Anarchists at the Gates

This guy couldn't maintain his thin veneer of peace and live for even 2 minutes. Every left-wing hippie I have ever own has lost their composure when asks saimilar simple questions as were asked of this bandido.

Part of the lefty effort to, "Own the Odium"?

I clearly see this guy's point. I wish I was as articulate and eloquent as this guy.

He should have no trouble mobilizing the masses to his cause.

When your life is a failure, when you don't matter and everyone around you doesn't care you can fix yourself or lash out at everyone and anything rather than face reality.

Life is a series of lessons.
Lessons will be repeated until learned.

The moron in the clip has a huge amount of learning to do and a severe shortage of brain cells to do it with.

Like John Wayne said, "life is tough, and it's a whole lot tougher when you're stupid". Marry well like Nancy did, you Soros douchebag.

Like John Wayne said in a movie,"life is tough, and it's a whole lot tougher when you're stupid". This enema-bag should marry well like Nancy did, otherwise he'll starve like all his other Soros/Obama occupiers and useless phil types of society.

Clip guy obviously from Harvard. They have the best pot, I rest my case.

Yep - stupid! Not misinformed stupid - just old fashioned stupid stupid.

What did this guy actually say - I could not even hear him, let alone understand what he said. I am always leery of people who hide their faces behind a mask.

Two thoughts struck me as I watched this train wreck. First - if what he is saying is important to say, why does he need to cover his face to say it? Second - I wish the interviewer had asked if he plans to protest at the DNC in Charlotte next week as well.

I have learned one main thing in life that will hold you steadfast in the later years.....the decisions you make now, whether that be in whom you marry, your job, financial decisions, how you raise your kids, etc. These dummies are making wrong decisions and unfortunately down the road when I am in the Caribbean enjoy the fruits of my labour, these people will be living in a duplex, smoking weed, eating Kraft Dinner and watching Oprah all day long.....now that my friend is hell. So keep talking b.s. you lefties and get ready for a useless life courtesy of your lack of cerebral expansion and moral fibre.

What Momma said...always the mark of a coward to cover you face. Say what you will about the protests of the '60s, I don't ever recall anyone in masks. The guy really needs some anger management classes.

Now, if they could focus on the Pelosi enterprise. That would be something to focus on.

Socialists use anarchists until they no longer need them.

Anarchists on Welfare.

Call 1800 – 765 4576 – for your donation today!

I also couldn't hear more than a few words of this individual's shouting rant. I wish the reporter had asked him not to shout.

Oh, and I agree; no mask. Why hide your face if you believe in what you say?

But the belief that we should be free to 'do what we want' [usually an addendum is added of 'as long as it doesn't hurt anyone] removes the Rule of Law. It puts the entire responsibility for behaviour on the individual. Who defines what hurts another?

After all, Obama defines the 10% who pay 71% of the federal tax as greedy and harming others. He defines the 47% who pay no federal tax as victims of this greed. So, is interpretation by a powerful individual to function as The Law in this nation? Or a standard Rule of Law? The former is dictatorship, the latter is constitutional democracy.

Anarchy isn't about removing power; it's about enabling individuals to have unaccountable power answerable to no-one and maintained only by fear. Think of any mafia, any gang, any dictatorship, any authoritarian cult leader.

I'm guessing he will vote for the One.

I just wish the interviewer had reached out and pulled that silly handkerchief down to reveal the fellow's handsome face.

He probably would have attacked the cameraman.

Yes,he's going to vote for "The One",his buddy had a sign indicating that,"Mr.1%".

Oh yeah and did you see that the one is having a fund raiser in Switzerland of all places. George Cluney hosting a bunch of rich folks to support o's reelection. Isn't there some law against foreign money being used for election purposes?

Would someone please explain to me the difference between covering ones face while expressing an opinion, and using a "nom de plume" to do the same thing in print or on a blog?

Sure, Len, I'd explain, but the very fact you asked the question means you'd be unable to comprehend the answer, so I won't waste my time.

Gord you already wasted your time with such an asinine answer.

Organized "anarchists" - a refuge for the truly clueless.

Could someone go ring Len Pryor's doorbell wearing a mask and sweating with his shirt open while jumping around as if you're on meth.

These guys give real anarchists a bad name...
although he was able to semi articulate the ZAP ( That would be zero aggression principle for the unknowing.) I just don't think he understands it.

After watching the Pelosi link I thought:

"The face that launched a thousand barfs".

And yes I totally understand why some feel the need to cover one's face. YOu have a government that has used census material to round up undesirables, false scapegoat them, seize their assets, encamp them and turn them into slave labour after Pearl Harbor.

You have an administration, (yes the big zero has done the following)that has Argued to the supreme court that terrorists and enemies of the state are not to be considered persons under the protection of the constitution and torture is peachy because it will save the children.

Visually the radical left are starting to look alot like the Taliban and Hamas, who shave their chest of course.

"...has Argued to the supreme court that terrorists and enemies of the state are not to be considered persons under the protection of the constitution..."

Depends - if they're foreigners, then no, they don't have constitutional protections when outside the US. We can whack th little shits at will. And which part of "enemy of the state" was unclear, Dame Grise?

ET > "Anarchy isn't about removing power; it's about enabling individuals to have unaccountable power answerable to no-one and maintained only by fear. Think of any mafia, any gang, any dictatorship, any authoritarian cult leader."
Is this a serious statement??? Government is the mafia or gang writ large. Talk about unaccountable power. The Rule of Law is arbitrary and only serves to protect those who are unwilling to protect themselves. What is legal and what is right are not the same thing. All the Rule of Law does is to socialize crime and punishment. If you harm me in any way (through theft, fraud, or bodily harm) then the dispute is between you and me (or perhaps my family should I become disabled or dead.) The Rule of Law dictates that the dispute between you and me become between you and society. This makes you more accountable? This is not maintaining through fear?

enemy of the state is unclear as a matter of fact. Enemy of the state is whom ever they frickin want it to be... that slope done already got verrry slippery. it's already done as a free country, why cry over spilt oil.

Mojo you are misinformed,

not just dirty coloured foreigners anymore:

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court decision that said federal officials cannot be sued for damages for the torture of Americans on U.S. soil.

Without comment, the justices set aside a petition (.pdf) from Jose Padilla, the so-called “dirty bomber.” Padilla claims high-ranking Defense Department officials and others are liable for developing “the global detention and interrogation policies” that paved the way for his torture while he was secretly held without charges at a Navy brig in South Carolina for more than three years.

Hey I know this was a "BAD GUY" but it won't always be now will it?

That clip shows the problem with many young libertarians.

They see the problems with the system, and they conclude "both sides (aka D and R) are evil".

Despite the silly hyperbole, some of the problems they see are valid issues.

But then when it comes to solutions, they have nothing.

James Pruitt. You wrote:

"Government is the mafia or gang writ large. Talk about unaccountable power. The Rule of Law is arbitrary and only serves to protect those who are unwilling to protect themselves."

These are your opinions. You provide no evidence for them. Please provide evidence that a government, which is elected and must operate within rules and votes, is comparable to a gang or mafia which operates only by force.

Kindly provide evidence that "the rule of law is arbitrary". Your statement doesn't make sense, for the definition of a rule or law is that it exists within stated perimeters, eg 'no parking', eg, 'armed robbery means theft by the use of a weapon'. etc. That is, a rule cannot by definition be arbitrary.

Second, our laws are created by our legislature and not by an unelected individual.

You wrote: "What is legal and what is right are not the same thing. All the Rule of Law does is to socialize crime and punishment."

There is no reason for legality and 'what is right' being the same thing. It may be illegal to park somewhere but this has nothing to do with morality or justice.

I have no idea what you mean by 'socialize crime and punishment'. All laws are, because they are created by human beings, social rules. Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as an a priori, pre-human set of laws?

You wrote: "If you harm me in any way (through theft, fraud, or bodily harm) then the dispute is between you and me (or perhaps my family should I become disabled or dead.) The Rule of Law dictates that the dispute between you and me become between you and society. This makes you more accountable? This is not maintaining through fear?"

I disagree. If you harm me, the dispute is not between the two of us. I am not allowed to settle the situation on my own, because my reaction might be more in excess of the crime. [I might kill you for stealing my coffee pot]. That is why the rule of law mediates our emotional interaction.

Any rule of law makes individuals accountable, and of course, it operates within the fear of being held accountable.
Driving over the speed limit is prevented by my fear of being caught and given a ticket.

Len Pryor, you are not describing the two situations correctly.

First, you have to prove that the anarchists are only presenting an opinion and are not engaged, or planning to engage, in violant actions. Most people who are at rallies, and wear facial coverings, are not simply engaged in rational debate; they are engaged in violence.

Second, writing on a blog anonymously is a form of protection against people who reject your comments and wish to carry out violent actions against you for those opinions.

Using your real name enables them to find out your address and there are many documented incidents of people sending threats against people and their families for and especially, their conservative opinions.

But you know all of that already.

ET: I did not not describe any situation, I only asked what is the difference between two behaviors. When someone expresses an opinion or performs an act with out a willingness to identify themselves and thereby take resposibility for the action it only demonstrtates that the individual is unwilling to back up their opinion or action regardless of how offensive to someone the action might be.

For instance an MP might state an opinion which angers and offends me, and causes me to vote against him in the next election; but at least he was honest enough to be identified and to put himself in a position to bear responsibility for his actions. All politicians regardless of their afilliations do the same thing. Why would anybody make a statement identical to that of the MP on a blog for instance and not be prepared to identify himself?

As for the violent masked demostrators, are they not being cowardly and trying to avoid identification, and hence punishment?

I guess there are various reasons to seek anonymity, but in my opinion most reasons for that are not valid and invite disregard.

ET: By the way, thanks for a reasonable reply

Len Pryor - I agree with you about the problems of anonymity and I consider the demonstrators in public who wear masks to be cowards. But, I feel that on blogs, it is a matter of safety.

It is a fact that when people act or write anonymously, they express and act, often, without any fear of accountability. The fact that blogs permit anonymity means that I, also, must use anonymity.

It is quite astonishing to read the malice, vitriol and spitting hatred expressed by some commenters on blogs. I've certainly had such vitriol expressed against me. I'm sure they do so, not merely because they are themselves malicious and ignorant individuals, but they are free to express such personal characteristics because of the anonymity of the blogs. It's a chicken and egg thing; since the blogs permit anonymity, then...

Posted by: The Grey Lady at August 28, 2012 1:47 PM

"Hey I know this was a "BAD GUY" but it won't always be now will it?"

Gray Lady, you are so right.

This is how totalitarian diktat begins.

The saying "when they came for the neighbor, did not say anything, then they came for you”.
I know I messed it up, hopefully you get the drift.

I fully respect ET's privilege to remain anonymous here on SDA. On this site I'm semi-anonymous though any careful reader can find my last name used from time to time.

I maintain a few channels on YouTube. One of them is strictly for politics. Perhaps because video provides the lowest common denominator for distributing information but I've never seen such vile comments as I have on there. There's no way I'd ever reveal who I was there with all the nutcases roaming around.

Ms. Shaidle blogs under her name as does another lady, from Delisle, SK.

Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs blog) hasn't chosen anonymity either. Ann Barnhardt has published her name, address and even the driving directions to her residence.

But rizwan, if you promote using your real name on blogs, then why aren't YOU doing so?

I do not need to convince you that Rizwan is my real name.

Who is talking about convincing anyone? You object to people being anonymous on blogs. Rizwan is not a full name. It might be your first name but hardly identifies you. You remain: anonymous.

Related: Code Pink 'Vagina' Protest at the RNC Convention

I have no problem with bloggers who use a nom de whatever. I use my real name,and am quite open about where I live,as are many others here.

What I DO object to is some bloggers who threaten and/or curse others from behind their anonymity. THAT is cowardice.

And I still wish the guy who took the video had just gently tugged the bottom of that turkey's face covering,though these days he'd probably have been charged with assault.

As someone said above,the people who wear masks at these events are usually up to no good.

And RobertW., ET's anonymity was blown years ago at SDA, we just don't make a big deal of it out of respect for he valuable contributions to this forum.

To those who defending the anarchists, you do not know what you are thinking or doing, as, if these people are given free reign after a collapse of government, they comment horrendous acts.

My wife's family experienced Nestor Makhno and his army of anarchists in what is today the southern Ukraine, and believe me it was not pretty.

I should add, off and on during the period from the fall of 1917 until the fall of 1920.

With a little research you will find that Nestor Makhno is one of the patron saints of the international anarchist movement.

Oxygentax said: "First - if what he is saying is important to say, why does he need to cover his face to say it?"

Possibly the poor misunderstood yout is planning on burning a few cop cars later on and doesn't want his face on TV beforehand?

Bandannas not very effective for a mask though, full coverage balaclava with gas mask might be better. He probably has one of those in his kitbag.

The issue shouldn't be if this twit should wear a mask. He talks about "problems" in society (I think because for the most part I found him incomprehensible), but offers no solutions.

If one feels strongly that society is unjust, for instance, then offer solutions, otherwise you're just part of the problem.

In the military the quickest way to get kicked out of your CO's office is to say there's this or that problem, but when asked for your considered solution, you cannot come up with anything. It's counterproductive and it just brings everybody down. And that's assuming you have correctly defined a problem, which should be now be in doubt.

My experience is that if someone says there's problem and cannot offer a solution, they don't really what the problem is; they're just a whiner.

That's what this guy is - a whiner. So, who cares what he thinks, he has nothing constructive to offer.