Occupy movement magnet for violence.

Nothing says "courage" and "conviction" like a peaceful protest. The Flea Baggers (especially in Oakland) are anything but.

 

Says the guy putting himself out there by sitting behind a computer and disparaging people that actually get out there and try to accomplish something. How's your courage? Lacking is the word that comes to mind.

 

I suppose if the American colonial secessionists had limited themselves to peaceful protest the British imperial authorities would have packed up and gone home on their own. As it was the colonial separatists showed a deplorable lack of courage and conviction.

 

You obviously know very little about me...

 

Using that train of logic, the Tea Partiers should become extremely violent, too in order to achieve their demands. But, they get their message across peaceably. That's what the Flea Partiers should do, too... but, they seem to always resort to violence. But, to what end? They're doing absolutely nothing to promote their agenda (whatever the agenda du jour is) by being violent.

 

Interesting. Will London look like the middle east in a few years with a civil war or should I say a war of national identity going on.

 

It is my understanding that the Tea Party has been very successful by working within the democratic system by backing and getting a Republican Governor elected in New Jersey and with Rubio here in Florida to use two such examples. Shame the Occupy movement did not use the first protests just to raise political awareness as well as funds and then evolved into an organized voting bloc/machine.

 

Precisely! I would have no problem with them using the established system to promote their agenda even if I don't agree with their politics. It's when they start hurting people that I no longer agree with their tactics.

 

Wait, you said that peaceful protest is the ultimate manifestation of courage and conviction "NOTHING says..." By your own definition to the extent that the colonial secessionists resorted to violence they were lacking in these virtues.

 

They were certainly rebels.

 

Yes they did but that was after attempt after attempt of peaceful resolution was either rejected or ignored by Great Britain. Patrick Henry used that as part of his speech in Give me Liberty or Give me Death and it was mentioned in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence and within the list of grievences. The colonists also formed a first and later second contential congress of which the second declared official independence or war so to speak. Fighting was going on for two years up to that date but that was when all peacefull attempts to resolve the issues were given up.
Now if you really enjoy history look at the differences of Samuel Adams who ran the rough necks of the Sons of Liberty out of his tavern to the justice for all of John Adams. Perhaps one of the greatest men of his time along with Ben Franklin. One started the Boston Massacara and the other defended the british troops in court and yes to those who do not know they were related.
Wish this site had a spell check.

 

If you used firefox, you would have a spellchecker. It comes with the program. If it didn't, I am not sure you could read my posts.

 

Comparing flea baggers to our founding fathers? Really?
In colonial times, they wanted liberty. The flea baggers want what others have without having to work for it. Not really the same.

I'm going to DC in March, I wonder if there will still be a flea bagger presence?

 

No, I think you are very transparent.

 

Go back and read. It was not a comparison of goals, even though as usual you're wrong on that too. But if you think about it really hard maybe eventually you'll get the point.

 

You drew the comparison originally, soooooo......?

 

Soooo... Can you get your mind around the difference between goals and strategy? We were talking about non-violence or the lack thereof. Not the specific ends to which the strategy of non-violence or the lack thereof were. being used to pursue. Coin made the general assertion that non-violence represented the highest manifestation of courage and conviction. I was merely questioning that assertion and using the War of Colonial Secession as an example. Nowhere did I say that OWS and the rebels were equal in terms of cause, goal or circumstance. You are drawing a false parallel here.

 

Like I said, you know very little about me. And what's with all the personal attacks lately? Without your lapdog around, it seems as if you've become very offensive.

 

Both of these arguments have been made before: that 1) the Revolutionary War and the OWS use similar strategy and 2) that the colonists and the OWS were equal in cause. More than once on these forums the OWS protesters have been said to have the import and impact that the colonists did at that time. Let's not pretend that these discussions did not happen, as even you and I have had this discussion, Tak.

 

Oh the discussion has totally happened and I think it's a valid one. But that is not the discussion here. I was questioning the assertion about non-violence and needed a context. I could have used just about any conflict anywhere that was both commonly considered just and also involved violence. My choice of context in this case was perhaps unfortunate because it seems to have distracted people from the point.