Occupy movement magnet for violence.

Oh, c'mon, you are sounding desperate now in your defense of the flea baggers. You can't compare "strategies" "goals" and "circumstances" in a light that only suits you.

 

I agree. I think that's because in cases like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, or any other revolution deemed just, the cause is deemed more important than the action. Usually, revolutions come about when a large part of the population comes together in agreement and fights against an overwhelmingly unjust authority. Now, I'm not saying that such a condition does not exist in this country and I see a revolution being fomented here if conditions do not change. However, the OWS never had a clear goal to express and merely fell back on talking points and sound bytes way too early in their existence. Sound bytes existed even before we had a label for them (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country, give me liberty or give me death, remember the Alamo), these statements were not what the people making them meant only to say. They were great sentences and phrases pulled from much greater speeches--the speakers were articulate and educated. The sad thing is that the OWS movement has degenerated very quickly from a movement that represented a good part of the country (if never 99%) into camps of the already homeless, people who will soon be homeless, and people looking for a handout. *That* is why there will never be a successful comparison between the OWS movement and any revolution considered just.

 

Of course I can. Typical RWer. Let me put it to you as simply as possible. Do you agree with the statement, "Nothing (italics mine) says "courage" and "conviction" like a peaceful protest." I'm not sure if I do or not, which is why I'm trying for clarification. What do you think?

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."

This is a philosophy I admire and respect. I think King had extreme courage and we certainly can't argue his conviction. He didn't advocate violence and, after all was said and done, history has proven that he chose the right course.

Now, another member on this forum, referring to the protests in Wisconsin last year, stated, "If I lived in Wisconsin, I'd burn down the capitol building since it doesn't seem to belong to the people of Wisconsin anyway. Their voices have been ignored. They have been lied to repeatedly. And they have been sold out to special interests. Frankly, what would they have to lose by torching the place. I think you are going to see a lot of violence in Wisconsin tonight and I think it is justified." I think there is absolutely no courage in a statement like that. The process by which the recall initiative against Gov. Walker is proceeding is the correct way of doing things (regardless of whether or not I think he should be recalled). Advocating burning down the capitol building and encouraging violence demonstrates absolutely no conviction whatsoever.

I see the same mentality from the many of the OWS. I see them injuring police officers, throwing bricks and rocks, setting fires, destroying property, etc. As I've said before, I encourage peaceful protests even if I don't agree with the message (as in the case of the OWS). I would certainly respect them immeasurably more if they were peaceful and knowledgeable about what they're protesting.

You're on the fence whether or not to agree with my statement, "Nothing says 'courage' and 'conviction' like a peaceful protest". I doubt anything I say can sway you either way and it's not my intent to do so. I'm simply giving my opinion.

 

Andy not sure what you mean by a war of national identity LOL We know who we are and those Muslims are a very small minority of the population
The EDL and the Anti Crusade lot can hardly be compared to Mid East!! they use fists not guns and rockets nor does either side have tanks etc
Having in the past seen images of riots in LA etc should I then think that the USA is going to end up like Mid East? because your riots have beaten ours hands down LOL

 

Finally one of the few people the Right I can talk with weighs in. Where have you been? I've already said that in the context of OWS, I'm in the non-violence camp. I think that both morally and strategically it makes sense. And I think that considering their numbers they have a pretty good record of non-violence. We hear about certain cities and incidents over and over, while non-violence rarely makes news.

Be that as it may, all I'm doing here is questioning a seemingly blanket assertion on your part that non-violence is the supreme manifestation of courage and conviction. If this is true, what does it say about movements and causes in which violence was employed because of the perception or the reality that a policy of non-violence would have resulted in failure. Whether it's something like our war against the Crown or our assassination without trial of American citizens who the President has been please to classify as terrorists would non-violence have been the morally superior response or does the end justify the violent means?

 

Let me clarify.

My statement was "nothing says 'courage' and 'conviction' like a peaceful protest". I stand by that statement. I think where you may be misunderstanding me is that I certainly do believe that violence can be an option, but only in the proper circumstances. For example, if someone breaks into my home and threatens me or a loved one, I'll use any means at my disposal to eliminate the threat even if I must resort to deadly force. However, if one arbitrarily uses violence as a means to make a political point then they have stepped beyond the realm of civil discourse. In my opinion, that is exactly what many of the OWS protesters have done and, in doing so, have caused the movement to lose momentum, support, respect and focus. Had they chosen the course of peaceful protest and adhered to the philosophy of MLK, I think you would see a much different opinion of the OWS from the majority of the country. As it is, most people are simply turned off by the newscasts showing violence from the OWS and just tune them out.

 

We are speaking in the context of politics. Someone breaking into your home and threatening your family is not normally considered a political act so that example is simply an aside. And define "arbitrary". Seems to me that one person's arbitrary could easily be another's necessity. What we seem to be saying here is that peaceful protest = courage and conviction until we decide that violence is an option that trumps peaceful protest and that the primacy of peaceful protest is simply situational and we all decide for ourselves when it is warranted and when it isn't.

 

I used the example of someone breaking into my house to illustrate that I could be violent, if necessary. It would take an extreme situation for me to be violent, however. There are few things politically that would do so.

MLK's philosophy of peace (or, rather, strength through peace) is still as unshakable today as it was 2000 years ago when Jesus preached peace. Would you like to see violence in the Senate forum between Republicans and Democrats when they can't agree on a bill? Would you like to see the Tea Party behaving like the OWS? Would you like to see your local City Hall violently taken over by armed thugs who want to oust the mayor? Would you like to see the Wisconsin State House set on fire?

You might, but only if you agree with the politics of the people who are being violent and, as you said, decide for yourself if it is warranted or not. Revolutions have been violent, but some have been peaceful. Look at the way liberals have taken over the media and the education system, for instance. I strongly disagree with their goal, but I can't argue their tactics. They've done it peaceably. Politics is an odd thing. It's filled with negotiations, manipulations and persuasions, but rarely violence. When it does resort to violence (as in the OWS), it devolves from politics to thuggery. At that point, you may as well start calling the OWS protesters "brown shirts" since they're employing violent tactics.

 

Just curious, by "lapdog" do you mean me?

Regardless, I have three points to make:

[1] Wouldn't your use of the term be considered a personal attack?

[2] By using the term is your intent to be offensive?

[3] Republicans suck.

 

Why would you think that?

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

You're entitled to your opinion regardless of how ignorant I think it is.

 

The ows have a right to be angry but as I always said, "violence only begets violence"
well maybe the guy you like said that first.
What some people don't realize by every means possible, which Lincoln said a few years give or take a hundred before Malcom X, is that the violent choice should be the last choice but not a choice ruled out when justified. The ows miss the point and their violence is directed at the wrong targets.

 

They are dying a slow death;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinio...2-09/Occupy-movement-wealth-income/53032740/1

 

When, oh when will these leftist radicals learn that violence is not the answer and that being violent does NOTHING to promote their agenda (whatever their agenda may be)? They've gone and hurt some more police officers in Sacramento, CA (as if that's news anymore when it comes to these socialists/communists/marxists/liberals/democrats):

Officers hurt in Occupy clash at Calif. Capitol

February 27, 2012
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — At least two law enforcement officers were injured Monday during a clash with members of the Occupy movement who were at the state Capitol to counter a rally by a group protesting violence by blacks against whites in South Africa.

The clash erupted in the afternoon as California Highway Patrol and Sacramento police officers were escorting about 35 members of the South Africa Project to a parking garage after their protest outside the Capitol building.

About 50 members of Occupy Oakland began throwing cans and bottles at the South Africa group and at the officers. The Occupy members then clashed with the officers as people with the pro-whites group hurried into the parking garage.

"It was the activists across the street engaging the officers," said CHP officer Sean Kennedy.

Two officers suffered minor injuries and were taken to a hospital. CHP Capt. Andy Menard said one officer who was struck in the face by an object was released from the hospital. The second officer was getting X-rays after apprehending a person suspected of throwing objects, Menard said.

Kennedy said the officer who was struck by an object was showing signs of possibly being affected by some type of chemical or pepper spray.

The CHP arrested three members of the Occupy group on suspicion of disobeying an officer. The violence abated after a large contingent of law enforcement arrived at the scene, about a block from the Capitol.

http://news.yahoo.com/officers-hurt-occupy-clash-calif-capitol-234713894.html

 

As these people lose support & relevance violence is all they have left.

 

Now, the Occupy Whatever movement has gone from being not only extremely violent, but sexist, too:

Three Occupy Oakland protesters charged with hate crimes

March 3, 2012
Three Occupy Oakland protesters accused of surrounding and taunting a woman before stealing her wallet were charged on Friday with robbery and hate crimes, authorities said.

Michael Davis, 32, Nneka Crawford, 23, and Randolph Wilkins, 24, confronted the woman on the streets of Oakland in February after she told them not to riot in her neighborhood, the Oakland Policesaid in a written release
"She was surrounded by three protestors and battered as they yelled vulgar epithets regarding their perception of her sexual orientation," Oakland Police spokeswoman Johnna Watson said.

The female victim was not identified except as a 20-year resident of the neighborhood.

"Her wallet was taken during the crime," Watson said. "The victim broke away from the group and called police, who were able to arrest one suspect near the scene."

Watson said the other two suspects were arrested at a February 29 Occupy Oakland protest.

Each was charged by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office with felony counts of robbery and hate crimes, Watson said.

An Occupy Oakland organizer could not be reached for comment on Friday evening.

A rallying cry of the movement has been that 1 percent of the population has too much of the nation's wealth and the remaining 99 percent is disadvantaged.

It has lost momentum in recent months after police cleared encampments in New York, Oakland and other major cities.

http://news.yahoo.com/three-occupy-oakland-protesters-charged-hate-crimes-065602319.html

 

Typical

 

The entire movement? Using that logic all Republicans should be locked-up for life. ...and all Democrats. ...and all adults. ...and all children. ...and all animals.

Your argument has failed to convince me that all the Occupiers are criminal. Please feel free to try again.

 

Logic? You're looking for logic from that lot?

 

To be fair... it is logic... it just doesn't compute.