OH yeah .

Maybe he asked for a spanking ....

It sure is !

Yes, unlike the OWSers who spit in the face of the police, throw fire bombs and rocks at them, and yell obsecities, Breibart knew the police were simply doing their jobs. He knew that they are not the enemy, but that the OWS radicals who want to end free speech, overthrow the American government and way of life are the ugly enemy.

As long as the police willing enforce the decisions of self serving city official and the oppressive ideas of a corrupt government then they most certain ARE the enemy. OWS does not want to overthrow freespeach, where do you even get such idea... is it just me or do you come in here everyday with a new piece of propagandized rubbish stuck to your clipboard ready to PASTE PASTE PASTE until you feel that your own life has become worthless... just a guess.

Breitbart lover . I expected you . You have no credibility with me . I do thank you for commenting , though . It keeps the post in the public eye to have so many comments .

No they are not. They are not protecting corporations; they are protecting the surrounding property, public peace and average citizens trying to go to work, have their streets free of degenerates. In NYC, neighborhood committees got together to try to solve the "problem." Crime was rampant in the City. Rapes. Drugs. Read the list I posted; I had to dramatically SHORTEN it. But check the numbers.

Never see anything like that with the Tea Party Patriots, of course. And they actually got changes. And they are not anti-capitalist and COLLECTIVIST.

Yes, it shows the public the Left-winger hatred of authority, the country and the free market. One poster even wants to get rid of money, and thinks America is "oppressive." I suspect you approve.

Hater of authority ? Nay , Lover of FREEDOM ! I suppose you Love authority ? Zealots often believe so .

Leftists hate all authority and do not see the need for it in family, teaching, or anywhere. Left-wingers call it "liberation."

Civilized people refer to it as "anarchy."

You are projecting your fears on to me . Not relevant . This man , the one you love , is mentally unstable . Nothing you say about ME , can change that . What really disturbs me , is that you follow him .

Again rhetorical hate-speak, full of degenrates and rape... sounds like NYC any day of the week since the 1640s to me... proof that my claim of rhetorical hatespeak is simple, you had to put "probem" in quotation marks.

The left do not hate authority, if they did why would they push so hard to authortize regulation on things- that one comment of yours is proof of an agenda that veers from the well established truth... You keep saying the left want BIG government, but they hate authority, you keep saying those that are raising their voices stand against free speech, you say that these people hate the country when all I see is people making an effort to improve life for all Americans... you can't get a single thing straight can you?

Again with this anti-authority crap about the left that you claim wants big government and more regulations and federally funded healthcare... your point is negated by your very own comments previously, can't you see that?

Bet all of you this is where he stops responding to me again.

Any person who values freedom hates authority.

If civilized people call no standards of civilization "Anarchy" then civilized people are stupid and lack an understanding of what Anarchy is.

Can't project what I don't have. Who says I follow him? Now THAT is some projection: It means that you have that inclination, so you are assuming that I "follow" others.

Revealing, very revealing....

No, it all fits together, and it is a consistent pattern of the Left for over a century. The left has this "dream," and in their minds, it has to be implemented by the central authority. Look at your history. The progressives have been advocating this from the late 19th century. Ask left-wingers about states' rights, and they go beserk and start screaming that anyone who advocates thus must want Jim Crow laws and child labor. That is how hysterical the Left-wingers get.

I have mentioned this again and again and again. To put it succinctly for probably the 14th time: The Left-wingers are willing to give up freedom in exchange for moral anarchy. In other words, it means that if they have license to indulge themselves without any moral sense, they consider this freedom (freedom without responsibility which is no freedom at all, of course), and a socialist state will give this.

Kansas, I just looked down. Check out hammywill's statement below. This is exactly what I mean.

Don't start with the "dictionary again. Look at the context. If we are having a discussion about political philosophies, then anarchy takes on a different meaning from anarchy in the streets of the OWS degenerates.

"so you are assuming that I "follow" others."

Well Agendist there is no assumption needed here, your agendized statement make it obvious you follow the idealogical codex as that fool, and he clearly outranks you in the heirarchy of your party so you do in fact follow him Agendist.

Well sir you have mentioned state laws several times on these threads full of "left wingers" over the last several days and I haven't seen one mention of "jim crow laws" or child labor at those points in the conversations so you are clearly delusional.

And again for the 14th time I call propoganda! I have not seen anyone EVER condon the willing vacuation of rights, liberties, or personal freedoms. I most definately have not seen anyone in support of moral anarchy. Your freedom without responsibility malarchy has been floating around the rhetor-o-spere for a long time, I think you should put that pony to rest.

Don't be lumping anarchists in with liberal or left-wingers here pal, entirely different breed I assure... hammy's comments are his own and not in any fashion indicative of the thoughts or intentions of anyone but him... You damned Agendist.

Again you are wrong, Anarchy is either a political philosophy or a state of government. The word you are looking for to describe the streets is chaos.

I do not really know much about Breitbart, but I can understand his frustration and anger, of course.

I have seen plenty on other threads, of course. This is about OWS and the righteous anger of Breitbart.

They mix together well, and they have since the Progressive era, of course. Take a look at the video I posted about "One Nation Rally." Typical Left-winger stuff.

The generic meaning is obvious. You are at the word games once again.

Understanding Brietbart's anger doesn't make him or you right, you know this don't you? Empathy does not change the situation, it doesn't absolve him of calling a group of complete strangers rapists.

not righteous anger, that was selfrigheous indignation. There is one and only one source of selfrighteous indignation. Thats the misguided perception that your idealogy is the only acceptable idealogy to believe. He was slinging insults and rhetoric at people he knew nothing about individually.

Again, I have been on this site FAR longer then you have, I have never once seen the words anywhere in our comment threads the terms "jim crow laws" or a fear of child labor with state rights. I have seen several say that giving states too much power would put personal liberties at risk in those states, which does have historical precedent as a viable and honest concern.

Yes the generic defintion of ANARCHY is obvious to everyone but you it appears. Its really quite simple it is either a political philosophy or a state of lawlessness... Chaos is still and will forever be the word you need to describe what was happening in the streets.

"They mix together well" again I call malarchy! Anarchist as a general rule don't mix well with anyone, fellow anarchists included.

I wrote that he was over the top. But I wrote that I understand his anger.

He was angry because he could not speak. He was shouted down.

Word games. What I meant was obvious.

More word games.

The proof , is this , your relentless and dogged trolling for a crazed lunatic , who is , it seems to me a dangerously delusional individual , not unlike some people we know . Does Breitbart do his own trolling ? To me he seems like that kind of guy .... perhaps you know ?

Riechtous ? You use the language of the zealot ....

His words were clear , just no one there agreed with him is all . He very much NEEDS for people to agree with him . Like people who kill other of different religions .... In the words of Eddie Izzard " Death , or Cake ? "

No, I have repeated it numerous times on this thread. This will be the last one: He was obviously frustrated because he was not allowed to speak and was just shouted down. This is commonplace with the Left. It has happened on many campuses: When people come with views that the Left does not like, they try to stifle any speech by that person. I just saw another cell phone video by an activist in which they tried to shout down Palin with screaming and yelling at a CPAC meeting. That is typical.

Me too ! Cake , Please !