I am the angry left

But I like you when you're angry.

OK - THIS is the place to put this info!! :-)

Obama is looking to find out what is on our minds!!
And we can go here to tell him!!

http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/
(I think this is a very cool idea) :-)

Well, duh. These guys are nothing but fascist wannabes anyway. So it stands to reason that they would try to manipulate the "followers".
Anne G

Yet people remain oblivious to their rights being taken away and they so unwilling to fight for them, to even care. They give a legion of excuses as to why they won't stand up for themselves and I am sick of it. We need to do something now, we need to climb out of our cultural stupor and make the ideal of freedom a reality. It starts now.

I am a libertarian, and I am also angry at the erosion of our civil liberties. Yes, I cling to my guns, but not because I am a redneck. I am, in most of my views, quite liberal. But I cling to my guns because if only government has them, then there is no other way to reclaim my other civil liberties should all political recourse fail. For that reason, guns ought to be on every liberal's checklist of must-have items along with an ACLU card.

All of my rights are dear to me, and each encroachment upon them has angered me. I support several civil liberty organizations, I write to my political representatives, I talk to my neighbors, I vote. Ultimately, we--you and I, the angry right, the angry left, the angry libertarians--have the fight hard the political fight to retain and reclaim our rights. By making divisions between ourselves, we only enable those who seem bent on selling the great republic to the highest bidder. It's not about you vs. me, unless we want to lose all hope of regaining liberty. It's about us, the people, vs. those who no longer represent the people.

I'm an anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist to be exact, and I really doubt your dedication to our rights and leftist views, Greg.
The police repression in Denver was at the same intensity as at the RNC, but you have seem to either be ignorant of this or intentionally blinded. Here, see:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/videos/detail/police-use-force/
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb7bqnHm8nM&feature=related
http://mostlywater.org/celebrating_police_brutality_denver_cops_sell_be…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb84xVMbfqA&feature=related
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17206032/detail.html
There were anarchists there as well, or are only the radicals that oppose your bad guy good? Are the radicals that mesh with your political view the only good ones.
Democratic noise about the Patriot act is just crocodile tears. Every Democrat senator, except Fiengold, voted for the Patriot Act. The Dems strongly supported the extension of the Patriot Act. Here are the roll calls:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17206032/detail.html
The Iraqi war was a naked act of military aggression in violation of international law. This act can only be righted by our unconditional removal of troops. Dems love to make noises about Iraq, but they fully support funding the war. Failure to end the Iraqi war is a war crime as much as the initial invasion. Obama has only weaseled about ending the war, "In 2002, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama opposed the war. However, after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he voted against early proposals by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others to set a timetable for withdrawal; now Obama votes consistently in favor of establishing a timetable. Obama's plan for exiting Iraq would send home one or two combat brigades a month, with most combat troops out by the end of 2009. At an MSNBC debate in September 2007, Obama refused to guarantee that he would have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Obama has also opposed permanent bases in Iraq." ( http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_n…)
Every single selection that Obama has made indicates that he is dedicated to a hawkish military, filled with pro-Iraq War hawks.
Even if it does happen, these troops will just be shifted to Afghanistan. Insult and to insult, Obama has used the same militant rhetoric on Iran as Bush and has given support to attacks on Pakistan.
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10132004.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1
Now, I know there is so much difference between the Dems and Repubs. Here is some reality, abortion is already illegal for the vast majority of Americans and has been since Carter made it impossible for the poor to get help for abortion. The Dems seem pretty determined to hold onto the police powers gathered under Patriot Act. Sure, they have a better view on science, but I figure the Dems will act on the environment the same as they have in the past. These minor differences are unimportant as I can be held without trial and we kill millions of people in naked aggression.
Now, as an anarchist, let me explain some of the political ideas behind it.
Anarchists are: anti-capitalist.( http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB4.html ) - Obama or McCain are both staunch free market capitalists, until it doesn't suit them, then they are crony socialists.
Anarchists don't believe in voting unless it is true direct democracy. ( http://infoshop.org/page/Voting, http://anarchymo.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/anarchists-against-voting/)
Anarchists think the Democratic and Republican parties are abusive, authoritarian, corporate lackeys. - Both parties support an oppressive economic and political system.
Anarchists oppose the state and nation. It doesn't matter if it is Democrat or Republican, socialist, communist, or capitalist. All states are abusive.( http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html )
As for this belief that the Constitution, Founding Fathers, and rights is utter bullshit. The Constitution is just paper. Our Founding Fathers follow the same path as every other revolution, the middle class used the proletariat to overthrow the existing ruling class and place themselves as the ruling class. The end result for the proletariat was nothing. The anarchist view is that you have rights because you demand them, not because the state gives them to you. You always have these rights, the oppressor can only use violence to suppress them. I have the freedom of speech because I can speak, all you can do is try to force me to stop. I can assemble because I can, all the state can do is use violence to stop me. I can print books and newspapers, all the state can try to do is use violence to stop me.

Here, I suggest some reading to learn about these radicals:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/Proudhonarchive…
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/Bakuninarchive.ht…
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/Kropotkinarchiv…
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/02/tale-that-might-be-told.ht…

I'm an anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist to be exact, and I really doubt your dedication to our rights and leftist views

I'll await Laden's response, but I don't see anywhere him mention of being an anarcho-syndicalist. I certainly do not see anarcho-syndicalism as representing leftist views. You should not be so presumptuous .... bordering on the oligarchic.

Andrew-
I wasn't saying that Greg is an anarchist. He is far from it.
I am attacking his statements. He is using these kids for his own political views. He has been absolutely and completely silent to Denver while waving the abuses at the RNC. I know, the RNC is local to him and thus more real, but reality doesn't support his view that this is Republican repression. This is more, this is the state's repression.

I also want to show that there is a large difference to Greg's political goal and the goals of these kids. These kids, if they are really anarchists, see both parties as the same. None of the differences that Greg thinks are so stark are. They are both repressive, capitalist, and militaristic. Both parties are committed to the American empire. Both support systems that drive the working class to wage slavery. Both parties push the concept of American exceptionalism, they just have a different public face. I also wanted to press home a major belief in anarchism, you have to say no to oppression. This means that you refuse to vote as an act of defiance. This is just a small no, but you can't take part in a corrupt system, that only strengthens it.

Funny you should be so dismissive of anarchism as not being leftist, in particular anarcho-syndicalism. I guess the term left has no meaning anymore.

Also, oligarchy doesn't mean what you think its does. I believe in free association, no ruling class, and total work self-management and ownership of the wealth they create. Here is oligarchy. Sounds more like the system that exists here.

Thomas: Sorry for not responding earlier. Two quick things. First, you are right, I was writing about St. Paul because I am here. I reserve the right to chose my topics and you have to accept the fact that your predetermined ideas of what an essay should be about are of no importance whatsoever to the essayest who already wrote the essay earlier in time and therefore could not know what you were going to expect. Otherwise, with that bit disentangled from your remarks, I appreciate the input.

Second: Are you responding to the full essay referred to above, or to this tiny clip? If the latter, please go to the original essay. In it I think you'll see that I am not representing the views of the arrested individuals. They need to speak for themselves. I'm representing my view of that particular example of oppression.

Thanks for the response Greg.
First, I'd like to tell you, that despite things like this, I really do like your blog. I would never want to edit your blog, or force your writing.
Second, I was responding to the original, but I missed it the first time around.
The original post annoyed me because you mention these kids and the repression at the RNC, then turned to make a rally call for the Democrats. What you were using as an example of Republican repression was the same as the repression in Denver for the DNC. Had you argued that the police action at the RNC was bad and saved the rally call for another post, I would have not cared. As it was you used that as part of the rally.
If these kids are truly anarchists, and not just media labeled, they spoke. Being anarchists, they reject both the Republicans and the Democrats. They reject the state. By just saying they are anarchists, that is known. Using them in a rally call for the state, you co-opted what they did for your own goals. They reject your politics, too.
There are many other things I disagree with, but those are a big of part what irritated me.

Thomas: I do not personally know these individuals but I am friends with some of their compatriots (and I'm not saying a word more about that). I do not believe that our politics are as far away as you are saying they must be. But I appreciate your point.