Post by: roo_ster on August 25, 2008, 06:23:34 AM
The following link has a lot of images & observations:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/live-from-dnc-its-zombietime-day-1/
As is usual for the type, personal hygiene is not a top priority:
Where there are protesters, there are counter-protesters:
Post by: PTK on August 25, 2008, 06:25:44 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 25, 2008, 06:36:54 AM
Or this?
Post by: TF_FH on August 25, 2008, 06:46:05 AM
[/rant off]
Post by: 41magsnub on August 25, 2008, 06:47:42 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 25, 2008, 06:51:14 AM
What's up with this AR he's holding? Marked for rubber bullets/pepper ball shots only? Mag is the oddest I've seen...
Post by: grislyatoms on August 25, 2008, 07:15:38 AM
Post by: PTK on August 25, 2008, 07:19:00 AM
Quote
What's up with this AR he's holding? Marked for rubber bullets/pepper ball shots only? Mag is the oddest I've seen...
That's a paintball gun dressed up to have the same controls as an AR-15.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 25, 2008, 07:19:09 AM
1. Freedom of speech is not given, it is innate in all men.
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 25, 2008, 07:24:18 AM
No, it is not the soldier that has given us the freedom of speech.
1. Freedom of speech is not given, it is innate in all men.
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
1. Freedom of speech is not given, it is innate in all men.
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
You're drifting to the other side in your views and what you choose to condemn and excuse. I hope you see that.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 25, 2008, 07:27:32 AM
No, it is not the soldier that has given us the freedom of speech.
1. Freedom of speech is not given, it is innate in all men.
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
1. Freedom of speech is not given, it is innate in all men.
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
You're drifting to the other side in your views and what you choose to condemn and excuse. I hope you see that.
"The other side"?
Do they have cookies?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 25, 2008, 07:29:26 AM
Looks like the usual collection of clowns and asshats.
Yep. I do wonder how these seemingly professional demonstrators/rioters (there are such a thing over here) support themselves? Leeching off parents? Welfare? Although I understood that these photos were taken on a Sunday, who wants to bet we'll see the same faces in the crowd of hippies flocking the streets during this week?
Post by: Scout26 on August 25, 2008, 07:34:23 AM
Post by: grislyatoms on August 25, 2008, 07:34:57 AM
Quote
I do wonder how these seemingly professional demonstrators/rioters (there are such a thing over here) support themselves?
I was thinking somewhat along the same lines, although my actual thought was "I bet all the fast food joints in town are short staffed."
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 25, 2008, 07:38:48 AM
Quote
I do wonder how these seemingly professional demonstrators/rioters (there are such a thing over here) support themselves?
I was thinking somewhat along the same lines, although my actual thought was "I bet all the fast food joints in town are short staffed."
Most of the 'professional protesters' I know work in the IT sector, study in college, or write for Israel's various newspapers (and if that doesn't raise concerns about bias, I don't know what the hell does).
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 25, 2008, 07:47:16 AM
Quote
I do wonder how these seemingly professional demonstrators/rioters (there are such a thing over here) support themselves?
I was thinking somewhat along the same lines, although my actual thought was "I bet all the fast food joints in town are short staffed."
Post by: grislyatoms on August 25, 2008, 07:50:22 AM
Noisy, rabble-rousing attention whores.
Do those folks in the first picture appear to be willing to engage in a debate?
Contrast that first picture with the second picture.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 25, 2008, 07:52:18 AM
Post by: 2swap on August 25, 2008, 08:01:42 AM
Going out on a limb here, but I would bet a dollar to a dime if you asked any one of those folks (in the first picture) who the Secretary of State or Speaker of the House is, they will draw a blank.
Noisy, rabble-rousing attention whores.
Do those folks in the first picture appear to be willing to engage in a debate?
Contrast that first picture with the second picture.
Noisy, rabble-rousing attention whores.
Do those folks in the first picture appear to be willing to engage in a debate?
Contrast that first picture with the second picture.
I never met an American hippy, but I found their German counterparts rather well informed. The people, however, who just live day to day, and seem to just care about being normal are ridiculously underinformed. Fortunately, they often don't vote (or always for the same party without re-considering it)
Post by: mtnbkr on August 25, 2008, 08:07:21 AM
Most of the 'professional protesters' I know work in the IT sector
I've worked in the "IT sector" for the past 12yrs and have yet to run into those types. Maybe they worked for dot bombs, hence their abundance of free time...
Chris
Post by: El Tejon on August 25, 2008, 08:10:28 AM
It's like Spike Lee's "Defend Brooklyn" t-shirt but in Denver. How ironic.
Post by: charby on August 25, 2008, 08:11:09 AM
Most of the 'professional protesters' I know work in the IT sector
I've worked in the "IT sector" for the past 12yrs and have yet to run into those types. Maybe they worked for dot bombs, hence their abundance of free time...
Chris
There are few leftist in the IT world where I work, but most are God fearing and gun owning computer nerds.
Post by: El Tejon on August 25, 2008, 08:11:56 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on August 25, 2008, 08:16:26 AM
Most of the 'professional protesters' I know work in the IT sector
I've worked in the "IT sector" for the past 12yrs and have yet to run into those types. Maybe they worked for dot bombs, hence their abundance of free time...
Chris
There are few leftist in the IT world where I work, but most are God fearing and gun owning computer nerds.
I didn't say there weren't any leftists or even smelly hippies, but I never ran into any professional protester types. All of the leftists and smelly hippies (L&SH) were too busy adding to the tax base so the leeches, protesters, and other non-producers could continue their activities uninterrupted.
Most of the "smelly hippy" types were old school smelly hippies, who were coding in Cobol before MB was a gleam in his daddy's eye.
Chris
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 25, 2008, 08:45:29 AM
Quote
I do wonder how these seemingly professional demonstrators/rioters (there are such a thing over here) support themselves?
I was thinking somewhat along the same lines, although my actual thought was "I bet all the fast food joints in town are short staffed."
Post by: grislyatoms on August 25, 2008, 08:53:58 AM
Quote
You really thing Ghoul-boy (punk kid with ripped jeans in first picture) would work in a fast food joint?
Perhaps not. I could hear him saying:"Hey Scooby, like, pass me the rolling papers and have you seen, like, my copy of the Communist Manifesto?"
Post by: Manedwolf on August 25, 2008, 08:54:19 AM
Most of the 'professional protesters' I know work in the IT sector
I've worked in the "IT sector" for the past 12yrs and have yet to run into those types. Maybe they worked for dot bombs, hence their abundance of free time...
Chris
A lot are unemployable, still.
There was just a news report that the new Gen Y sorts coming into the workplace "expect" flextime and are used to being the center of attention, and it's causing stress for managers, but there's so many of them that they can't be ignored.
What, did all the thirtysomethings disappear? Why do they have to hire such losers?
Post by: Scout26 on August 25, 2008, 08:55:32 AM
Post by: 41magsnub on August 25, 2008, 08:59:05 AM
No, it is not the soldier that has given us the freedom of speech.
1. Freedom of speech is not given, it is innate in all men.
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
1. Freedom of speech is not given, it is innate in all men.
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
You're drifting to the other side in your views and what you choose to condemn and excuse. I hope you see that.
"The other side"?
Do they have cookies?
They have the "special" brownies.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 25, 2008, 09:12:48 AM
I am sure there are some that are well informed, but many are not. Too many TV shows air their interviews of them to say they are all well informed. Of course, many normal blue collar people aren't too well informed either. That is one reason why I don't complain when people say voter turnout is low.
I was wondering how many of these people will be at the Repub convention also? Will they protest the same stuff?
Post by: French G. on August 25, 2008, 09:28:02 AM
Quote
What's up with this AR he's holding? Marked for rubber bullets/pepper ball shots only? Mag is the oddest I've seen...
That would be this thing here. Pretty nice piece. Full disclosure, I own a little speculative stock in this under performing company, hopefully the gun will get a good test drive in Denver and kick off some more orders. Quote
That's a paintball gun dressed up to have the same controls as an AR-15.
http://www.veritastactical.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=53
Post by: roo_ster on August 25, 2008, 09:32:27 AM
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
3. I don't see how you can learn about these people's 'hygiene' from the picture. If anything, it's probably that the JBTs wearing all that black in that weather smell just as bad if not worse.
#2: Calling Washington "minor" akin to calling a diagnosis of terminal lung cancer "incidental" because the patient ultimately died from lack of oxygen to the brain...never mind the compromised lung function.
#3: True, one can not accomplish a total examination of personal hygiene from a photograph, but there are some visual cues to tip us off. Add to that the personal experience I have had with the hygiene-lacking hippy-types in general and I am willing to speculate on the PH of these particular folks.
The armor-wearing LEOs generally have PH standards to which they must adhere. Hippies do not. Also, such organizations generally have some effective peer-group enforcement techniques if one of the LEOs decides to scrimp on PH.
Then, there is the metaphorical stink of marxist and anarchist ideas.
Here is a wikipedia entry on some PH basics:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene
The following are examples of personal hygiene as practiced in many cultures.
[edit] General
* Washing the body and hair.
o Bathing
o Showering
* Cleaning of the clothes and living area.
* Changing bedsheets when a different person sleeps on the bed.
* Cutting of nails.
* Cutting of hair.
* Cleaning of nails.
* Cleaning the house.
[edit] Hands
* Frequent washing of hands and face.
* Washing hands after using the toilet.
* Holding a tissue over the mouth or using the upper arm/elbow region when coughing or sneezing, rather than a bare hand. Alternatively, washing hands afterwards.
* Not touching animals before eating, or washing hands thoroughly between animal-touching and eating.
* Suppression of objectionable habits, such as nose-picking, touching pimples, biting fingernails etc.
* Not sharing toothbrushes, razors, towels, combs, hair brushes, and other personal objects.
[edit] Other
* Oral hygienetaking care of the teeth and gums, and treating or preventing bad breath
o Daily brushing (with toothpaste) and flossing the teeth, to prevent tooth decay and gum disease. This also helps treat and prevent bad breath.
o Chewing gum or rinsing mouth with antibacterial mouthwashes (such as Listerine) can also dispel bad breath
* Avoiding contact with bodily fluids, such as blood, feces, urine, and vomit.
* Wearing clean underwear, pantyhose or tights and clothing daily. Washing working / social-uniform / clothing at a regular time-interval.
* Frequent washing of face.
[edit] Grooming
Main article: Personal grooming
The related term personal grooming/grooming means to enhance one's physical appearance or appeal for others, by removing obvious imperfections in one's appearance or improving one's hygiene.
Many animals groom themselves and each other. Grooming in humans typically includes bathroom activities such as primping: washing and cleansing the hair, combing it to extract tangles and snarls, and styling. It can also include cosmetic care of the body, such as shaving and other forms of depilation.
[edit] General
* Washing the body and hair.
o Bathing
o Showering
* Cleaning of the clothes and living area.
* Changing bedsheets when a different person sleeps on the bed.
* Cutting of nails.
* Cutting of hair.
* Cleaning of nails.
* Cleaning the house.
[edit] Hands
* Frequent washing of hands and face.
* Washing hands after using the toilet.
* Holding a tissue over the mouth or using the upper arm/elbow region when coughing or sneezing, rather than a bare hand. Alternatively, washing hands afterwards.
* Not touching animals before eating, or washing hands thoroughly between animal-touching and eating.
* Suppression of objectionable habits, such as nose-picking, touching pimples, biting fingernails etc.
* Not sharing toothbrushes, razors, towels, combs, hair brushes, and other personal objects.
[edit] Other
* Oral hygienetaking care of the teeth and gums, and treating or preventing bad breath
o Daily brushing (with toothpaste) and flossing the teeth, to prevent tooth decay and gum disease. This also helps treat and prevent bad breath.
o Chewing gum or rinsing mouth with antibacterial mouthwashes (such as Listerine) can also dispel bad breath
* Avoiding contact with bodily fluids, such as blood, feces, urine, and vomit.
* Wearing clean underwear, pantyhose or tights and clothing daily. Washing working / social-uniform / clothing at a regular time-interval.
* Frequent washing of face.
[edit] Grooming
Main article: Personal grooming
The related term personal grooming/grooming means to enhance one's physical appearance or appeal for others, by removing obvious imperfections in one's appearance or improving one's hygiene.
Many animals groom themselves and each other. Grooming in humans typically includes bathroom activities such as primping: washing and cleansing the hair, combing it to extract tangles and snarls, and styling. It can also include cosmetic care of the body, such as shaving and other forms of depilation.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 25, 2008, 09:35:21 AM
Quote
What's up with this AR he's holding? Marked for rubber bullets/pepper ball shots only? Mag is the oddest I've seen...
That would be this thing here. Pretty nice piece. Full disclosure, I own a little speculative stock in this under performing company, hopefully the gun will get a good test drive in Denver and kick off some more orders. Quote
That's a paintball gun dressed up to have the same controls as an AR-15.
http://www.veritastactical.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=53
. PAVA rounds are illegal for sure, but I wonder about the rifle and the rubber and training rounds...
Post by: charby on August 25, 2008, 09:41:58 AM
What, did all the thirtysomethings disappear? Why do they have to hire such losers?
Were all gainfully employed and these whining employers don't pay enough to lure me away.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 25, 2008, 09:45:53 AM
Quote
What's up with this AR he's holding? Marked for rubber bullets/pepper ball shots only? Mag is the oddest I've seen...
That would be this thing here. Pretty nice piece. Full disclosure, I own a little speculative stock in this under performing company, hopefully the gun will get a good test drive in Denver and kick off some more orders. Quote
That's a paintball gun dressed up to have the same controls as an AR-15.
http://www.veritastactical.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=53
.68 caliber? That'll shoot the Pepperballs I already own. I have a Zeus pistol with a laser for that purpose, as of now.
Oooo.
One question? Why the hell does it have a flash hider?
And WHO PUT THE SIGHTS ON IT? They appear to have done an HK...Are they going to sell many guns with the sights all on backwards?
Post by: Tallpine on August 25, 2008, 11:17:14 AM
Quote
What, did all the thirtysomethings disappear?
We became fiftysomethings
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 25, 2008, 01:20:01 PM
2. It is a 'community organizer' called Sam Adams and a politician called James Madison that brought us the Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Washington's role was comparatively minor.
That last sentence. Terribly wrong. Washington may not have been a policy wonk like Madison, or a fiery speaker like Patrick Henry, or even an ambitious visionary like Hamilton. Nonetheless, his civil and military leadership was incredibly important; before, during and after the revolution.
Failed to mention all the soldiers that Washington led, the militiamen, and the sailors, Yank and Frog, that also made things happen. Washington could not have carried it off as a lone Founding Father, and he wouldn't have been much of a general without an army to lead, either.
Post by: lee n. field on August 25, 2008, 02:01:26 PM
Quote
Smelly Hippies, Commies, and Anarchists Stinking Up Denver
Hey. Be careful with your terminology there. There are anarchists, and there are anarchists.
Left-anarchists are your typical eurosocialist ding-dongs, with no clear notion of much of anything much less production.
Anarcho-capitalists own guns and regard the Libertarian Party as "too compromising".
Post by: crt360 on August 25, 2008, 02:18:34 PM
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2008, 02:36:33 PM
Post by: French G. on August 25, 2008, 04:16:30 PM
Quote
And WHO PUT THE SIGHTS ON IT? They appear to have done an HK...Are they going to sell many guns with the sights all on backwards? cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy
Always watch the ad production dummies and the dummy products they use.
Looks like Denver PD went with EoTechs anyway.
I can understand an Iraqi thinking Al Sadr is a hero but here in America can we just hit them with a Buick or something?
Post by: freakazoid on August 25, 2008, 06:36:52 PM
Quote
It doesn't take much of an income to support these types. Cheap food, ratty clothing, couch-surfing, and the like are all they require. Maybe a little spare cash weed and cheap beer, or maybe those necessities can be mooched off of others.
This is where I would tell you to F' off. But that wouldn't be very armedpolitesociety.
Quote
Hey. Be careful with your terminology there. There are anarchists, and there are anarchists.
Left-anarchists are your typical eurosocialist ding-dongs, with no clear notion of much of anything much less production.
Anarcho-capitalists own guns and regard the Libertarian Party as "too compromising".
Left-anarchists are your typical eurosocialist ding-dongs, with no clear notion of much of anything much less production.
Anarcho-capitalists own guns and regard the Libertarian Party as "too compromising".
You underestimate us. Most of us "left"-anarchists are gun lovers too.
Quote
"The other side"?
Do they have cookies?
Do they have cookies?
Yes, yes we do. And we are willing to share,
Quote
I was wondering how many of these people will be at the Repub convention also? Will they protest the same stuff?
While I am not at the DNC I should be at the RNC,
Post by: Scout26 on August 25, 2008, 06:41:29 PM
Anyone else notice the subliminal Coors ad featuring Muqtada Al Sadr?
Now whenever I see that silly "Code Blue" commerical, I'll just picture Muqtada and the rest of the Turban Gang getting together to "vent"......
Post by: LAK on August 25, 2008, 10:37:22 PM
Quote
Smelly Hippies, Commies, and Anarchists Stinking Up Denver
Awful; what about the people outside the convention center protesting etc?
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 26, 2008, 07:07:17 AM
Quote
Calling Washington "minor" akin to calling a diagnosis of terminal lung cancer "incidental" because the patient ultimately died from lack of oxygen to the brain...never mind the compromised lung function.
Even if we ignore completely the debate (that existed at the time of the Founding) regarding the role of Washington's military leadership (which was never extended to all the various fighting units, and was extensively criticized at the time of the war) and I am inclined to ignre it because I do not want to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking on a war that's been fought 200 years ago, I think it's clear that the idea that 'soldiers' and not 'community organizers' are the keystone of freedom is rather bogus. Without generations of community organizers, protestors, and lawyers, you wouldn't have any freedom.
You know what the Founding Fathers thought of standing armies, right?
Now, I don't know why you linked that wiki I will assume you did not want to imply I am unaware of basic PH but it seems to me that this thread has a really strange vibe to it, as if people were going after the hippies for being protestors, rather than being communist protestors.
I suspect heavily though I cannot prove that had these people been protesting for capital-anarchism, small government, and property rights (rather than anarcho-syndicalism, mindblowingly-huge government, and confiscatin everybody's shiny stuff), your reaction would have been similar, and thhis really, really bugs me. I do not say this to insult you in any manner, this is just the general vibe I have been getting from this thread.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 26, 2008, 08:17:47 AM
You make a good point about the importance of "community organizers." However, there is no question that Washington and other fighting men were very, very important to our independence, for the past two hundred years, and are still important today.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on August 26, 2008, 09:25:32 AM
Quote
Humanity needs Revolution and Communism
If that's true, then I need to go hang out with the next evolutionary step of Homo Sapiens.
I was in Seattle for the WTO riots in Seattle of 2000. Commie organizers and agitators, lots of propaganda materials, individuals with bullhorns, dirty kids with handkerchiefs they think will help against mace. I left before it got real bad, but I saw a face-off between one group of protestors and a line of Seattle PD in riot gear.
Lots of pointless property vandalism was the ultimate extent of these riots.
What I don't get... why protest the lib-dem convention? The libs want to let all these ecoweenies go to college on the taxpayer dime and never pay off their loans. The libs want more social welfare. The libs want more socialism/communism. The libs are on their side!
It just shows how silly and pointless their entire platform is... nothing but a bunch of class envy, pointless greed for the property and success of others, resentment for perceived injustices and a pool of negative self-esteem looking to drown more new recruits.
If these people had any balls whatsoever they would go and protest the Republican convention... or even the Libertarian convention.
That would be something to see! They'd all get beaten to death with hardcover limited editions of "Atlas Shrugged!"
Post by: roo_ster on August 26, 2008, 09:48:01 AM
Quote
Calling Washington "minor" akin to calling a diagnosis of terminal lung cancer "incidental" because the patient ultimately died from lack of oxygen to the brain...never mind the compromised lung function.
Even if we ignore completely the debate (that existed at the time of the Founding) regarding the role of Washington's military leadership (which was never extended to all the various fighting units, and was extensively criticized at the time of the war) and I am inclined to ignre it because I do not want to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking on a war that's been fought 200 years ago, I think it's clear that the idea that 'soldiers' and not 'community organizers' are the keystone of freedom is rather bogus. Without generations of community organizers, protestors, and lawyers, you wouldn't have any freedom.
I will merely assume ignorance on your part and move on.
You know what the Founding Fathers thought of standing armies, right?
Yes. Not particularly relevant to any of the topics in this thread, though.
Now, I don't know why you linked that wiki I will assume you did not want to imply I am unaware of basic PH ...
It was a list of commonly accepted PH standards. Some of which can be judged visually.
...but it seems to me that this thread has a really strange vibe to it, as if people were going after the hippies for being protestors, rather than being communist protestors.
I suspect heavily though I cannot prove that had these people been protesting for capital-anarchism, small government, and property rights (rather than anarcho-syndicalism, mindblowingly-huge government, and confiscatin everybody's shiny stuff), your reaction would have been similar, and thhis really, really bugs me. I do not say this to insult you in any manner, this is just the general vibe I have been getting from this thread.
I suspect heavily though I cannot prove that had these people been protesting for capital-anarchism, small government, and property rights (rather than anarcho-syndicalism, mindblowingly-huge government, and confiscatin everybody's shiny stuff), your reaction would have been similar, and thhis really, really bugs me. I do not say this to insult you in any manner, this is just the general vibe I have been getting from this thread.
In my case, I have a visceral dislike for anti-American types with poor personal hygiene. For some reason, the two seem to have a high correlation.
My response to pro-American & pro-liberty sorts with good personal hygiene would be different. Ideas matter. Soap is a Good Thing.
Last, the most significant "stink" I find objectionable I have already referred to: the metaphorical stink of totalitarian, anti-American, and anti-liberty ideas exhibited by the sorts goofing off in the photos. Damn fool placards and banners are outward examples of an inner state of poor cognitive hygiene..
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 26, 2008, 10:10:13 AM
Quote
Humanity needs Revolution and Communism
If that's true, then I need to go hang out with the next evolutionary step of Homo Sapiens.
I was in Seattle for the WTO riots in Seattle of 2000. Commie organizers and agitators, lots of propaganda materials, individuals with bullhorns, dirty kids with handkerchiefs they think will help against mace. I left before it got real bad, but I saw a face-off between one group of protestors and a line of Seattle PD in riot gear.
Lots of pointless property vandalism was the ultimate extent of these riots.
What I don't get... why protest the lib-dem convention? The libs want to let all these ecoweenies go to college on the taxpayer dime and never pay off their loans. The libs want more social welfare. The libs want more socialism/communism. The libs are on their side!
It just shows how silly and pointless their entire platform is... nothing but a bunch of class envy, pointless greed for the property and success of others, resentment for perceived injustices and a pool of negative self-esteem looking to drown more new recruits.
If these people had any balls whatsoever they would go and protest the Republican convention... or even the Libertarian convention.
That would be something to see! They'd all get beaten to death with hardcover limited editions of "Atlas Shrugged!"
Post by: freakazoid on August 26, 2008, 11:33:16 AM
Quote
with handkerchiefs they think will help against mace.
That isn't the point of wearing them, for the most part.
Quote
The libs want to let all these ecoweenies go to college on the taxpayer dime and never pay off their loans. The libs want more social welfare. The libs want more socialism/communism. The libs are on their side!
And that is what you people don't seem to get. No, they are NOT on our side. They are NOT socialists/communists! Do you people think that anybody who doesn't believe in a laissez-faire economy a socialist/communist?
Quote
If these people had any balls whatsoever they would go and protest the Republican convention
Yeah, we'll be there.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on August 26, 2008, 11:38:36 AM
Quote
That isn't the point of wearing them, for the most part.
The other point was to hide identity so that they can do things like throw cobblestones at police, ATM's and store windows and not be identified by eyewitnesses or video cameras. Very honorable.
Quote
And that is what you people don't seem to get. No, they are NOT on our side. They are NOT socialists/communists! Do you people think that anybody who doesn't believe in a laissez-faire economy a socialist/communist?
Yes. Next question?
Quote
Yeah, we'll be there.
Good. As long as you practice your freedom of speech, you're welcome to be there. Pick up a rock with the intent to do anonymous harm with your face covered, and I can't say I'll weep much if you get beaten down by a cop or otherwise stopped from your intended action.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 11:41:10 AM
Post by: freakazoid on August 26, 2008, 11:46:49 AM
Quote
The other point was to hide identity so that they can do things like throw cobblestones at police, ATM's and store windows and not be identified by eyewitnesses or video cameras. Very honorable
lolz, The point is to act in solidarity, sort of like the reason armies wear uniforms. And it keeps you from being singled out. And there is no point in trying to argue the reason for the destruction. Were just way to far apart in ideaologies in that area to even have a meaningful debate.
Quote
Yes.
Then that means that there are a lot of socialists/communists on this site.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 26, 2008, 12:04:26 PM
lolz, The point is to act in solidarity, sort of like the reason armies wear uniforms. And it keeps you from being singled out. And there is no point in trying to argue the reason for the destruction. Were just way to far apart in ideaologies in that area to even have a meaningful debate.
Solidarity in assaulting people, throwing molotovs, looting stores. And yes, it keeps you from being singled out on surveillance tapes shot from stores that were looted, or from being singled out as the one who threw that molotov against that store on the corner. But, I figure it's ok if it's for The Struggle!®
Post by: Balog on August 26, 2008, 12:14:13 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 26, 2008, 12:14:24 PM
And there is no point in trying to argue the reason for the destruction. Were just way to far apart in ideaologies in that area to even have a meaningful debate.
And too far apart in our knowledge of how to spell common words.
Really guys, what's the point in trying to have an adult conversation with someone who has to start every reply with "lol" ?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 12:21:28 PM
Post by: roo_ster on August 26, 2008, 02:01:06 PM
Quote
If these people had any balls whatsoever they would go and protest the Republican convention
Yeah, we'll be there.
Do your buddies a favor and hit Sam's or Costco for the jumbo pack of Irish Spring. Tell 'em the new thing is to show your solidarity with Irish anarchists, many of whom work in the IS plant by day, but are terrifically anarchic by night.
Quote from: freakazoid
And there is no point in trying to argue the reason for the destruction.
I dunno. I am interested in the reasoning behind destroying someone else's property while in a large group and seeking to shirk the consequences after having done so.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 26, 2008, 02:03:20 PM
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 26, 2008, 02:29:40 PM
Quote
Quote from: freakazoid
And there is no point in trying to argue the reason for the destruction.
I dunno. I am interested in the reasoning behind destroying someone else's property while in a large group and seeking to shirk the consequences after having done so.
Precisely. Anonymous rickrolling the Scientologists is a protest, and actually gains support for their cause through humor. How is random destruction:And there is no point in trying to argue the reason for the destruction.
I dunno. I am interested in the reasoning behind destroying someone else's property while in a large group and seeking to shirk the consequences after having done so.
1) Acceptable in any sort of (rational) belief system and
2) Different from the results of a NCAA championship celebration gone wrong?
Or to put it another way, if I'm walking through your neighborhood in force with a bunch of friends and we torched your car, would you be honor-bound to dissuade the police for looking for suspects because there's no reason for the destruction and we were acting in solidarity? Or would be be a bunch of ahole vandals who should be forced to replace your car and serve some time?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 03:13:11 PM
i can tell you what the driving force behind the detruction in the late 60's and early 70's was. useless young men with hormones raging trying to impress folks they professed contempt for. while some at least pretend to ave a concern for the issue dujour most are there for the excitement and action. much like the death and destruction in northern ireland hid behind a cause in reallity many of the players are just thugs or thuggabes hiding behind a political veneer.about 15 mins after the cops got turned loose with the old 3 orders to disperse then fire there would be a real shortage of heros.
someday the heroes are gonna piss of the wrong group and its gonna leave a mark. anyone remember the hard hats in new york mopping the streets with the hippies that one time? my perfect storm would be the heros crossing the hells angles or maybe ms 13. that would be video i'd wanna see on you tube.
and this from a guy who was a hippy back in the late 60's.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 26, 2008, 03:19:52 PM
how about choice 3? shoot someone who destroys property. i think arson qualifies as a threat to others lives.
I was going to put that as a choice, but I just didn't think you could shoot a vandal-of-conscience. What was the rule in '68? Shoot arsonist to kill, shoot looters to wound and detain?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 03:31:06 PM
In 68 the dc cops just started kicking butts i was so young they left me alone.I went down with an older group of heros just for the action and one of the organizing heros gave me a bag of marbles to dump in front of the mounted cops. I like horses so i dumped em and just kinda tagged along for grins and chuckles. was scary but good for me. i saw some cops deliver artful beatings.
Post by: Scout26 on August 26, 2008, 03:52:35 PM
Your posts are almost unreadable ......
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 26, 2008, 03:54:09 PM
Quote
I will merely assume ignorance on your part and move on.
This is not the thread for it, but allow me to point you to Morrison's old 'Oxford History of the American People'. There's controversy that existed since the very Founding days regarding the quality of Washington's command (there were multiple attempts by different forces in the Continental Congress to have him removed), and there are historians who believe the main reason for the eventual victory in the war were the various militia formations and the French/Dutch support.
Quote
Yes. Not particularly relevant to any of the topics in this thread, though.
I was criticising the old 'soldier, not the community organizer' saw.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 26, 2008, 05:53:25 PM
Quote
there are historians who believe the main reason for the eventual victory in the war were the various militia formations and the French/Dutch support.
So soldiers WERE important to the revolution. Bringing up a minority view point that Washington was anything less than a brilliant general is quite beside the point.
And if you think the militia was more effective than the Continental Army, you haven't read the books that I have. The militia tended to flee from battle more often than Washington's troops.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 26, 2008, 05:55:24 PM
But the cliche statement ignores all the 'community organizers' and 'protestors' that were important in the creation of the American form of government as it is known today.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 26, 2008, 08:25:32 PM
But "Washington's role was comparatively minor"? That's just a goofy thing to say. Washington was huge, and if you're going to keep bringing up contemporary attitudes toward Washington, they thought he was even huger back then. He's one reason we have our current Constitution, you know.
Post by: De Selby on August 26, 2008, 08:33:27 PM
And that point is taken, at least on my end.
But "Washington's role was comparatively minor"? That's just a goofy thing to say. Washington was huge, and if you're going to keep bringing up contemporary attitudes toward Washington, they thought he was even huger back then. He's one reason we have our current Constitution, you know.
But "Washington's role was comparatively minor"? That's just a goofy thing to say. Washington was huge, and if you're going to keep bringing up contemporary attitudes toward Washington, they thought he was even huger back then. He's one reason we have our current Constitution, you know.
It's not so goofy-there is a very good argument to be made that most of Washington's cash-value significance was as a storybook figure to help consolidate post-war political structures. In that regard he was certainly without equal-he was a character that could be placed into the various stories the political parties wanted to tell.
But in terms of brilliantly defeating the British army or managing the continental army, that is definitely not a "goofy" thing to say.
And more in line with what Micro is saying here (I have to agree), the army was extremely dangerous to the early republic. There was a large group of bitter vets who wanted to do away with any pre-revolution property rights and distribute all the assets of the new state amongst those who fought for it-their ideas showed (as did many enlightenment era societies) the seeds of Marx's communism.
Likewise, there were a number of plots to seize the reigns of the new state via military coup. We're extremely lucky that they didn't succeed.
An army that is popularly supported can defend a free country from outside attack by forces who may or may not make the country less free, but it cannot "defend freedom" into existence where there is none.
Post by: Werewolf on August 27, 2008, 12:31:45 PM
Soldiers did not create our freedoms in the US but they are definitely the guarantors of them...
Post by: Kaylee on August 27, 2008, 01:14:42 PM
(And yes, I'd say that to *both* sides)
But to liken this mess to "Solidarity" is an insult to those who really did DIE for their beliefs in REAL totalitarian regimes.
Quote
but it seems to me that this thread has a really strange vibe to it, as if people were going after the hippies for being protestors, rather than being communist protestors
Prolly because most "protesting" has become asinine in the last forty years. Less and less about any recognizable principle and more about the whole narcissistic drama of being "a rebel." Cheap heroism indeed. At least the Viet Nam era kids (whatever you think of their politics) burning their draft cards were actually *risking* something for their principles. Even if I disagree, I can respect the young man willing to go to prison instead of service if he's that adamantly against a war**.
But these folks? For all the screaming about "fascist" this and "evil empire" that, they know in their hearts they won't see worse than a CS pellet or maybe a "disorderly conduct" type charge if they totally make asses of themselves by closing off roads and suchlike*. When they step up and actually volunteer to scream "fascist" at real totalitarians that really do disappear people for acting up, I'll take 'em seriously.
Or if that's too much, get cleaned up and go do productive work that really does improve how other people live their lives. Fix a car. Make a dinner. Write a piece of software. Nurse some old folks, or wipe baby butts.
Not as romantic perhaps... but then, the real good-doing in this world is usually a heck of a lot less interesting than making a spectacle of yourself.
* Kaylee's quick test for how to tell if your "demonstration" is being broken up for political reasons or because you're being a thoughtless ass to your neighbors: if your signs said the opposite of what they do, would the cops still be pulling your butt off the street so traffic can keep moving? Most always in this country, the answer to that question is "yes."
** That said, given what I've heard from those who were there, such a young man would be decidedly in the minority.. the "rabblerousing is a fun way to pick up chicks" being the more common motivation.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 27, 2008, 02:16:29 PM
i wonder how many back then actually went to prison.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 27, 2008, 04:13:52 PM
Post by: French G. on August 27, 2008, 06:03:04 PM
Kaylee: Post more often, please.
Agreed.
Quote
If you have to wear a mask to do your job, you need to consider another line of work.
(And yes, I'd say that to *both* sides)
(And yes, I'd say that to *both* sides)
I like the part where one of the Fox news guys had pictures of Pelosi, Reid, Dick Cheney and a couple of other well known political people. They had protesters on camera that couldn't identify any of them despite clues. Sad. Protesting their freedom to live in a country where apparently the don't have to actually have a job or anything.
My solution still seems valid to me. Paintballs filled with soap in those nifty guns Denver PD has and backed up by a water cannon. A few PAVA balls can be interspersed to make them scrub vigorously.
Post by: freakazoid on August 27, 2008, 09:11:46 PM
Quote
So freak, who and what do you consider "real" communists? And how do you reconcile communism and anarchism? In your words.
Communism pretty much = anarchism. Anarchy is really a direct method to reach communism, there isn't much of a transitional period as with the other ideologies. There is nothing to reconcile. Communism is a classless stateless society.
Quote
And too far apart in our knowledge of how to spell common words.
Oh noes, I misspelled "ideologies" and "we're". I have neeever scene that done here before,
And I count 2 misspelled words.Quote
Really guys, what's the point in trying to have an adult conversation with someone who has to start every reply with "lol" ?
Really? EVERY reply with "lol"? Do you care to prove that? http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wxfCJ8dXNlcnNwZWN8J3wqZnJlYWthem9pZHwifGJyZHwnfDEsNXwifHNob3dfY29tcGxldGV8J3x8InxzdWJqZWN0X29ubHl8J3x8Inxzb3J0X2RpcnwnfGRlc2N8Inxzb3J0fCd8cmVsZXZhbmNlfCJ8c2VhcmNofCd8bG9s;start=30 This came up with only 40 times that I had used "lol" Before this post I have posted a total of 287 times. 287 - 40 = 247 times that I haven't used "lol. Not only that but those were not all used at the beginning of a reply. Do you not even know why I had used "lolz"? It was because I found his ignorance on it funny. Nice try though at trying to discredit my posts because of a few spelling errors and word choices,
Quote
Do your buddies a favor and hit Sam's or Costco for the jumbo pack of Irish Spring. Tell 'em the new thing is to show your solidarity with Irish anarchists, many of whom work in the IS plant by day, but are terrifically anarchic by night.
I am now unable to go,
I was hopeing to be able to carpool up with another person to keep the price of gas down but now he is unable to go.Quote
I dunno. I am interested in the reasoning behind destroying someone else's property while in a large group and seeking to shirk the consequences after having done so.
The thing is that there are a few other things that have to be understood before this can even begin to be touched. But I do invite you to revleft.com and look around for your answers.
Quote
Or to put it another way, if I'm walking through your neighborhood in force with a bunch of friends and we torched your car, would you be honor-bound to dissuade the police for looking for suspects because there's no reason for the destruction and we were acting in solidarity? Or would be be a bunch of ahole vandals who should be forced to replace your car and serve some time?
No where near the same.
Quote
Once word got out they were gonna shoot folks remembered their manners.Sometimes i really wish i was rich.
I count 3 errors, added an extra space, forgot a comma, and left out a space. Should I now completely disregard your post, after all there where only 2 in mine.
Quote
But to liken this mess to "Solidarity" is an insult to those who really did DIE for their beliefs in REAL totalitarian regimes.
I think you misunderstood my point.
Quote
At least the Viet Nam era kids (whatever you think of their politics) burning their draft cards were actually *risking* something for their principles. Even if I disagree, I can respect the young man willing to go to prison instead of service if he's that adamantly against a war**.
Have you not heard or scene what happens to the protesters now?
Quote
But these folks? For all the screaming about "fascist" this and "evil empire" that, they know in their hearts they won't see worse than a CS pellet or maybe a "disorderly conduct" type charge if they totally make asses of themselves by closing off roads and suchlike*. When they step up and actually volunteer to scream "fascist" at real totalitarians that really do disappear people for acting up, I'll take 'em seriously.
So because it isn't as bad as real totalitarian places that all of a sudden means that it still isn't bad? If that is the case then perhaps the blacks really shouldn't of minded all the different types of racism towards them, after all it wasn't like what had happened to the Jews.
Quote
Or if that's too much, get cleaned up and go do productive work that really does improve how other people live their lives. Fix a car. Make a dinner. Write a piece of software. Nurse some old folks, or wipe baby butts.
You talk as if people don't do these things either.
Quote
I like the part where one of the Fox news guys had pictures of Pelosi, Reid, Dick Cheney and a couple of other well known political people. They had protesters on camera that couldn't identify any of them despite clues. Sad. Protesting their freedom to live in a country where apparently the don't have to actually have a job or anything.
Something tells me that they were selective on who they televised.
Post by: Kaylee on August 27, 2008, 10:38:24 PM
Quote
Communism pretty much = anarchism. Anarchy is really a direct method to reach communism, there isn't much of a transitional period as with the other ideologies. There is nothing to reconcile. Communism is a classless stateless society.
So you're saying anarchy - a lack of government - would result in a "classless society?"
Evidently you're not living in the same world as the rest of us, where the results of a power vacuum are pretty clearly observable on a daily basis.
(Hint, it begins with "strong overpower the weak," given enough time leads to "rival warlords," and once there tends to end with "famine," "genocide" and "casual brutality." )
That said, I'll grant the disparity between rich and poor is reduced...
...of course, that's because the people who make lots of stuff tend to either get killed for their stuff or are so preoccupied with daily survival there's not much time left for them to do the whole "artisan" (or "bourgeoisie capitalist pig" if you prefer) thing.
*grammar, spelling, interwebz-speak quibbles not worth bothering with*
Quote
Have you not heard or scene what happens to the protesters now?
The same thing that would happen to them if they carried signs saying "George Bush is Jesus" and "I love General Petraeas" or even "Bomb Baghdad for the WTO" while doing the exact same things. Don't want to get forcibly removed from the street? Don't sit in the frickin' street while other people are trying to get to work and do something productive with their time. Don't want to get a face full of CS spray? Don't throw things at the policeman. Also wise not to advance on him in a mob while screaming. People get touchy when they see a screaming mob walking towards them. Can't say I blame 'em. In short... be Gallant, not Goofus.
Pretty simple really.
Quote
You talk as if people don't do these things either.
Yup. Yup I do. Wanna know why? Because every time I hear about one of these "protests," it happened when I was at work.
... and that's enough for one post. 'night all. Thanks for the welcome.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 28, 2008, 12:32:29 AM
Quote
Communism pretty much = anarchism. Anarchy is really a direct method to reach communism, there isn't much of a transitional period as with the other ideologies. There is nothing to reconcile. Communism is a classless stateless society.
I'm not sure where you were during the twentieth century, but most of the large-scale experiments didn't really end up with communism=anarchism.If the equation doesn't go both ways, it ain't equal.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 28, 2008, 01:10:16 AM
Communism, in practice, has led to some of the most totalitarian governments in history.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 02:41:22 AM
Post by: Ben on August 28, 2008, 03:34:16 AM
Quote
The thing is that there are a few other things that have to be understood before this can even begin to be touched.
Please. What has to be understood? It is a basic violation of personal property rights. The violators should be thrown in jail, or better yet, shot.
Do you think this country's revolution revolved around "patriots" burning down their innocent neighbors houses, shooting their livestock, and saying "Take that King George!"?
If you're using the "workers" versus everybody else ideology from your quoted website, when you smash somebody's car to bits, all you've done is destroy something a successful "worker" worked hard for and earned. Kudos.
Post by: grampster on August 28, 2008, 05:11:00 AM
Post by: Balog on August 28, 2008, 05:11:37 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 05:14:05 AM
Communism, in theory, requires no government (or at least, little government).
Communism, in practice, has led to some of the most totalitarian governments in history.
Communism, in practice, has led to some of the most totalitarian governments in history.
Communism the utopian dream is both intellectual masturbationism and also a recipe for the destruction of innovation. Why bother to advance, invent, even make an effort if there's no reward?
Communism the reality is even worse, and is Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 28, 2008, 05:27:11 AM
Her response: "No."
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 05:36:23 AM
Guy returns from a relatavistic space mission. Not only does nobody care about it or the research they did, but humanity has managed to end hardship, end the need for money, and delete violent urges with a permanent pharmaceutical treatment given at birth. People can quite literally not picture themselves killing, even in their own mind.
The dawning horror, given as the author lets you sit up all night with the protagonist reading the last century of missed academic research, is that it has entirely removed mankind's spark and drive, completely gone. He checks dates and sees the dwindling of hard science research over time, the fading of invention, and in other areas, the demise of competitive sports. It is absolutely believable, even to documentation of how children of the first of "new" generations couldn't relate to their parents who they saw as hopelessly violent and needlessly impassioned about things, as far removed from them as neanderthals. And it takes place several generations later.
Humanity killed need and jealousy, and in doing so, killed all passion, dooming itself to a lukewarm eternity of doing the same meaningless things. Looks pretty on the surface, urban utopias and pristine countrysides, but none of it means anything.
It'll give you nightmares.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 06:02:04 AM
Quote
The thing is that there are a few other things that have to be understood before this can even begin to be touched.
Please. What has to be understood? It is a basic violation of personal property rights. The violators should be thrown in jail, or better yet, shot.
Do you think this country's revolution revolved around "patriots" burning down their innocent neighbors houses, shooting their livestock, and saying "Take that King George!"?
If you're using the "workers" versus everybody else ideology from your quoted website, when you smash somebody's car to bits, all you've done is destroy something a successful "worker" worked hard for and earned. Kudos.
thats sop if we were only as enlightened as he is it would be obvious to us
Post by: Balog on August 28, 2008, 06:04:45 AM
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2008, 07:14:46 AM
What a bunch of flippin' losers. Too bad they weren't given some .45ACP therapy.
Post by: freakazoid on August 28, 2008, 07:23:50 AM
Quote
Stirringly eloquent defense there freak. I mean, it included an equal sign, so it's like a mathematical proof or something!
What does this have to do with anything? What are you trying to say?
And with that I will return sometime later to respond to all the other actual responses to my responses... yeah. As right now I have to go and turn the horses out and clean the stalls. Of course if I was to follow some of your guys logic I shouldn't actually be doing that because apparently everybody is so gready and a pos that they have to have some sort of incentive to do any kind of work,
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 28, 2008, 07:29:47 AM
Communism, in theory, requires no government (or at least, little government).
Communism, in practice, has led to some of the most totalitarian governments in history.
Communism, in practice, has led to some of the most totalitarian governments in history.
Communism the utopian dream is both intellectual masturbationism and also a recipe for the destruction of innovation. Why bother to advance, invent, even make an effort if there's no reward?
Communism the reality is even worse, and is Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro.
I'll agree with that. Understand that my concern is not a defense of communism, nor an endorsement of anarchy. Whereas some here simply might write this protest in Denver off as a bunch of loons dead set on making a mess of things, and move on, I am actually a bit curious as to how they think communism might work in the U.S. I'm sure that they'd have no answers for that. Of course, historical examples would clearly show that it doesn't work at all. Maybe these people should be giving more thought to what they are protesting/advocating.
Yet, at the same time, I haven't lost my focus on what helps breed this kind of behavior we are seeing at the DNC;
Weeds do not typically thrive in well-tended gardens.
EDIT: And, if this is only the Democratic national convention, I'm afraid we haven't seen anything yet.
Post by: Balog on August 28, 2008, 07:35:23 AM
Note I'm asking for your thoughts, not a link to some website.
PS voluntary communes etc are not relevant, as everyone is A. taking part of their own free will and B. united by a common ideology. And even those have a pretty poor track record.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 08:50:10 AM
Quote
I'd also like to know how you explain the fact that anarchy and communism, when actually tried in the real world and not a utopian wet dream, fail miserably.
The ancient Icelanders are growling at you from their graves, Balog.
So is Nozick.
Post by: freakazoid on August 28, 2008, 09:41:28 AM
Quote
So you're saying anarchy - a lack of government - would result in a "classless society?"
A lack of government =/= anarchy. A classless socieety is one prerequisite to an anarchist society.
Quote
Evidently you're not living in the same world as the rest of us, where the results of a power vacuum are pretty clearly observable on a daily basis.
(Hint, it begins with "strong overpower the weak," given enough time leads to "rival warlords," and once there tends to end with "famine," "genocide" and "casual brutality." )
(Hint, it begins with "strong overpower the weak," given enough time leads to "rival warlords," and once there tends to end with "famine," "genocide" and "casual brutality." )
It takes anarchists for an anarchist society to work.
Quote
I'm not sure where you were during the twentieth century, but most of the large-scale experiments didn't really end up with communism=anarchism.
Places like the USSR were not communist/socialist. If you really would like to know how they went wrong then I highly suggest you read or ask over at revleft.com Some of them are far far smarter on that subject than I am.
Quote
don't harsh the revolution/party with reallity
Wow, what a valuable peace of information, thanks for contributing to this debate,
Quote
Please. What has to be understood? It is a basic violation of personal property rights.
And this is part of what I am talking about in our differences. The view of private and personal rights.
Quote
Do you think this country's revolution revolved around "patriots" burning down their innocent neighbors houses, shooting their livestock, and saying "Take that King George!"?
Not the same.
Quote
Those protesters are only the camo for their peers who have actually infiltrated the Democrat Party. The demonstrators job is to keep you occupied and distracted while the real threat works hard on the inside.
Is this serious?
Quote
Communism the reality is even worse, and is Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro.
Like I had said above, those were not communist/socialist.
Quote
Communism the utopian dream is both intellectual masturbationism and also a recipe for the destruction of innovation. Why bother to advance, invent, even make an effort if there's no reward?
I had mentioned why this is stupid in my post before this one. Also why do people voluntier for anything if there is no reward? Do voluntier firemen get paid?
Quote
Her response: "No."
So you asked a 9 year old if she would work harder if there was no reward and you would expect a different answer?
Quote
I am actually a bit curious as to how they think communism might work in the U.S. I'm sure that they'd have no answers for that.
I am sure that they do have answers. Seriously, you guys who are actually interested in learning should consider checking out revleft.com
Quote
Of course, historical examples would clearly show that it doesn't work at all.
Ah, but historical examples do show that it can work.
Quote
Freak: I was referring to your response to my question. "Anarchy=communism." This isn't a response or a defense, it's just a random statement. So I'll ask again, why do you personally believe that anarchy and communism are A. synonymous and B. Good Things.
But I did say how they are synonymus. Did you ask the second part? I don't see how they wouldn't be viewd as good things. Since when do libertarians view more freedom as bad?
Quote
I'd also like to know how you explain the fact that anarchy and communism, when actually tried in the real world and not a utopian wet dream, fail miserably.
They haven't. Again, places like the USSR were not socialist/communist. Have you heard of the Paris Commune?
Quote
Note I'm asking for your thoughts, not a link to some website.
LINKY, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html :p Actually a very good sorce of info if you take the time to read through it. Why would you want my thoughts on it? My words suck. I'm never good at explaining what I mean. I failed my last semester of high school English. But I can try.
Quote
PS voluntary communes etc are not relevant, as everyone is A. taking part of their own free will and B. united by a common ideology. And even those have a pretty poor track record.
Why aren't they relevant? They are it working.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 09:48:33 AM
Request denied by the Firewall
Reason: one or more categories denied details='Intolerance & Hate'
The firewall only does that for sites like stormfront. So there you go.
I'm going to guess they're one of the groups that are one of the reasons why I own a battle rifle. In case they need stopping someday when they "act out" and want to violate a bunch of property rights and hurt a bunch of innocent people.
Post by: freakazoid on August 28, 2008, 09:52:29 AM
edit - Oh noes, I used lol at the beggining of my sentence.
Post by: Scout26 on August 28, 2008, 10:22:30 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 10:34:27 AM
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2008, 10:35:04 AM
Hence, the devolution into anarchist/communist navel-gazing and justifications for destroying other people's property.
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2008, 10:41:31 AM
Quote
Welcome to revleft.com, one of the world's largest leftist forum communities where over 8,000 leftists from around the world come to discuss politics, history, political theory, philosophy, music, literature, films and much more in over 50,000 posted discussions! You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with your comrades (PM), respond to polls, upload pictures, join the Live Chat, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and of course absolutely free so please, join RevLeft today!
This is choice:
Quote
Opposing Ideologies (5 Viewing)
Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists*
Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists*
Having read some Marx, Lenin, Mao, & Bakunin; I likely won't waste my time at revleft.
Post by: El Tejon on August 28, 2008, 10:42:46 AM
Quote
Minneapolis is so full of horrifyingly stupid leftists who might want to make an example of themselves.
Long time since you were in Denver, Mane?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 10:44:57 AM
Quote
Minneapolis is so full of horrifyingly stupid leftists who might want to make an example of themselves.
Long time since you were in Denver, Mane?
Oh, I know they're there, too, but they haaaaaaaate Republicans with the smoldering fire of ten thousand joints and water pipes. So they might do Really Stupid Things in Minneapolis. And there's an unhealthy infestation of leftists already there, just like Denver.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 28, 2008, 10:46:22 AM
Quote
The Paris Commune (French: La Commune de Paris) was a government that briefly ruled Paris from 18 March (more formally from 26 March) to 28 May 1871. It existed before the split between Anarchists and Socialists, and is hailed by both as the first seizure of power by the working class. Debates over its policies and outcome contributed to the break between those two political groups.
It seems that there were 8 glorious weeks of blissful anarchy before it imploded.I have always found this Onion article to be instructive http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38517
As to the point of teaching my daughter: Of course a 9 year old would say that it doesn't make sense. Almost any rational person would say that it doesn't make sense.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 10:47:52 AM
Been to revleft, and went to the Paris Commune site. Lots of high philosophical rhetoric of how the experiment would have succeeded had they gone all out and abolished money, thus breaking the last bond of oppressor, struggle, etc. Couldn't really find any sort of timeline, so I hit wikipedia.
Quote
The Paris Commune (French: La Commune de Paris) was a government that briefly ruled Paris from 18 March (more formally from 26 March) to 28 May 1871. It existed before the split between Anarchists and Socialists, and is hailed by both as the first seizure of power by the working class. Debates over its policies and outcome contributed to the break between those two political groups.
It seems that there were 8 glorious weeks of blissful anarchy before it imploded.And they planned to eat what?
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 10:50:39 AM
Of course, that's not the kind of anarchy Freakazoid wants.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 10:52:57 AM
Town sheriffs were pretty much in control, and if things got out of hand, the Army, contactable by telegraph, had forts nearby and could send soldiers. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have been able to attract any East Coast banks to the new towns.
It's just less romantic to realize the reality, that if someone robbed a bank, every town they might possibly go to would get a Western Union telegraph with their complete description, and their criminal career was usually spectacularly short.
Sort of like pirates, who, in the Caribbean, had their ships ruined by teredo worms within a couple years, which was usually longer than their careers were before they were killed or caught.
(Except for the VERY rare sorts like Henry Every that knew when to quit!)
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 10:55:01 AM
The so-called "Wild" west is a product of Hollywood writers. It really wasn't that wild.
Town sheriffs were pretty much in control, and if things got out of hand, the Army, usually contactable by telegraph, had forts nearby and could send soldiers. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have been able to attract any East Coast banks to the new towns.
Town sheriffs were pretty much in control, and if things got out of hand, the Army, usually contactable by telegraph, had forts nearby and could send soldiers. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have been able to attract any East Coast banks to the new towns.
It's true that it wasn't as derangedly violent as the movies portray. However, private security firms and private policing played a huge role in the West.There's vast amounts of research by eminent historians and economists into the semi-anarchic nature of the West.
The idea that anarchy 'cannot work' hearkens back to Hobbes, I think. I really recommend Nozick's take on it.
Post by: 280plus on August 28, 2008, 11:46:31 AM
I think anarchy can work in a spread out situation like the old west but soon as you concentrate millions of people in a few square miles it gets a little tougher to pull off. I mean, if I haven't seen or talked to a police officer in at least a year here, am I not living in a working anarchy? If the SHTF yea, I'd try to get a 911 call out, but I'd be putting my gun in my hand first.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2008, 12:19:02 PM
Quote
And too far apart in our knowledge of how to spell common words.
Oh noes, I misspelled "ideologies" and "we're". I have neeever scene that done here before,
And I count 2 misspelled words.lol you also misspelled "too"
Quote
Quote
Really guys, what's the point in trying to have an adult conversation with someone who has to start every reply with "lol" ?
Really? EVERY reply with "lol"? Do you care to prove that? http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wxfCJ8dXNlcnNwZWN8J3wqZnJlYWthem9pZHwifGJyZHwnfDEsNXwifHNob3dfY29tcGxldGV8J3x8InxzdWJqZWN0X29ubHl8J3x8Inxzb3J0X2RpcnwnfGRlc2N8Inxzb3J0fCd8cmVsZXZhbmNlfCJ8c2VhcmNofCd8bG9s;start=30 This came up with only 40 times that I had used "lol" Before this post I have posted a total of 287 times. 287 - 40 = 247 times that I haven't used "lol. Not only that but those were not all used at the beginning of a reply. Do you not even know why I had used "lolz"? It was because I found his ignorance on it funny. Nice try though at trying to discredit my posts because of a few spelling errors and word choices,
lol it's called hyperbole. I feel no need to discredit you. I know exactly why you said "lol," and that's what annoys me. I've taken that tone myself, and I try not to do it so much anymore. It's obnoxious.
Post by: RocketMan on August 28, 2008, 12:43:36 PM
At least he didn't use "noone" for "no one".
Post by: Werewolf on August 28, 2008, 12:46:49 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 12:48:29 PM
He's young - he'll grow out of it.
Because the opinions of young people are so much less valid than those of older people. Right.
Post by: Werewolf on August 28, 2008, 12:56:15 PM
He's young - he'll grow out of it.
Because the opinions of young people are so much less valid than those of older people. Right.
Actually yes - you are right. Anyone can have an opinion. The value of that opinion however is quite often judged, and rightly so, by the education, knowledge and experience of the one who holds it.
In general older people have more education, knowledge and experience than younger folks, not always of course, but often enough that it is fair to say that the opinions of young people are less valid than those of older people.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 01:21:45 PM
Post by: freakazoid on August 28, 2008, 01:36:00 PM
Quote
And he misspelled "scene" a couple of times. Or, more accurately he used the word incorrectly. "Seen" is what he should have used. But, he is Freakazoid.
Quote
lol you also misspelled "too"
Did I? I'm being serious too. I always try to spell words correctly.
Quote
I know exactly why you said "lol," and that's what annoys me.
What part annoys you?
Quote
He's young - he'll grow out of it.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 02:59:08 PM
Post by: 2swap on August 28, 2008, 03:08:49 PM
Actually yes - you are right. Anyone can have an opinion. The value of that opinion however is quite often judged, and rightly so, by the education, knowledge and experience of the one who holds it.
In general older people have more education, knowledge and experience than younger folks, not always of course, but often enough that it is fair to say that the opinions of young people are less valid than those of older people.
In general older people have more education, knowledge and experience than younger folks, not always of course, but often enough that it is fair to say that the opinions of young people are less valid than those of older people.
I noticed from my discussions with people that there are many prejudiced, old people who failed to pick up a new thought since appropriately 1955, I experienced far less younger people who did not at least consider new viewpoints. Education and knowledge are only 2 parts of the things you need for good arguments, another part is the one which makes you willing to consider that other people have a point, to consider new data which may violate/invalidate your world view. I read in a study in a magazine about psychology that the elderly often lack this empathy.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 03:10:33 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 03:11:21 PM
how old was the guy who wrote the article?
Irrelevant.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 03:23:24 PM
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le9609a02.html
the article points out quite well the mindset of the "nothing is better than me not getting exactly my way " crowd . and it was good of you to provide it
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 03:24:36 PM
not hardly in fact he might be 60 i suspect not
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 03:33:03 PM
you didn't edit fast enough
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le9609a02.html
the article points out quite well the mindset of the "nothing is better than me not getting exactly my way " crowd . and it was good of you to provide it
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le9609a02.html
the article points out quite well the mindset of the "nothing is better than me not getting exactly my way " crowd . and it was good of you to provide it
I didn't edit it, it's still posted. I posted it in a different thread. It has no connection to this one.
Post by: Werewolf on August 28, 2008, 03:38:25 PM
Judging an opinion by the identity of the person uttering it is generally known as an ad hominem argument.
If that's what is being done then yes, you are right.However, judging an opinion based upon the knowledge, education and experience of the one uttering it is called good judgement.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 03:41:42 PM
Judging an opinion by the identity of the person uttering it is generally known as an ad hominem argument.
If that's what is being done then yes, you are right.However, judging an opinion based upon the knowledge, education and experience of the one uttering it is called good judgement.
The age of a person is not relevant to the quality of his political opinion.
My father, who is almost thrice my age, hates all Germans, and states, overtly, that the German nation should have been exterminated in 1945 in retaliation for the events of WWII.
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2008, 03:42:11 PM
I noticed from my discussions with people that there are many prejudiced, old people who failed to pick up a new thought since appropriately 1955, I experienced far less younger people who did not at least consider new viewpoints. Education and knowledge are only 2 parts of the things you need for good arguments, another part is the one which makes you willing to consider that other people have a point, to consider new data which may violate/invalidate your world view. I read in a study in a magazine about psychology that the elderly often lack this empathy.
Or, it could be a better-developed bullshit detector by folks who have BTDT.
Many stupid ideas are like whack-a-moles, re-emerging with every new generation of the enthusiastically ignorant. The "new" ideas are only new to those who have not learned their history.
For example, how many "cult of the state / cult of reason" utopian movements has humanity experienced since the damned Jean Jacques Rousseau first vomited his fever dreams on to paper? Every one midwifed by folks who think that "This time we'll get it right!"
Sorry, not AH...and very relevant.
Recall your Aristotle: Rhetoric and the appeals to ethos, pathos, & logos.
Quote from: http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
Ethos (Credibility), or ethical appeal, means convincing by the character of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone worth listening to, in other words making yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect.
Pathos (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader's emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice affects the audience's emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument.
Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing.
The aforementioned case is one of ethos or credibility.
WW's was as good an example as any:
Quote
Actually yes - you are right. Anyone can have an opinion. The value of that opinion however is quite often judged, and rightly so, by the education, knowledge and experience of the one who holds it.
In general older people have more education, knowledge and experience than younger folks, not always of course, but often enough that it is fair to say that the opinions of young people are less valid than those of older people.
He explained why older people have more ethos/credibility off the bat. Subsequent data can change one's analysis, but to deny the reality of the situation by squawking about ad hominem is an ineffective rhetorical tactic.In general older people have more education, knowledge and experience than younger folks, not always of course, but often enough that it is fair to say that the opinions of young people are less valid than those of older people.
IOW, taking the credentials of the author into consideration is a test of credibility. See that latin root?
Post by: Werewolf on August 28, 2008, 03:52:18 PM
Judging an opinion by the identity of the person uttering it is generally known as an ad hominem argument.
If that's what is being done then yes, you are right.However, judging an opinion based upon the knowledge, education and experience of the one uttering it is called good judgement.
The age of a person is not relevant to the quality of his political opinion.
The young would like to believe that age bears no weight in judging the quality of one's opinion. But belief and reality are two very seperate things. As they grow older and gain more life experience the young quite often change they're minds.
A good example is the quite common attitude of young college students with a socialist view about how things ought to work in the real world. An attitude that the rich don't pay their fair share. You know the type. That attitude quite often disappears when they see their first real paycheck from their first real job and wonder why there's only 8 out of 10 dollars they earned in there(or if you're like me there were only 7 of 10 in there). It's amazing how a little real world experience can shape and change one's opinion.
I'll grant that age may have no relevance in regards to education and skill but it has everything to do with experience. You can hem and haw about that all you want. Not going to change the reality that experience is important in judging the quality of one's opinion.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 04:08:15 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 04:14:52 PM
Quote
A good example is the quite common attitude of young college students with a socialist view about how things ought to work in the real world.
That also coincides with the quite common attitude of college professors. Oh I wonder how that could be related?
Quote
but to deny the reality of the situation by squawking about ad hominem is an ineffective rhetorical tactic.
I do not squawk.
To discount a scientific article by referring to the age of the author is completely illogical - scientific articles can only be discounted by falsifying (proving false) the data or the methodology that the author utilized to prove his point.
To vote against a politician based on his age is also completely illogical a 22-year old who agrees with me is better than an 80-year old who doesn't, and vice versa.
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2008, 04:40:52 PM
It seems the accusation of AH flows free & easy from many people's fingertips into their posts.