Looks like a concerted effort by certain parties to seriously fuck with the movement.

We already know the answer to that.

Not the issues, not what Occupy is about, nothing that the American people need to know to make changes. Looks like it's up to the internet and one to one again.

be hired by the corporations to do this...

A few causing problems for the whole group?

watch for agent provocateurs... remember Eric the Red?

Didn't some try to implicate the movement when shots were fired at the WH?

Yet endlessly repeated in the manner of the best propaganda that money can buy.

Imagine the hate radio and the corporatist cable news spin on this, SF and Oakland tonight...

They'll be as orgasmic on this as Rush dissing Fluke.

Vietnam Vets Against the War. Just like Poppy Bush had the DiGiulio brothers burning flags in cities he was scheduled to appear for his campaign in 88. Just like O'Keefe-Breitbart operations. They ALWAYS show up when a movement or campaign from the left shows signs of success.

Movements sustained themselves in spite of all the dirty tricks being played. I wish ACORN had not gone away in the face of what O'Keefe did. They had been around for so many years and their loss is keenly felt. Occupy will have to get more organized somehow to counter, right now things seem chaotic.

Last edited Fri May 4, 2012, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree. Although I'm far from being a member of this movement, I can't help but be a bit excited and proud of it. It also seems, and I might be wrong, that they aren't as idealistic as some would have me believe. I get the sense that this movement has both feet planted in reality and on the very real forces and tactics of the opposition. THATS WHAT I'M PROUD OF!

how lovely

These anarchist fools and blac bloc troublemakers ARE making the rest of the Occupiers, who are doing some very important things of benefit to society, look BAD.

You can whistle in the dark and insist otherwise, but that won't change the perceptions across America. CNN is calling the bridge bozos "Part of the Occupy Movement"---and that kind of characterization is just not helpful. Someone purporting to be a "spokesman" for Occupy Cleveland is actually calling these people "Fringe Members" of Occupy.

Repudiation of these idiots is the way to go.

Show me a post where you actually support Occupy, and not this "ideals of Occupy" bullshit. As an Occupier, I smell you "concerned" types a mile away.

I don't give two shits about what CNN says. They lie about Occupy as does the rest of the corporate MSM. Perceptions are formed by those in power & they'll never give Occupy a fair shake.

...and neither will you.

matters (particularly when you are completely wrong--as you are in this instance).

That's a very rightwing and authoritarian trait, ascribing motives and attitudes to people you don't even know, without even attempting to have a civil discussion with them--but I guess you have just gotta be a toughie and "throw down" so I'll know just how cool and serious you are, could that be it? Or are you simply routinely rude?

And you don't have to care what CNN says--it's not about YOU. No matter how much you might think it is. You already have formed your POV. CNN isn't speaking to you, they are speaking to people with varying opinions who do not have a relationship with the movement.

You have one of those nice, accusatory, insult-flinging days, now! Maybe pick up Dale Carnegie's book and give it a read...couldn't hurt and maybe might help.

That "you're a big bully" shtick is so typical. Get another act.

I"ll ask again for your praiseworthy posts on Occupy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2189871#2190014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2386603#2386673

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2039124#2039198

You're pissed because I didn't understand the finger thing? Please.

And you're mad because I love my family? Good grief.

You really need to get off that high horse before you get altitude sickness. I don't have an act, but it is very clear that you do, and it is very sad, pathetic, angry and small.

North Koreans like mindless cheerleading too. A movement with depth can withstand sincerely offered suggestions for improvement. One of my suggestions, had it been taken, would have enabled the festivities in Cleveland to continue apace.

I've been urging Occupy to dump and decisively disavow those anarchist black bloc troublemakers for some time, now.

If you have more snark, spew it out and get it over with--I find your conduct disruptive and childish, and I've got better things to do than talk with someone who has their closed mind made up.

It's okay I can take your anger.

I know it not "about me", it's about Occupy. And since I"m still U4ik over the overwhelming success of M1GS (despite the MSM & the naysayers) I will no longer waste my time with you on this.

After all everyone here in the Occupy forum knows where you stand.

Have a wonderful night....mwah!!!

And you really cannot read people--or their posts, apparently.

I'm happy as a clam, watching the DAILY SHOW--no "anger" at all. You might want to stop projecting your irritable attitudes on others--it doesn't work out too well for you, as you have demonstrated in this little subthread.

Also, they are very clearly repudiated by in the OP by Occupy Cleveland and Occupy in general has repudiated violence and destruction of property.

troublemakers to leave, while filming them and putting it up on the net, they'll pretty much know they aren't welcome.

The "that's not cool, man" paradigm of the sixties doesn't work in this day and age. You've got to get up in their grille--non-violently, of course, but with extreme purpose. Remove their little hoodies and disguises so we can see them--that'll help, too.

The repudiation of which you speak has not been anywhere near clear enough. When those jerks in Oakland destroyed that model in the city hall made in 1927, and burned the flag (after stealing it--not even bringing their own, which would have been constitutionally protected--but theft? That's just cheap-ass assholery...) they associated themselves with the effort. Had they been swarmed by a bunch of people who weren't putting up with their shit, and chased off, it would have helped. But they weren't. How do we know? A very few people were able--quite easily, too--to ruin it for the rest of the crowd.

Mob confrontation and violence. I'm sorry, but how is this a better answer than expecting the police to a better job?

I am not suggesting anyone beat these little shitheads up. I'm suggesting confronting their asses when they start to instigate or commit crimes. I am suggesting that their lives be made miserable and unsustainable in their goal to create shit. What, you're afraid of hurting their little feelings? Please. Should we all also look the other way when some little old lady is getting mugged, so as not to be engaging in "unlawful force?" Good grief.

I just can't figure out why anyone would defend a group of jerks who are--like it or not--making the peaceful demonstrators look bad and disrupting the focus of demonstrations. I don't get it. I think if the goal is to make middle America have a bad view of Occupy, those guys are real Heckuvajob Brownies.

If I learned they were all a bunch of registered Republican, Brietbart-style operatives crapping in the Occupy punch, I would not be at all surprised.

The police would separate the groups.

Your wishful thinking is noted, but I doubt it is practicable, if it was, we would be submitted to Neo-Nazi parades.

Yes, those evil police will separate people, and no one will know, unless someone carves the events on a cave wall--because we have no way of recording these events.

And what might happen when the police separate the groups? Why, the press--that M$M-- will swoop in to cover that, and they'll get interviews--not from the disruptors throwing shit and hiding their faces and running away, but from the purposeful Occupy-types saying "We're not about that violence, we repudiate that, and that's why we were identifying the people, not associated with us, who were misbehaving and trying to ruin our demonstration here. You see, we're about (insert message that illustrates purpose of protest for that day). That's why we're here."

As I said below, Occupy isn't full of stupid people. Surely they can get together and execute a public relations plan. I am a bit surpised that you are so passive and negative--I'd think you would be a bit more upbeat about the possibilities?

Hasn't anyone noticed yet that the union-organized Occupy protests, with their signs and routes and press/media availabilities and support, get good coverage? That has something to do with the fact that unions understand media messaging and know how to work the press.

If you really think "le sigh" that the police will just take over and let their message predominate, well, you--not ME--are the one saying "Everyone give up and go home--those "Neo-Nazis" (and you Godwin'd first, FYI) have won. It's HOPELESS." That's what I am getting from YOU.

As someone else sagely noted, defending every asshole who claims to be part of OCCUPY is dead dumb, and a little "message discipline" would benefit the movement.

And people who NOTICE this and comment on it are NOT the enemy. The sooner a small cadre of unquestioning defenders (who are not the majority--but they are vocal) realize that criticism is not always a bad thing, the better for Occupy. It needs to take this shit to the next level.

...but I doubt you're ever out there in the streets.

being made. It's a desperate attempt to try to get the focus off the issues and onto a person, that person being me. Sorry, no sale. I saw that coming a mile away.

I'll indulge you for a second, though. I'm not at all angry. Every day is a singular joy and delight for me. I welcome the dawn. I live life to the fullest and appreciate each and every day I enjoy on this earth.

I want OCCUPY to succeed, and they won't succeed if they fail to segregate themselves in decisive fashion from disruptive and destructive people who can only be described as assholes.

FWIW, I did my time "out there in the streets." I speak from experience.

Do keep shooting the messengers, and see where that gets you. "My way or the highway" or, to quote the Shrub, "Yer either with us, or agin' us" is never a good plan.

I explained very clearly why your proposal wasn't reasonable (it requires the protestors to an exercise an authority they don't possess), but clearly you have an agenda.

I'm not doing any of that. I was trying to discuss a topic with someone who wants to fling shit at me, apparently, rather than discuss the topic like an adult.

You have one of those nice days, now, ellisonz--and learn some manners, maybe. At least try to be less obvious when you get personal to avoid effectively debating a topic. You won't have many good discussions if you spend all your time trying to get personal with people who differ from you.

You didn't explain a damn thing--you just made snarky comments about me and were rather rudely dismissive with your "le sigh" foolishness. Bad form.

You are quite welcome to your opinions, but don't expect me to continue to engage you when you act badly, as you're doing now.

Occupy does not have the legal authority to expel any group from a public space, and the distinct impression I get is that you have not been at a street protest lately. That's not bad manners and that's not avoiding the debate topic. That's stating the obvious.

You're saying that Occupy can OCCUPY, but they can't exert any moral authority.

Isn't the entire idea to exert a bit of MORAL authority? To work for social justice?

You'll refuse to move at the request of a police officer and risk pepper spray (gee, IMPRACTICAL, ILLEGAL--but gosh, no fear there, is there?), but you'll step aside, turn away and do NOTHING while a shithead breaks windows, lights fires, commits acts of vandalism and besmirches the reputation of the effort?

Please.

Why not let the mugger steal the purse of the old lady or the pickpockets run rampant--after all, that's not your job, either, to help your fellow citizens out--no Good Samaritans need apply, I suppose. Whatever you do, don't put yourself out there. Don't speak up, don't say anything, don't let your better nature rule the day--that would be "overstepping your bounds" is that it? How lame.


I guess it's easier to say "I can't" or "I won't" when it comes to doing a gut check about what is right and what isn't.

I'm not impressed.

"gut check" - This isn't an armed conflict, and I'd be damned if I tried to provoke one. Non-violence is the way.

I'm not impressed with people who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

OCCUPY is all ABOUT "moral authority." Good grief.

And how many times do I have to say "No violence" before you understand that what I mean is "No violence?" Why do you keep edging back towards violence when I have repeatedly eschewed it in this little conversation?

Many people, armed solely with moral authority, not lifting a finger in anger, can turn back a few bullies intent on chaos. You do it with numbers, you do it by making your disapproval clear. You use WORDS.

That's my point, the point you keep refusing to see--for reasons quite unclear to me.

You advocate confronting violent disruptors with "moral authority," "not lifting a finger." As if yelling platitudes at them will convince them of the error of their ways and they will slink off, tails between their legs. Ha!

You've never laid out what you mean by large numbers of Occupiers exerting "moral authority." How, exactly, does that work? We stand around and yell at them? We have a debate? How, even with superior numbers, do we force disruptors to cease and desist, "while not lifting a finger"?

Occupy groups around the country teach tactics for dealing with disruptors--distancing, isolating, recording, and calling police attention to their actions. Those are the things that Occupiers can do that can work.

The notion that all it takes is a superior number of Occupiers exerting moral--but nonviolent--authority is ludicrous. Anyone who has been in the streets can tell you that the disruptors can't be stopped that way. Some may be deterred--but only briefly--when they see Occupiers recording them. But most will only be stopped when they are confronted physically. And that's a job for the police, not for nonviolent Occupiers.

I notice that the troublemakers--the vandals, the spray painters, etc., are usually six to ten assholes, tops--and hundreds stand around WATCHING THEM. There may be a bit of tut-tutting, or "Don't do that, maaaaan," but there's no strategy to get between them and their targets.

If they surrounded these jerks, individually, cutting them off from their other disruptive pals, and demanded to know what they were doing, their chaos could be halted. What's one jerk with a rock going to do when he's surrounded by a hundred or more people, isolated from his little pals, and all of those people are filming him and demanding to know why he's acting like an asshole?

...when you characterize them as "tut-tutting' and saying, "Don't do that, maaaaan." That characterization is false and demeaning.

And merely demanding to know what disruptors are doing would halt their chaos? Really?

Interesting that you mention the effectiveness of recording disruptors--something that Occupiers have been doing from the very beginning. We have occupiers with cameras and cells as well as livestreamers, and they are alerted whenever a disruption occurs. You're really re-inventing the wheel here.

Pondering this challenge from home is one thing. But those who have been in the streets have been facing this challenge for a long time, and they have well-developed tactics, already tested in the streets, to deal with disruptors in nonviolent ways.

It's not easy, and not always successful (especially when the police respond against Occupiers but not against disruptors). But, whether or not you are aware of it, Occupiers do have a well-developed and systematic plan to meet the challenges posed by disruptors who intrude on nonviolent protests.

Please consider: That this is nothing new to Occupy protesters; that reactive tactics have been honed and tested over time; and that Occupiers may not be quite as clueless as you may imagine...maaaaan.

I have watched those videos--no one gets up close and confronts these people--if a large group did it, they wouldn't have to do anything more than swarm and demand answers.

Why is it OK to stand up to the police and not to people tarnishing 'the brand?'

Please consider that.

As for tactics being tested over time, you're preaching to the choir. I was part of both civil rights and Vietnam War protests. I'm not an armchair quarterback, here. I know what works, and what doesn't, from experience.

Swarming and demanding has been tried-and it failed. Even large numbers of Occupiers can't make someone do or not do something.

Occupiers DO stand up to disruptors--with their cameras and with nonviolent tactics to isolate them and call attention to their actions.

Black bloc is relatively new, perhaps something that wasn't, in the days of the VN and civil rights protests, the organized tactic that it is today. It's not just a problem of controlling protest participants who may get a little out of line.

These are organized disruptors who are determined to act out in ways that are intentionally and directly contrary to the intentions and goals of the Occupy movement. They don't respond to castigation or shaming. And the superior numbers of Occupiers means nothing to them when they know that Occupiers are committed to nonviolent action.

Please consider our responses--mine, and that of ellisonz. We two have actually marched in the streets together in Occupy L.A. actions. Believe me, if anybody offered a better idea for dealing with this challenge we would glom onto it gratefully.

If people are willing to stand up and protest disruptive conduct, there are ways to make that kind of action more effective. It requires coordination and a Standard Operating Procedure any time someone from an encampment sees an intruder-disruptor starting to cause shit. One way is simple isolation, and you can do that--with or without the castigation and shaming--with large numbers. Separate the cretins from one another with the sheer weight of dozens and dozens of people and they'll have a harder time playing their games. Rat 'em out to the cops--do it without remorse. They did this kind of thing in Boston, working with the police, and while everything wasn't always rosy (the police didn't want them setting up a kitchen in Dewey, e.g.), they called the police to get rid of disruptors and drug dealers, and the encampment "regulars" had a good relationship with the police that was based on trust and respect.

I have considered your responses. I am glad that you think that the Occupy people can in fact do something about these rock-throwing, paint-flinging, fire-starting nitwits. I am not the doggone enemy here. I think that occupiers, acting in concert with previously discussed advance coordination, can play a role in slowing down these jerks who ruin it for everyone else. Do it often enough, loudly enough, make it a point at every media availability to distinguish chaos-makers from change-makers, and the word will go forth.

The media likes pictures. Pictures of Occupiers standing up against rock-throwing would-be rioters are every bit as good as shots of some jerk throwing rocks through a window.

Occupy needs to work the media more effectively, as well as "own" the theme of the day, and not give it away to jerks who don't care one whit about social justice or basic services for our citizens (and then gripe that the media covered the rioters and not them). The media isn't going to pick through the shit to find the nuggets of corn, they're going to report on the shit--if it bleeds, it leads; the trick is to prevent the bloodshed in the first place. The goal needs to be to prevent the shit from happening while presenting the plate of corn to the media in a compelling manner. Someone who understands public relations would be very helpful to Occupy encampments, particularly the larger ones that are having trouble with these vandalizing jerks.

Occupy does not have the physical power to stop this, the police do, why don't you ask why they're more busy attacking unarmed protestors than stopping the black bloc types.

Hard to believe that these points have to be repeated. At some point, you either get it or you never will.

Looking forward to marching with you in the streets again soon, brother.

One thing I know about the black bloc types is that they are organized. The idea that you're going to surround them, forcibly remove their face coverings, and mock them without creating a violent situation is laughable. I mean look at the lengths the police will go to protect Neo-Nazis:

I catch shit for even mentioning that this stuff is problematic, like I'm the enemy for NOTICING that chaos-makers "own" the message of the day.

I am not "advocating...aggressive confrontation likely to provoke violence." I am advocating getting between the chaos-makers and their targets in such a way as to render it difficult for them to do what they want to do. Nuns do this kind of shit all the time, and they don't "aggressively confront" anyone. Mothers do this when they want to know what happened to their loved ones in countries where family members go missing on a regular basis.

I'm also recommending ratting disruptors out to the police. This requires a bit of adult behavior, to include getting permits for marches, not goading and baiting, and establishing trusting relationships with city figures. I'm recommending coming up with a Public Relations plan that includes police coordination, media coordination, and advance planning to deal with these kinds of jerks.

You have a choice--you can let the chaos-makers "own" the media story with their acts of senseless violence , or you can own it yourself. You can't own it for yourselves unless you ACT, though. Otherwise, it'll be "lather-rinse-repeat." Occupy comes up with a protest to highlight "X" issue, the chaos-makers come in and cause shit, and the media makes no mention of "X" issue but instead talks about the fires set and the blood on the sidewalk (which is the more compelling story, to their mind). How much longer will this go on before people are realizing that their message will never get out until those jerks are neutralized?

If Occupy is leaderless/organic, a website--even one called "occupywallst.org" can't purport to speak with any "real" authority. Who wrote that? Who agreed to it? It's got to come from the groups that are dealing with the disruptors--not someone behind a computer in NYC who isn't dealing with what's happening in, say, Oakland. If we are going to start taking words on a screen from an "Occupy" website or Facebook page as gospel, maybe it's time that Occupy think about changing their structural focus and getting a few "spokespeople," if not leaders, to articulate their message.

The Arab Spring paradigm might not resonate as time goes on, either. Sure, regimes were brought down in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and so on, but the cure is, often as not, worse than the disease. And in cases where Arab Spring tactics failed (Bahrain, Syria, Iran, e.g.) the repression has been fucking brutal. I think a "social justice" theme might sell better as the effort moves forward, but that's tangential to the essential discussion, here.

Do you know about the 300 people illegally kettled (and arrested) at the YMCA? Do you know that the police attacked protesters over & over the whole day? Do know anything about Oakland other than "flag-burning...bad"?

You don't even try to understand. You pull some MSM headline out of your a$$ to attack Occupy...yet again.

Why are you here?

Cops are brutal against occupy.

That doesn't make smashing windows and buring flags a good idea.

Whether one thinks it is justified or not, it is not a successful protest tactic. There is no sense in defending it.

It gets MSM headlines and then that's the only thing people know.

Instead of "Protesters Burn Flag" a much better headline for us would be "Police Attack Non-Violent Demonstrators".

Remember that UC Davis pepper spray cop?
Remember Tony Bolongna attacking those girls in New York?

Those are the incidents we remember as successes. The MSM is just looking for negative stuff on Occupy so why give them the opportunity?.

Even trying to take over that empty civic center in Oakland, and the cops excessive reaction, made some very good videos. The MSM might have been compeled to cover it. But instead they had the flag burning incident and that's really all they needed to make a shitty news show.

I know it's impossible for a leaderless resistence, but Occupy could really benefit from a little message discipline.

Occupy is not all about defending occupiers no matter what they do, and justifying it based on the behavior of the police. Sometimes protecting Occupy means protecting it from infiltrators and assholes who want to make it look bad on TV.

The MSM is never going to give a fair shake to Occupy. They are mouthpieces for the 1%.

Here ya go: http://vimeo.com/36256273

Saw it when it came out, just watched it again.

To your point that MSM will never give us a fair shake and are the mouthpiece for the 1%...

Yeah I get your point and to a certain extent agree. But the MSM is not monolithic and we have the ability to partially influence what they do.

There are progressive and liberal media that have a positive attitude toward Occupy. They want to cover us but can't support "violence" like breaking things.

Media is kind of a food chain. First get positive coverage on small friendly outlets like Democracy Now, Majority Report, Citizen Radio, Thom Hartmann, etc. If it's a compeling story it might get to the next level. That would be like the shows on Current TV like Young Turks, etc. From there MSNBC will pick it up. Lawrence O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, RachelMaddow, Ed Schultz. Those shows are sympathetic to the movement and will give positive coverage if we give them an opportunity. They have in the past. And on up the chain to CNN, etc.

It is also good when stories go viral natually, saturating all interwebs, bypassing the MSM entirely. But really even in that context, a little positive media coverage goes a long way.

You're 100% right that Occupy is not going to get a fair shake. Any little thing, like one lone person breaking a window, gets blown way out of proportion. And any amount of violence by police seems to be overlooked.

There is a way to get positive coverage by working up the media food chain, but it would take a certain level of organization and discipline. And/or luck. Or not? I don't really know, I'm just saying ideas and reading threads. Not trying to suggest I know exactly what's best.

In the 1990s and 2000s when we protested trade deals and banks, we made a mistake of having not enough serious media strategy. It's a challenge when you're working with loosely organized groups.

I agree that we need (and do) get positive coverage from those who will listen. Shows like Democracy Now & Thom Hartman's show are good to Occupy. The problem comes when the corporate media covers Occupy. Even MSNBC (corporate media) is cold when it comes to Occupy. How much coverage did you see on MSNBC on May 1st? Not much...maybe a passing mention on Occupy's big comeback...are you kidding me?!? We gave many press-releases (I was involved in crafting one) before & after May 1st. We got a few seconds on the "most liberal" network (MSNBC).

This is what Occupy is up against.

Quite frankly, we won't get a fair shake from the M$M until we reach critical mass. That will take time (maybe years). In the meantime, we have to remain vigilant and speak the TRUTH about Occupy. The power structure will try to do their best to make sure we never reach "critical mass." That is the job of the M$M...they carry water for the power structure until popular sentiment makes them change their tactics.

I hope this day comes, but in the meantime we have to make sure the truth gets out there. Even if it is some knucklehead like that annoying U4ikLefty dude on DU

Peace
-U4ikLefty

You don't think that the news goes to the most dramatic and picture worthy events? Why would you not think that the images of people breaking things and lighting things on fire would be more interesting than the lumbering round-up of protesters by police, sporadically conducted throughout the day. You're a news manager for a network news station, now, and you are scheduling your half hour broadcast and OCCUPY gets thirty seconds--what pictures get put up?

I DO understand, you're the one who isn't living in the real world. That snarky $ you put in M$M is the bloody truth--network television lives and dies on advertising revenue. This isn't a surprise, you know.

Like I said--I would not be at all surprised to learn that those hoodie wearing disruptors were registered Republicans.

Look what the news covered. Cui bono? Occupy? Or not?

Occupy needs to understand that it lives and dies by that M$M and Occupy HAS THE POWER to shape the news. Paris Hilton and the Kardashians shape the news all the time. Surely the members of OCCUPY are at least as smart as those "celebrities?"

You're telling me hundreds of people with purpose are helpless against a few assholes with matches and fists? You're telling me no OCCUPY group is sharp enough to understand how to coordinate and execute a public relations plan?

I'd say you're the one with little faith, frankly.

You took M$M spin & used it to criticize Occupy. If they are crap, why use them to make your "point"?

Then you try to compare Occupy to the Kardashians & Paris Hilton....ridiculous.

BTW, if you can find where Occupy has ever endorsed violence please provide a link.

Try reading for context on occasion--it helps. You plainly missed my point ENTIRELY.

weak.

You are ignorant about Occupy.

BTW, still waiting for those pro-Occupy posts from you.

This is a discussion board, where adults "discuss." People who "throw down" with "Waaah, that's all you got? You're ignorant!" are name-calling and childish and not worth my time.

I've made plenty of pro-Occupy posts. You linked to threads that contained them. Oh, if only you could read contextually!

Stop running your mouth and do some searching, if you really care. Or don't.

If you are an example of the "Occupy" mindset--and I frankly do not think you, with your confrontational and rude attitude, are--there's trouble ahead. Good thing you don't represent the majority.

Try being less rude, as well--you just might find that to be helpful. I don't see you being put in charge of media at an encampment any time soon!

You throw a rock & then act insulted when someone dares to call you out.

I'm quite aware of your style.

This isn't about me or my "rudeness". It's about your ignorant comments on Occupy that are the issue.

...and still no pro-Occupy posts.

I'm ashamed that I live in the same state as these idiots :/
The Occupy Cleveland Movement was weak from the start
Why does Ohio have to ruin everything?

Yes that was a crying shame. I never understood why there wasn't more of a backlash on that. I thought it was called out but it just didn't seem to matter.

The guy's basically on long-term probation with the sword of Damoclethes over his head. One violation sends him to prison until he's an old fucking man and destroys the credibility of everybody he's ever worked with.

Why has nobody ever tried to trap him violating his probation on camera? It's a public service...it's not like it even requires a real sting, he can't leave NJ. He's a regular in certain scenes in NYC. There were rumors of his trying to infiltrate and disrupt at OWS.

Snap a pic, mail it to the judge. Game Fucking Over, James...see you in 25 years.

Our military does this all the time: Blow stuff up!!

The military is full of 20 somethings with these desires, so why be surprised there are some civilians who want the same?

All the protestations of Occupy here on these pages reminds me of how we democrats have been horn-swoggled into fighting each other instead of fighting together.

We shall not overcome!! Not fighting like this. Oh well.