This Is What A Violent Protest Looks Like

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_re_us/g20_summit_protests

this from yahoo……"PITTSBURGH – Police fired canisters of pepper spray and smoke at marchers protesting the Group of 20 summit Thursday after anarchists responded to calls to disperse by rolling trash bins and throwing rocks."

"The marchers included small groups of self-described anarchists, some wearing dark clothes and bandanas and carrying black flags. Others wore helmets and safety goggles."

"One banner read, "No borders, no banks," another, "No hope in capitalism." A few minutes into the march, protesters unfurled a large banner reading "NO BAILOUT NO CAPITALISM" with an encircled "A," a recognized sign of anarchists."

"Twenty-one-year-old Stephon Boatwright, of Syracuse, N.Y., wore a mask of English anarchist Guy Fawkes and yelled at a line of riot police."

just saying

Libs, anarchists what is the difference if they have the similar or same core beliefs? Is PETA a lib group or are the anarchists? How about the green groups?

The point is these people lean to the left, well not actually lean they fall to the left. Extreme left. Symantiscs when it's your people huh Walt. First you protect the pimps and whores and the crooks taking away your freedom and your cash so that they can put their schemes into law, now this is blamed on something other than what it really is? Whatever….Just sayin'

anarchists are left leaners? Learn something new everyday

what I found interesting was that King NEVER mentioned the term anarchists in his post

I always wonder, like King, why you almost can't find media reports of things like this one. I caught some of the activity on Fox Friday evening but never anywhere else. Those foul minded police using their brutality firing pepper spray and beans at rioters, and rioters they surely were, were so brutal in doing so. Why those rioters were only throwing rocks and bottles at the police along with at windows of businesses along the street and the police responded with those terrible weapons wreaking all that pain and discomfort. I even read on one of these things that they used night sticks in acts of utter brutality.

Did anybody read the descriptions of the anarchists dressed in black replete with masks sounding so much like the protesters in Latin America recently? I wonder how many of those people were "imported" for their performance. I wonder if any of them speak English as a first language.

It is a crime that the media, Fox included, failed to report these riots as what they were. I really was stupid enough as to think that the TV people would show some of the activity in an attempt to show us how much against capitalistic governments those people are.

I am waiting to see Walter and Rev come back with all the crap about how these rioters don't have much idea what life is like in those real socialist havens when complaining about the freedom to riot without real bullets being fired at them. For some reason those horrible capitalist governments all provide police protection for private property instead of allowing rioters to destroy with abandon.

King, you just exposed one of the worst of the left falling blogs, Democratic Underground, by telling about how sick the place is. I get linked to that place by progs on forums pretty often. Proof that they are very lacking in desire for serious freedom for all people. Only their kind should have all those freedoms, according to DU.

roybot sez….."Did anybody read the descriptions of the anarchists dressed in black replete with masks sounding so much like the protesters in Latin America recently?"

when I saw that I thought of Harley riders and Rupert Murdoch's Fox show "Sons of Anarchy"

"anarchists are left leaners?"

When their main point is to protest capitalism, then, yes. That would make their ideology more Communist or Socialist, which are definitely to the political left.

I'm still trying to figure out what Guy Fawkes has to do with capitalism, anarchy, or anything. The point of the plot he was involved in (attempted assassination of King James I and members of Parliment) was for freedom to practice Catholicism, if I'm not mistaken. Sounds like a confused little guy… and a confused journalist, to boot.

from an earlier post

An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican

Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians.

You guys call that violent? "Violent" would be those same protestors showing up with AK-47's.

Nice try, fourfoos. Find me a Libertarian who doesn't believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism, and that is NOT a Libertarian. That is a communist/socialist.

I take it you didn't read the Libertarian link I gave you.

walter asks, "why would liberals protest Obama ?"

They weren't protesting Obama. They were protesting capitalism.

Pyro,
I assume you are referring to the guy outside the townhall with the AK-47.

That guy didn't use his weapon, and was therefore non-violent. Throwing rocks IS violent. The police didn't arrest nearly 200 people just for laughs.

Yeah, these people are anarchists, not liberals. Got a dictionary? wikipedia? Look it up.

Liberals don't want to kill capitalism, just control it, so you don't end up with Bernie Madoff, Enron, AIG, etc.

And I suppose it wasn't a violent wingnut that murdered that census taker in Kentucky & strung him up in a noose.

not to defend anarchists, but I could see where some would view our federal government as just an extension of corporate America

and I am sure no one would argue that our congress is the best money can buy

King sez…."That guy didn't use his weapon, and was therefore non-violent." Somebody who is non-violent would take a weapon to a rally? You are even more insane than that guy King.

walter,
In your continuing dishonesty, you left out the fact that I condemned that guy for carrying an AK-47 to where the president was speaking.

But the fact remains, the mere act of carrying a gun is NOT violent. To think it is is what's insane. That would be you, walt, not me.

I'd like to take a moment to congratulate all the commenters who are defending obvious left-wing violence at the G-20. Good job, folks.

I'd also like to congratulate Ray for solving the murder in Kentucky before the police have. Excellent work.

Don't you liberals hate it when someone who can be associated with you are used as a broad example of people representing what you believe in, no matter if they do and say things you'd never dream of doing or saying? That's kind of how I feel when I hear that Rush Limbaugh represents all conservatives. It's not nice when the shoe's on the other foot, is it?

"and I am sure no one would argue that our congress is the best money can buy."

Finally Walt something we agree on. This Democrat congress bought by Soros and his socialist friends and the banks and the insurance companies have all but ruined this country.

King, you said…."That guy didn't use his weapon, and was therefore non-violent." If I had taken the wife and kids down to see Obama and a member of the "Insane Christian Posse" was wandering around with a loaded gun I would NOT stick around. His taking that loaded rifle to that rally WAS an act of violence.

tory…..you are right as always……..King was AGAINST (or so he says) the invasion of Iraq. Being AGAINST the invasion of Iraq was kind of a liberal idea. Yes, that would make King a liberal as much as being against capitalists would make an anarchist a liberal.

Of course, I could see an anarchist being AGAINST the invasion of Iraq……that would mean that King was also an anarchist

Banks and insurance companies are socialist? Learn something new everyday

While I certainly wouldn't have brought a rifle to anything the President is at, simply *having* and *showing* a rifle is not a violent act. Intimidating? Yes. Threatening? For sure. Not the smartest idea? Totally. Could it have led to violence? Yes of course, but the act of possessing and displaying a firearm is not, in itself, a violent act. Just because such an act would have made you uncomfortable (and myself to be honest), doesn't make it violent. Shooting a rifle at someone is violent. Hitting people with a rifle is violent. And just because something could potentially lead to violence doesn't make it violent.

Opposition to the Invasion of Iraq was heralded by liberals, but it was hardly just a liberal idea. Many conservatives opposed the invasion for religious and/or personal beliefs about war and peace, the immense costs involved (like King for instance), or just the overall strategy. Sorry Walter, I didn't get the impression King was trying to say that all liberals are anarchists, but all anarchists are definitely left-wing, though I would consider them far-left, much like religious extremists are far-right. Despite the actual violence at those protests in Pittsburgh, they didn't get nearly the attention and scrutiny the TEA Party protests did from the media.

"Da King September 24, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I guess people can spin definitions, but the traditional definition of anarchy is 'no government,' correct ?"

leftists are for an all powerful government……….so the argument you are trying to make is that those who believe in no government are on the same side of the political spectrum as those who want all powerful government?

Sorry, no sale here.

Stop babbling, walter. The G-20 protest was against capitalism. Right-wingers are FOR capitalism, remember ?

Anarchist protesters threw rocks. Yes, that is an action of violence, much like Palestinians throwing rocks at heavily armed Israeli military.

Pittsburgh police, on the other hand, fired rubber bullets, used tear gas, and rolled out their new WMD, the sound cannon. That seems like violence too.

However, looking for a straw of equivalent liberal violence is a futile search when compared to the actual assassination of an abortion doctor and what looks like a political murder down in Daniel Boone territory.

Finally, capitalism left to its own devisings, wrecked the world economy. No dispute over that. So, while violence is never the answer, the anarchists have a, you know, point.

PS….Why would like-minded 9-12'ers, all gathered in D.C. like brothers, need to resort to violence? The cops didn't bother them any. It's the thousands of Teabagger posters and signs suggesting violence, you know, like "we came unarmed, this time", that suggests the 9-12'ers WILL RESORT to violence if they don't get their way. Tea Parties and townhalls are all one has to look at to see that today's movement conservatives knee-jerk reactions to being in a pitiful minority is…….always threaten violence…….which some will, undoubtedly, make real.

the only babbling is you and the other fruitcakes here saying anarchists are left leaners.

let's face it King….the government is run by capitalists for the benefit of capitalists…..saying no to capitalists IS saying no to government

fourfoos…..this is what King said on a Rev thread…

Da King September 28, 2009 at 1:13 pm
No walter, Libertarian is not conservative.

Like I said….you learn something new everyday……it's absolutly wrong but it's new

Has anybody mentioned the black man who came to the town hall in Arizona with the AR 15 hung on his shoulder? Has anybody mentioned the way that MSLSD tried to make that one look like something it wasn't by showing only enough of the picture to show his shoulder with the rifle slung on it? Why is it that left leaners always talk about the media and what they do without pointing out that they don't always try to tell the truth.

I find this semantical argument about anarchy and progressivism to be almost silly. It is true that anarchists are against government but nobody ever manages to mention the fact that they don't seem to provide answers about what happens when there is no government. This bothers me just as much as the way that progressives push for government ownership of everything but never seem to address what kind of abject changes this would bring on. When will they recognize what happened in the Soviet Union with extreme progressive thinking?

Rev,
As always, you're a trip. An LSD trip.

Left-wing violence at the G-20 ? No problem, according to the Rev.
The total abscence of violence at numerous Tea Parties ? Ooh, scary, says the Rev. A war's about to break out.

Seriously, man. Get a clue.

And I know it's going to be a difficult concept for you, but the police at the G-20 were RESPONDING to the violence, not perpetrating it. It's the police's JOB to insure the safety of the public. I'm sure you knew that at some point in your life, even if you don't know it now.

At the Tea Party protests, the police didn't have to keep anyone safe, because everybody was ALREADY SAFE. The Tea Partiers didn't commit any violence.

walter, if you think Libertarian is the same thing as conservative (as in GOP conservative), then you are even more clueless that I thought.

A Libertarian is NOT conservative…….violence committed by anarchists is left wing…….and then along comes roybot doing his usual whining that MSNBC didn't want to give a gun toteing member of the "Insane Christian Posse" any publicity.

then King turns around and calls me clueless?

W.T.F.

roy, roy, roy…..what are we going to do with you?

The top 1% of American wealth owners have taken an ever bigger share of the nation's wealth over the last 30 years while the working families have barely been able to stay afloat.

Those are indisputable facts. Yet, you continue to try to have us believe we're moving towards some socialistic hellhole situation. How do you reconcile all this?

I believe lib hero Noam Chomsky has claimed to be an anarchist.

Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist.

Chomsky on capitalism………

What is called 'capitalism' is basically a system of corporate mercantilism, with huge and largely unaccountable private tyrannies exercising vast control over the economy, political systems, and social and cultural life, operating in close co-operation with powerful states that intervene massively in the domestic economy and international society. That is dramatically true of the United States, contrary to much illusion. The rich and privileged are no more willing to face market discipline than they have been in the past, though they consider it just fine for the general population. Merely to cite a few illustrations, the Reagan administration, which revelled in free market rhetoric, also boasted to the business community that it was the most protectionist in post-war US history – actually more than all others combined. Newt Gingrich, who leads the current crusade, represents a superrich district that receives more federal subsidies than any other suburban region in the country, outside of the federal system itself. The 'conservatives' who are calling for an end to school lunches for hungry children are also demanding an increase in the budget for the Pentagon, which was established in the late 1940s in its current form because – as the business press was kind enough to tell us – high tech industry cannot survive in a pure, competitive, unsubsidized, 'free enterprise' economy, and the government must be its saviour. Without the saviour, Gingrich's constituents would be poor working people (if they were lucky). There would be no computers, electronics generally, aviation industry, metallurgy, automation, etc., etc., right down the list. Anarchists, of all people, should not be taken in by these traditional frauds.

More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the people. Overwhelming majorities think working people have too little voice in public affairs (the same is true in England), that the government has the responsibility of assisting people in need, that spending for education and health should take precedence over budget-cutting and tax cuts, that the current Republican proposals that are sailing through Congress benefit the rich and harm the general population, and so on. Intellectuals may tell a different story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the facts.

@WallyGoogle: From the same article you copied in your last comment, Chomsky was asked "What is it that attracts you to anarchism?"

His reply: "I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."

The great professor of linguistics is just giving a new name to the same failed collectivist ideals that have never worked.

I think you owe Larry an apology. A fruit basket makes a lovely gift and would remind him of you.

Source: Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future, http://thumbjig.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

walt, a "libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms.

But I'm surprised that a conservative such as yourself would quote Noam Chomsky.

And those Reagan years were just TERRIBLE, weren't they ? He reversed the rampant inflation, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth of the Carter years. He created 20 million jobs. He oversaw massive economic growth. He won the Cold War. Yeah, why we we ever want to emulate THAT ?

from the not reverend's post of Chomsky's quote………."I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."

"……to increase the scope of human freedom…….."

yes, I could see where King, larry and the not reverend would have problems with Chomsky

king sez……."walt, a "libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE&feature=player_embedded

I prefer the REAL source, the Libertarian Party.

http://www.lp.org/

Libertarians are for smaller government, lower taxes, and individual freedom. They are against the all-powerful state. Does that sound like a socialist to you ?

King sez…."Libertarians are for smaller government, lower taxes, and individual freedom. They are against the all-powerful state. Does that sound like a socialist to you ?"

no, that sounds like republican speak to me. The question is……are those republicans who refused to deliver on their promises going to deliver on their promises rebranded as libertarians? And the answer is….of course not.

again, Chomsky said…..""I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."

that is TRUE libertarian philosophy

this from republican ped0phile protector John Boehner……."In addition to protecting republican ped0philes, republicans are for smaller government, lower taxes, and individual freedom. They are against the all-powerful state."

King, do libertarians a favor…….just stay a republican

Yet somehow you don't see that the Libertarian idea of "identifying and challenging structures of authority" pertains most of all to the biggest authority of all, the federal government. That's what limited government, lower taxes, and individual freedom is all about.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

You've eliminated your own argument. I appreciate it. You saved me the trouble.

King sez……."Yet somehow you don't see that the Libertarian idea of "identifying and challenging structures of authority" pertains most of all to the biggest authority of all, the federal government."

so libertarians ARE anarchists

Those who claim they are libertarians today are simply wanting to surf above the political fray not taking any responsibility for their bi-annual Republicans votes. In short, they are dishonest, and don't want to be held responsible for the damage done to the country by radically conservative Republicans that libertarians voted for over the years.

walter is spot on here. You simply cannot slip a piece of paper between the differences said to exist between libertarians and Republicans….you can't.

The only redeeming quality to Ron Paul's campaign was his opposition to wars of imperialism, his rejection of the neo-con's doctrine. But here, on this blog, so-called libertarians are all for wars of choice and aggression. So-called libertarians are all for mindng other countries business. I see today's self-proclaimed libertarians as mostly radicalized neo-conservatives. Their claim of wanting government out of our lives is pure rubbish…..see: Schiavo, Terry.

King sez….."But I'm surprised that a conservative such as yourself would quote Noam Chomsky."

then sez….."Yet somehow you don't see that the Libertarian idea of "identifying and challenging structures of authority" pertains most of all to the biggest authority of all, the federal government."

What I'm surprised about is a republican like you quoting Chomsky

walter says, "so libertarians ARE anarchists"

We already covered this, rainman. Because I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over…………later.

Rev says, " Their claim of wanting government out of our lives is pure rubbish…..see: Schiavo, Terry."

Huh ? Schiavo was an example of government getting INTO someone's life.

And your Ron Paul example was a pretty clear example of a Libertarian distinguishing himself from the Republican party, so you disproved your own hypothesis.

from Counterpunch……

http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley09282009.html

King sez…..And your Ron Paul example was a pretty clear example of a Libertarian distinguishing himself from the Republican party,….." I was against the war so I guess that makes me a libertarian.

no, walter, that makes you a desperate and irrational person who is clinging to any shred of illogic to avoid looking foolish.

You've failed.

Ron Paul is a republican….period. It is asinine to suggest that Paul was being a libertarian when he opposed the war in Iraq. Ron Paul, unlike you, didn't think it was a bad idea He knew that according to the United States Constitution only Congress can declare war. The invasion of Iraq, according to our Founding Fathers, was just flat out illegal.

Understanding and abiding by the Constitution isn't just libertarians…….it should be ALL Americans.

kinda leaves you out

just saying

Fact-challenged as usual, walt.

Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. He then decided he could effect change better in one of the two major parties, and ran for Congress as a Republican. His beliefs never changed.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Congress authorized it, as the Constitution mandates.

The Bosnia war by the Clinton administration was illegal. Congress didn't authorize that one. You could also make the case that bombing Pakistan is illegal. I don't remember any Congressional authorization for that either.

Stick around, I'll teach ya.

King sez…."Congress authorized it, as the Constitution mandates." What Constitution you talking about? Certainly not the U.S. Constitution.

That, by far, is the stupidest thing you have ever said.

"Stick around, I'll teach ya." it WAS the stupidest thing until you said that

this from Reason no less……."The leaders of the world's 20 largest economies and the press covering them came to Pittsburgh last weekend. It's unfortunate that the images that emerged were not of a society that values free expression and constitutional rights, but one that at big events gives its police the sort of power to impose order normally seen in authoritarian states. In all, 190 people were arrested, including at least two journalists. One, a reporter from the left-leaning IndyMedia, says her camera was returned broken, with her footage of the protests and police reaction deleted. "

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/05/scenes-from-a-crackdown

King sez….."Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988"

this from wikipedia…….Political party Republican (1976-1988)
Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election)
Republican (1988-Present)

he was a libertarian what 4 months out of a 33 year career of being a republican?

how stupid can you get?