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

Jason P

I'm not sure he is gay. I think he is pulling a Cranston like in the Seinfeld episode where he converts to Judism so he can make Jewish jokes.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

Not a slip. I hear conservatives use that word all the time when referring to liberals.

Right on, I cannot speak for other conservative. Ironically, there is another active thread here on AMT where a couple people are calling conservatives "wussies"...that word just doesn't carry the same weight, lol. I wouldn't even know how to make a "wussie" hat. Wait, maybe that is why they are calling liberals "pussies"...it's because they literally wear the hat!!!!! Wat waaaaa

Thoughts_Arrive

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Why hate the gay guy? Is it because he likes interracial relationships?

http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php&s=1&f=1&ts=1486008756&sig=AJsQQ1AMUstik4UGaLsprzPNbY5tKfYwag

the gay guy hates gay guys.

While Yiannopoulos is gay, he has stated that gay rights are detrimental to humanity, and that gay men should "get back in the closet".[100] He has described being gay as "aberrant" and "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness".[101] He has said that he would love to experiment with conversion therapy, but not because he thinks it will work.[102]

In September 2015, Yiannopoulos guest-starred on Joe Rogan's YouTube show, The Joe Rogan Experience. During the show, Yiannopoulos claimed to have lost his virginity at age 13 "in an interracial fivesome with a drag queen".[103] Some have accused Yiannopoulos of exaggerating his homosexuality for comic effect, and falling back on homophobic tropes in doing so.[18]

He's a joke. He hates himself. I find it sad that a teacher I know likes his facebook page and likes his post.
A teacher!

vaggar99

cheap hooker

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

Please substitute communists for anarchists.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

Please substitute communists for anarchists.

Oh, how you do go on!

SVRDhand13

There are extremes from both the left and right who are out of control. We shouldn't let those few represent the majorities. As a liberal myself, Milo is a troll who spreads hate. I don't care whether he is gay or straight.

catefrances

unsung said:

Why hate the gay guy? Is it because he likes interracial relationships?

http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php&s=1&f=1&ts=1486008756&sig=AJsQQ1AMUstik4UGaLsprzPNbY5tKfYwag

im sorry what???? are you seriously asking us if we 'hate' the gay guy cause he likes interracial relationships???

# 1: i dont hate anybody. i may despise the actions and opinions of certain people but hate is an empty emotion that takes u valauble energy needed elsewhere.

and

#2 milo yiannopolous says the things he says because he has some delusion that hes some sort of oscar wilde... when all he really is, is a divisive catty petty man who plays for laughs. he is the worst product of the look-at-me-arent-i-clever generation.

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

ledvedderman

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

PJPOWER

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.
I would say that the leader of the protest in the link below fits my definition of some of these liberals that pjsoul claims I have a "fucked up idea" of though. Talk about a weak-ass individual! If people like him led an anarchy...they would get their asses handed to them.
http://tribunist.com/news/trump-protesters-put-patients-life-in-danger-after-they-block-ambulance-then-cops-show-up-video/?utm_source=GSL

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.

Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

But by definition, anarchist is neither left nor right.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.

Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.

haha, I highly doubt left wing extremists are the ones you describe here. far from it.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

But by definition, anarchist is neither left nor right.

When they are funded by George Soros, they are. I guess I'm more so referring to any kind of leftist movement involving actual fighting.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

But by definition, anarchist is neither left nor right.

When they are funded by George Soros, they are. I guess I'm more so referring to any kind of leftist movement involving actual fighting.

I keep forgetting to include the kooky conspiracies. What's the hourly rate and is health insurance included?