Page 101 of 106 FirstFirst ... 96979899100101102103104105 ... LastLast
Results 3,001 to 3,030 of 3162

Thread: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

  1. #3001
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Thousands marching in the streets in Chicago. Just because NATO is over doesn't mean the protests are. Teachers are marching with others.

    live ustream
    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/tangello

  2. #3002
    Member hippityhip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    546

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    Here is a short blog about the anarchist organized action in Tempe, AZ.
    http://riftempe.blogspot.com/
    I understand that an "anarchist" can be anyone one who believes in individualism or on the other end be all about collectivism. I guess the bigger issue is that society sees "anarchists" as trouble makers. They put them under an umbrella that labels them all as the same. So when shit goes wrong and people riot then they are labeled as "anarchists". That same labeling is now happening with Occupy.

    Also while I find tht article interesting it's far from original. Check this out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Central_Farm
    Four Tet - Mohawk - 3/1
    Mac Demarco - Mohawk - 4/13

  3. #3003
    Member hippityhip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    546

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    I have zero faith in the major network news media becoming a regular asset to the movement. I also don't know how you isolate or ignore those who decide to join a public protest. We can denounce and shun all day but actions are in public so how do you stop or avoid piggy backing and when it happens how do you convince the media they aren't with you? What are your thoughts on how to accomplish this?
    I believe having an immediate counter non-violent protest as well as denouncing the violent protest and channeling that thru different media would be the best bet. I don't really have an answer on how to keep violent protesters out but again I do believe we can all learn a thing or two from protests that happened in the 50s and 60s mainly the civil rights movement. MLK Jr. was able to keep violent protesters away. Not really sure how it can be applied today but I know it can be done. Maybe adhering to a strict code that Occupy can make the media understand that under no circumstances do they tolerate violent protest. Just giving an absolute and sticking to it I guess.
    Four Tet - Mohawk - 3/1
    Mac Demarco - Mohawk - 4/13

  4. #3004
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by hippityhip View Post
    I understand that an "anarchist" can be anyone one who believes in individualism or on the other end be all about collectivism. I guess the bigger issue is that society sees "anarchists" as trouble makers. They put them under an umbrella that labels them all as the same. So when shit goes wrong and people riot then they are labeled as "anarchists". That same labeling is now happening with Occupy.

    Also while I find tht article interesting it's far from original. Check this out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Central_Farm
    I didn't claim it was original. There are urban gardens being grown around the globe guerilla style. It's just stupid the cops would waste their time on it when many other cities authorities have looked the other way because it was a nice gesture and harmless. The Push back here was because it involved anarchists.

  5. #3005
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by hippityhip View Post
    I believe having an immediate counter non-violent protest as well as denouncing the violent protest and channeling that thru different media would be the best bet. I don't really have an answer on how to keep violent protesters out but again I do believe we can all learn a thing or two from protests that happened in the 50s and 60s mainly the civil rights movement. MLK Jr. was able to keep violent protesters away. Not really sure how it can be applied today but I know it can be done. Maybe adhering to a strict code that Occupy can make the media understand that under no circumstances do they tolerate violent protest. Just giving an absolute and sticking to it I guess.
    Civil rights activists were not entirely non violent as you claim here. See the Freedom Riders, Black Panthers and Malcolm X. Unless you don't think their activities count as progressing civil rights for blacks or activism for some reason.

  6. #3006
    zeezus amyzzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Arizzzona
    Posts
    40,254

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    I think he was speaking specifically about MLK, who was indeed non-violent.
    Quote Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47 View Post
    i fucking hate women with their lives together who try and help other people. where are the needy bitches at?!

  7. #3007
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    I think maybe you should reread everything he just wrote. He certainly wasn't speaking about just MLK as an individual. He said he was able to keep violent protesters away and we can learn form the protestes that happend in the 50's and 60's. One of the things we can learn from that era of protesting is that violence sometimes is necessary, works and a diversity of tactics can be effective. The problem is defining non vilence. It's considered violent to fight back. Blacks were expected to take their beatings to make a point not fight back.

    Blacks were accused of provoking violence by standing up for their rights. The Kennedy leadership considred the freedom riders to be unpatriotic. Much like Obama's position on gays was evolving, so were the Kennedy's with civil rights in the early 60's.

    Also, if you follow MLK's definition and use of non-violence, it gets you a felony in the state of Arizona. Peaceful resistance is what they call it.
    Last edited by faxman75; 05-24-2012 at 10:13 AM.

  8. #3008
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    I think maybe you should reread everything he just wrote. He certainly wasn't speaking about just MLK as an individual. He said he was able to keep violent protesters away and we can learn form the protestes that happend in the 50's and 60's. One of the things we can learn from that era of protesting is that violence sometimes is necessary, works and a diversity of tactics can be effective. The problem is defining non vilence. It's considered violent to fight back. Blacks were expected to take their beatings to make a point not fight back.

    Blacks were accused of provoking violence by standing up for their rights. The Kennedy leadership considred the freedom riders to be unpatriotic. Much like Obama's position on gays was evolving, so were the Kennedy's with civil rights in the early 60's.

    Also, if you follow MLK's definition and use of non-violence, it lands you a felony in the state of Arizona. Peaceful rsistiance is what they call it.
    I agree that it's inaccurate to say MLK was successful in preventing any and all violence at his protests, most notably in Birmingham. But are you really suggesting that the violence was not detremental and even perhaps useful? That's kind of a fucked perspective. Violence pretty much always plays into the hands of the oppressors unless you've got enough strength to actually overpower them without help. If you don't then (at least in this day and age) violence doesn't advance your cause. If you're counting violent protest as defending yourself when attacked then that's a different story, but it still doesn't help. In your civil rights examples the most famous heroes and events involved non-violent direct actions. And I truly don't believe they're just more famous. If violence begot significant progress then I don't believe the academics would be able to entirely suppress that.


    If you have evidence that violent factions were responsible for progress then I'd be curious to see it.
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 05-24-2012 at 10:34 AM.

  9. #3009
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Selma, Alabama. The voting rights act. How did things go when that march got over the bridge and they encountered authorities? What was the result of Bloody Sunday?

    Yes, I am talking about fighting back against police who use their weapons. That's considered violence. Non violence in Selma would have been sitting on the ground and not trying to cross a bridge blocked by the armed authorities.

  10. #3010
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    Selma, Alabama. The voting rights act. How did things go when that march got over the bridge and they encountered authorities? What was the result of Bloody Sunday?

    Yes, I am talking about fighting back against police who use their weapons. That's considered violence. Non violence in Selma would have been sitting on the ground and not trying to cross a bridge blocked by the armed authorities.
    people raising fists to stop a truncheon is not a "violent protest" in the sense that I think most people use the term, which is to mean offensive violence. In Selma a bunch of protesters were beaten back and then showed up to try again. It's the perseverence that resulted in the progress, not the violence itselt. (and btw I can't find any evidence that the protesters attacked anyone. Is there any?)

  11. #3011
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Yes there were reports of the blacks fighting back with bricks and bottles in Selma by the way.

    http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/0307.html

    Non-violence in the context of protesting means suffering without retaliating. It means avoiding all physical combat. Maybe you are redefining what it means? How about this. You create your own meaning of non-vilence in the context of protesting and then we can start the discussion over.

    Yes, in the context of our dicussion "raising fists" can be seen as a threat and is not considered "non violent".

  12. #3012
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    Yes there were reports of the blacks fighting back with bricks and bottles in Selma by the way.

    http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/0307.html

    Non-violence in the context of protesting means suffering without retaliating. It means avoiding all physical combat. Maybe you are redefining what it means? How about this. You create your own meaning of non-vilence in the context of protesting and then we can start the discussion over.

    Yes, in the context of our dicussion "raising fists" can be seen as a threat and is not considered "non violent".
    The notion that it is the defensive violence itself that resulted in the progress is ridiculous. They were confronted with violence in the first place and the result was going to be the same whether they fought back or not. That's why they were given protection to complete the march ultimately. I clearly wasn't there and neither were any of us, but I seriously doubt a few people throwing a few bricks is what made a difference.
    Most people probably simply wouldn't back down and thus were gassed and beaten until they were forced to move back. That's a powerful statement. attempting to beat cops in retaliation is a less powerful statement.
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 05-24-2012 at 11:40 AM.

  13. #3013
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Where do you mark or define progress in any action then? It's all inclusive. Every aspect of resistance is part of the fight for progress made in a struggle and claiming it has setbacks is fine but it has also been effective. The labor movement, women's suffrage and many others used violence in their tactics and to assume the violent aspects were insignificant or even detrimental would be naive.

    At what point is violence ok? Do you support monks using violence in tibet? I don't see the tibetan monks losing the hearts and minds or hurting their struggle by using it. I also don't think they are capable of overthrowing the government. I would say their violence is justified and continuing to gain them international support. How about palestinian protesters? They use violence and have support around the globe, maybe our media or agenda doesn't support it but the media is another dicussion. If the state is going to use violence why do we condemn it when the citizenry fights back?

    We have the right to stand in the street in large groups and redress our government for gievances. Why does our government have the right to use violence against those who don't follow silly rules like park hours and blocking thoroughfares?

    I think beating cops who are armed with thousands of dollars of equipment is a far more powerful statement than getting beat and assaulted over and over again whilst not making progress.

  14. #3014
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Every aspect of resistance is part of progress made in a struggle and claiming it set movements back will need to be substantiated
    You make a categorical statement like "every aspect of resistance is part of progress" and then charge me with substiatating something I said?
    Look, if you're defining violent protest as "willingness to endure aggressive violence during a protest" then your point is redundant. Of course that will result in progress. The willingness to endure pain for your principles forces people off the fence to make a choice to be callous or sympathetic. If you are seen being violently aggressive you play into the picture that your oppressors paint of you.
    Do you remember what made Scott Olsen a hero and somewhat of a symbol? He sacraficed his safety for his ideals. Do you really think he'd be as much of a hero if it were known that he was out there throwing bricks at cops? But I think I know your answer. Making statments like beating cops (regardless of what they're wearing)... is a powerful, well that's pretty fucked and it's a recipe to get yourself dismissed at best.


    You seem to be suggesting that getting beaten up without fighting back generally doesn't result in progress. I don't know how the hell you can read the histories of american civil rights or even Indian independence and form that opinion. You seem to think you're living in 18th century france or some shit.

  15. #3015
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Holy shit, this crap again? What happened to the facebook conversation?
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

  16. #3016
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    Look, if you're defining violent protest as "willingness to endure aggressive violence during a protest" then your point is redundant.
    Wait, what? lol. That could be a definition of non violence. Not a violent protest. So that would be incorrect. I am not defining a violent protest as simply taking a beating. It is considered violence to defend, retailiate and even in some instances shout at the police. We can't really have this discussion without getting the definitions of these terms clarified first which is why I askekd you to define them for the sake of clarity if the historical activist use of the term is not adequate.

    Do you remember what made Scott Olsen a hero and somewhat of a symbol? He sacraficed his safety for his ideals. Do you really think he'd be as much of a hero if it were known that he was out there throwing bricks at cops?
    That's a good example of how a violent protest actually did have a positive result. Thank you for making my argument for me. Scott Olsen was injured in the midst of a violent protest. It was widely reported that protesters were throwing rocks and bottles that night. The Olsen hero story doesn't happen if it's a peaceful protest. That night of violent protesting also drew in many more people to Occupy Oakland and grew their movement. The Olsen story is actually a favorite among anarchists so i'm not sure why you would use to defend non violence tactics.

    Making statments like beating cops (regardless of what they're wearing)... is a powerful, well that's pretty fucked and it's a recipe to get yourself dismissed at best.

    You seem to be suggesting that getting beaten up without fighting back generally doesn't result in progress. I don't know how the hell you can read the histories of american civil rights or even Indian independence and form that opinion. You seem to think you're living in 18th century france or some shit.
    I'm suggesting it doesn't always end in progress and that pledging non violence isn't necessary to make progress.

  17. #3017
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    Wait, what? lol. That could be a definition of non violence. Not a violent protest. So that would be incorrect. I am not defining a violent protest as simply taking a beating. It is considered violence to defend, retailiate and even in some instances shout at the police. We can't really have this discussion without getting the definitions of these terms clarified first which is why I askekd you to define them for the sake of clarity if the historical activist use of the term is not adequate.



    That's a good example of how a violent protest actually did have a positive result. Thank you for making my argument for me. Scott Olsen was injured in the midst of a violent protest. It was widely reported that protesters were throwing rocks and bottles that night. The Olsen hero story doesn't happen if it's a peaceful protest. That night of violent protesting also drew in many more people to Occupy Oakland and grew their movement. The Olsen story is actually a favorite among anarchists so i'm not sure why you would use to defend non violence tactics.



    I'm suggesting it doesn't always end in progress and that pledging non violence isn't necessary to make progress.

    I did not make any fucking point for you with Scott Olsen. This may be the root of your screwed up notion of "violent protest" here.
    Scott Olsen was injured by police while they were being perceived as aggressive to what was a non-violent protest. The cops were aggressively sweeping kids out of the street. Are you saying that the sporadic instances of a kid throwing something back at the police is what made that protest successful? if so, what the fuck?

    By "retaliate" I'm assuming you mean attack the cops after a percieved attack from them. Yes. That is wrong. That serves counter to making progress. You can spout all the freedom fighter rhetoric you want, the general public will call you a thug. And I think know well enough from these exchanges that would eschew the general public and their support. You're a contrarian.

    keep in mind the context of the started as civil rights, a subject that already had massive awareness, and was one of the very few social issues that ever mattered in national politics. If your protest is about some sort of oppression that the general populace is unaware of then yes, more aggressive actions may be justified, but only against objects and institutions, still never violence against actual people.

    You see the pic of the german police taking off their helmets and escorting the student protest in Frankfurt? Pretty powerful image that went worldwide viral. Do you think they'd have done that if students decided to start attacking cops?
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 05-24-2012 at 02:02 PM.

  18. #3018
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Someone seems upset they painted themselves into a corner and then dind't like the outcome. You have now proved you don't know the definition of non-violence and you don't know what makes a protest "violent".

    Since it's a known fact that the Oakland protest that injured Scott Olsen was NOT a non-violent demonstration. You should also know that Oakland does NOT support a non-violence pledge as a group either. they have a caucus of non violence but that's about it.

    In contrast we have Chicago where protesters were actually non-violent. They were kettled by police and then pushed forward when police started to indiscrimantely beat them wiht clubs. The mainstream media did not do as you say which is make the protesters look good and create more awareneness. All the headlines were about how great of a job the Chicago cops did. How they kept the city safe and that massive mobilization was necessary.




    As I already said, both tactics can work. I don't think arguing for retaliation at times makes me a freedom fighter or whatever the fuck you called me but calling me the contrarian in a thread you obviously came to troll in from day one is rather rich! lol
    Last edited by faxman75; 05-24-2012 at 02:18 PM.

  19. #3019
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    painted myself in a corner? Do you sound like this in person? What the hell is wrong with you? You can't simply be confused and just pretend that what I'm saying makes your point. I haven't changed my position on anything. You're the one with this squirley notion of "nonviolence". I'm not accusing you of misunderstanding me, I'm accusing you of not having any clear thought path. The occupy oakland protest started as non-violent, and then the cops forcibly removed them. Then you want to draw a false contrast to chicago where you want to declare a victory for the media because according to you they are universally applauding the CPD. Congrats for your ironclad grasp of everyone's opinion. Must be nice. You look at the world through some narrow fucking black & black specs.

    You apparently don't understand what contrarian means if you think internet trolling is a coherent analogy (and btw you only accuse me of that because I don't agree with YOU, and the accusation implies that I dont actually believe what I say. And so go fuck yourself). In fact I think your vocabulary is the source of a lot of your misinterpretation of mine and others' posts. But worst of all, you are tedious. and so good night. Good luck with your revolution with all your insiders and your private esoteric knowledge and masturbatory opinions off all things occupy. I sincerely hope a new world order doesn't actually spring up and ruin your fun.

  20. #3020
    Coachella Junkie
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,128

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Boring.

  21. #3021
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Wrong. INSANELY fucking boring.
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

  22. #3022
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by RotationSlimWang View Post
    Wrong. INSANELY fucking boring.
    and this is interesting?

  23. #3023
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    It's better than watching the endless paragraphs of Devil's Advocate vs. Devil's Food Cake.
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

  24. #3024
    old school Goatchella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,798

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    so serious

  25. #3025
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    I thought referring to Fax as Devil's Food Cake was actually pretty not serious. (he's fat, you see.)
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

  26. #3026
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    True. Though I think it's funny to watch jack spaz out too. The whole go fuck yourself and good luck with your revolution bit was worth it for me.

  27. #3027
    Member hippityhip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    546

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    Civil rights activists were not entirely non violent as you claim here. See the Freedom Riders, Black Panthers and Malcolm X. Unless you don't think their activities count as progressing civil rights for blacks or activism for some reason.
    I fail to see why you use the Freedom Riders, Black Panthers, and Malcolm X as examples of violent activists. The Black Panthers did in fact engage in violent confrontations with police or bad cops which they termed as "pigs". They never put out a call to go kill all cops or even to violently overthrow the state. They only used violence when violence was used against them or black residents who were brutally harassed by white cops.

    Malcolm X from my understanding never engaged in any violent protest. He did however advocated using violence if violence was first used against his people. There is an interview where he draws that distinction and says that he only advocates the use of violence when unprovoked violence is used against his people.

    I don't know much about the Freedom Riders but what I do know is that they were attacked and brutally beaten even in an organized fashion by the state when it was allowed for the KKK to systematically attack them without fear of persecution. So if the Freedom Riders used violence then it was done in self defense.

    Now this is on another note but I also find it interesting that whenever people talk about violent groups, domestic terrorists, foreign terrorists, etc., people of color are always referenced. In reality most of the violence that has ever been carried out or advocated against our government have come from white people. An example is the Weather Underground who strictly stated that they would use violent actions against the state if war crimes were committed against the people of Vietnam. They carried out several bombings against federal targets. SLO is another group that committed murder, kidnapping and robbery.

    More recent examples would be that of the unabomber Ted Kaczynski who went two decades bombing a variety of targets. Also Timothy McVeigh who bombed OKC in retaliation for the Ruby Ridge incident and Waco.

    I bring that up too because when the groups/individual you mentioned advocated violence it was in the name of self defense and was only used when violence was used against them. In contrast the Weather Underground and the other folk I mentioned used violence right off the bat to prove a point or to meet a determined goal against the state who they perceived as their enemy.

    I know that you were referencing my civil rights era comment but just decided to throw in that last part to get people's thoughts on why we seem to only remember violent acts carried out by people of color but not by whites in this country.
    Four Tet - Mohawk - 3/1
    Mac Demarco - Mohawk - 4/13

  28. #3028
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    True. Though I think it's funny to watch jack spaz out too. The whole go fuck yourself and good luck with your revolution bit was worth it for me.
    You'd be surprised how little ire it takes to call you a buffoon. I was honestly trying to ferret out something coherent from you but you just admitted to trolling (which I'll admit I'm ashamed for not realizing earlier) so that is a genuine, measured, heartfelt, and sincere Go fuck yourself. But if it please you to imagine me "spaz out" then good for you. I'm amazed you have time for all this daudling on this forum between your OWS secret meetings. Go do your cause some service and go throw a rock at a cop. now.

  29. #3029
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,914

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Taking amusement from your reaction isn't trolling dummy. I don't think i'll be throwing any rocks at cops. I was arguing on
    behalf of those who do defend themselves and others by fighting back.

    Somehow, hippityhip is capable of having an actual non combative response and maybe an interesting discussion will occur. I assume that's possible every time with you because you seem intelligent and maybe you are but conversations with you and me always end up unreasonable and as you say "tedious".

  30. #3030
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Default Re: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

    Oh and yet hippityhip seems to also be puzzled over whatever the hell you're talking about with your violent non-violence or whatever the fuck. Go ahead and engage him. He will find you tedious soon enough. The best evidence of my intelligence is in my abandoning the effort to figure you out.

    And yes, you are a troll. Perhaps unwittingly, but nonetheless.

Similar Threads

  1. A Hugging Revolution!!!
    By hisnameisme in forum Misc. Babble
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-20-2010, 08:24 PM
  2. Projekt Revolution Hyundai 7/28
    By john001@charter.net in forum Passes
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-21-2007, 10:27 PM
  3. Projekt Revolution Tour
    By billtino in forum Music Lounge
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 10:53 AM
  4. This Place Stinks Of Revolution
    By Jenniehoo in forum Music Lounge
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 02:43 PM
  5. Placebo on Projekt Revolution tour
    By ED GEIN in forum Line Up/Artists
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-28-2007, 03:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •