Aren't liberals supposed to be pro-gay? Terrorists at Milo event...

2456

Comments

  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 4,838
    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    Just read a report that the Trump supporter that got hit with the shovel is dead. Hopefully it is not true.

    Any people wonder why cars get driven through these parades of dumbasses. I'm all for protesting. Violent riots...not so much.
    Road rage is a different topic. But one guy on here who's currently on a time out said he'd run someone over if it made him late for work. Some people resort to violence when their needs aren't met. Conservatives, liberals, and in betweens.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,192

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    JC29856 said:

    Im getting the sense these protestors dont think too highly of women. Is this love trumping hate?



    "Were not the enemy, were not the enemy"

    These are not protesters, these are violent terrorist hate groups and should be treated as such...
    So the definition of terrorism is now people in a group destroying property and assaulting others? I need to know the correct label to use on the fans of the next team that wins the championship.
    ter·ror·ism
    ˈterəˌrizəm/
    noun
    the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    Seems fitting to me...
    What if the fans are demanding a new stadium be built?
    I don't even know wtf you are talking about? Aren't you one of the ones around here that cries when I point out double standards though?
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 5,143
    JC29856 said:

    unsung said:

    JC29856 said:
    Tolerant left assaulting women. So much for women's rights.

    These people can't be negotiated with. Antifa is worse than the alt-right.

    One of these terrorists is going to pepper spray the wrong person.
    Ill make a bold prediction, someone will get shoot at the next rodeo. This stuff brings out the worst in people, someone will bring a gun to one of these protests, and either pull it or fire it, then the shit really fans out.
    No prediction necessary. That is already a historical fact. It happened last week at the University of Washington in Seattle.
    http://patch.com/washington/seattle/man-who-shot-milo-yiannopoulos-protester-uw-student-report
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 4,838
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    JC29856 said:

    Im getting the sense these protestors dont think too highly of women. Is this love trumping hate?



    "Were not the enemy, were not the enemy"

    These are not protesters, these are violent terrorist hate groups and should be treated as such...
    So the definition of terrorism is now people in a group destroying property and assaulting others? I need to know the correct label to use on the fans of the next team that wins the championship.
    ter·ror·ism
    ˈterəˌrizəm/
    noun
    the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    Seems fitting to me...
    What if the fans are demanding a new stadium be built?
    I don't even know wtf you are talking about? Aren't you one of the ones around here that cries when I point out double standards though?
    I'm talking about how people define terrorism. It seems like the word is often used if there's a group of people doing something that oerson doesn't like.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,010
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 6,038
    unsung said:

    JC29856 said:
    Tolerant left assaulting women. So much for women's rights.

    These people can't be negotiated with. Antifa is worse than the alt-right.

    One of these terrorists is going to pepper spray the wrong person.
    Timothy McVie, so much for federal government employees and their children's rights.

    Ted Kzynski, so much for industrial/corporate CEO rights.

    Dylan Roof, so much for African American church goer's rights.

    Eric Rudolph, so much for Olympic attendees' rights.

    And the rights of men and woman assinated for providing legally protected medical services, so much for those rights as well.

    What's the common theme that connects them all?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;
    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,192
    edited February 2

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    JC29856 said:

    Im getting the sense these protestors dont think too highly of women. Is this love trumping hate?



    "Were not the enemy, were not the enemy"

    These are not protesters, these are violent terrorist hate groups and should be treated as such...
    So the definition of terrorism is now people in a group destroying property and assaulting others? I need to know the correct label to use on the fans of the next team that wins the championship.
    ter·ror·ism
    ˈterəˌrizəm/
    noun
    the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    Seems fitting to me...
    What if the fans are demanding a new stadium be built?
    I don't even know wtf you are talking about? Aren't you one of the ones around here that cries when I point out double standards though?
    I'm talking about how people define terrorism. It seems like the word is often used if there's a group of people doing something that oerson doesn't like.
    I am not for rioting or violent protesting in any manner or form...but the definition of terrorism includes violence with the motive of influencing a political outcome. The people in some of these riots in the videos above meet that definition, do they not?
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • cottagesteezecottagesteeze Hudson, WIPosts: 113
    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.
  • PP193448PP193448 Springboro, OHPosts: 2,930

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    Hard to sometimes tell the difference... especially with celebrities who dream about blowing up the White House. :wink:
    2006 Clev,Pitt; 2008 NY MSGx2; 2010 Columbus; 2012 Missoula; 2013 Phoenix,Vancouver,Seattle; 2014 Cincy; 2016 Lex, Wrigley 1&2
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 34,543
    edited February 2

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,128
    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
  • dignindignin Posts: 4,475

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    I tried to point that out, but agendas.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,192
    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 34,543
    edited February 2
    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dignindignin Posts: 4,475
    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    Most that practice black bloc tactics refer to themselves as anarchists. Not all, but most. That is why I generally refer to them as anarchists.

    Most protesters want nothing to do with them, they are a very small fringe minority that do not organize with mass protesters.
  • cottagesteezecottagesteeze Hudson, WIPosts: 113
    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,128
    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    Interesting. Two years ago this kind of talk would get you called a racist around these parts. Oh, and tin foil hats, can't forget the tin foil hats.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,128

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
    Anarchy is the absense of rulers, not rules.

    These are antifa terrorists. Vermin.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,128
    dignin said:

    JC29856 said:

    Alex Soros attends UC Berkeley

    And the circle is complete.


    I wonder if he 1099's these employees.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 34,543
    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.
    Well that's pretty silly.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 34,543
    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    Interesting. Two years ago this kind of talk would get you called a racist around these parts. Oh, and tin foil hats, can't forget the tin foil hats.
    That makes no sense.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 34,543
    edited February 2

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
    True, good point. Although in that case, I don't think someone protesting who decides to get destructive is necessarily an anarchist either. They're just pissed off and not controlling their emotions very well.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 6,949
    unsung said:

    dignin said:

    JC29856 said:

    Alex Soros attends UC Berkeley

    And the circle is complete.


    I wonder if he 1099's these employees.
    employees-w2s
    contractors-1099s
    either way, i doubt they need the write-off, especially after the $1B bet the market would crash
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 6,949
    PJ_Soul said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
    True, good point. Although in that case, I don't think someone protesting who decides to get destructive is necessarily an anarchist either. They're just pissed off and not controlling their emotions very well.
    someone probably yelled, "LETS CRACK SOME SKULLS" then it went south of the border from there.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 34,543
    edited February 2
    JC29856 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
    True, good point. Although in that case, I don't think someone protesting who decides to get destructive is necessarily an anarchist either. They're just pissed off and not controlling their emotions very well.
    someone probably yelled, "LETS CRACK SOME SKULLS" then it went south of the border from there.
    Ha, maybe. Some are just people who get off on violence and destruction and use protests to "indulge" just like they sometimes do with crowds that gather for large sporting events. Just a bunch of hooligans taking advantage of the situation. And then sometimes, of course, they really are genuinely enraged and scared about political events and are just fucking terrible and protesting it in a productive way. Meanwhile, all the right wingers/Trump supporters are having a fun little time trying to shame legitimate protesters (and end up coming off very low-IQ by doing so).
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 8,621
    If the shoe was currently on the other foot... Im sure the protests and rhetoric that would exist would represent a kumbaya jamboree. There was a close race, for a hotly contested presidency... Trump won.... but not a huge mandate to light the world on fire. He put Steve Bannon at the helm, who makes Dick Cheney look like JFK. I cant even imagine what the opposite of that is? Ben Affleck winning the POTUS and empowering Michael Moore behind the scenes.... with no resistance or checks/balances? I think people are rightfully freaked out right now... and I also think there are people actively searching to cause trouble/anarchy no matter the cause.


    Violence and sillyness such as destruction and pepper-spraying a human for no reason are not cool, and hurts whatever cause
  • cottagesteezecottagesteeze Hudson, WIPosts: 113
    PJ_Soul said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
    True, good point. Although in that case, I don't think someone protesting who decides to get destructive is necessarily an anarchist either. They're just pissed off and not controlling their emotions very well.
    Very true. This example was clearly a small organized group of anarchists, not a group of out of control protestors
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 6,949
    PJ_Soul said:

    JC29856 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
    True, good point. Although in that case, I don't think someone protesting who decides to get destructive is necessarily an anarchist either. They're just pissed off and not controlling their emotions very well.
    someone probably yelled, "LETS CRACK SOME SKULLS" then it went south of the border from there.
    Ha, maybe. Some are just people who get off on violence and destruction and use protests to "indulge" just like they sometimes do with crowds that gather for large sporting events. Just a bunch of hooligans taking advantage of the situation.
    I would agree with your assessment when property is destroyed, but when humans are pepper sprayed and beaten with shovels and polls continually screamed at and hit when down or unconscious, I tend to think it goes beyond indulging in violence and anarchy.
    That was some real life hatred on display.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 34,543
    edited February 2
    JC29856 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    JC29856 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    I would call that rebelling, not "turning anarchist". Anarchy is a lack of govt, lack of possessions, lack of anything. I don't think that's what liberals want. Liberals have been protesting, do you remember the women's march? That was liberal. It was also safe and free of rioting..
    True, good point. Although in that case, I don't think someone protesting who decides to get destructive is necessarily an anarchist either. They're just pissed off and not controlling their emotions very well.
    someone probably yelled, "LETS CRACK SOME SKULLS" then it went south of the border from there.
    Ha, maybe. Some are just people who get off on violence and destruction and use protests to "indulge" just like they sometimes do with crowds that gather for large sporting events. Just a bunch of hooligans taking advantage of the situation.
    I would agree with your assessment when property is destroyed, but when humans are pepper sprayed and beaten with shovels and polls continually screamed at and hit when down or unconscious, I tend to think it goes beyond indulging in violence and anarchy.
    That was some real life hatred on display.
    I've been in a riot where people were attacked, and it was 100% hooligans who came down to take advantage of the crowds, and purposefully started a riot. You'd be surprised what mob mentality can make people do - look up the 1994 and 2011 Vancouver riots. Our suburbs are clearly packed with young men who live normal lives and were thought to be decent people but are willing to turn into violent criminals when they're in a mob.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,128
    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    unsung said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

    And?
    I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?
    So protest the government then.

    Don't pepper spray women and destroy private property.
    Well of course not. I wouldn't call someone who does that an anarchist though. In a general sense, if liberals (or anyone - why zero in on liberals? There are plenty of more conservative people who are freaked out too) turn anarchist against a government that is going rogue with Russia and is basically showing us a step-by-step process towards an autocracy, that seems like exactly what Americans are supposed to do, according to the constitution.
    Interesting. Two years ago this kind of talk would get you called a racist around these parts. Oh, and tin foil hats, can't forget the tin foil hats.
    That makes no sense.
    What is so hard to understand?
Sign In or Register to comment.