In all fairness, this asshat who torched some SUVs got 8 years and is ordered to payback millions.

Considering that there are cases where people get off easier for murder / manslaughter, that is pretty tough.

Either way, I agree in that I bet he ends up with a harsher punishment than any of the assholes that beat up this cop.

Notice that his gun is still holstered. That is why I could never be a policeman. I think they call going postal.

Absolutely right, Ace.

And remember, a police officer recently DIED of a heart attack at a riot ("protest") in Philadelphia. I saw the tape - this poor older guy (unarmed, in civvies) was just trying to talk to the protestors (who were throwing things at officers) - they swarmed him, and he fell under them - when he eventually crawled out he was gasping - no one helped him up - he staggered a bit and then he fell dead. It was horrible to watch. Amazing media silence on that one too. Oh except for the Inky articles making excuses for the for trustafarians who did it.

Holy shit! People are openly gloating about this in the comments section of Indymedia.

Even the report there admits that rioters were destroying property, yet somehow these "protesters" claim that the cop had it coming.

Destroying property, beating police officers, and bragging about it. NOW can I question their patriotism?

Let's call these fucks for what they are: Stormtroopers. Today's version of the Sturmabteilung SA Brownshirts.

Proposed solution: Take the job of riot control away from the police & give it to.........the Ohio National Guard. For all the damn ranting about a "totalitarian state" that we have to hear from this filth, you'd think we could gun down a couple hundred of them without increasing their rhetoric. ;)

I would hardly characterize conspiracy to commit arson and seven counts of arson resulting in the destruction of about 125 SUVs, and an estimated $2.3 million in damages as merely torch[ing] some SUVs .

I wouldn't necessary blame things on judges or blame them at all. Prosecutors and jurys also play a role. Therefore, you can forget any justice for cops in San Francisco.

The methods emplyed by these asswipes suggest they want to assault cops, not protest.

It calls for a stepped up response.

I bet half of them were students or live at home. And still harboring adolescent fantasies about "sticking it to the man," now turning into full out delinquents. Time for these asswipes to grow up. In prison.

You can see the same sort of violence from the so called anarchists at the protest warrior site. They have video at the inauguration of a bunch of anarchists calling the protest warrior guys fascists right before they start kicking a dude.

This phenomenon is likely to get worse before it gets better. I recommend that people arm themselves.

I saw the local reports. Bunch of punk kids for the most part, dyed hair and all. Faces covered with bandanas. Ironic, if these little punks got the lawless anarchy they think they crave, they'd be the first to be preyed upon.

Don't you dare question their patiotism!

Knowing the way cops are when their own are targeted with violence, I would be very afraid if I were part of any group that does so.

SWLiP, check.

Any reason why we can't use the RICO statues against this group?

These are anarchists, not progressives. This act is no more indicative of the whole then Tim McVeigh is of the right.

That said, in my extremely limited contact with anti-war protesters and police, the police have remained almost wholly professional and a handful of protesters became assholes.

The people who did this should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Can an anarchist really be catagorized as a leftist. Don't leftist believe that government can be a positive equalizing force in society? How do you equate anacry to liberalism? How silly.

I wonder if the self-defense statutes stipulate anything about shooting someone who is beating a LEO almost to death? If not, they should be amended so I don't go to jail if I happen upon a scene like this.

Uncle Jefe

Ironic, if these little punks got the lawless anarchy they think they crave, they'd be the first to be preyed upon.

They need to find this out by experieicing first hand some real lawlessness and anarchy, like the kind found in prison.

Ironic, if these little punks got the lawless anarchy they think they crave, they'd be the first to be preyed upon.

There are examples throughout history that prove when these little shits do get the government they hope for, they are the first ones put up against a wall and shot.

Ayn Rand once noted that one of the great things about American jurisprudence was that it did not recognize the concept of a political crime. That is:
-- No offense could be derived from one's political views, preferences, or the expression thereof;
-- No offense would be overlooked because of one's political views, preferences, or the expression thereof.

The hellholes of the world uniformly classify criminals into "political" and "non-political." We don't. And there's a world of education in that difference.

Can an anarchist really be catagorized as a leftist. Don't leftist believe that government can be a positive equalizing force in society? How do you equate anacry to liberalism? How silly.

Posted by thomas at July 11, 2005 04:29 PM

Do anarchists post at indymedia or mostly leftists because the support for this action is not minor? Gore supporting leftist by day and bandana wearing anarchist by night. The anti hero.

Several here have noted the difference between the left/progressives and anarchists. As I stated above, I saw all of the local coverage, and these indeed were self-described anarchists. Where they and the left share interests was shown in the pamphlets they were handing out at this 'incident.' It read something to the effect "We are against capitalism; We are against the war on terror; We are against globalization;" etc etc. Go to any current or past protest of these last many years, and you'll see the same signs, courtesy of International Answer, Not In Our Name, Moveon, Socialist Workers' Party, etc.
Don't try and apologize for the left by trying to distance them between this behavior and the left's stated goals. They are one and the same, as the left has been co-opted by these exact same forces- against capitalism, war on terror, globalization, etc.

The San Francisco Police had every justification to fire on these little fucks. They cracked this officer's skull, which is classified as a deadly threat, making it a deadly force incident. Every fucking one of them that is arrested should be charged with attempted murder. Of course, in a city like San Francisco, that probably doesn't matter. It would have been great if the SFPD had been taken off the leash, and been allowed to thump these monsters like they so richly deserve.
Last year's G8 was held in Sea Island, GA, and there was an army of cops everywhere. And southern cops tolerate far less bullshit from these lawless bleeders than most police. The result was zero violent incidents. If fact, most of these gutless poncers were afraid to show up.

Those of us who actually LIVE in San Francisco should perhaps note that the perpatrators of this incident were self-declared "anarchists" - a code word for hooligans with nothing better to do - who had splintered off from the G8 protest that was occuring at the time.

This has about as much to do with the Left as (hopefully) sodomizing prisoners with glowsticks has to do with the Right. Chill out.

Mr. Elliott-
As a 5th-generation San Franciscan (who now lives near, not in SF, but with many relatives there who 'resist' the current/recent SF regimes), I think I can speak about my place of birth with authority.
You characterize the 'anarchists' decently enough, but you fail to make the connection.
See above, respond as necessary.

These anarchists, largely members of Black Flag and Direct Action, but also unaffiliated teens and hangers-on, have demonstated a tendency to "piggyback" on legitimate demonstrations of dissent. Usually, as we saw in Seattle, they show up in force near the end of the (peaceful and lawful) proceedings and hijack the events to their own purposes.

They have nothing to do with MoveOn (which shouldn't have been conflated with those other groups above), and nothing to do with the Democratic Party, American progressivism, or leftism in general. They're vandals and punks, period.

Striking a police officer - even one who is behaving badly - is never warranted under any circumstances. Ever. I sincerely extend my condolences to the injured officer, his family, and his fellow officers. This was a tragedy and the persons responsible should face the most extreme penalties allowed for under the law. Assault with deadly intent would be a good start.

I don't think the mistake is calling these people leftists - the mistake is calling them anarchists. Ask them what they think about free trade. You can't impede free trade (uh, I mean, create "fair trade"?) without government.

Actually, one of Marx's tenets was that the triumph of human progress would be the death of government. In a perfect world, men would live together in international peace and harmony. And any progressive who is serious about his belief looks for the end of government and the moral perfection of mankind.

Which is exactly why I think they're fools. Every man is born with an evil nature. But for the grace of God, that evil becomes so prominent and forceful as to be displayed pubicly.

James Elliott: That's the difference between "the Left" and us right-wingers. If WE found ourselves sharing protest space with vermin like this, we'd get rid of them.

YOU only disavow them when they do something that gets you bad press.

Doubt me? just go to the next 'antiwar' rally and dig Democratic politicians on the national level addressing the crowd that YOU say isn't part of "the left".

Or you could just go to Moveon.org or the organizational websites of any of the big 'antiwar' rallies and follow the links on the "supporters and donors" page.

Boo fucking hoo. Hide behind your fucking police state. Live by the sword die by the sword.

Some choice quotes:

“Let's call these fucks for what they are: Stormtroopers. Today's version of the Sturmabteilung SA Brownshirts.” Fucking idiot. . . the SA were supported by the (illegitimate) German government. Your example actually implicates the police not the fuckwits who attack them.

“Proposed solution: Take the job of riot control away from the police & give it to.........the Ohio National Guard. For all the damn ranting about a "totalitarian state" that we have to hear from this filth, you'd think we could gun down a couple hundred of them without increasing their rhetoric.” Yeah, that’s the answer. Let’s have a REAL police state. Fuck the constitution, let’s PARTY.

“I saw the local reports. Bunch of punk kids for the most part, dyed hair and all. Faces covered with bandanas. Ironic, if these little punks got the lawless anarchy they think they crave, they'd be the first to be preyed upon.” Why you are quite the fucking sociologist. Did you make that up yourself, or poach it from Reader’s Digest?

“They need to find this out by experieicing first hand some real lawlessness and anarchy, like the kind found in prison.” First, learn to spell asswipe. Second, after you are finished with your 8th grade sado-torture fantasies about sending people to prison, why don’t you ask yourself why the fuck we have so many people in prison already. Wait wait . . . I know . . . BECAUSE THEY HATE FREEDOM.

“There are examples throughout history that prove when these little shits do get the government they hope for, they are the first ones put up against a wall and shot.” Yeah dude. It’s like history and stuff that like totally shows how people who violently protest are shot. Fucking brilliant.

“Several here have noted the difference between the left/progressives and anarchists. As I stated above, I saw all of the local coverage, and these indeed were self-described anarchists.” Funny how you fuckers whine about the “leftist media” but spew “local coverage” as God’s given truth when you have to come up with hard evidence.

If our anarchists ever figure out how to bring over South Korean anarchist/student protestors to our shores, then I'll be worried.

Until then, the police should carry extra batteries for the tasers and set their nightsticks on 'great abandon' when quelling these looting, rioting idiots.

You know, brave "boofuckinghoo", that when you comment on a blog you still leave your IP address even if you don't leave your name. You MAN you.

Hey, pussy, is that all you got?
Troll punk.
All snivel and no answers.
Your big, tough words are all you'll ever have.
Hit and run, hiding your mug behind your keyboard just like the 'anarchists' do, behind their bandanas.
Try making sense- hell, make an argument if you can.
What happened, did mommy restrict you to your room, so that you can't march wid your widdle fwiends?

Hey Mr. Smartguy, you wrote:

Fucking idiot. . . the SA were supported by the (illegitimate) German government.

You're a real dumbass, you know? Hitler himself led a purge that broke up the SA and killed its leaders, including Ernst Rohm. It was called "The Night of the Long Knives." You could look it up if your head wasn't planted so firmly up your ass.

Fucking idiot. . . the SA were supported by the (illegitimate) German government.

No, the SA was formed before the Nazis took over the German government. After Hitler took power, he saw the SA as a dangerous mob and purged them in the famous Night of the Long Knives. At this point, the SS became dominant instead.

You really should brush up on your history, friend.

Is it just me, or is there an echo in here?

Whoops, looks like Sean was faster on the draw. Great minds thinking alike and so on.

:-)

Right back atcha, pal. Dumbass trolls just make it too damn easy sometimes.

Oh. Oh. Oh. Officer down.

My heart is bleeding.

Maybe a few of those terrible married faggots and "spoiled" little "rich kids" can give as good as they get, huh? Perhaps next time you superannuated mouthbreathers will think twice before you get all up in people's faces with your Orwellian sloganeering and God Bless Murka mentality.

The sixties are dead and gone, folks. Maybe you should try to get out more often. And before you start swinging your dicks around and sputtering about your gun collection, you might want to keep in mind that a fair number of us are armed too.

We WILL wrest our (yes, OUR,) country back from Idiot Child and his Gang of Christianist Oiligarchs, and frogmarch Rush, TurdBlossom Karl, Donny, Kennyboy and the entire bloody lot straight to Den Hague for their crimes against humanity. Unless Jeezuz gets 'em first.

And here's the scary part. We look JUST LIKE YOU. We're everywhere. Teaching your kids karate. Resolving your dental issues. Checking you out at CostCo. Riding high in that duelly in the next lane. Paying your SSA while you cry in your beer in front of Fox "news."

RUN! HIDE! SCREAM! SHOUT! The HIPPIES ARE COMING BACK!!!!

Word, whiteboy.

The hippies are coming back?

That's a pity.

I frickin' hate the smell of patchouli.

As usual, Michelle Malkin doesn't get the story right. Indymedia wasn't boasting of the officer's injury. It was showing what occurred on the street when it happened. Thanks to the photographer, the public seems to have an accurate record of the officer's injuries. The officer's injuries are obviously unfortunate, but as is usually the case with these protests, inaccuracies and downright LIES are spread by the Right. I didn't see Malkin write about the allegations that the police may have turned on a bystander who was trying to help the downed officer.

RUN! HIDE! SCREAM! SHOUT! The HIPPIES ARE COMING BACK!!!!

Appropriately, Karl Marx said it best: The first time, tragedy. The second time, farce.

Hacky sack, anyone?

Rob:

I believe that Ms. Malkin was referring to the comments associated with the posting, which ranged from "They shouldn't have done it, but I can see why they did it," to "The cops deserve it." In that light, your accusation that the Right is spreading "LIES" is clearly ill-founded. As Brian Shields of KRON4 notes in his comments (at Indymedia) - the protestors stepped over the line, so their treatment wasn't as much news as was the original wanton beating of a peace officer.

Give as good as they get??
So they shove a mattress under a cop car, try to light it on fire, and then gang up on the cop when he dismounts and smash shit on his head...yeah, they sound tough.
Lucky for the kiddies the cop kept his gun holstered.
"Word, whiteboy"??
I've got word for you, wannabe. The eighties are dead too.
And by the way:
It's not YOUR country, and it's not going to be.
Back under your rock.

Don't mind me, I'm just trolling through . . .

I actually agree that anarchists are closer to modern liberals than they are to modern conservatives.

Anarchists are for small government, personal freedom, and success based on merit.

These things used to be conservative values, but have been tossed to the wayside in recent years. Today's conservatives have almost nothing in common with anarchists.

For good or bad.

We WILL wrest our (yes, OUR,) country back from Idiot Child and his Gang of Christianist Oiligarchs

Chill out and dial down the paranoid delusions of oppression. Your emotions are overriding your ability to reason. The Kingdom of Christ is a spritual kingdom that has very little overlap with the temporal kingdoms of men.

Furthermore, I have yet to meet a fellow believer who thinks our current President is actually a Christian. He's relatively traditional about some things but his 'testimony,' such as it is, is mostly vague and emotional. There's little evidence that he has an orthodox understanding of even the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.

And modern conservatives are also in favor of assaulting cops and property damage, too? Right? Oops...

Seattle Slough:

Your description of anarchists applies more to libertarians than to anarchists. Wikipedia describes it more accurately as "a stateless society with voluntary social harmony." Conservatives tend to look askance at anarchism because they have little faith in the stability of "voluntary social harmony."

You also make the mistake of confusing conservatives with Republican politicians. Both liberals and conservatives have issues with the conduct of their elected officials, and every time we vote we're forced to compromise on a number of positions we personally hold. This is why many conservative sites refer to the GOP as "the stupid party."

In any case, I think you'll find most of the people at this site are in favor of "small government, personal freedom, and success based on merit."

Thanks Geoff. You comments are well taken. I am about as liberal as it gets and I think Anarchists are morons. They sullied up my home town with their pointless message as has been discussed above. Like all truly fringe groups, anarchists share little in common with mainstream liberals and conservatives alike.

I would also posit that libertarians and anarchists are not so dissimilar. Both want to be pretty well left alone by government forces as the number one thing on their agenda. Part and parcel with that is the fact (IMO) that they both greatly underestimate the good things a government does. I agree they diverge on the concept of human nature, but likely have more in common than they would like to admit.

As for Sean M., You are an idiot. You comment is pathetic, weak, and flaccid. Like your cock.

cheers

It's obvious none of you right-wing hyperventilators live in SF (with the exception of Mr. Fifth Generation up there, who moved to the 'burbs). The SFPD has distinguished itself by busting protestors' heads, dating all the way back to the '60s, growing worse when Feinstein was mayor, and reaching its zenith when Frank Jordan was in office. (No, I don't expect most of your to recognize those names.) I'm not saying that this cop got what he deserved, but I am saying that anyone who is surprised at animosity between protestors and cops hasn't paid much attention. (We won't even mention the SFPD's deplorable solve rate, and their unwillingness to enforce even traffic laws. Their uselessness is legendary among California police forces.) They've managed to hamstring the Office of Civilian Compalints, and their Internal Affairs division sleep through its investigations.

To the officer and his family: my condolences. To the department: Please don't act surprised. If you Google "Chris Robertson" or "John Smart" or ""Gregory Breslin", you'll have all the reasons you can stomach.

By the way, if you find violence so deplorable, you might want to take down the quote about hoisting the black flag and beginning slitting throats. You don't seem too entertained when somebody actually does that, rather than just talking about it.

Wrong throats, I guess.

Doc Amazing:

Your critique of the SFPD may be entirely fair and accurate, but it does not provide justification for the protestors luring the officer out of his car and beating him. It is normally the province of the Left to caution the Right that two wrongs don't make a right, so it is surprising (and supportive of Ace's double-standard thesis) that many on the Left have been very equivocal in condemning the protestor's acts. Some, in fact, have been supportive.

The Mencken quote, by the way, specifically mentions "hoisting the black flag" prior to the throat-slitting. Aside from the ludicrous leap from metaphor to reality that you have taken, one might note that in contrast to the craven acts of the protestors, the Mencken quote provides for fair warning before blood is let.

I would also posit that libertarians and anarchists are not so dissimilar. Both want to be pretty well left alone by government forces as the number one thing on their agenda.

Being "pretty well left alone" is a rather simplistic interpretation of libertarian philosophy. I would characterize it as limiting government to what it does best.

You comment is pathetic, weak, and flaccid. Like your cock.

Way to back up your agrument, s.s. My cock and I kneel, cowed before "you" rhetorical might. Got any "yo' mamma" jokes that you want to toss in, while you're at it?

In fairness to Ace, the verb in his quote is 'tempted' not 'slit'.

And, Mencken is always worth reading:

http://www.synergisticbooks.com/ombibulous.html

What you pin heads fail to recognize is that when Clinton was president they were doing the same window smashing and rock throwing. Anarchy lies more closely on the scale of political thought with Libertarians. Don't apologize for the left? f*ck you! Who says war only as a last result and then invades a country that was already unarmed by the UN? Can I blame each one of you for killing a police officer outside an abortion clinic? Anarchists and liberals may have areas of interest that overlap, ie globalization and the effects on the worlds poor, but that is where the similarity ends.

Same shit, different day.

We've got a long and sad history of tolerating outrageous crap from people as long as they're the "right" people with the "right" cause. Round these parts, it was the monsters in white sheets that got a free pass for violence and mayhem in the name of a lost regime that should never have seen the light of day. Elsewhere, thugs that used violence and vandalism to extort money from their employers and frighten off competitors managed to get their activities classed as "labor unrest" and themselves classed as the good guys, and this delusion generally persists to the present day.

Now we're told that overthrowing a brutal dictator and setting up a democratic government is an act so vile that the locals are naturally moved to righteous anger and blow things up as "resistance", that it is right and proper and honorable for the locals to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the cause of abolishing liberty and democracy and reinstituting tyranny. And, at home, far too many people still condone violence and vandalism for the "right" cause, not having learned better in more than a hundred years.

Can I blame each one of you for killing a police officer outside an abortion clinic?

No, but we will continue to blame you for every person killed inside them.

Who says war only as a last result and then invades a country that was already unarmed by the UN?

Please provide citations for each and every expression of your moral outrage and indignation over the U.S. participation in the bombings of Bosnia and/or Kosovo. In the (likely) event that you have none, then promptly fuck off.

We look JUST LIKE YOU. We're everywhere. Teaching your kids karate. Resolving your dental issues. Checking you out at CostCo.

What do you want to bet that this is a 20 year-old pony-tailed dropout, bagging groceries by day and teaching karate to 9 year-olds after work? All while imagining himself part of some grand Movement that's just on the verge of total world domination?

Here's a tip, buddy: picture Bush's face on the kicking bag with every front snap kick. It'll work out some of those hostility issues. You'll make brown belt in no time.

Then go back to your bedroom at your mother's house and masturbate yourself to sleep, again.

Phinn,
Can I blame each one of you for killing a police officer outside an abortion clinic?

No, but we will continue to blame you for every person killed inside them.

Is this what is called moral relativism?

DocAmazing:

Oddly, your leftiest DA at the time, found insufficient evidence to file charges in the three cases you allude to. And yeah you are justifying what was done to this officer, so take your condolences and shove them up your ass.

Correction to above:

Charges were filed against the truckdriver who ran over cyclist, Chris Robertson in 2000. However, in DocAmazing small mind that some how justifies violence against this cop and/or cops in general. Right.

Is this what is called moral relativism?

If that's what you think, then you need a dictionary before we can debate the issue further.

See, some of us are opped to all forms of murder. That includes police officers and people before they are born. That's called a legal and/or moral principle.

Moral relativism, in contrast, is a somewhat ironic term, since it posits that moral principles do not actually exist, or that they are not applicable across contexts. It is related to the idea of "situational ethics." This, of course, represents a disavowal of the very existence of moral principles, or ethics, since morals and ethics are, at their essence, statements of universailty, generlization and abstraction from otherwise unrelated events. Law works very much the same way.

Clear it up any?

"opposed" (makes more sense that way)

Comparing anarchists to any political group is like comparing a salamander to a dog just because both have 4 legs and a tail. A few general similarities does not show relationship.

I just don't get anarchy. It's impossible to live that way. People tend to group together, which usually leads to some form of organization, because we want some form of predictability in our day-to-day lives. When I think of anarchists, I only think of people who want to break things, tear things down and blow things up; giving their violence an ideology and a name just looks like a cheap excuse. I don't buy it.

P.S. As far as sneering at people who don't have a name signed to their posts, I see that if you go to preview, then go back to edit, you have to re-enter your name & email, because those space go blank. If you forget to, then your message gets posted without a name. It's kind of like sneering at posters for typos - to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.

Dick amazing cries about police brutality in SF.
What a laugh.
Yeah, 5th generation, and I still love the City, but not who's running it. Neither did my folks, who moved the family out before high school. (He kept commuting to SF; I moved back and worked there until 98') My father was an SF Cop, but switched over to the SF Fire Dept in 1968, when they would no longer allow the cops to defend themselves against hippies and radicals. It all began to fall apart then.
There may be instances where unstable folks make it into the PD; it happens in all walks of life. But when scumbags can spit in your face and you're precluded from acting, one day you might just crack and cross the line on them. And when your impotent lefty DA and court system refuses to prosecute or convict, and throws cases out of court, pleas charges down, well, scumbags grow emboldened.
Add in affirmative action in city government, and you've ripped the department completely apart. Incompetence, lack of motivation to succeed, people being promoted on the base of their sex, sexual orientation, and skin color. Same as what happened to the SFFD, and every office of the City.
Look to that for your answers as to crime solve rate, lack of traffic enforcement, etc. Built-in apathy for a City that gives it all away, without merit.
I'm not arguing that anarchists and liberals are the same; they are, however, working together towards some of their shared goals, as mentioned way above-
no to globalization, no to capitalism, no to the war on terror.
Do you not pay attention to every friggin' anti-everything march that the left's put on for the last how many years???

Trillin, most people being called anarchists aren't anarchists. They are fully in favor of international government—it's domestic government to which they are opposed because it isn't socialist enough.

anarchism

n : a political theory favoring the abolition of governments

socialism

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Since you can't have a state without having a government, anarchy cannot be equated with socialism. Seems to me that the 2 concepts are in direct opposition to each other. Also, many counties have anarchists - it's not just here.

Unless you mean that in every country that has anarchists, they just want anarchy in their own country?

Hi, again, PlacidPundit

OK, I missed your part about people who call themselves anarchists. I can't comment on that because I haven't met any...But it still sounds like they're looking a philisophical justification for thuggery.

Phinn,
Thanks for admitting you are a hypocritical dip shit, that is all I wanted.

1. Sorry about not leaving a name. My mistake. As Trillian noted, “I see that if you go to preview, then go back to edit, you have to re-enter your name & email, because those space go blank.” This is what happened and I do not condone “hit and run” posts, so sorry about that.

2. Responses to my “ignorance” of German history.

“No, the SA was formed before the Nazis took over the German government. After Hitler took power, he saw the SA as a dangerous mob and purged them in the famous Night of the Long Knives.”

“You're a real dumbass, you know? Hitler himself led a purge that broke up the SA and killed its leaders, including Ernst Rohm. It was called "The Night of the Long Knives."

Yes, but the SA was instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power. He didn’t purge them until 1934. If you think that the SA was not integral to the rise of German fascism it is you that better check your history. My point, for those of you nimble enough to understand it, is that the analogy of comparing “these fucks” to “Stormtroopers” is laughingly ironic. The SA were not opposed to Hitler, they supported him. They were disbanded because Rohm was a threat to Hitler, and because Hitler needed to secure the support of German industrialists and the German military. Up until 1934, they did much of the party’s dirty work – rigging elections and intimidating voters, assaulting political opponents, attacking Jews.

So as I pursue the postings and read about the violent fantasies you all have in the name of supporting the “Homeland,” . . . well.

And for the record, I don’t support idiots who attack the police. I called them “fuckwits” because if anything they only serve to strengthen the police state. You all think Democrats/liberals/anarchists are the enemy while the real enemy screws all of us (Corporate CEOs and bureaucrats excepted).

Finally, my post was not a troll. It was a rant at you conservatives who should know better. You spend so much time beguiling the left that you cannot see the plank in your own eye. Yes, the left are largely idiots, and certainly politically inept. But conservatism? Small government? State’s rights? Fiscal responsibility? NEVER MIND, THE ANARCHISTS ARE HERE!!! Blinded by ideology and non-stop propaganda, it seems unlikely that few of you “conservatives” could actually question what is happening right now from a conservative perspective. Instead we hear jingoistic support for an administration that has cut veteran’s benefits, ballooned the federal deficit, opposed state’s rights, dismantled civil liberties, created “secret police” and “secret courts,” screwed the middle class, and stifled (legitimate) dissent. AS A LIBERTARIAN, it is not the liberals that disappoint me, but the so-called conservatives who have abandoned their principles for power.

So to sublog, and all of you other who equate criticism of the police/military/corporate power-structure of this country to “hippies,” wake the fuck up. There are countless conservatives and libertarians who hate the smell of big government/big brother/big lies as much as you hate the smell of patchouli.

Hey Joe Bob. If you keep plagiarizing Tim McVeigh I am sure his ghost will become pissed and haunt you with Black Helicopters.

Thomas, thanks for admitting you never learned what a "run-on sentence" is. That is all I wanted.

Keep flailing, shit-sack. It's kind of fun to watch.

Phinn:
Opposed to all forms of murder?

I knew you'd come around sooner or later.

See you at the next anti-war demonstration.

Troll--

DA didn't file charges against Breslin. He was/is a cop who shot an unarmed young girl to death. That's what the "liberal" DA does--covers for police malpractice. Kinda like with the Fajitagate scandal--not that you'd know anything about that; it didn't get much play in the national papers. Summary: off-duty cops beat the feces out of an off-duty bartender who failed to yield a bag o' snacks quickly enough. One--yes, only one--of the cops involved got fired; others caught hell not for the crime, but for the cover-up. DA threw the case against the others (much like the Oakland Riders case--Google that one for fun).

Uncle Jefe--

Cops are unable to defend themselves? News to me. I've treated many baton injuries. I've had friends hospitalized. SFPD is a pretty violent bunch. I watched 'em run a motorcycle over a woman's head in 1984, and got to see Con Murphy (police chief at the time) lie about it afterwards.

I know, you right-wing types consider assaults *on* law-enforcement officeres much more deplorable that assaults *by* police officers. Hey, no double standard there, right?

And wasn't it G. Gordon Liddy who reminded us :"Head shots! Head shots!"

Oh, and Geoff--

Taking on men armed with firearms is hardly "craven", and the demeanor of the demonstartors surely provided "fair warning". Assault on anybody is still wrong, and a crime, but let's not pretend we're dealing with helpless victims here.

Doc A.

If those are the rules you prefer to play by, then it is to the immense credit of the SFPD that they didn't come out guns ablazin'. The protestors took advantage of the officer's good will (since he clearly assumed the situation could be defused without shooting somebody) and swarmed him. It was immoral and unmanly, and craven is as civilized a term as I could use.

Opposed to all forms of murder?

I happen to be as anti-war as I am anti-murder. (I also happen to be ardently pro-self-defense, which, not coincidentally, is both a justification for war and a defense to murder.)

I also happen to believe that 99.99% of "demonstrations" are masturbatory stroke-sessions for the participants. The last meaningful one was probably conducted by Ghandi himself.

DA didn't file charges against Breslin.

What do you think “found insufficient evidence to file charges” means? Learn to read, dumbass.

That's what the "liberal" DA does--covers for police malpractice.

He certainly is a lefty from a long line of leftys. If you truly were a San Franciscan you would know that. As to any civil suit, there was no cover up. Diane Detoy settled with the city -- and for a sum that was, frankly, chump change in the lucrative business of suing cities and the police. And with every other person in SF a lawyer, the case must have been a real dog.

Kinda like with the Fajitagate scandal--not that you'd know anything about that

Well, you sure don't. All three officers were acquitted at trial. Two by a SF jury, the other by a Sacramento jury. The indictment of the brass was thrown out by another judge. And the six of the seven command staff that petitioned a different judge for a finding of factual innocence, received it. I know it just kills people like you that the police are afforded due process. And, no one got fired that I'm aware of. They left or retired.

So, there you have it – a conspiracy from SF all the way to Sacramento against you sleazeball leftists/anarchists.

much like the Oakland Riders case--Google that one for fun

Google it yourself, asshat. There's no fun wasting time in correcting more of your b.s.

p.s.: Get a job instead of being a pimple on the ass of the people who pay the taxes in SF.

Yes, but the SA was instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power. He didn’t purge them until 1934. If you think that the SA was not integral to the rise of German fascism

I didn't hear anyone say that. Yet the analogy between International A.N.S.W.E.R. and the SA is rock solid. The Brownshirts were not some kind of organized army or police force, as you seem to suggest. They were a disorganized and violent mob taking out their frustrations on people and property that got in the way.

Finally, my post was not a troll. It was a rant at you conservatives who should know better. You spend so much time beguiling the left that you cannot see the plank in your own eye. Yes, the left are largely idiots, and certainly politically inept. But conservatism? Small government? State’s rights? Fiscal responsibility? NEVER MIND, THE ANARCHISTS ARE HERE!!!

Start making sense. When did I drop my support for limited government? But please remember, limited government doesn't mean "weak government." It means government limited to it's purpose: to maintain public peace. Which is exactly why we support law enforcement and the military. It's the one thing that government is actually supposed to do.

Blinded by ideology and non-stop propaganda, it seems unlikely that few of you “conservatives” could actually question what is happening right now from a conservative perspective.

You might want to turn your hearing aid up a bit. We do this all the time. We all pile on Bush for his silly Socialist tendencies (prescription drug benefit, enormous foreign aid packages to the Palestinians, and so on). Not to mention the illegal immigration and other issues. I myself thought the Federal Marriage Amendment was a silly idea. Plenty of us would love to see our central government reduced to the bare essentials laid out for it in the Constitution.

But again, none of that has anything to do with supporting law enforcement. Nothing at all.

Instead we hear jingoistic support for an administration

I'm not sure what you're smoking, but it must be strong. Defense is one of the few things that government is actually supposed to do. Why would we oppose that?

that has cut veteran’s benefits

Not the job of the government. You know, all that stuff that Libertarians, err, I mean you support?

ballooned the federal deficit

Yep. They've done that. They do it all the time and it's wrong. But at least some of that spending is legitimately put forward for the military.

opposed state’s rights

Yep, they've done that too. They've done it ever since 1861 and it's probably not going to stop now, unfortunately. Although getting people like Janice Rogers Brown on the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) might help turn back the clock a bit.

dismantled civil liberties, created “secret police” and “secret courts,”

Shhhh! If they hear you say that, they'll drag us both off and bash our skulls in with clubs! Oh wait. No they won't. Sorry, my bad.

screwed the middle class

I know. I wish Bush and the weak sister Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe would stop compromising on Social Security and tax cuts. But that's the Republican party for you.

and stifled (legitimate) dissent

I know. I wish somebody would say that, for instance, the war in Iraq was a mistake. Unfortunately, you never, ever, ever, ever, ever hear anybody say anything like that. You simply can't. It's not allowed. Why, I never hear any Democrats criticizing American policy. I never read any editorials in the New York Times giving the government any grief. It's just all boot-licking from top to bottom.

AS A LIBERTARIAN, it is not the liberals that disappoint me, but the so-called conservatives who have abandoned their principles for power.

As a Christian libertarian and states rights advocate, I never abandon my principles. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be finding any of this “power” you mention. Maybe you could point me in the right direction so I could dump some of my principles in exchange for a little coercive force.

So to sublog, and all of you other who equate criticism of the police/military/corporate power-structure of this country to “hippies,” wake the fuck up. There are countless conservatives and libertarians who hate the smell of big government/big brother/big lies as much as you hate the smell of patchouli.

1. I hardly think clubbing or trampling policemen can be called “criticism.” Thuggery might be a better word.
2. The police, military, and “corporate power-structure” (whatever that is) are not of one piece and cannot possibly be criticized as a single entity.
3. Most of those screaming diatribes against the Bush administration are utopian hippies. There are some serious critics, but you don't usually see them in the streets smearing themselves with paint and holding up pictures of Bush with swastikas on his forehead.
4. You seem to equate support for law enforcement and public decency with praying five times per day toward a statue of Dick Cheney. Give over, Laverne.
5. I prefer to hate the smell of both big government and patchouli. Two lousy tastes that taste lousy together.

Grrr. Comment system ate my CSS rules. Jim Bob, find your quotes in the above as best as you can.

Troll--

In addition to the DA throwing the cases against SF cops, they don't seem to have much of a case against the "anarchists":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/13/BAGQNDN3DV1.DTL

I especially like the bit about the officer "recovering at home".

Ass Pimple:

In addition to the DA throwing the cases against SF cops

Wah! Wah! Wah! Two juries threw it out. You don't' get the outcome you want, so it has to be fixed. Got proof? No? Of course, not.

they don't seem to have much of a case against the "anarchists"

It looks damn good to me:
Felony taking a baton from a police officer
Felony attempted lynching
Rioting
Resisting arrest.
Wearing a mask
**And three years in which to file felony assault charges on an officer against you other ass pimples.

I especially like the bit about the officer "recovering at home".

Poor you! Holding out for one of those fancy cop funerals, were ya?