Posted on 09/25/2009 4:16:30 AM PDT by Bon mots
This is the right way to handle unwashed hippy left-wing moonbat anarchists.
When guys in camo and with M-16s come to get you and toss your flea-bitten hippy anarchist a$$ into an unmarked Crown Victoria - you have a problem.VIDEO
Trouble is, this is what the Obamunists want to do with all right wingers.
Sorry, just noticed that clicking on the pic doesn't work in the original post... an extraneous apostrophe got in the link somehow... :(
You can click on this one to see it.
Interesting.... I wonder what the story is. The video makes it appear that they were looking for that protester in particular.
Agreed. This video has an upside AND a downside.
Did you observe any badges or insignia on the cammo’d guys? Video was too blurry for me.
Kinda looked like Gibbs and D’Nozzo (sp) in action ;-) but THAT’s fiction.
They were working for Netflix. They wanted their DVDs back.
I love it!
Maybe he’s a deserter getting his just desserts.
Either way, the anarchists nut-bags yelling “What’s you [effing] problem???” is priceless.
LOL! And I thought Blockbuster’s penalties were harsh!
I think his other left-wing buddies turned him in for not singing the Praise Obama song loud or enthusiastically enough.
How easy it is to extricate someone from a crowd and how little rersistance is encountered doing so.
The difference between men and boys.
They arrested fake police in Melbourne at the G20 there. Could this be a fake arrest to try and sensationalize their protests?
“The Proper Way to Handle Left-Wing Anarchists”
By definition, an anarchist cannot be left wing. Anarchy is the most extreme form of right wing thought. The most extreme form of left wing thought is along the lines of Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
I disagree.
So does Wikipedia:
Anarchism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAnarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy). Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Different versions of anarchism have been categorized as socialist anarchism and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[11][12][13] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain,[14] with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like old anarcho-individualism and voluntaryism, or today's anarcho-capitalism, agorism and others).
Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory. Some anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[5] The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement have been represented by communist anarchism, with anarcho-individualism being primarily a philosophical/literary phenomenon.[18] Some anarchists fundamentally oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence, while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and terrorism, on the path to anarchy.[19]
The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",[20][21] from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἄρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy")[22] + -ισμός (-ismos, from a stem -ιζειν, -izein). There is some ambiguity with the use of the terms "libertarianism" and "libertarian" in writings about anarchism. Since the 1890s from France,[23] the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States;[24] its use as a synonym is still common outside the U.S.
Accordingly, "libertarian socialism" is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism,[33][34] to delineate it from "individualist libertarianism" (individualist anarchism). On the other hand, some use "libertarianism" to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as "libertarian anarchism."
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAnarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy). Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Different versions of anarchism have been categorized as socialist anarchism and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[11][12][13] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain,[14] with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like old anarcho-individualism and voluntaryism, or today's anarcho-capitalism, agorism and others)...
I don’t know. I used to think it was a big circle where the nutty right and the nutty left merged. Now, I think the big circle still applies to the everyday nuts, but there is a tangental line that is made up of elite, despotic dictators. They may call themselves conservative or liberal, but in reality, they are just plain evil.
The dictionary definition of Anarchism is:
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority:
Since I think most people can agree that leftist believe in the power of the state to control people for the common good, I fail to see how one can at one time be both an anarchist who rejects all authority and a leftist who believes in powerful state control. It doesn’t matter what the Anarchists currently having temper tantrums at GT think they are, since they are mostly too stupid to understand any political philosophy other than breaking windows. Having spoken to a few self proclaimed young Anarchists I can assure everyone they are absolutely clueless about what anarchy means other than not having anyone tell them what to do.
The concept of Socialist Anarchism is patently absurd. Socialism can only exist by force. No one volunteers to give up most of what they earn to the state. How can anyone believe that socialism could work when there is absolutely no government to enforce it?
Drudge has a link to the video titled “See U.S. Military ...”
I *HOPE* that wasn’t the “US Military” doing that, unless it was National Guard troopers under the governor’s control/command.
My view is that the line starts with Anarchy in which there is no government at all. Then comes libertarian which believes we should be a country of laws with absolutely no laws regarding personal behavior that doesn’t hurt someone else. Then comes conservatives which believe in a country of laws with some prohibitions on personal behavior which affects the social fabric of society. Next comes middle of the road which have no beliefs whatsoever. Next is the liberals who believe it is the government’s job to provide a vast safety net for all citizens. Then comes the left which wants a strong central government that works for the benefit of all at the expense of the individual. Finally comes communism, Nazism and any other government in which all power resides in the hands of one or a few individuals who control what people can or can’t do based on how it affects the power of the state.
Non military that sort of LOOKS like military practice the taking of a non protester that LOOKS like a protester.
Bottom line ... a practice.
But by whom and for what perceived reason?
In viewing the clip, the protester is already in custody ... the car pulls up and a guy appears on the other side of the car who gets in on the passenger side. Everybody gets in and off they go.
There's been some kind'a commoonikatin' goin' on.
Let’s keep it simple. An anarchist is just a leftist who throws rocks and breaks windows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.