= new reply since forum marked as read
He keeps a mask, a cape, and a flag in the car
ummm ok yea you
You never know when looting will break out, don't want to be without you mask and cape. and the flag of course is for legally claiming the newly found property as your own
THAT is repubs biggest problem.
The truth has been right in front of us, so big we couldn't see it.
They need to get laid. Using birth control of their choice, of course, so they don't reproduce.
After all, that would only compound the problem for everyone concerned
Response to Heather MC (Reply #3)
The only people thrilled about the "adoption" of a symbol manufactured for the benefit of the profit margin of Warner Brothers, Incorporated are the shareholders of that stock.
But hey...fight the power, at $10.52 plus shipping, on sale!!!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/121085117456?lpid=82
I guess no one wants to pay $24.95 for the things, anymore!
A bit revealing, that remark.
I regarded it as a conversation--you were looking for a contest, I guess.
Well, gee, you can be "the winner" if you'd like. No skin off my nose.
At the end of the day, though, ya can't take it with you, no matter if you're a materialist, or not. Yelling at me and calling my observations "stupid" won't change that.
Not "memorialize"!1!!!11!!11!1!1
Have you no mercy?
Come on back when you can tell me which Democrats you helped get elected to public office, now, you hear?
Makes me more of an expert. 
Ironically the wearers, if they're buying the WB and not a "knock off" are paying the WB royalties.
I'm saying though that those familiar with the mask, particularly those on the left and in Occupy, tend to wear it as a representation of V, the comic. Most would recognize the irony of wearing a mask popularized in the mainstream, characterizing a politically neutral revenge seeking character, representing left-wing ideals.
These are the people we're supposed to believe because, "we have more in common than we have differences".
Politics is not a team sport.
I agree that great effort is made to ensure protestors are identified, but I don't think this is one of those cases.
ETA: After watching the video, I don't think he had a sign saying that a war is coming, so maybe section 4 applies, but that one is wafer thin.
It has become old and already done.
Can't have inconvenient citizens going unidentified.
Protesting, after all, is no longer a First Amendment right, but a sign of potential terrorism against the Corporate State. 
Anti-masking laws are not something that I find worthy of applause. I doubt many DUers would be saluting the professionalism of a police officer that arrested any of these people.
Onedit: not sure if the image is showing. Its a photo of an Occupy Phoenix rally with several of the demonstrators wearing Guy Fawkes' masks.
Even DUers can be shockingly ignorant of historical context sometimes. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
that's all that matters.
"93. I'm sure if we wait long enough, you'll give us your view of it."
"113. Yes, those 'evil' authoritarians...!"
etc.
"There's a war coming" doesn't suggest the person with the sign is going to start it, any more than "the end is nigh" suggests the guy with the sign is about to bring down fire and brimstone.
I was civil. It's possible to be civil and laugh at a post.
The 'no mask' law requires a suspicion of hiding their identity while being liable to civil or criminal proceedings. Now, I have since noticed (and no-one else in this thread mentioned it before me) that he was also charged with obstruction of traffic, so it is possible after all that there was a valid reason for invoking the 'no mask' law; but this 'pretty clear' reason didn't seem to have been articulated by anyone, to me, since everyone was talking about a protest, without saying there could be obstruction of traffic involved.
First you make a statement, unsupported by facts, and then you pronounce your unsupported statement "Interesting."
So you're the type of person who likes to serve as judge, jury and executioner.
Interesting!
So you don't feel a need to ask the defendant anything before you pronounce your sentence.
Interesting!
The law was on that policewoman's side. That might be problematic for YOU, because you have a desire to substitute YOUR judgment for that of the policewoman, but I believe that you don't have the situational knowledge --and certainly not the authority-- to do that.
And that is what's really interesting, here!
Pretty easy to understand the mask law.
He keeps a cape in his truck! Oy.
Especially in central and north FL.
Because ACA? Because freedom? Because demographics changes? Because he feels askerd? Because black people?
What's his angle on this coming war? Is he an agitator for civil war? Do these deep-South dim-bulbs never learn?
or a tweet on his Twitter. That's how it generally works. I highly recommend this film to you if any of this comes as news. It illustrates how it all worked in a 1963 operation that included an assassination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_%28film%29
against Obamacare: a week later, nobody knows exactly what he thinks, except he's armed, wears a mask and cape, warns of war and says it's time to fight, as a protest against Obamacare
Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 11:35 AM - Edit history (3)
(I hate that name. I hear far too many wingnuts spit it out with contempt.)
Neither does he say anything about it in his own recording. In the interview, he says he was simply "exercising his first amendment right".
As for being armed, being a police officer in Florida, he is entitled to carry a handgun just about anywhere. Are you really going to challenge his right to be armed? That would be strange, considering what Ive seen you post on that particular issue.
You mention his mask and cape, as if that was some kind of indictment, but there is nothing odd about using props and costumes when protesting. Liberals and progressives do it all the time.
?w=466
His use of the word "war" could be metaphorical. He doesn't rant and rave about it or anything. He mentioned it once. It's difficult to tell what he means by it. Our society is always waging "war" on something, so his use of the term doesn't seem all that unusual, considering the limited amount of information here and the lack of any elaboration of his political views. This all has an air of selective editing about it. It's rather strange.
Your post is loaded with several assumptions about the man, with absolutely nothing to support them.
isn't that a mask?
In Pakistan, they wear tight yellow pants, moustaches, and carry big sticks. That doesn't translate to other jurisdictions, necessarily.
I don't think the police officer was wearing a mask when she arrested this guy.
The Masked Wonder did have a weapon in his waistband, though.
He was quick to identify himself as a cop once that was discovered.