# OWS drops the 'peaceful protest' charade



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 29, 2012)

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/After-lull-Occupy-protest-resurfaces-in-Oakland-2802264.php






> Then came Saturday, which started peacefully enough  a midday rally at City Hall and a march. But hours later, the scene near downtown Oakland had dramatically deteriorated: clashes punctuated by rock and bottle throwing by protesters and volleys of tear gas from police, and a City Hall break-in that left glass cases smashed, graffiti spray-painted on walls and an American flag burned.
> 
> More than 400 people were arrested on charges ranging from failure to disperse to vandalism, police spokesman Sgt. Jeff Thomason said. At least three officers and one protester were injured.
> 
> On Sunday, Oakland officials vowed to be ready if Occupy protesters try to mount another large-scale demonstration. Protesters, meanwhile, decried Saturday's police tactics as illegal and threatened to sue.



OWS=Criminal scum.  And that's my final answer.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 29, 2012)

Gee, Bill, you mean you don't think they are just like the Tea Party?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 29, 2012)

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...sesses-city-hall-damage-after-occupy-break-in



> Mayor Jean Quan said Occupy protesters have caused an estimated $2  million in damages from vandalism since October. She said the cost to  the city related to the Occupy Oakland protests is pegged at about $5  million.





> Police arrested about 300 people Saturday as Occupy Oakland protesters  were thwarted trying to take over a vacant convention center and enter  a YMCA. Protesters later broke into City Hall, where they burned a flag  taken from inside.





> @OaklandPoliceCA tweeted around 3 p.m., "Area of Oakland Museum and  Kaiser Center severely impacted. Persons cutting and tearing fences for  entry. Bottles and objects thrown at OPD."
> 
> Once  they reached the center, organizers planned to kick off a two-day  "Oakland Rise-up Festival" to celebrate the establishment of the  movement's new space.
> 
> ...



Fine upstanding law abiding peaceful protesters, just looking to get their message out my puckered patooti.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 29, 2012)

Its always Oakland that city needs to just be bulldozed


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 29, 2012)

Looks like its washington DC turn next they gave protesters until noon tomorrow to get out of the parks and remove their tents.


----------



## Haakon (Jan 29, 2012)

Looks like a photo from Palestine with the burning flag and cowards wearing masks.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

Anybody notice the OWS sympathizers have suddenly and mysteriously gone quiet?  Perhaps they'd like to explain again that OWS is peaceful, there are only a tiny fraction of a minority that seems intent on breaking the law.  Heck, they're probably in the pay of the Koch brothers, agent provocateurs, trying to discredit the movement, right?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 30, 2012)

In what fashion is this a surprise to anyone? The transition from peaceful protest to non-peaceful was always going to happen at some point. I suppose tho' in the modern era of instant gratification they didn't have the patience to wait two decades to get results:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/908843.stm

The protest in and of itself is just a symptom of the failing system that hoovers the wealth up to the top. Changes are in the wind to try and ameliorate the defects and still retain the spirit of mercantile exchange founded on private enterprise. But these changes will be slow to occur, too slow for most people to tolerate without an explanation of the long-view, macro-economic, background. The OWS want change *now* and that, combined with not actually knowing what changes they need means that the lid was going to come off eventually.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

View attachment 16036


Sukerkin said:


> In what fashion is this a surprise to anyone?



It's not a surprise to me; I predicted it.  The only thing I'm surprised about is the lack of one or more charismatic leaders.



> The OWS want change *now* and that, combined with not actually knowing what changes they need means that the lid was going to come off eventually.



And as a citizen who wants problems fixed, but doesn't want city halls 'occupied' or flag burnt by Wobblies, I fully support police truncheons brought down on their idiotic noggins.



And I notice a disturbing trend; OWS uses 'Anonymous' as their willing bullyboys and toughs.  Instead of roughing people up in the streets, they dig out their personal family information and 'out' them online, suggesting slyly that it would be a grand good thing if they were injured or killed to teach them a lesson.  A slightly more cowardly version of the SS.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm not condonng them in the least but you realise the way you regard them is the way the Syrian, Libyan and Iranian etc protestors are regarded by their governments? What makes the demonstrators in America different from these other demonstrators in your eyes? the Syrian govrnment calls their demonstrators everything you are calling these, they believe it too, not for one minute do dictators and their ilk actually think they are wrong, many actually think they do know what's best for the people. why is violence the answer in some countries and not others. I'm interested in why people think some violence is fine, is it when you don't support a regime and when you do there shouldn't be violence? or should there never be violence?
This is for _discussion_ not taking pops at each other, it's the Study not the TKD section


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not condonng them in the least but you realise the way you regard them is the way the Syrian, Libyan and Iranian etc protestors are regarded by their governments? What makes the demonstrators in America different from these other demonstrators in your eyes? the Syrian govrnment calls their demonstrators everything you are calling these, they believe it too, not for one minute do dictators and their ilk actually think they are wrong, many actually think they do know what's best for the people. why is violence the answer in some countries and not others. I'm interested in why people think some violence is fine, is it when you don't support a regime and when you do there shouldn't be violence? or should there never be violence?
> This is for _discussion_ not taking pops at each other, it's the Study not the TKD section



What's different?  Not a huge amount.  Except that I don't think the USA is dictatorship.  And since it is not, I do not want it overthrown.  That puts me on the side of the government.  So I want this rebellion put down.  And FYI, OWS is now referring to their 'movement' as a 'rebellion' and a 'revolution'.  Armed insurrection is treason.  Throwing bottles and rocks and firebombs at cops is being 'armed'.  If this is 'revolution' and they're throwing rocks, they're committing treason.  I want them arrested and locked up.  I do not want revolution in the USA.

And that of course dances around the statement I made; those who claimed OWS was a peaceful movement that they supported are mighty quiet now.  At the very least, they're not saying much about the 'violence'.

Why aren't they out condemning it?  All I hear is silence.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not condonng them in the least but you realise the way you regard them is the way the Syrian, Libyan and Iranian etc protestors are regarded by their governments? What makes the demonstrators in America different from these other demonstrators in your eyes? the Syrian govrnment calls their demonstrators everything you are calling these, they believe it too, not for one minute do dictators and their ilk actually think they are wrong, many actually think they do know what's best for the people. why is violence the answer in some countries and not others. I'm interested in why people think some violence is fine, is it when you don't support a regime and when you do there shouldn't be violence? or should there never be violence?
> This is for _discussion_ not taking pops at each other, it's the Study not the TKD section




What makes America different from Libya, Syria and Iran?  
Honestly.

That'll answer the question.

1- We don't haul protestors off to the side and execute them.
2- We defend their right to peacefully assemble.
3- We haven't machine gunned them just because (and anyone who says mace = bullets is an asshat)
4- etc.

In the US we have a guaranteed & protected right to freedom of speech and expression. 
We don't have a right to breaking and entering, theft, vandalism, assault, and so forth.


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What's different?  Not a huge amount.  Except that I don't think the USA is dictatorship.  And since it is not, I do not want it overthrown.  That puts me on the side of the government.  So I want this rebellion put down.  And FYI, OWS is now referring to their 'movement' as a 'rebellion' and a 'revolution'.  Armed insurrection is treason.  Throwing bottles and rocks and firebombs at cops is being 'armed'.  If this is 'revolution' and they're throwing rocks, they're committing treason.  I want them arrested and locked up.  I do not want revolution in the USA.
> 
> And that of course dances around the statement I made; those who claimed OWS was a peaceful movement that they supported are mighty quiet now.  At the very least, they're not saying much about the 'violence'.
> 
> Why aren't they out condemning it?  All I hear is silence.



First of all, nothing has really changed since November/December. 
The country is still in the crapper
the OWS people do what they have done then.

The US could very well be qualified as a dictatorship of Money. And when you peel the labels off, you might find that your own interests are much more in line with OWS than with the Money driven government.

peaceful protest always has the potential for violence.
Be it that the protesters get fed up with being ignored (and Mark, i think the movements in the 60s did not have patience either, re: 20 years in the making )
or the powerful trying to bully the protest into submission.

Protest is the voice of the people who are rendered mute after the ballots are cast. 

The Middle eastern protest did not start as armed protest - or treason as you classified it. Just a bunch of people tired of being treated like mushrooms.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm not sure if the argument is' what makes America different' from those countries, I think it's more 'when is violence right'? There are still more supporters of the government in those countries than are rebelling, they would tell you that the rebels are criminals. If the majority of the people in a country don't riot and rebel and do support the government, which we know to be by our standards undemocratic and dictatorial, can we support those who are violently demonstrating? 

There has been in recent times a groups of people who have been hi-jacking all sorts of demonstrations across the globe, however they are seen for what they are anarchist 'rent-a-mobs' and not actually connected to the demonstrators whose marches they disrupt how can you be so sure that's not what is happening with the OWS? do people hate them so much they won't or can't see the oWS as a legitimate protest even if they don't agree with what they say?
Recetnly we had the demos outside St. Pauls, one of their grieviences was that big companies weren't paying tax, it was rubbished by the government and press right up till the point it came out that companies like Vodaphone weren't paying taxes, public annoyance was evident when we found out _why_ they weren't paying tax!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

granfire said:


> Protest is the voice of the people who are rendered mute after the ballots are cast.



This is not protest.






Revenge?  Very peaceful.

Not protest, vandalism:






Not protest, insurrection:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 30, 2012)

> USC Article 1 - Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;





> For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
> 
> (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Getting closer.

Getting closer.

Almost There.


The Oakland group involved thousands with 300+ arrests.  NYC has involved thousands. Other major cities similar.   The City, County and State law enforcement has stretched thin, run up huge tabs in overtime, and been stressed.   If these events continue on this path, these LEO's will be hard pressed to contain them and maintain order so that the other 99.995% of the population that doesn't feel the need to be prats can go about their lives unmolested.  When an event like this turns into a contained riot...calls for troops will be put out.  As they escalate further, the US Constitution and US Law fully authorizes the President & Congress to order military action as at that point we will be in a full revolt, the first such mass revolt since the 1700's.

As that point, it's a cluster frack.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 30, 2012)

Then there is the idiocy of them using Guy Fawkes masks...
Rant and rave and rail against government and churches, wear a mask of a dedicated theocrat.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 30, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Then there is the idiocy of them using Guy Fawkes masks...
> Rant and rave and rail against government and churches, wear a mask of a dedicated theocrat.



Way it was explained to me Don by 1 of them is that it's not so much what or who the -real- Fawkes was, but more about the V for Vengeance guy.

So to show they hate big government and big corporations and want more jobs in America, they use a prop which if bought legitimately puts royalties in the hands of Warner Brothers, or if not, into the hands of the Chinese who make the knock offs.

Yeah, not the sharpest spoons in the drawer.


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is not protest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not sure the chick in the picture...did she break the model house?

Burning the flag, however distasteful it might be to an individual is a powerful statement. And it does not kill anybody, and only the people with the match might get hurt.
I think that is pretty peaceful.

As to the masks. Yeah, I agree. If you have something to say, put your face to it.
(then again, if you are a hired hand, might as well cover your face. And now we can debate on who gains more from paying mercenaries to cause trouble)

And since we are living in a place that prides itself on democratic values, how can it be insurrection? That's a term a tyrant uses to discredit opposition. 

Now, if that was not their flag they burned, we can add theft and vandalism....those flags with the fringe and tassles are not cheap.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

granfire said:


> Not sure the chick in the picture...did she break the model house?



No, she's the Mayor of Oakland.  The model was a 100-year-old model of the City Hall building, all that was recovered after the earthquake; a treasured city heirloom.  Broken by OO protesters when they broke into the City Hall and vandalized the place.



> Burning the flag, however distasteful it might be to an individual is a powerful statement. And it does not kill anybody, and only the people with the match might get hurt.
> I think that is pretty peaceful.



The flag wasn't theirs to burn.  They broke down the front doors of Oakland City Hall, 'occupied it', and proceeded to smash everything they could find, vandalize the walls with spray-paint and graffiti proclaiming 'REVENGE; and "F*** THE POLICE' and defecated in the hallways.  Then they hauled the flags of California and the USA outside and set fire to them.

Peaceful?  Yeah, sure.



> As to the masks. Yeah, I agree. If you have something to say, put your face to it.
> (then again, if you are a hired hand, might as well cover your face. And now we can debate on who gains more from paying mercenaries to cause trouble)
> 
> And since we are living in a place that prides itself on democratic values, how can it be insurrection? That's a term a tyrant uses to discredit opposition.
> ...



Correct, not their flag.  The broke and entered to obtain it.

Insurrection is a word that describes what they did.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

Sorry, but your definition is not correct.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2012)

The masks aren't of Guy Fawkes but of the character of the film. I think people should look up Guy Fawkes and his beliefs before choosing him as a 'hero'. His was a religious 'demostration' not political as such, he thought by killing those in Parliament including the Protestant King he could impose a Catholic monarch on the country. He wasn't for the people or democracy, wasn't even a hero, just another religious fanatic looking to impose his beliefs on others.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The masks aren't of Guy Fawkes but of the character of the film. I think people should look up Guy Fawkes and his beliefs before choosing him as a 'hero'. His was a religious 'demostration' not political as such, he thought by killing those in Parliament including the Protestant King he could impose a Catholic monarch on the country. He wasn't for the people or democracy, wasn't even a hero, just another religious fanatic looking to impose his beliefs on others.


A character in a film who wore a Guy Fawkes mask, proving the film didn't even get the irony.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 30, 2012)

The biggest difference between the US and middle eastern revolutions is we already have a legal method built into our constitution to make changes.  We don't need to riot in the streets.  If your ideas are so great you take them to the people and vote it into power.  We have changed our constitution many times so far.  Prob is nobody wants what they are selling so now they are throwing a fit and breaking the law.


----------



## billc (Jan 30, 2012)

Instead of the mask, they should simply adopt the brown, black or red shirts of their ideological predecessors, and at the same time, those shirts are probably easier to get and cost a lot less.  They also hide dirt and blood stains better, but you want to wash them on hot after pre-soaking them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> The biggest difference between the US and middle eastern revolutions is we already have a legal method built into our constitution to make changes.  We don't need to riot in the streets.  If your ideas are so great you take them to the people and vote it into power.  We have changed our constitution many times so far.  Prob is nobody wants what they are selling so now they are throwing a fit and breaking the law.



Yep.  I love the comments that hey, the OWS protested peacefully, but they didn't suddenly get jobs, the banks didn't forgive all the outstanding loans, the environment didn't magically clean itself up, the government didn't confiscate all the money from the 1%, so OF COURSE we're getting violent now.  Duh!  Right; that's how Democracy works.  Instead of voting, you protest.  And if you don't get what you want, you throw bottles and bricks at the cops, storm buildings, set flags on fire.  Yes, it's all so clear to me now.  Violence and intimidation.  Stupid me, I thought you just voted for the candidates.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Instead of the mask, they should simply adopt the brown, black or red shirts of their ideological predecessors, and at the same time, those shirts are probably easier to get and cost a lot less. They also hide dirt and blood stains better, but you want to wash them on hot after pre-soaking them.



It'ss interesting you can make so light of the suffering that these black/brown shirts caused with their right wing fascist beliefs. Luckily Americans have no histroy with these types, we have and we know what they are. If you look at Mosley's black shirts you will find they were thoroughly right wing, very organised and as far from these protestors as you can get.
Closing your eyes to the truth means you will get a very sharp, nasty wake up call one day.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It'ss interesting you can make so light of the suffering that these black/brown shirts caused with their right wing fascist beliefs. Luckily Americans have no histroy with these types, we have and we know what they are. If you look at Mosley's black shirts you will find they were thoroughly right wing, very organised and as far from these protestors as you can get.
> Closing your eyes to the truth means you will get a very sharp, nasty wake up call one day.



I don't think this type of thuggery is limited to right or left wing of the political spectrum.

The fact is that OWS is relying upon Anonymous to provide muscle for their cause.  Not breaking bones and breaking windows, no.  But please notice that Anonymous has adopted the OWS cause wholesale; they hack into databases and obtain the names, addresses, credit card information, and other personal data on the police known to have arrested OWS protesters.  They put this information online as a form of intimidation; they are essentially saying _"If you mess with OWS, this is what happens to you."_  Then they strongly 'hint' that something 'bad' might happen to the police officers or their families; more intimidation.

The only real difference I see between Anonymous and the Brown Shirts is that Anonymous hides in the shadows.  Their methods are the same; just updated for a modern world.  They don't break your bones, they break your life.  They are the OWS bullyboys.

Left wing?  Right wing?  I don't give two craps.  They're CRIMINALS.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think this type of thuggery is limited to right or left wing of the political spectrum.
> 
> The fact is that OWS is relying upon Anonymous to provide muscle for their cause. Not breaking bones and breaking windows, no. But please notice that Anonymous has adopted the OWS cause wholesale; they hack into databases and obtain the names, addresses, credit card information, and other personal data on the police known to have arrested OWS protesters. They put this information online as a form of intimidation; they are essentially saying _"If you mess with OWS, this is what happens to you."_ Then they strongly 'hint' that something 'bad' might happen to the police officers or their families; more intimidation.
> 
> ...



I agree that violence isn't limited to one side or the other just that when Bili talks of violence he always means the 'left' aand has stated more than once that the 'right' never use violence. The horror the brown and black shirts brought shouldn't be underestimated nor overlooked. Too many people still alive remember the horrors. 
I don't think the agenda of what you call criminals (and I agree btw) is at all clear other than the obvious violence and intimidation. Without getting over paranoid and conspiracy theorist it would be interesting to find out the 'real' agenda.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/11/anonymous-behind-the-mask


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I agree that violence isn't limited to one side or the other just that when Bili talks of violence he always means the 'left' aand has stated more than once that the 'right' never use violence. The horror the brown and black shirts brought shouldn't be underestimated nor overlooked. Too many people still alive remember the horrors.
> I don't think the agenda of what you call criminals (and I agree btw) is at all clear other than the obvious violence and intimidation. Without getting over paranoid and conspiracy theorist it would be interesting to find out the 'real' agenda.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/11/anonymous-behind-the-mask



It's a side-issue.  National Socialism was beyond simple 'left' and 'right' definitions.  They could be called 'right' in that they despised communists.  They could be called 'left' in that they were socialists; early on, they were anti-capitalist, anti-big business, and anti-bourgeois.   The OWS does resemble some of the latter definitions of National Socialism in that respect.

However,  I am not comparing ideology to ideology, but rather methods to methods.  The National Socialists had their bullyboy enforcers; so does OWS.  In that, they are very similar.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a side-issue. National Socialism was beyond simple 'left' and 'right' definitions. They could be called 'right' in that they despised communists. They could be called 'left' in that they were socialists; early on, they were anti-capitalist, anti-big business, and anti-bourgeois. The OWS does resemble some of the latter definitions of National Socialism in that respect.
> 
> However, I am not comparing ideology to ideology, but rather methods to methods. The National Socialists had their bullyboy enforcers; so does OWS. In that, they are very similar.



However, the American definitions of socialism are different from the rest of Europes so we are talking at cross purposes when we say 'socialism' where the Nazis are concerned. Being on the 'right' doesn't mean, here, that one hates communists so isn't something one can use to define 'the right'. Here, the right, especially the extreme right stands for government control over everything, censorship, rascism and no tolerance for dissent, by that standards we judge the Fascist to be on the 'right'. Hatred of communism means nothing as a hatred of *all* opposition is the extreme rights usual stance. 

The OWS has little resemblance to left or right as far as we see, it's anarchist. the Nazis didn't start out this way they had a tight agenda and were more focused on who they destroyed, they wanted to be the Establishment not to destroy it. 

Socialism in Europe isn't anti big business nor is it anti capitalist, not even anti bourgeois.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> However, the American definitions of socialism are different from the rest of Europes so we are talking at cross purposes when we say 'socialism' where the Nazis are concerned. Being on the 'right' doesn't mean, here, that one hates communists so isn't something one can use to define 'the right'. Here, the right, especially the extreme right stands for government control over everything, censorship, rascism and no tolerance for dissent, by that standards we judge the Fascist to be on the 'right'. Hatred of communism means nothing as a hatred of *all* opposition is the extreme rights usual stance.
> 
> The OWS has little resemblance to left or right as far as we see, it's anarchist. the Nazis didn't start out this way they had a tight agenda and were more focused on who they destroyed, they wanted to be the Establishment not to destroy it.
> 
> Socialism in Europe isn't anti big business nor is it anti capitalist, not even anti bourgeois.



OK, fine, but again we're talking about ideology and I'm comparing methods.  The methods they are using (Anonymous to do their 'dirty work' and intimidate people) is the same.  That's my point.  I am not really that interested in the ideology, because OWS is all over the place.  There are anarchists, socialists, communists, unionists, and probably even a few Trotskyists in the mix.  I don't care.  They're criminal scum, and Anonymous is being used as their virtual storm troopers.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 30, 2012)

So, no strong opinions on this one then, Bill?  :lol:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> So, no strong opinions on this one then, Bill?  :lol:



I actually had kind of made my peace with this nonsensical sign-waving and non-bathery; the ignorance of youth, the need to rebel.  Whatever.  But my first worry when I saw OWS arising was that they would turn into the Weather Underground of the SDS; I saw parallels and mentioned them.  The only thing the movement lacked was a charismatic set of leaders and violence.  However, my worries were pooh-poohed; I was being paranoid, it wasn't going to happen.

So how now?  Suddenly those who told me I was being paranoid are either very quiet, or they are actually defending this crap as 'not violent'.  Hurling bottles at police is violent.  Breaking into City Hall and trashing the place is violent.  Anyone who says differently is not truly in touch with reality, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm angry.  I read history.  It repeats.  And we're so stupid, we keep insisting that this time is different.  It's never different, it's the same.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 30, 2012)

5 homicides in oakland over the weekend. Ssems the police already have their hands full and don't need to be dealing with these protester punks that broke into city hall and smashed art projects made by elementary school kids.


----------



## billc (Jan 30, 2012)

The nazi brown shirts, national socialists, were socialists, and the red shirts were socialists.  The theme in Germany was "first brown then red."  Still amazes me that people will acknowledge the horrors of the national socialists and then in the same breath ignore their brothers, the international socialists, who murdered more people in more countries over more time.  Both sets of socialists wanted the government in control to make things either better or more fair.  We've seen how that turned out everywhere it was tried.  Don't worry Tez, it won't sneak up on me.  I don't want the government to have any more control than the smallest amount they need to do what is constitutionally mandated.  You, however, have already ceded to the government your healthcare and ever more of your daily affairs.  Who needs to be more on watch?


I am considering opening up a new business here in chicago and I might be interested in starting franchises in other cities.  This year the G8 is coming to Chicago so I thought, why not make some money.  I would like to set up some stands to sell light weight, throwable, garbage cans, that have the structural integrity to go through a starbucks window in one try.  I am also thinking of selling hoodies and bandanas to help the thugs hide their identities.  Those Guy Fawkes masks seem to be hot ticket items so of course we'll sell those.  Any other ideas to increase sales to these thugs?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 30, 2012)

If all OWS protestors are violent insurrectionists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles.  Same argument.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 30, 2012)

OWS is to peace what triox is to grass.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 30, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> If all OWS protestors are violent insurrectionists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles.  Same argument.



Here is my problem with this statement, empty hands. When the craziness at UC Davis happened, I talked with a number of people within the Occupy movement and tried to say that the movements are different in each area. They made vehement arguments that they were indeed a unified movement. 

And in Seattle, our Occupy movement is NOT committing to peaceful protests and is NOT against violent protest. They can't fly the banner of peace and uniformity only when it OS convenient to do so.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 30, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> If all OWS protestors are violent insurrectionists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles.  Same argument.



Fair point.  However, I don't know how to parse the difference between the violent insurrectionists and the non-violent peaceniks when they're storming City Hall and tossing bottles and improvised explosives at cops.  I say if they're there, and they're not dispersing when told to by lawful authority, then a nightstick upside the punkin' haid is appropriate.  I'm sick of these punks.  If they want to mope around being smelly and waving signs, and don't break the law, I don't care.  I don't like 'em, but I don't care what they do.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The nazi brown shirts, national socialists, were socialists, and the red shirts were socialists. The theme in Germany was "first brown then red." Still amazes me that people will acknowledge the horrors of the national socialists and then in the same breath ignore their brothers, the international socialists, who murdered more people in more countries over more time. Both sets of socialists wanted the government in control to make things either better or more fair. We've seen how that turned out everywhere it was tried. Don't worry Tez, it won't sneak up on me. I don't want the government to have any more control than the smallest amount they need to do what is constitutionally mandated. You, however, have already ceded to the government your healthcare and ever more of your daily affairs. Who needs to be more on watch?
> 
> 
> I am considering opening up a new business here in chicago and I might be interested in starting franchises in other cities. This year the G8 is coming to Chicago so I thought, why not make some money. I would like to set up some stands to sell light weight, throwable, garbage cans, that have the structural integrity to go through a starbucks window in one try. I am also thinking of selling hoodies and bandanas to help the thugs hide their identities. Those Guy Fawkes masks seem to be hot ticket items so of course we'll sell those. Any other ideas to increase sales to these thugs?




Really, you think we ignore things we have greater knowledge of than you? You really have no idea what socialists are, you just think in terms of 'reds under the beds' and 'better dead than red'. Funny how  freedom loving people elect socialist governments and actually get freedom, prosperity, their own businesses as well as big businesses and have less governmental control than your country has. It must be so shocking to you that you prefer to ignore the truth. 
Do you know who the black shirts were and what happened to them?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 31, 2012)

> Do you know who the black shirts were and what happened to them?



They used new Tide with Bleach and ended up an embarrassed bunch of pink shirts?

Sorry, long day, had to make 1 smartass comment.  I'll behave now.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 31, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Really, you think we ignore things we have greater knowledge of than you? You really have no idea what socialists are, you just think in terms of 'reds under the beds' and 'better dead than red'. Funny how  freedom loving people elect socialist governments and actually get freedom, prosperity, their own businesses as well as big businesses and have less governmental control than your country has. It must be so shocking to you that you prefer to ignore the truth.
> Do you know who the black shirts were and what happened to them?



Depends on which blackshirts you refer to.

England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists
Italy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts
Albania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Fascist_Party
India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts_(India)

Personally, when I think of Blackshirts, I think of the UK and Oswald Mosley.  The Blackshirts were banned in 1940 in the UK, and Mosley and followers were imprisoned during WWII.  Afterwards, Mosley reformed his group, under the 'Union Movement' groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Movement  One of the few of Mosley's ideas to have been revived in recent times is the anti-immigrant movement.  Mosley was a notorious anti-Semite, but moreover, he disliked the idea of England losing its national identity and heritage due to the influx of foreign immigrants who brought their own ways and manners and refused to assimilate and become 'English'.  In this last instance, his ideals live on today.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 31, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Really, you think we ignore things we have greater knowledge of than you? You really have no idea what socialists are, you just think in terms of 'reds under the beds' and 'better dead than red'. Funny how  freedom loving people elect socialist governments and actually get freedom, prosperity, their own businesses as well as big businesses and have less governmental control than your country has. It must be so shocking to you that you prefer to ignore the truth.
> Do you know who the black shirts were and what happened to them?



Ignore; double post unintentional.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Depends on which blackshirts you refer to.
> 
> England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists
> Italy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts
> ...



Exactly, and he used violence to put his views across.  I think he would have put the Celts ( Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish) in concentration camps along with everyone else who opposed him including obviously the Jewish population. His Black shirts used violence to silence any who protested against him, beating some very badly. However when he tried to impose himself in London as a prelude to taking over the country completely the people stopped him, literally at the Battle of Cable Street in 1936. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street. I know many people who were there.

The right wing fascist groups who try to carry his message on still try to use violence, Combat 18 the 'military wing' of the National Front and the British National Party turns up regularly at various events such as other peoples demos and try to cause problems. We are still fighting those fascist and their wishes to turn this country into something vile.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/far-right-tower-hamlets-racism


The subject of 'English' identity is a interesting and convuluted one, it's far too big a subject to derail this thread with. I will say though that the British are a 'mongrel' race, if race we be, we have taken in strangers to our shores since time immemorial, there is no 'pureness' no blond haired, blues eyed ideal here. we still say the the fascists and their ilk 'shall not pass'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 31, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The subject of 'English' identity is a interesting and convuluted one, it's far too big a subject to derail this thread with. I will say though that the British are a 'mongrel' race, if race we be, we have taken in strangers to our shores since time immemorial, there is no 'pureness' no blond haired, blues eyed ideal here. we still say the the fascists and their ilk 'shall not pass'.



Please note I was not the one leading the charge to derail the thread.  I was talking about the similarity in methods between OWS & Anonymous versus the Nazis & the SS.  Someone kept insisting we talk about whether or not the SS was left-wing or right-wing like that matters when doing a comparison of methods.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please note I was not the one leading the charge to derail the thread. I was talking about the similarity in methods between OWS & Anonymous versus the Nazis & the SS. Someone kept insisting we talk about whether or not the SS was left-wing or right-wing like that matters when doing a comparison of methods.




I know it wasn't you! I think it's important to have things put in proper persepective, it's also important to know or find out who or what is actually behind the OWS violence (as opposed to who are just backing the OWS protests). If you are to stop the violence you have to cut the correct head off, if you don't you will be fighting a hydra. If Bili is constantly blaming the left for every sin under the sun and others do the same you are going to have a hard time stopping the movement and putting an end to the violence. If you refuse to see that the right can be equally culpable you risk escalation of violence as not only police clash with groups but the various groups clash with other. 

Also throwaway comments purporting to be amusing at the expense of those who have suffered and killed by said right wing regimes are signs that some aren't taking the situation as seriously as it should be. Unless of course they want the anarchists to run the country? That would be interesting.


The right wing Nazis didn't start with the same methodology as the OWS, they worked far more insidiously and with Teutonic efficiency. The left wing communists ( not the socialists) also work in a methodical way, the OWS is the brand name of anarchists who actually don't subscribe to any particular political agenda whioch leaves them open to being manipulated. I'm not spouting conspiracy theories here but having protestors like that smashing up, for some a hated enemy's country, has to be something they can be pleased about. I've no doubt your security services are busy conjuring with this investigation right now.


----------

