February 01, 2012 11:48 PM
Should #OWS Denounce Occupy Oakland?
DOWNLOADS: (131)
PLAYS: (1067)
Embed
Our managing editor, Tina Dupuy, discusses the violence in Oakland this weekend and the harm it does to the Occupy movement as a whole with Thom Hartmann. As she pointed out in her column earlier this week and again on the show, the actions of a few cast a pall on the entire movement at a time where they're influencing the national dialogue and direction of our country.
What do you think? How do you think the Occupy movement should address acts by people claiming to be associated with the movement who do illegal things?
Does Tina Dupuy talk or know about and acknowledge the history of agent provocateurs used by our government to discredit peaceful groups like Occupy? I hope she has at least taken the time to thoroughly study that and false flag terrorism when considering an analysis of violence in the OWS movement.
How do Tina, you, and Thom Hartmann suggest we as Occupy Wall Street groups deal with Agent Provocateurs?
Police provoking violence at a peaceful rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow
The news verifying this tactic as all responsible media outlets and people should:
http://youtu.be/MaeuV2RNL3o
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
Which is why I agree with her that they need to simply denounce those who stray from the message and mission of the Occupy movement with violent acts.
I agree with you, but, that's different from the question in your headline which reads "Should #OWS Denounce Occupy Oakland?"
To be clear, they should denounce the activities of those who broke the law, but, not the entire Oakland movement. Your clarification above, with which I agree, is less broad than the question in the headline.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Because karoli is a diehard Democratic partisan, and the OWS movement has shown that the Democratic party is as much of s sham as the GOP. Reports of violence from OWS (real, overblown, or COINTELPRO) are thus a feature, not a bug.
From the sounds of that interview it sure doesn't sound like Tina considers herself a part of the Occupy movement. Sad. Sad that she would enjoy that conversation so much as stated at the end. I wish Tina and Thom would talk about the history of the practice of agent provocateurs to spur on violence in peaceful protests and discredit them. Or how riot police are the ones provoking the violence.
"We have stood up for non-violence with all of our hearts, and those who will make this peaceful revolution impossible, will make a violent revolution inevitable" - Martin Luther King Jr.
Also studying history of the most non-violent leaders of our time would be smart. Smedley Butler should also be in the discussion
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
For crise sakes , go back on your meds Geronimo ,
you're losing ityou've lost it . There are some bad apples among these protestors , the same kind of people who rioted and looted in Vancouver BC using hockey as an excuse , and this is Oakland after all .Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
YOU! I'm starting to drown in all the false equivalence in here! It's SCARY being compared with the 'baggers, who simply don their taxpayer supplied uniforms and change their taxpayer supplied sidearms (hopefully), then go from threatening to overthrow the government and murder those who can't pretend to be gullible three-year-olds, or that Anglo Saxon Americans were the chosen people God designated to eat-up and poop-out the planet and it's other inhabitants, murdering and enslaving all lesser creatures; sucking-up to those who despise and use, then discard them... then coat their bloated selves with Kevlar, Lexan, tasers, batons, flails, mace and 12-gauge pump guns we fucking paid for and go to work; beating, gassing or torturing people fighting for the Republic our great-grandparents on, bled fought and died for... http://exiledonline.com/conscience-of-a-radic... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/29/9148...
Violence should be denounced in whatever city it is found. I can't say that the city is perfect in all of this, but the #OWS demonstrators should pull back on the escalating violence. I think that what #OWS does reflects on the Democratic Party, and while the Democratic Party leaders haven't always shown themselves to be willing to do something about the issues brought up by #OWS, the Republican Party certainly has no sympathy.
Russia Today is a propaganda outlet of Putin's Russia. They focus on other countries flaws because to focus on their own country in Putin's officially flawless Russia would get them fired. It should be treated as nothing more than that and C&L shouldn't co-operate with them or post their clips.
Shame...
Russia Today allows more American-related free speech than all the corporate media conglomerates combined.
I realize Americans has been brain-washed from birth into believing nothing but evil flows from Russia, but I find it ironcally amusing the only authentic bastion of American free speech in the media comes via a Russian-run TV channel.
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in excess body fat & carrying a misspelled sign.
If you get your news from the TV, you're a boob.
"Better." It's what we should ask of ourselves and of our leaders.
a good point is always valid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVubsIgJJcA&fe...! The cops kettle otherwise non-violent assemblies to punish protestors and stifle dissent (yes, just like the 1840's onwards.) Then the captive media just records those desperate actions of people panicked and pissed-off, then editing everything totally out of context. Scrapping shots that don't fit the script, like FOX or CNN. Like the G20 in Pgh (or Newark, Watts, Detroit, in the late 60's): it may simply be agents provocateurs, or simply folks who have their options taken away and react viscerally. Mustn't be prejudice. Sometimes, like the 700 arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge, it really seems you have agents provocateurs doing something that ends up being a media moment worldwide? So, presuming we have 'baggers, or cops, or rent-a-radicals working for some contract thug outfit (or trying to get Breitbart to PAY them?) it's going to matter less and less, as things get rougher and rougher. And the crowds get less white, poorer and older. Isn't that the job of the police & press anyway: self-perpetuating violence? Ratings!
Any fool can delude the unwary with base falsehood, while the champion liar scrupulously adheres to incontrovertible fact... http://occupywallst.org/forum/agents-provocat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0&fe...
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/...
Yeah...that's why they have only liberal commentators as hosts...
..watch Thom Hartmann every night. Thom is a great advocate for OWS (Thom actually calls the OWS protestors "patriots"..instead of lazy hippie parasites like the rest of our corporate media).
That being said, I don't agree with how Thom is framing this issue.
There is no authoritarian wing of the OWS movement who is there to strong arm the rioters into submission.
There is no police thug sector of the OWS movement that can convince the mischief-makers to start acting like good little boys & girls.
The OWS movement does not boast self-serving, narcissistic personalities that are wiling to rise up & lecture the rioters in behalf of Thom Hartmann, Daily Kos, Crooks & Liars, MSNBC, the DNC & Barack Obama.
The 1% has unleashed the figurative violence of Mitt Romney, Boss Limbaugh, Fixed News, the Tea Party governors, & a Tea Party congress onto the country.
It's not the place of OWS to tell those who are retaliating with literal violence to cool it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in excess body fat & carrying a misspelled sign.
You have hit the nail on the head, I would say: since OWS is not, actually, any one particular thing and has no authoritative voice, who should be doing the denouncing and to whom should it be targeted? It would be like some of the cells in my hand deciding they are furious at some other cells in my big toe.
And we seem to have so quickly forgotten that nobody in authority was wagging their finger at the brutal actions of police officers in riot gear who would batter, mace, and fire projectiles at people who were peacefully sitting on the ground. Where were the cries for that to be denounced? I don't agree that OWS, in whole or in part, should be using violent tactics, but I am not going to get on my high horse about it when the geek finally snaps on the school bully and gives him a bloody nose. What do people expect? The 99% are a lot of people, they can't all be saints.
It's not the place of OWS to tell those who are retaliating with literal violence to cool it.
Well then, I guess it's their place to watch their movement go down in flames.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
...top OWS personality Jesse LaGreca hangs out at Daily Kos.
Go over there & tell Jesse it's up to him to quell the rioters. Explain to him if he doesn't begin acting as authoritarian dictator to a tiny minority of undesirables, then Jesse will be forced to watch the OWS movement go down in flames.
Then please link here Jesse's response to that.
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in excess body fat & carrying a misspelled sign.
Violence only begets more violence - you can't win the message war or get the people who should be on your side of the argument to agree with you when people who rally under your banner are acting like hooligans. Agent provocateur or not, if there is no "people in charge" then it falls on the individuals in the group to do the work of protecting the message without letting a few folks who are just in it for kicks or to provoke something distort or destroy it.
This isn't a war that's going to be won with tooth and claw, simply because there are way too many teeth and claws on the other side. It has to be won with information, with ideas.
Yes. Oakland was actually an example of that.
So many news and blog articles mention "OWS should _____", yet none of them understand what Occupy is.
First, OWS is its own entity. They represent Wall St/New York for the OCCUPY movement. OWS is not a movement. It's a group.
Second, OWS is not the leaders of Occupy. They may have started it in America, but they are their own entity. The Occupy groups show solidarity with each other, but they do not necessarily do the same thing.
Third, agent provocateurs exist in all major gatherings, including society in general. Should pedestrians be blamed when someone among them commits a mugging? If a domestic terrorist comes in the middle of a protest and blows up a building, would that be the fault of every protester there?
It is no one's place to denounce an entire group unless that group is inherently violent like Al Queda. Considering the Occupy movement is a peaceful one, it is highly unfair to denounce the whole Oakland group simply because trouble arose. Otherwise, every time an officer decides to breach his oath and go violent, we'd have to denounce almost all major Occupy groups.
If you don't agree with the incident (and I sure don't), perhaps you should look at what really happened instead of believing all blame at face value.
Take a Page from the Tea Party and just claim the violence in Oakland is perpetuated by folks who aren't "real" liberals, and that "some say" that the violent actors are conservative plants sent in to make the movement look bad.
And when all else fails, dismiss this behavior as the act of "lone wolf" crazies.
Done and done.
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
:)
me-oww!
.
During the growth of the tea party there were many calls from the left (appropriately so imo) for the Republican leadership to renounce even the threats of violence and so called second amendment solutions. Who does one appeal to politically to renounce excesses within elements of the Occupy Movement? Republicans ? Democrats? I think this is something they are going to have to handle themselves.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
how some of the same people, who had no problem dismissing the "collateral" damage from NATO's bombing campaign over Libya, consider a few broken windows to be "excessive damage."
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Funny how they want someone to denounce a movement they wont even show on American television. Of course they spend many hours showing protests in other countries.
We should denounce American, so called news programs.
that caused Any positive change in the past 30 years. Yeah, that would work.
I casted a pall once, but then it fell off the dresser and shattered.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
right after the current administration denounces the use of violence by some Democratic mayors to vacate OWS settlements, Oakland PD's in particular. But not before California's governor forces the Chancellor of UC Davis to resign due to the extreme violence used by UC police against students assembled peacefully on public property.
It is only fair that Democrats and centrist alike show some leadership in complying with the same standards they impose on other people.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
...on the Left's side, EVER.
The violence in Oakland was just that. A handful of people out of -thousands-, misbehaving badly (if not govt/police provocateurs which I doubt can ever be proven). Accuse the whole group? B*S on that.
Once again, it's the corollary to IOKIYAR: It's Never OK If You're a Lib/Dem/OWS. If anyone on the Left (or loosely tied to it) so much as says the "F" word, they must be instantly & unanimously denounced, disowned, and run out of town. But on the right? Almost never. (Just for one example, count how many criminals with R's next to their names are still serving in Congress - loudly & openly defended and supported by everyone on their side.)
And once again Tina & others are jumping on the Throw Our Own Under The Bus, probably as prompted or goaded into it by the Rt. Wing Wurlitzer (which I've been studiously ignoring lately).
Fine, denounce the violence. But do NOT denounce Occ. Oakland. The people who went on the rampage can sit in jail (once convicted), they deserve it. The rest, we should continue to support.
Would also direct you to this interesting post by Jesse LaGreca over at dKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/31/1059...
Also am just curious, how exactly do you denounce what is basically a nebulous leader-less group. WHO do you denounce, really?
"..Waiting period?! But I'm mad noww!!"
- H.J.Simpson
You bring up a good point - why is it that 'the left' (whatever that is) seems so swift to throw its own under the bus. Is it the sense of self-righteousness one gets from denouncing and condemning violence? Is it the good PR and political positioning? I honestly don't think it is all that sincere. It seems like a little more sophisticated version of the Republican pearl-clutching that tends to go on. "Oh no, people were violent, I must make it known that I do not approve!" Well, fine, you don't approve, but in the rush to make that plain an entire movement gets trampled.
If anything's going to send OWS down in flames, it's not a little tension bubbling over. It's the movement fragmenting as people scramble to avoid being associated with human beings.
400 people were arrested. Doesn't sound like a "few bad apples."
Re-read the thread. Click the links. Find out what really happened. Don't be so willfully ignorant (although it doesn't surprise me in the least.)
far left loon >.<
Of course not. Just think what would happen once that begins. Don't get bullied into it, you'd be feeding right right wing talking points.
In my view, they didn't break enough windows. If the other side is going to paint you with a broad brush, give them their money's worth.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
By Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D
Lambert Strether @ Naked Capitlism
here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Thanks Alice.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Thanks! Excellent link!
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
My Irish aunt used that word for it. Hooligans that are always there, they are there right now, waiting for a breakdown in societal structure to cause trouble - mostly 'cause it's fun. That's why self policing is so important and unfortunately difficult. My apologies to the principled anarchists in the world - I know a few - but where I live they don't seems to be much different from hooligans - in the words of an less principled anarchist friend of mine "I like to see f#cked up shit" and he giggles. I guess it gives him a sense of power in a world where individual rights are limited for good and ill (he's a trust fund baby by the way). They have turned protests, flash-mobs and street parties (one in chicago comes to mind from a few years back - not fun) into orgies of fear and destruction - bad juju. Just remember they are always there waiting - be vigilant and provide push back.
The Dead Kennedy's (per Godwin's - I left out the chorus)
And if you really want to trash that bank - do it on your own and face the music - don't hide under Mama OWS's apron - in other words "don't be a pussy".
Hooligans? I always thought they were Hooples.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
What's a motter with you?
;)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
It's a Mott point
Do windows have person hood now? I thought it was legal to burn our flag? Can anyone present the names of these victims?
Sadly, this kind of trope is many decades old now. Back in the '70s, the Skolnick Commission studied the riots of the '60s and found that every single one of them was deliberately instigated by the police. Of course, the media almost always reported those riots as instigated by protesters, even though it was plainly false. This is the backdrop from which to view the current round of police violence, as a starting point.
Today, the media narrative is that the demonstrators are causing the violence. But anyone paying any attention to what is actually happening knows otherwise. OPD is causing all of the violence there. They cut people off from any means of escape, issue a disperse order, then come in with batons swinging at everyone they can hit. It doesn't matter if the person they are attacking is a local resident simply trying to get back to his or her home--as routinely happens. It doesn't matter if people tried to disperse before the beatings commenced. This is what they do and there is ample video of their tactics from just the other night. You can't tell me the protesters started it.
And yet, liberals are now saying OOak is in the wrong because they don't actively denounce violence? The only possible reason for this is all this is pushing people out of their comfort zones. In the end, some "liberals" are siding with Power in this, no matter how badly they behave. It's all very nice to denounce the DFHs as hooligans, when every round of violence in Oakland has been initiated by the police. This has been the case all over the country, especially New York. So what is it that separates the people of Oakland from the people of New York?
As much as I completely abhor violence, I've seen the police act out in vicious ways against defenseless people and I can tell you who is in the driver's seat in Oakland. It's not the protesters. OPD can make violence happen anytime they want, by any means at their disposal. And that is precisely what they are doing.
It's just a good thing for the cops and Mayor Quan then, that they can rely on "liberal" commentators denouncing protesters as "violent", even when that's not really the case. When heavily armed cops go apeshit on a bunch of defenseless people denied the means of escaping the violence, you can be sure some will react defensively out of sheer panic, as the "flee" part of "flee or fight" response is negated by thugs in uniform. Some will simply react in anger, once the adrenalin kicks in. The cops know this. The mayors know this. The media knows this. This is how officialdom drives wedges to delegitimize dissent and undermine solidarity.
This is actually pretty simple stuff. But as much as I generally appreciate Tina's work, she's really not thinking this through. Perhaps this is a thoughtless mistake on her part. Perhaps she's trying to ingratiate herself to certain people. I don't know.
What I do know is that liberals are supposed to be smart enough to not play "blame the victim" as Right-Wingers are so wont to do. It's not surprising when 1%ers like Joan Walsh wax indignant at DFHs from the comfort of her chauffeur-driven towncar. But it is surprising to see this from Tina.
I'm not sure what to make of that.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
mean they'll be criticizing the police. Why is the so-called left critical of Occupy Oakland, one of the few protests that actually made the U.S. news with port shut downs?
We only want peaceful protests. With pretty posters and rainbows and singing Kumbaya.
Where is today's Joni Mitchell!
Of course...all without the drugs too.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
drum circles.
Of course there should be a peaceful pre-protest protest to protest the possibility that the peaceful protest that follows may not meet an arbitrary standard of peacefulness.
In the event that the pre-protest and actual protest are not peaceful or ineffective enough, a peaceful post-protest shall be required to denounce such offenses.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
It's fine to denounce violence, as long as the actual perpetrators (ahem, the cops and mayors who order the violence in the first place) are the ones being upbraided.
For some reason though, that seems to be missing from the frame. It's really just about denouncing OWS. Given that the worst official violence has largely occurred in the most liberal cities, it seems safe to say establishment "liberals" are deeply unhappy about protests while their guy is in the White House.
It's okay to complain about injustice, inequality, poverty and homeless. Trying to do something about it... well, that's just going too far.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
yes, the OWS movement does have way of addressing this issue--just as they dealt with legal issues, sanitation issues, food issues, media issues, and a whole host of other issues: through committees
each OWS location has a security committee--and this should be one of the security committee's main funciton in each city. i know, at least from my PHL experience, that a member of the security com would address the OWS folks at certain times letting them know just what was in bounds and out of bounds, with the understanding that if people are violent, start damaging property, etc. they will be confronted by the security committee. then, if they cannot deal with any violent outbursts the cops would most likely move in.
this seemed like a good idea, as it would, hopefully, cut down on any agent provocs and keep the focus on the real issue: economic inequality
Or is this "cleansing" simply necessary to make the co-opting of OWS more palatable for politicians to use in the November elections?
"Denunciation" has become more and more a staple of the MSM's illusion of news. There is little doubt that OWS is a nonviolent movement. Is there any evidence at all of OWS hurting anyone? No. There are a few stories of some property damage, and here - referenced by not specified - we have people breaking in to a public building and burning a flag in protest. On the scale of political violence, that's pretty low. But still the question of denunciation is put forth.
And note the quick and easy reference to bad or illegal acts before the question of denunciation is put center stage. Why touch on the minor nature of any alleged violence and the very small percentage of those engaging in it? Just assume that it's bad and move on to the more important "guilty until denounced" stage.
The framing goes something like this: Certain members claiming to share the goals of OWS have done bad things; OWS is therefore guilty of being bad by association unless they denounce these people. Could the .01% possibly frame this any more favorably for themselves?
Taking direction from the corporate media on what we should do is a recipe for failure. It may make things easier for politicians who wish to use OWS issues for their own ends, but why should that be a worthwhile objective? Those politicians themselves can do all the denunciations they like - and it's probable that the MSM will concentrate on making them give denunciations as often as possible. But why jump in to that arena?
Denounce now, and prepare for an endless slew of further demands for denunciations for every "bad" thing the corporate media can come up with. It's exactly how the MSM would love to cover this movement: by ignoring the message and focusing on the negative. Why should we be suckered into that dialogue?
Espousing nonviolence is great. Dr. King did it plenty. But just how often did Dr. King focus on denouncing The Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers? Why would he? There is no gain, but plenty of loss - especially by giving the corporate media exactly what they'd love to have in their coverage of OWS: a distraction from the message combined with a focus on the negative which appears legitimate as it's led by members of OWS themselves. It's also a handy way to sow dissension among those who share objectives (ignoring for now the possibility of agents provocateur).
We should be smarter than that. OWS is certain to receive as much negative coverage as the MSM can give (without making OWS seem too significant). Why help them out?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Apparently, denunciation is de rigueur for establishment "liberals," which is odd because it comes off so terribly authoritarian much of the time. In this instance, it's especially heinous since the discussion completely ignores official violence, which lies at the core of all this.
It seems that dissent is only tolerated when it doesn't violate the tender sensibilities of those too comfortable to feel any empathy (much less basic respect) towards those who risk life and limb merely by gathering in public.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
Check out the link provided by Alice above...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
But in answer, no, absolutely not. OWS should applaud and embrace Occupy Oakland. They are, by far, the most successful of the occupy groups - they staged a General Strike, and shut down the port w/ tens of thousands in the streets. They should be looked to for inspiration and emulated. That there is a large Black Bloc block movement in Oakland is neither surprising nor problematic in my view. Black Bloc is not occupy. Now a debate can and should be had about how Occupy deals with the Black Bloc, and what that means, but that is not the debate that articles like this are trying to foster - this is just a reactionary attempt to stifle debate in the movement.
I hope to see occupy super bowl where the police are sure they are trying to get rid of their union and reduce their pay.
It would be much more entertaining then that washed up hag Madonna on stage.
going on. It's hardly been reported.
Yeah, the reporters had time between player interviews and hitting the free buffet.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Agents provocateurs, anyone?
Violence against a fully militarized and weaponized police force is pure stupidity.
Burning flags in the 60s meant you really thought that there were other countries that were morally superior to our United States, the preferences then being Vietnam and Canada...
What does flag burning mean now? You dislike your country?
MyMy
1. The system uses violence against us every day, in every way. In such a violent system shouldn't we expect violent reactions to things like not getting enough food to survive?
2. Agents start it, people join in the crowd fun, I certainly question some of the violence but this is their cry for attention. It's not going to just magically go away. These people feel like they have no other outlet than to defile property laws, they don't have a job, no hope at a future.
3. We need pacifists. Don't go anywhere. You're the people they make a deal with. Distance yourselves as much as possible, we don't do this for your support we do this to be a pain in their side as much as they are to us. I think it's noble to stand in front of someone about to smash corporate property (I dislike greatly when they hit small shops, like the riots in BC over the sport shit) but I wouldn't think of doing it. That corporation probably helped in taking that guys job away. Violence in violence out.
4. The violence can stop. We can live in a world of love. We don't have to treat people unfairly because their parents had more fun tickets than everyone else. Anything less perpetuates the violence and these acts are not a reflection of an individual but a message from an economic system that tells them to suck it.
5. Riot porn for life.
What the people did to city hall in Oakland is not acceptable. However, the police have linked the 400 arrests in Oakland to that action, and the "storming of a YMCA". These two events are not related, and this video proves it. The police in Oakland have flat out lied to put down the entire OWS movement.
The Oakland Police (OPD) followed a peaceful group of protesters over a mile away from city hall with riot gear, caging them in front of the YMCA coincidently. They did not give there audible message to disperse until they had them literally trapped up against a building. 400+ people! This was before and concurrent to the break in at city hall over a mile away. These were not the same people, although the OPD makes it seem that way. The press has got the events completely wrong. Please post this and show the world what really happened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTum1mSpkK8&fe...
A little context goes a long way, doesn't it?
Kettling was developed as a tactic specifically for doing violence on civilians. It is intended to hurt people, as the London Met has shown repeatedly, killing quite a few non-violent protesters in the process. OPD forced all this to happen. What happened at City Hall was a reaction to official violence. That doesn't make it right, but it's not like the torched the building and burned it down. They burned a flag and tipped over a friggin' model.... The horror!
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
"Occupiers" did NOT break into City Hall - the door was left open.
"Ocupiers" did NOT burn the flag - a few people burned the flag. Most of the REAL Occupiers were kettled and arrest blocks away.
So, from the beginning of this interview (and in her OpEd piece) she begins with a false premise and thus buys into the MSM meme that "the Occupiers have become violent".
To which I should add, burning an American flag is NOT violence. It is a political statement, protected under the 1st amendment.
Further, if we're going to discuss "violence" there needs to be a distinction between property destruction and causing harm to other persons.
Just to denounce violence blurs the distinction.
Plus there needs to be a distinction between random property destruction and politically targetted property destruction.
Language matters!
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
That changes things quite a bit.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Dude said "the door was open and some of us rushed in but when people started smashing stuff I left because that just isn't right" ..
I'll try to find the vid .. I think I bookmarked it ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
thanks, mm23. i'll check back later.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/occu...
you can see at the start that the door isn't necessarily "open", but it sure doesn't looked locked
it doesn't look like anyone "broke in", more like opened the door and walked in.
and it's posted ostensibly to show Occupiers "broke in" ..
BUT .. it's clear they simply opened the door ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfyYrMTjFnM
I'll continue looking because IT DOES CHANGE EVERYTHING ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
This video sure looks like it was jimmied .. "pried open" is inaccurate ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYsuLMyAxQ0
Like I said, I was going on the statement made by a witness at the scene ..
Who evidently did not see the lock being jimmied ..
I stand corrected ..
Next issue .. who actually did it?
Edit: Though I agree it looks like it was jimmied (the guy squats down and evidently spends a few moments either examining the lock or, perhaps, jimmying it) it is not conclusive. I don't see the jimmie tool. It's conceivable that after looking at the door for a few moments he simply concludes it isn't locked and opens it.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
they have to be invited in. Or else it's breaking the law.
~
Corruption favors the wealthy.
But the other thing that really pissed me about both her article and her stand in this interview is the absolute disconnect from what actually happened on Saturday.
Sure, the property destruction looked bad, but for the love of god, the police violence was completely over the top, and I haven't heard a word about that.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Moderates, progressives and liberals haven't learned from our mistakes and its a shame. We are always so quick to roll up into a ball, denounce and give conservatives all that they want with our groveling.
A sniveling rich boy secretly video tapes meetings he and a female have with different employees of ACORN, heavily edits the footage, makes it look like he went into the offices outlandishly dressed as some pimp from the 1970s, goes onto Fox News and we can't denounce ACORN fast enough. ACORN no longer exists.
A crazy looking dude gets a video of a black woman working for the USDA talking about her own experiences, edits down the video to make her look like a racist and again, we couldn't denounce her fast enough. That woman was fired.
Now, because of an isolated incident in a city where the militarized police have used violence from the word "go", we are again rushing to denounce.
My fucking god! When are we ever going to learn? Want to know why progressives and liberals are painted as pansies? Because we are. We are wimps. We prefer to roll up in a ball and beg for the big bad conservatives to stop beating on us before they even lay a finger on us. Enough!
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
I think another part of that equation is that many on the left will start beating on each other to stop the conservatives from coming in with even heavier blows. There is much haste to get the word out that the left is against this big bad thing that happened, as if pouncing on the issue before anybody else will stop it being used as a weapon against the left and will instead give them brownie points in the big PR game that is the media.
is that people expect very little from social movements and protests themselves become predictable and non-threatening. Nothing better than to have the opposition afraid to do much of anything that may look bad to people not interested in reality or objectivity. Violence itself is many times counter-productive, but it is a natural response when police act as they do and governments at all levels do next to nothing to stop them.
I like Hartmann and his show. He is a knowledgeable and passionate guy and I have learned a lot by listening to his show. However, his constant call to get active by simply "taking over" the Democratic Party is nonsensical. It is a strategy I have heard over and over again in my adult life and things have gotten progressively worse, and the conversation and governmental policy has moved steadily to the right in recent decades. If people like Hartmann have no other ideas then they aren't as useful as they should be. They're good for pointing out what is wrong with the system and the right, worthless as far as possible solutions.
I think another part of that equation is that many on the left will start beating on each other to stop the conservatives from coming in with even heavier blows.
I see that over and over again. The Republicans will use this against us. Abandon any integrity or backbone and don't even try. Think how it will look in the TV attack ads. Be afraid. Our hands are tied.
Run. Cave. Don't try.
far left loon >.<
The Oakland police have been violent with innocent people. Not EVERYONE is going to be passive and not respond. Whether they should, whether it is good strategically, we can debate. We shouldn't though, before we even know who did what, start denouncing anyone. It shouldn't be that easy. If it is, the folks at the FBI desks trying to destroy OWS will either laugh over their coffee or know what strategy to use moving forward.
I brought it up in another post, but people should really read up on COINTELPRO, what the FBI did to groups on the left, and groups like the Black Panthers (Fred Hampton), in the past. They did illegal, unconstitutional, immoral things to many people. They lied, slandered, killed, incited violence. Why do people on the left forget this?
Maybe it was people in OWS. If that is the case it makes no sense to "denounce" them. We should have a talk about strategy moving forward, we should acknowledge that when violence happens to innocent people SOME may want to respond in kind. This isn't a fairy tale land, we should have a conversation about this and be adults. We should also be aware that there ARE plants within OWS and similar movements trying to undermine it within and trying to divide people. It is stupid and self destructive to ignore this and to pretend otherwise.
Denouncing OWS in Oakland without having all the facts is weak and pathetic. It shouldn't be that simplistic and easy.
It rather seems that since Occupy Oakland has been rather successful in important ways, decapitating them is key to denouncing OWS all over the country. The authoritarian bent of "liberal" commentators and near complete lack of context in their work product seems rather deliberate. But hey, maybe its just laziness.
Going forward though, it seems we'll likely see a severe ratcheting up of official violence to discredit OWS all over the place. Since even "liberals" can be counted on to misinform liberal audiences with this tripe, more State Violence will result in more Liberal Denunciations, as all good subjects of The State are expected to do.
So when Chicago PD goes apeshit at the NATO/G8 meeting and Charlotte PD goes all thuggish during the DNC, all "good liberals" will denounce OWS' "violence." Just like Democrats did way back in the '60s. Remember Hubert Humphrey bravely standing by Mayor Daley during that police riot?
Le plus ça change, no?
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
the Civil Rights movement was before my time, but the people involved in the movement didn't seem too concerned that the right hated them and thought they were a bunch of commies. They did things that weren't moderate and they scared lots of people in middle America. It is sad and pathetic that so called "liberals" are so easily cowed into this type of stuff.
The elites have de-industrialized the country. They have finanialized the economy. They've massively expanded the military budget. They are increasingly ignoring popular opinion on issues and they are becoming increasingly authoritarian and anti-worker. What should we do in response? Get back to our "free speech zones"? Start another damn drum circle? Should we run from our shadow any time people get fed up and act out? No, violence by the general public should be expected and is an outgrowth of the policies of those in power, not OWS. We didn't de-industrialize the country and have over the government to Wall Street. If people act out is because of those in power and the horrible policies they've created. If the the only thing "liberals" have to offer is to once again work to get more damn Democrats elected then they have little to offer moving forward.
If anyone here is an activist they will tell you that there is always disagreements within groups on issues and strategies. If this were a BIG act, if they had set off a bomb or something, I could see OWS denouncing them. This is weak and, again, we don't have all of the facts yet.
It makes much more sense to publicly talk about increasing social unrest and possible violence as a result of government policy in the coming years, especially if economic policy doesn't radically change. If that does happen and we don't talk about THAT, and we should, then we are making a huge mistake.
they'll sell you out when the going gets tough"
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
If we just all hold hands and wish REEEEAL hard, we're gonna get what we want. The haters will see the err of their ways and magical unicorns will spring from their asses and shit peace and love all over everyone.
Or, we can just pray.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Sad though.
Jello Biafra updated back in the '90s, Phil Ochs' "Love Me, I'm A Liberal." It seems poignant...
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
if you simply actualize a few of the names, the lyrics work just as well today.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
on YouTube, but the audio quality isn't as good, so I didn't link that one. Look it up. It works quite well.
It's a timeless song. Och's own version isn't far off either. "Only the names have been changed..."
And a decade from now, there will be yet another version, with new names.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
...not for President, its beneath him. He seems to get it right...years before its right.
But seriously, we NEED Arsenio now more than ever!
Favorite line:
I wouldn't go quite so far as to say people like Deputy and Hartmann are selling Occupy Oakland out. At least, not for any sort of personal gain. I do get the feeling at times that some on the left will do anything to protect the perception of themselves, in part due to self-righteousness, but I think that is also at least in part because they truly are concerned that this sort of thing will be used as a weapon against them and will compromise any possibility of achievement. That's a reasonable concern, but I think it is too late to play the game by the media's rules. One of those rules is that Occupy must lose.
Beat, gas, shoot, kettle, arrest .. until they get what looks like a reaction.
Trust the MSM (and "liberal" pearl-clutching handwringers) to swoop in and denounce the violence.
I watched it happen in Berkeley 69-70 .. and it worked.
Ended up sending Ronald Reagan to the White House based on the credibility he accumulated by busting hippie's heads.
Obviously neither Thom nor Tina understand this.
They should be loudly denouncing the outrageous tactics of the police last saturday instead.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
No, rioting in Berkeley was exactly the same problem. And yes, I was there too, not just in Oakland.
You need to ask why the demonstrators who got gassed at Davis were hailed while the OO morons are being browbeaten by the likes of "apostate liberals" like Tina.
You lose moral power when you resort to meeting violence with violence. That's why Ghandi was right and Bush Jr. was wrong.
But screeches of apostasy are rampant at the slightest complaint of moderation. I wish I had recorded some of the Trotskyite crap I've heard at the OOGA's.
Just realize that we apostates are in good company:
people need to be realistic. If the government creates policies that increase inequality, de-industrialize the country, if they work to cut social programs that people depend on, give people no hope and then make it impossible to change the system from within, the end result is going to be violence. This is, by the way, the case far more in other Western countries than our own. They have been the victims of many of the same policies and have been harmed in similar ways. I see no evidence, none, that those crafting economic policy are willing or able to fundamentally change policy or how they look at the world. Every so often someone at the IMF will come out and say that they acknowledge that austerity is a horrible solution, but nothing ever changes. Yes, there are some radicals who want to commit violence but their actions are bound to increase as the economic situation gets worse, and it will unfortunately in the coming years if the policy doesn't radically change. So do we deal with this simply as a problem on the left or a problem that is being created, at least in part, by the horrible policies of those in power? If we have to apologize for these types of actions, so too should the cops and the neoliberals/right within both parties in charge. They created and lord over this damn society.
By the way, for every follower of Trotsky in OWS (I would guess that followers of Trotsky are what, .01% of the folks in OWS) there are probably three or four plants trying to undermine the movement. I would be even willing to bet some of the radicals calling for violence and quoting Lenin are themselves plants. They probably think of their night work as radical activists like we think of Halloween.
I personally have disdain for the liberals who want to channel the energy of OWS into the damn Democratic Party. That strategy has clearly failed, for decades at that. Whatever we do moving forward, THAT isn't it.
Sure there are plants: they kinda stick out like a sore thumb because they don't even know the basic revolutionary rhetoric, and stick with more prosaic "we can't let those dirty cops get away with it!" The KEY problem with the OOGA's is that the loudest voices are the "neo-revolutionaries" who come up with boneheaded ideas like "let's take over Kaiser for the homeless" which is anointed with just the right amount of populist fervor to win over the bleedinghearts and the deadheads with fond memories of seeing Jerry play there. THAT's the kind of boneheadedly provocative move that is perfect for CREATING confrontations with the police.
I think it is true that most of the people who are showing up now don't want violence, and the posts below are correct: a lot of people if not most of the participants are getting swept up and then have to walk away when the anarchists and/or plants start their monkeywrenching. But this is LONG after the leaders (yah, there are leaders, they're the ones who shout the more reasonable thinkers down in the GA for being apostate) have driven through very provocative strategies and tactics into being the "consensus".
A lot of us have just given up trying to talk reason to the screamers at OO. But they ARE a problem. Simply pretending that "this was successful in the 60's" (which it was not: violence did indeed lead to Nixon and Reagan), and that this is "infighting that only helps the reactionaries" is a fantasy that will bite us all.
Keeping it "pure" in practice is "keeping it radical" which makes it easy for both the reactionaries and the middle to ignore the message as some wacko lunatic fringe.
If the Democrats want to adopt messages out of OWS, how is that "bad"? Co-opt OWS? Let 'em try, but as the Reactionaries has found with the Tea Party, movements (even fake Tea ones) build a power of their own.
"Keeping it "pure" in practice is "keeping it radical" which makes it easy for both the reactionaries and the middle to ignore the message as some wacko lunatic fringe."
Do you know any people who exclusively listen to and watch people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? I do. They are a substantial minority and have a large say in the national corporate media. You know what they consider a lunatic fringe? Anyone who wants a "European health care system", ie single payer. People who would like less wealth inequality. Those who want to do something REAL about the Earth's crumbling ecosystem. Stuff like that. Since today's conversation has moved so far right, those positions really ARE radical. Either you have enough guts to stand for what you believe in and stand up for yourself or you always run from idiots who don't have any interest in thinking about your position or what you have to say.
Why is it bad to point out that many of the government's policies are fundamentally wrong? They are. You are radical, for example, if you want to fundamentally change the health care system and move to a single payer system. It doesn't mean you solute the hammer and sickle every morning, it just means that you want fundamental change.
Besides, the Democrats can do what they want. It is one thing for the Democrats to try and use OWS for their advantage, just as Republicans have used the Tea Party. It is another for people, Hartmann is one, to try and channel the energy of OWS towards the Democrats. Some Democrats might be worthy of support from people in OWS, but the party as a whole (at least from my perspective) doesn't deserve it. Seems to be a graveyard for bottom up activism.
Regarding the "anarchists", I think most people who use their brains can see that most of OWS is not interested in smashing in the windows of a Starbucks or something. I also think that people can figure out that if those in power craft policies that increase poverty, inequality of all kinds, corruption and de-industrialization, that all types of violence are going to increase. They also realize that people become radicalized when the two party system is impervious to change and the people crafting policy are increasingly cut off from the general public. When that happens you will see increased amounts of politically motivated violence. My point is that OWS shouldn't "denounce" anything, they should have an adult, democratic conversation about tactics. Some might prefer violent methods. If the people in OWS don't like it they can exclude those elements. It happened in the 60's with the SDS and the Weather Underground. OWS should however, if they chose to do that, mention the fact that those in power (mainly the right and the neoliberals) have a lot to answer for the society we have become, the economy that they've created, in most every Western country. If there is social unrest it is largely a result of the status quo. Their policies have utterly failed. If you can't articulate and defend why we need a radical change of direction in this country NOW, you never will.
My guess is that those in power will continue to craft the same rough set of policies, because they know nothing else, and when the $hit hits the fan they will amp up the authoritarian elements like they have been as of late.
and obviously not all plants stick out. If that were the case then COINTELPRO wouldn't have been so successful. There are many talented, experienced cops and federal agents out there who know how to get in with people and not stick out. You can bet there are a number of nameless, faceless "activists" taking plenty of notes. It would be nice if it were so easy to identify.
I personally have disdain for the liberals who want to channel the energy of OWS into the damn Democratic Party.
Hear hear. It makes me sick!!! Really fucking bloody sick.
far left loon >.<
The Alinsky quote is good. Your general point about non-violence is good. But what made Ghandi "right" wasn't simply dedication to non-violence. That's simply a means to an end. What made him "right" was his broader agenda of justice and democracy. Indeed, you act as if there was no violence in India against the British Raj. There was in fact a lot of it. Does that mean Ghandi was a poseur of some sort? Did he lose moral power as a result of the actions of others? No? Why was that?
Additionally, MLK was one deeply talented, charismatic figure who instilled tremendous discipline on his followers. So was Ghandi. But there were other participants in the movement not under control of MLK. Nation of Islam, Black Panthers and so on. He didn't denounce them because doing so would have driven a wedge into the movement on behalf of "civilized" white liberals everywhere. So, what made him "right" wasn't his tactics. It was his broader agenda that made him so.
Perhaps sadly, OWS doesn't have charismatic leaders. Even the agenda is still being worked out. In any democratic process, you have to expect some to show up with ideas that may not be all that great. You also have to expect that some people are not going to behave all that well. It's a work in process that has to grow to fruition. To ignore that is either deeply unrealistic or so elitist as to be undemocratic.
But in any case, poo pooing protesters for not behaving more to your liking while they are getting the crap kicked out of them just looks like pseudo-moralistic posing. It won't be long before you denounce the entire movement as you swallow the media narrative hook, line and sinker.
Style points for using Alinsky to trash protesters though. That was almost clever. I rather doubt he would appreciate your usage, however. He was a confrontational organizer, after all, so I think he would probably offer up a more nuanced position than yours.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
that the powers that be will hire people to do this to defame the movement, correct? Let's pretend we have a memory and a sense of history. Remember the incident with the American Spectator editor, who was caught doing just this a few months ago: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/09
Maybe these were some suburban "anarchists" who wanted to smash the state, or whatever. Maybe they were angry, frustrated OWS folk. Maybe they were plants. All I know is that IF the people in power wanted to make OWS look bad they would do it with plants and they would get the left to pile on before they knew the facts.
It is 100% certain there are plants right now in OWS trying to undermine them from within and there will be going forward. People should realize this, expect it, take it into account when things like this happen.
Anyone here of COINTELPRO? How about the NATO "stay behind armies"? How about the 2002 coup in Venezuela, where the right wing media there used doctored footage to try and frame Chavez and his government? I am not trying to be a conspiracy nut, but, again, have a sense of history and think about this a little deeper. We need to be just as sophisticated and clear thinking as the elites and their lap dogs.
We MUST denounce them!!!
They are drawing too much attention to the movement!
They're gonna ruin the whole thing!! We got a great thing goin' right now, with all the live streaming and rock stars coming to perform for free.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Probably Reslugs infiltrating the movement and making trouble because that's what they do best.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
You lose when you "fight back"
either prove that those that disrupted and did violence were agent provocateurs and turn them over to the police...
or
denounce the "leadership" that refused to use non-violent protest.
Kind of simple.
given how there is no record of Gandhi saying that quote.
There is a close variant of that quote on record however, it first appeared in a 1918 US trade union address by Nicholas Klein:
Proceedings of the Third Biennial Convention of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (1918), p. 53
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Down the road from Oakland , here in Santa Cruz, we have a known urban terrorist group calling themselves the 'Anarchists' who are absolutely NOT with Occupy Santa Cruz. These Anarchists are totally against any government and use deplorable hate and violence (just like Conservatives) instead of peaceful demonstration.
The sneaky Anarchists are using the Occupy movement as a cover to stage their own ruthless, unlawful occupy using dangerous hate and violence to further their creepy agenda.
OSC rightfully denounced the Anarchists but the corporate News and many other people still think they are related giving OSC a bad rap.
This makes me wonder how many of the instigators were agents provocateur. There may be a lot more to this than meets the eye.
Libertarian teabaggers got our asses hijacked by agent provacateurs who got sent in with misspelled racist homophobic signs to maker us baggers look bad.
Now its OWS's turn!
If you got a good thing going...expect it to hijacked.
...and as soon as liberals admit that all libertarians are not racist homophobes who belong to a militia,
... is when I admit that all occupiers are not violent anarchists.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
that strawman is not getting back up after that thrashing
Did you know that Ron Paul conspired with his BFF Mitt Romney to undermine the primaries?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I've got to question the idea that the Tea Party was hijacked by people pretending to be racist when they decided they were "taxed enough already" by a man of a certain colour before his shoes had even touched the White House lawn.
There was plenty to hate Obama for because of what he did as a Senator from Illionois.
(in case you forgot) ...When Obama was a Senator he...
voted yes to re-authorise the Patriot Act...
voted yes for the FISA wiretapping immunity bill...
voted yes for every single war appropriations bill that Chimpstain ever asked for...
voted yes for the Bush bankster bailout with no oversite (TARP)
and even voted yes to promote Condosleeza Rice to secretary of state.
(Obama sucked before he was president and he sucks now)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
.
Wall Street is just a parasite on the actual labor and investments of average Americans.
Banks play with futures, debt paper, complex financial instruments, and other peoples incomes.
Sell 'em short & help 'em crash - Tear 'em apart & sell the pieces
OWS is not gonna denounce anybody because the oakland people are hired by the mayor and police they pulled the same stupid shit at the Nam riots
Should #OWS Denounce Occupy Oakland?
It seems to me if you're going to denounce Occupy Oakland because of *a few bad apples, the same rules should apply to all groups, parties and affiliations, including the Democratic party and Obama.
Occupy has stated, very clearly, from day 1, it is non-violent and we have seen thousands of videos backing up that assertion.
Who is responsible for the actions of every single soul who "says" they are Occupiers? As Tina said these people "say" they are Occupiers. but are they really? #OWS has denounced violence again and again and again, right from the start.
far left loon >.<
I suppose if you think OWS looks like a group that can, should and will be co-opted to get Obama re-elected, by all means sell out your brothers and sisters: make them come forward and denounce these fringe hooligans who may or may not be Occupiers.
If, however, you see OWS as the only thing between us and fascism and our last best hope ABSOLUTELY NOT. Grow a pair and support OWS.
far left loon >.<
** like
*like*
well put!
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
as I said in the original thread - It's a question of SHAME -
If there is none, it doesn't work.
Ghandi was supremely ineffective. There were other more violent people fighting for independence, and getting the job done. The Brits couldn't negotiate with them as easily, i.e., couldn't leave behind a class structure to their benefit and liking, but Ghandi was willing to deal. So, the Brits picked Ghandi as their man. But Ghandi only had value because behind him were some people who weren't willing to play nice. The British had a culture where shame and a sense of human nobility meant something. So, they picked Ghandi to help them extricate themselves from a colony they could no longer afford to own, and bingo - Ghandi's nonviolence is extolled as the pinnacle of post-Leninist revolt.
In India Ghandi is not held in nearly as high a regard as he is in the west.
Now, if the Nazis were in control of India, they simply would have shot Ghandi in the face and been done with it years earlier. And if anyone disobeys, shoot them too. The Nazis had no sense of shame or human nobility. They only cared about power and resources and their own genetic line.
Now if you think the American govt is closer to the Brits than the Nazis, well, Iraq and Afghanistan and of the 00s, and Central America of the 80s and Vietnam of the 60s and 70s argue otherwise.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
I get the impression that a lot of people commenting in these threads don't see themselves as part of Occupy. (I probably do it too. It might just be language used.) As I am not American and live overseas it's hard to feel (and speak) like I am an Occupier.
That said, I think, for most of us, Occupy is us and we are Occupy and we should start saying "We" instead of "They". This talking about them (the ones in the streets) like they (those actually marching and Occupying) are a distinct entity apart from us needs to change.
We support Occupy with our words, some of us send money, we've had the pizza drive, we spread and share positive information about Occupy and, above all, see Occupy as a good thing. We are Occupy and I think we should start talking that way.
What should WE do next. How should WE behave. What are OUR goals? What do WE want?
I don't like this impression of watching and dissecting from the sidelines. It's like we'll hitch our wagons to Occupy if we see results, or distance ourselves if we don't. Aren't we all (most of us) Occupy????
far left loon >.<
and hopefully they are not about to start.
Once again, destruction of property is NOT a violent crime.
"A riot, is an ukly thing. Und I think it's about time the vee HAD ONE!!"
Inspector Kemp
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
OK, some of you are parents. When your kid acts up do you disown them? Does your darling baby boy suddenly become talked about like this: "Look at what YOUR son did?" Do you disown the boy and send him packing?
Where is the blueprint for Occupy? There hasn't been a movement like this since the 60s. There are bound to be a few glitches in the mix, but, overall, the track record is stellar, non-violent and extremely peaceful. Occupy is growing and learning. It's spread across all 50 states with no leader. There are bound to be some incidents. And all sorts of non-Occupy groups will join in under the cover of a crowd of dissenters. For that somehow "the movement" should suddenly coalesce and denounce some isolated property damage (as if Occupy did it).
And if Occupy denounces these actions aren't they (we) also taking responsibility for them? Then they (MSM and the fascists) can point fingers and say they (we) admit they (we) are VIOLENT. Denouncing these actions means OWNING them!!! That puts all of Occupy under the umbrella of violent protest. It's just what the fascist thugs want and need. That way they can march right in, crack skulls and NDAA people as terrorists.
far left loon >.<
And lastly (I think)... a question for Tina
Tina, as you've been to 8 Occupy protests in 2 countries, do you consider yourself an Occupier or merely someone who observes and reports on the movement? (I'd like to know.)
far left loon >.<
Shouldn't we be asking if Scott Olsen should be denounced for denting that riot gas canister with his forehead? What about denouncing OWS Oakland for the bad feelings some riot cops may have felt after beating the crap out of people?
But it's not like I'm saying we should. I used question marks! FOX News taught me that real well..
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Don't worry, they don't feel bad about beating the crap out of people.
This thread just pisses me off. There. I said it. I've been thinking it for hours.
far left loon >.<
.
Something like that. Some days, I'm tellin' ya...
far left loon >.<
agent provacateur!
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Comments are restricted to registered users only.
Login - Register