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

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

dignin

cottagesteeze said:

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

I tried to point that out, but agendas.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

dignin

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

cottagesteeze

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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..

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

unsung

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

unsung

dignin said:

JC29856 said:

Alex Soros attends UC Berkeley

And the circle is complete.

I wonder if he 1099's these employees.

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

PJ_Soul

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

JC29856

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

JC29856

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

PJ_Soul

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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).

MayDay10

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

cottagesteeze

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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

JC29856

PJ_Soul said:

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

PJ_Soul

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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.

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze 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?