waiting in line.


even though we (the workers) are the majority and they (the rulers and thier lap dogs) are the minority. Again, if you stand in somebody's way and act agressively you're gonna get a violent reaction 9 times out of 10.

Hm. So by your logic, whites should get to push minorities around, since we're in the majority and all.


No, I don't want the government determining shit, cause I don't want a government. Surely, after having been on this site so long you know that.

With your maturity level we're going to need a government to baby you, since your parents obviously failed to do it.


They have every right to be there, but they shouldn't be suprised by the response they get. We advocate class war against them, they come to us, we kick thier asses, what is difficult to grasp about that?

Oooh, the bad ass punk syndrome is powerful with this one.

So angry and so unsure of where to direct that anger.

Mommy and daddy didn't pay much attention to lil' commie Chris, did they?

Lil' commie Chris got picked on a lot by the popular kids in school, didn't he? And now he's gonna show how tough he is by kicking all the rich, popular kids' asses.

Do yourself a favor before you make a bigger ass out of yourself in front of the whole world - back away from the computer, turn up the Rage, and cry yourself to sleep. [/b]

Whoa, a control freak.

Oh, the irony!


I bet you don't know the first thing about G.W. Bush or about Cheney.

Of course not, these men have a public persona and a private one. Any suggestion that you do, is total rubbish as well. presidents become very unpopular when their personal lives are brought to the public, look at what happened to clinton.

You idiots tried to go through or over a security fence, even though you could have gotten into the area in question simply by waiting in line.

Were you their?


Hm. So by your logic, whites should get to push minorities around, since we're in the majority and all.

Only a racist considers humanity in such terms, got something you want to admit?


With your maturity level we're going to need a government to baby you, since your parents obviously failed to do it.

Pots and kettles anybody?


whacko.

You idiots

Oooh, the bad ass punk syndrome is powerful with this one.

Mommy and daddy didn't pay much attention to lil' commie Chris, did they?

Lil' commie Chris got picked on a lot by the popular kids in school, didn't he? And now he's gonna show how tough he is by kicking all the rich, popular kids' asses.

turn up the Rage, and cry yourself to sleep.


You my chum, are in no position to call anybody imature. You act like a 13 year old kid.


Mommy and daddy didn't pay much attention to lil' commie Chris, did they?

Where as you sound like you were spoiled rotten by your parents.


Do yourself a favor before you make a bigger ass out of yourself in front of the whole world


T_wolves_fan, do yourself a favor before you make a bigger ass out of yourself in front of the whole world - back away from the computer, open your copy of "Atlas Shrugged", and cry yourself to sleep.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 11 2005, 09:27 AM--> (NoXion @ May 11 2005, 09:27 AM)
Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_c[email protected] 11 2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:31 AM

[email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left.
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Young republicans getting violent?

But we are the pro-war people.
Sicne when did anti-war automatically mean anti-violence?
Sorry Chief, I really don't get what your saying.

Why are YOU anti-war? Why are anti-war people against war?

Could it be the killing and violence?
There are reasons people go to war. The Iraq war had shit reasons. [/b]
My reasons are the continued flow of Saudi and Kwuati oil. I like all the benefits of oil and I'm willing to kill for it. Oil gives me food, shelter, transport, energy, clothing, and almost anything modern you can think of; for that I'm willing to kill. Is that a good reason for me?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 11 2005, 12:51 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 11 2005, 12:51 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 07:10 PM
I'm disappointed. I figured that for a capitalist to come onto this website they would be intelligent and capable of debate. But all I've seen you do (twolves) is to deny and insult. You have made no real arguements in support of the Protests Warriors, and the reason for that is clear, there is no way to justify the idiocy of thier organisation. Even most people on the right admit that the PWs are silly.
LOL, you speak of an inability to debate and then conveniently dismiss everything I've said.

You're definitely chair of the "Big Winners Society" this week.

http://www.topfunpages.com/imgs/page_imgs/hf0402/laughing.gif [/b]
Don't you agree that what ever capitalist have done for have failed to do is not a proof in support of communism?

Do you agree that communism must prove itself on it's own merits?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:09 PM




Don't you agree that what ever capitalist have done for have failed to do is not a proof in support of communism?

After reading, and even in some cases witnessing what Capitalism is responsible for. It makes me wonder if anything is worse...


Do you agree that communism must prove itself on it's own merits?

In some sense yes, it must start by erasing the errors of capitalism, by any means possible.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:06 PM
I'm willing to kill for it
Are you willing to be killed for others to have it?

if not, then the fact that you would kill for it justifies nothing.

[jiujitsu]

Video is too big for me to want to download. It sounds funny though. http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_dance.gif

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 11 2005, 02:54 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 11 2005, 02:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:31 AM

[email protected] 10 2005, 05:54 AM


As I keep telling you people, engage a leftist in a calm, ration debate and prohibit from calling their ideas or them stupid or retarded while they aren't in a hightened emotional state (which you cannot seem to comprehend), and odds are they won't attack you.
You seem to be suggesting that leftists have little or no self control over their emotions and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions.

I mean, I've known this to be the case for 10 years now, I'm just glad to see one of you finally admitting it.

Except the part about not being held responsible for their actions. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and taunting you, and you resort to violence, then you're a childish moron - and that goes for those on the right as well as on the left.
I'm suggesting that if ANYONE is at a highly emotional state, they loose all rational. Even rightists loose control sometimes. Need I remind you of the individual who attacked a protester who snuck into a young republicans meeting?
Young republicans getting violent?

But we are the pro-war people.
Sicne when did anti-war automatically mean anti-violence?
Sorry Chief, I really don't get what your saying.

Why are YOU anti-war? Why are anti-war people against war?

Could it be the killing and violence? [/b]
Violence is violence, but just because someone is anti-war doesn't make them pacifists or prohibits them from fighting back if someone attacks them, either verbally or physically. Not everyone is anti-ALL wars, some are anti wars that are started by the State or wars that aren't fought for self-liberation. Not all anti-war people are so for the same reason. Yes, people that are anti-all wars are probably pacifist, but the people who are anti-State's wars probably aren't.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 11 2005, 08:17 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 11 2005, 08:17 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 03:06 PM
I'm willing to kill for it
Are you willing to be killed for others to have it?

if not, then the fact that you would kill for it justifies nothing. [/b]
I know myself.

How about you?

Do you like to eat? Chemical fertilizers come from oil.

Do you like to wear clothes? A large portion of all textiles now come from oil.

Do you like transportation? Do I have to explain?

Do you like warm homes in the winter? Do I have to explain?

Do you like medicine? Pharmacuticals depend on oil for base chemicals.

Do you like electricity? Do I have to explain this one too?

Do you like the products brought to you in stores and malls? They all arrive via oil.

Do you like plastic? Oil.


If your answer is NO. Then good for you. I can not live in a society that is pre-1910. I want to live in 2010 and have all the products that depend on oil. Want to see what is life witout it? Look to 1910 before society become petrol based.

Those are my reasons to kill for oil. I think I make a good argument to kill for oil, what do you think?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:32 AM



I know myself.

How about you?

Don't dodge. Would you allow yourself to die for people to use oil?


If your answer is NO. Then good for you. I can not live in a society that is pre-1910. I want to live in 2010 and have all the products that depend on oil. Want to see what is life witout it? Look to 1910 before society become petrol based.

Those are my reasons to kill for oil. I think I make a good argument to kill for oil, what do you think?

I think you forgot to post it because I've failed to see it. There are ways around killing for oil. But like i said before, being prepared to kill something doesn't validate its importance to you, wanting to die for it does.

Would you die for oil?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:32 AM














Do you like to eat? Chemical fertilizers come from oil.

Presuming I want chemical loaded crap.


Do you like to wear clothes? A large portion of all textiles now come from oil.

Not the clothes I wear


Do you like transportation? Do I have to explain?

You have to explain why you think oil is the only way of powering transportation.


Do you like warm homes in the winter? Do I have to explain?

Again there are a variety of solutions...


Do you like medicine? Pharmacuticals depend on oil for base chemicals.

Medicines use natural oils dumbass.


Do you like electricity? Do I have to explain this one too?

Yes, for the same reason as before.


Do you like the products brought to you in stores and malls? They all arrive via oil.

Most of the time no, I don't like the products. And I generally don't buy from large stores or malls. But still, just because things use oil, doesn't mean they have to.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 12 2005, 02:53 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 12 2005, 02:53 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 03:32 AM



I know myself.

How about you?

Don't dodge. Would you allow yourself to die for people to use oil?


If your answer is NO. Then good for you. I can not live in a society that is pre-1910. I want to live in 2010 and have all the products that depend on oil. Want to see what is life witout it? Look to 1910 before society become petrol based.

Those are my reasons to kill for oil. I think I make a good argument to kill for oil, what do you think?

I think you forgot to post it because I've failed to see it. There are ways around killing for oil. But like i said before, being prepared to kill something doesn't validate its importance to you, wanting to die for it does.

Would you die for oil? [/b]
Die for oil? If threatened to loose everything that makes modern life possible, yes.

But it is better to make someone else die for it.

As General Patton once said, "Don't be a hero, make the enemy a hero by having him die for his country".

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 12 2005, 02:58 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 12 2005, 02:58 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 03:32 AM














Do you like to eat? Chemical fertilizers come from oil.

Presuming I want chemical loaded crap.


Do you like to wear clothes? A large portion of all textiles now come from oil.

Not the clothes I wear


Do you like transportation? Do I have to explain?

You have to explain why you think oil is the only way of powering transportation.


Do you like warm homes in the winter? Do I have to explain?

Again there are a variety of solutions...


Do you like medicine? Pharmacuticals depend on oil for base chemicals.

Medicines use natural oils dumbass.


Do you like electricity? Do I have to explain this one too?

Yes, for the same reason as before.


Do you like the products brought to you in stores and malls? They all arrive via oil.

Most of the time no, I don't like the products. And I generally don't buy from large stores or malls. But still, just because things use oil, doesn't mean they have to. [/b]
Like what? What products can be made without oil? Today?

Yes you can have orange juice and milk containers without oil. Yes you can have home insulation and building products without oil. Yes you can have shoes and clothes made without oil. Yes you can have food grown without oil based fertilizer. There is a reason why we do it, because it is BETTER to use oil. All these products and processes are BETTER and more efficient with oil. They become better quality vs cost, they become more durrable, they become more efficient. Thus all the oil based products become more available to everyone.


All the efficient and modern products we use are a result of oil. If you want to see what is life without oil, see what life is like in 1910 before or economy became oil based. That date is the cusp of when everything oil took over. I don't want to live in a world like that.

I applaud you and respect you that you can life your life without oil. I won't and will not choose to do so. I suspect there are millions more just like me who want the benefits of an oil based society.

All are basic chemicals and hydro carbons in the pharmacutical and chemical industry, get thier base materials from OIL or rely on plastics and processes based on oil products, or are dependant on oil for energy and transport.

Even your 'oil free' products were delivered to you by truck burning oil based energy.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:29 PM








Like what? What products can be made without oil? Today?

Yes you can have orange juice and milk containers without oil. Yes you can have home insulation and building products without oil. Yes you can have shoes and clothes made without oil. Yes you can have food grown without oil based fertilizer. There is a reason why we do it, because it is BETTER to use oil.

Yes, and this "better" factor is completely nullified when we have to sacrifice the lives of people to maintain its production. Whats better about useful products when half the population has died to make it that way?


All these products and processes are BETTER and more efficient with oil. They become better quality vs cost, they become more durrable, they become more efficient. Thus all the oil based products become more available to everyone.

Presuming they're not dead.


All the efficient and modern products we use are a result of oil. If you want to see what is life without oil, see what life is like in 1910 before or economy became oil based. That date is the cusp of when everything oil took over. I don't want to live in a world like that.

And we don't want you to live in a world like this...so sort it out.


I applaud you and respect you that you can life your life without oil. I won't and will not choose to do so. I suspect there are millions more just like me who want the benefits of an oil based society.

That's great. But at what point did anyone actually say they wanted to abolish oil?

[Ele'ill]

I thought this topic was shot down a month ago.


An anti-war rally does not indicate that the participants are pacifists in any way shape or form. Even a peace rally, does not mean that all people there are pacifists.

An anti-war rally organized by pacifists and those opposed to the brutality of war is not organized to have some free loaders get into a fight with another group of basically innocent bystanders that were simply protesting. It shows no respect for the rest of the left. It was a selfish decision to engage in violence at an anti war demo. "but i'm anti war and i'm not against using violent force" than you're a hypocrit and your hypocrisy stems from self interest. You are untrustworthy. Most of the people in attendance were from anti war organizations. How many of these organizers would be against war and violence and the brutality involved yet nod their head to street fighting? The whole situation was wrong and it was a self inflicted blow.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Topic creator:

1st-Learn to spell infuriating.

2nd-Your name makes you look like a joke.

And, as for the video, yes, the hippies are infuriating.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 13 2005, 04:42 AM
Topic creator:

1st-Learn to spell infuriating.

2nd-Your name makes you look like a joke.

And, as for the video, yes, the hippies are infuriating.
Hey I'm guilty of spelling mistakes too. You can see a pattern in people with spelling mistakes. It is pretty obvious, but I can not explain it to you. It is just a pattern I see. Spelling mistakes + vocab you can kind of sumize that it was just a random error not related to a person's intellect.

Spelling mistakes + vocab with someone who sounds like they are high on weed = somone who is probably stupid.

What should be done to hippies? Are they counter-revolutionaries? Death to the hippies!!!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 12 2005, 03:59 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 12 2005, 03:59 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 03:29 PM








Like what? What products can be made without oil? Today?

Yes you can have orange juice and milk containers without oil. Yes you can have home insulation and building products without oil. Yes you can have shoes and clothes made without oil. Yes you can have food grown without oil based fertilizer. There is a reason why we do it, because it is BETTER to use oil.

Yes, and this "better" factor is completely nullified when we have to sacrifice the lives of people to maintain its production. Whats better about useful products when half the population has died to make it that way?


All these products and processes are BETTER and more efficient with oil. They become better quality vs cost, they become more durrable, they become more efficient. Thus all the oil based products become more available to everyone.

Presuming they're not dead.


All the efficient and modern products we use are a result of oil. If you want to see what is life without oil, see what life is like in 1910 before or economy became oil based. That date is the cusp of when everything oil took over. I don't want to live in a world like that.

And we don't want you to live in a world like this...so sort it out.


I applaud you and respect you that you can life your life without oil. I won't and will not choose to do so. I suspect there are millions more just like me who want the benefits of an oil based society.

That's great. But at what point did anyone actually say they wanted to abolish oil? [/b]
Great at least you and I agree that oil is important to modern life.

What I don't understand is 'sort it out'?

Would life really be misserable without oil? I don't want to go that way. Is it wrong for me to not want to go back to 1910 period life style? Oil gives me a large energy budget to do what I want. Can you imagine having to draw upon domestic horses, wind, coal, humans, and solar for my energy budget? Oil just makes it sooooooo easy. Oh wait I forgot nuke. We could do the same life style with a smaller ration of oil if the USA goes nuclear. I could live with that. I am comfortable with more nuclear reactors.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:13 AM








Great at least you and I agree that oil is important to modern life.

and??


What I don't understand is 'sort it out'?

Top yourself.


Would life really be misserable without oil? I don't want to go that way.

Ok, if your scared of loosing on those grounds, maybe we can later.


Is it wrong for me to not want to go back to 1910 period life style? Oil gives me a large energy budget to do what I want.

But the world doesn't revolve around YOU. If people have to die just to make sure you get plastic bags. I think you need to look in a mirror.


Can you imagine having to draw upon domestic horses, wind, coal, humans, and solar for my energy budget? Oil just makes it sooooooo easy. Oh wait I forgot nuke. We could do the same life style with a smaller ration of oil if the USA goes nuclear. I could live with that. I am comfortable with more nuclear reactors.

Green sources of energy, like wind, tidal and geothermal, are hardly inconvenient. They're just not profitable.

[Vallegrande]

The fallacy is that we dont need to use this oil that comes from the ground. We can grow it from the soil and get the same amount of oil without as much destruction. The hemp plant can make enough oil for all that shit and we dont need to attack another country! Oh but hemp is illegal. So I guess we have to go to war for oil.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 13 2005, 03:57 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 13 2005, 03:57 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 05:13 AM








Great at least you and I agree that oil is important to modern life.

and??


What I don't understand is 'sort it out'?

Top yourself.


Would life really be misserable without oil? I don't want to go that way.

Ok, if your scared of loosing on those grounds, maybe we can later.


Is it wrong for me to not want to go back to 1910 period life style? Oil gives me a large energy budget to do what I want.

But the world doesn't revolve around YOU. If people have to die just to make sure you get plastic bags. I think you need to look in a mirror.


Can you imagine having to draw upon domestic horses, wind, coal, humans, and solar for my energy budget? Oil just makes it sooooooo easy. Oh wait I forgot nuke. We could do the same life style with a smaller ration of oil if the USA goes nuclear. I could live with that. I am comfortable with more nuclear reactors.

Green sources of energy, like wind, tidal and geothermal, are hardly inconvenient. They're just not profitable. [/b]
I want plastic bags and other things like it. What I want is my ethic, I don't live by yours and I want plastic and everything else like it that makes my life good.

Have you ever seen the energy budget numbers for tidal, wind, geothermal? Do you really really know what amounts of energy is it possible to extract from those sources?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:28 PM
The fallacy is that we dont need to use this oil that comes from the ground. We can grow it from the soil and get the same amount of oil without as much destruction. The hemp plant can make enough oil for all that shit and we dont need to attack another country! Oh but hemp is illegal. So I guess we have to go to war for oil.
If I'm right I think you already killed your mind with hemp products.


Sorry but I could not resist the remark.


Hemp suffers from the same problem as solar. Hemp must get it's energy reserve from solar. Where do you think the chemical energy from hemp comes from?

[red_orchestra]

I steer clear of right-wingers. As long as they don't interfere with my plans, then no worries.. if they come in force and crash my protests then their is hell to pay.

These immature conservatives at ProtestWarrior can say what ever they like...I don't care.
Fuckem' I don't need their shit.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 13 2005, 03:57 PM
Green sources of energy, like wind, tidal and geothermal, are hardly inconvenient. They're just not profitable.
Not profitable ? The don't even break even.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:09 PM
I want plastic bags and other things like it. What I want is my ethic, I don't live by yours and I want plastic and everything else like it that makes my life good.


Look, im not even going to argue this with you. Your a twat, you've admitted that you'd kill just for some fucking plastic bags that make your oh so tiresome life a little more comfortable. You don't know the meaning of life, none of us do, therefor its not your place to take it.


Have you ever seen the energy budget numbers for tidal, wind, geothermal? Do you really really know what amounts of energy is it possible to extract from those sources

But don't you see? that is the point.

You don't care about the world getting fucked over because your eyes are glazed by money. In a few years the damage done from not using green forms of energy will be irreversible. They suspect that if current trends continue, by the end of the century, another 30% of the worlds land mass will be submerged.

How profitable are floods on the stock market these days?

All I can say is I hope you fucking go with it.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 14 2005, 08:31 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 14 2005, 08:31 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 11:09 PM
I want plastic bags and other things like it. What I want is my ethic, I don't live by yours and I want plastic and everything else like it that makes my life good.


Look, im not even going to argue this with you. Your a twat, you've admitted that you'd kill just for some fucking plastic bags that make your oh so tiresome life a little more comfortable. You don't know the meaning of life, none of us do, therefor its not your place to take it.


Have you ever seen the energy budget numbers for tidal, wind, geothermal? Do you really really know what amounts of energy is it possible to extract from those sources

But don't you see? that is the point.

You don't care about the world getting fucked over because your eyes are glazed by money. In a few years the damage done from not using green forms of energy will be irreversible. They suspect that if current trends continue, by the end of the century, another 30% of the worlds land mass will be submerged.

How profitable are floods on the stock market these days?

All I can say is I hope you fucking go with it. [/b]
If the future of the world is destruction and the people want it, I'm not going to stop them. It is none of my business what people what to do to themselves.

Yes the world right now wants what I want too, we want the benefits of plastics and plastic products, we want the ease and comfort that petrol provides.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 14 2005, 08:31 PM


All I can say is I hope you fucking go with it.
Now that is really terrible karma. How can I trust YOU if you have that attitude? How can I expect you and people like you to lead the rest of us into a system of compassion and justice if you don't have it for us.

[Vallegrande]

Hemp suffers from the same problem as solar. Hemp must get it's energy reserve from solar. Where do you think the chemical energy from hemp comes from?

So whats the problem? It doesnt have to be drilled out of the ground and instead it can be grown from soil, using the solar energy.


If I'm right I think you already killed your mind with hemp products.

But havent you read my quote? You cant kill my mind :lol: and neither can hemp.

[Professor Moneybags]

They suspect that if current trends continue, by the end of the century, another 30% of the worlds land mass will be submerged.

Who's "they" ?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 16 2005, 09:09 PM

They suspect that if current trends continue, by the end of the century, another 30% of the worlds land mass will be submerged.

Who's "they" ?
I'm curious too? Who is 'they'?

Plus I don't trust commies like this. I suspect that once they are in power they are going to start diging secret mass graves and putting bullets into the back of heads. Please note his willingness to use violence. People who lead like this will not be the people to build a system of compassion and justice. People who kill simply don't make systems of compassion and justice.