The extent of the occupy wallstreet movement.. in a word WOW
He was asked to speak (he wasn't there intending to speak) and they didn't silence him, the only told him that he would have to wait until their GA meeting was done (which includes things like figuring out how to keep their space clean, feed themselves, or plan marches).
Despite all that the initial vote was something like 400-2 in favor of him speaking, but they were operating under a consensus model so they obeyed that.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
What's so amazing about how they did it?
1. The bloc operates by consensus. 2. They were in the middle of their General Assembly. 3. They held a vote to see if they wanted to interrupt the GA for Lewis to speak. 4. There was not a consensus. 5. Ergo, John Lewis was not allowed to speak during the GA.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
What's so amazing about how they did it?
1. The bloc operates by consensus. 2. They were in the middle of their General Assembly. 3. They held a vote to see if they wanted to interrupt the GA for Lewis to speak. 4. There was not a consensus. 5. Ergo, John Lewis was not allowed to speak during the GA.
I see nothing extraordinary here.
Repeating what everyone said making everything 10x longer than it had to be, using spirit fingers instead of clapping i could go on, MIC CHECK!
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
What's so amazing about how they did it?
1. The bloc operates by consensus. 2. They were in the middle of their General Assembly. 3. They held a vote to see if they wanted to interrupt the GA for Lewis to speak. 4. There was not a consensus. 5. Ergo, John Lewis was not allowed to speak during the GA.
I see nothing extraordinary here.
Repeating what everyone said making everything 10x longer than it had to be, using spirit fingers instead of clapping i could go on
Repeating what everyone is saying is the only way to make sure that a crowd of that size can hear what is being said without a large sound system, which they are not allowed to use in many of the placed where they have gathered. It also makes sure that the crowd stays democratic and non-hierarchical by allowing anyone to speak as long as the crowd as a whole agrees to repeat what he is saying, instead of just the guy with the mic being the only one able to speak.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
What's so amazing about how they did it?
1. The bloc operates by consensus. 2. They were in the middle of their General Assembly. 3. They held a vote to see if they wanted to interrupt the GA for Lewis to speak. 4. There was not a consensus. 5. Ergo, John Lewis was not allowed to speak during the GA.
I see nothing extraordinary here.
Repeating what everyone said making everything 10x longer than it had to be, using spirit fingers instead of clapping i could go on
Repeating what everyone is saying is the only way to make sure that a crowd of that size can hear what is being said without a large sound system, which they are not allowed to use in many of the placed where they have gathered.
If no one could hear then how come they could repeat it? And what about the guy with the megaphone? That seems good enough to be heard with.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
What's so amazing about how they did it?
1. The bloc operates by consensus. 2. They were in the middle of their General Assembly. 3. They held a vote to see if they wanted to interrupt the GA for Lewis to speak. 4. There was not a consensus. 5. Ergo, John Lewis was not allowed to speak during the GA.
I see nothing extraordinary here.
Repeating what everyone said making everything 10x longer than it had to be, using spirit fingers instead of clapping i could go on
Repeating what everyone is saying is the only way to make sure that a crowd of that size can hear what is being said without a large sound system, which they are not allowed to use in many of the placed where they have gathered.
If no one could hear then how come they could repeat it? And what about the guy with the megaphone? That seems good enough to be heard with.
Good God. Because the people who you hear repeating it are RIGHT NEXT to the center. They repeat it so that people who are further away can hear it, and repeat it in turn.
They are doing the weird hand thing in lieu of clapping because clapping keeps people from hearing what is being said.
A megaphone does a very poor job at projecting sound to the sides. Thus, they need a way to make sure that people who the speaker is not facing can hear what is being said.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
What's so amazing about how they did it?
1. The bloc operates by consensus. 2. They were in the middle of their General Assembly. 3. They held a vote to see if they wanted to interrupt the GA for Lewis to speak. 4. There was not a consensus. 5. Ergo, John Lewis was not allowed to speak during the GA.
I see nothing extraordinary here.
Repeating what everyone said making everything 10x longer than it had to be, using spirit fingers instead of clapping i could go on
Repeating what everyone is saying is the only way to make sure that a crowd of that size can hear what is being said without a large sound system, which they are not allowed to use in many of the placed where they have gathered.
If no one could hear then how come they could repeat it? And what about the guy with the megaphone? That seems good enough to be heard with.
Good God. Because the people who you hear repeating it are RIGHT NEXT to the center. They repeat it so that people who are further away can hear it, and repeat it in turn.
They are doing the weird hand thing in lieu of clapping because clapping keeps people from hearing what is being said.
A megaphone does a very poor job at projecting sound to the sides. Thus, they need a way to make sure that people who the speaker is not facing can hear what is being said.
Any further questions?
It would sound disjointed instead of a resounding repeat if it was rippled and there are not that many people there for it to be needed, it is in Atlanta not on wall street.
On October 13 2011 18:32 zalz wrote: Mass murder, outlawing political groups.
Who knows why people haven't bought into your plan yet, it's really a mystery.
Ignoring people dying in a revolution being called 'mass murder', it all happened in Egypt. It all happens in other revolutions. Freedom isn't won without bloodshed. The freedoms we have in the west right now were paid for with blood by our forefathers. Governments and elites don't give out civil liberties for free.
The ruling class is already ridiculing this movement. You really think Obama is going to be "Ok ok, I got it all wrong. Tell me what to do and I will carry it out. And yes now I will also magically get it through congress."?
If this movement dies out another one will emerge when the country is even worse off.
What is you alternative scenario? The military is going to step in with a coup? Both parties magically disappear tomorrow?
The natural state of humans is chaos. Western civilization and a peaceful society are the exception. Their existence needs an explanation. When people take to the streets in large numbers mob mentality can easily take over. If you look at the statistics enough people for a revolution are seriously hurting right now. And it looks like it will only get worse.
The US doesn't have a functioning democracy or a functioning press. There has been a huge gap between government policy and public opinion in the US for a long time. And all the major media are corporate owned and serve corporate interests. There is free speech, but that is not enough.
I think Bolivia is more democratic than the US. The US presidential elections must be one of the most broken in the world. You vote for two candidates that are both rich older male members of the governing elite and that have basically the same views on all major issues and that will serve the private sector no matter what. And the one who wins is determined about how marketable a candidate is and how much money there is to market. Real politics never ever enter the picture. In In fact, candidates have a billion dollars to spend to deliberately try and make sure that the voters don't even know the positions of the candidates on certain issues. It's better to only market an image. That way the voter can just project his or her own views on the candidate. Bush and the Kyoto protocol was a good example. People thought Kyoto was a good idea. People thought Bush was a nice guy. Nice guys have good ideas. So they all assumed Bush was in favour of Kyoto. They couldn't conceive of that Bush would be against such a sensible plan. This is true against the board.
And even if you elected a president that wants to carry out the will of the common people, the unelected bureaucrats make this near impossible. The president is as much a slave of the system as everyone else is. Obama can't even carry out the minor promises he made. He just doesn't have the power to do so.
Presidents can only start to do good things when they are out of office. Look at Carter, Clinton and both the Bushes.
Also, you are an immoral person for dishonestly projecting on me what I warn against and then attacking me personally. Shameful person.
For all of those wondering why I and other people have said that the OWS movement is dangerous, I present you Exhibit A. There are a lot of OWS protesters that think like this guy. It's a movement that is prone to being derailed and co-opted by far left extremists. This crap is not the solution to America's problems.
Can we beat this dead horse any more? Do you think he represents anybody? He is saying that OWS is doing it wrong because they're peaceful, and violence is the only way to change things. I don't know if you're out there talking to people at OWS rallies, but it's going to take a lot more than some nut on a YouTube video or in a Starcraft 2 forum to convince anyone that the movement is about violence.
The debate over the natural state of humans is a very old one. Obviously Suisen is a more Hobbesian thinker, in that sense at least, but interestingly many prominent anarchists over the years have believed that human nature is inherently cooperative. Some, like Peter Kropotkin, were categorically opposed to any violence at all.
EMERGENCY CALL TO ACTION: Keep Bloomberg and Kelly From Evicting #OWS
Posted Oct. 13, 2011, 2:14 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
EMERGENCY #OWS EVICTION DEFENSE: Prevent the forcible closure of Occupy Wall Street
Tell Bloomberg: Don't Foreclose the Occupation. NEED MASS TURN-OUT: 6AM FRIDAY EVICTION DEFENSE **SHOW UP AT MIDNIGHT**
This is an emergency situation. Please take a minute to read this, and please take action and spread the word far and wide.
Occupy Wall Street is gaining momentum, with occupation actions now happening in cities across the world.
But last night Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD notified Occupy Wall Street participants about plans to “clean the park”—the site of the Wall Street protests—tomorrow starting at 7am. "Cleaning" was used as a pretext to shut down “Bloombergville” a few months back, and to shut down peaceful occupations elsewhere.
Bloomberg says that the park will be open for public usage following the cleaning, but with a notable caveat: Occupy Wall Street participants must follow the “rules”.
NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has said that they will move in to clear us and we will not be allowed to take sleeping bags, tarps, personal items or gear back into the park.
This is it—this is their attempt to shut down #OWS for good. PLEASE TAKE ACTION
1) Call 311 (or +1 (212) NEW-YORK if you're out of town) and tell Bloomberg to support our right to assemble and to not interfere with #OWS.
2) Come to #OWS TONIGHT AT MIDNIGHT to defend the occupation from eviction.
For those of you who plan to help us hold our ground—which we hope will be all of you—make sure you understand the possible consequences. Be prepared to not get much sleep. Be prepared for possible arrest. Make sure your items are together and ready to go (or already out of the park.) We are pursuing all possible strategies; this is a message of solidarity.
Click here to learn nonviolent tactics for holding ground.
Occupy Wall Street is committed to keeping the park clean and safe—we even have a Sanitation Working Group whose purpose this is. We are organizing major cleaning operations today and will do so regularly.
If Bloomberg truly cares about sanitation here he should support the installation of portopans and dumpsters. #OWS allies have been working to secure these things to support our efforts.
We know where the real dirt is: on Wall Street. Billionaire Bloomberg is beholden to bankers.
We won't allow Bloomberg and the NYPD to foreclose our occupation. This is an occupation, not a permitted picnic.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
The wow wasn't really against what they did, but how they went about doing it. But with that being said, if the tea party came to that same conclusion everyone would be flipping shit saying the tea party is racist.
What's so amazing about how they did it?
1. The bloc operates by consensus. 2. They were in the middle of their General Assembly. 3. They held a vote to see if they wanted to interrupt the GA for Lewis to speak. 4. There was not a consensus. 5. Ergo, John Lewis was not allowed to speak during the GA.
I see nothing extraordinary here.
Repeating what everyone said making everything 10x longer than it had to be, using spirit fingers instead of clapping i could go on
Repeating what everyone is saying is the only way to make sure that a crowd of that size can hear what is being said without a large sound system, which they are not allowed to use in many of the placed where they have gathered.
If no one could hear then how come they could repeat it? And what about the guy with the megaphone? That seems good enough to be heard with.
Good God. Because the people who you hear repeating it are RIGHT NEXT to the center. They repeat it so that people who are further away can hear it, and repeat it in turn.
They are doing the weird hand thing in lieu of clapping because clapping keeps people from hearing what is being said.
A megaphone does a very poor job at projecting sound to the sides. Thus, they need a way to make sure that people who the speaker is not facing can hear what is being said.
Any further questions?
It would sound disjointed instead of a resounding repeat if it was rippled and there are not that many people there for it to be needed, it is in Atlanta not on wall street.
Not only can you hear people behind the camera repeating the words later at multiple points in the video, the problems of carrying the speaker's words are still exactly the same. Have you ever been to a crowded event in the middle of a city? I haven't been to any of the Occupy movements, but I can tell you from experience that other similar events have a ton of ambient noise, and it is very hard to hear anything without a substantial PA system. This gets around that problem.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
Yeah, it was pretty stupid, watching "direct, participatory democracy" in action. Thank God we have a Republic is all I can say. The idea that any of the people in that video, judging from what they're doing in the video, would be able to accomplish anything... well, people believe some silly things sometimes.
The idea that the general public is behind OWS is laughable; it's already been pointed out that some of their grievances are general and are shared by Tea Partiers and regular citizens alike and this has been reflected in the polls. Liberals are always mystified by the disconnect between their polls and reality.
This week Dana Milbank was the most recent in a long line of liberal opinion-makers wondering why liberals just have such a hard time getting done what they want done, when the polls (allegedly) show they have majority support! Eugene Robinson was all excited too, and Paul Krugman is nearly jumping out of his shorts.
I advance no thinking of my own as to why what actually happens fails to conform to the conclusions liberals want you to draw when they talk about polls showing the people supporting them. Sorry, the polls are either bullshit heavily biased in the samples, or you're just engaged in wishful thinking.
There hasn't been a progressive-minded president since 1968 except Barack Obama who is in a bit of trouble you might have noticed with almost all his domestic policy decisions generally disliked. The United States has been ruled by conservatives, center-rightists, and center-leftists. True Left candidates like McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis have gotten absolutely destroyed.
And yet still we have to hear about how the public is really with the Occupiers, or really with progressive ideas, based on "polls." This story has been told for a long, long time. The people do not support vindictive anti-capitalist policies and vindictive wealth redistribution.
OWS is the 1972 McGovern campaign all over again, all the excitement and arrogance that will amount to spectacular failure.
You can tell how badly a movement is going to fail by how sure it is of success before anything has even been accomplished. Judging by what the Occupiers are saying and what people here are, the hard work needed and powerful challenges that must be overcome in order to effect real political change in a country are hardly of concern.
It's like,
1. We want things to change. 2. (We claim) "the people" are behind us 3. We're so fired up and so many people are behind us we can't lose! 4. ???????????? 5. We get what we want (saying profit would be a faux pas)
Oh, also:
The Occupiers' eternal foe. Also the foe of the crazier parts of the Tea Party.
It's still around. It re-elected Bush in 2004. It elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It elected Republicans in 2010. It will do so again next year. It is the rock upon which liberal and Tea Party daydreams dash themselves again and again. The Tea Party thought it was the evolution of the Silent Majority, becoming Loud; but the Silent Majority reminded them that was not the case by voting for Dems against crazy Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. It was the Silent Majority that took a chance on Obama and gave him a big win in 2008 instead of a close one.
The Silent Majority doesn't get in the saddle much, but when things really count (election day), it makes its power felt.
Breaking News! Grassroots democratic movement composed of individuals who disagree on some topics.
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Do you actually believe in 'democracy' or is it just a pretty word that you associate with eagles and waving flags?
Yeah, it was pretty stupid, watching "direct, participatory democracy" in action. Thank God we have a Republic is all I can say. The idea that any of the people in that video, judging from what they're doing in the video, would be able to accomplish anything... well, people believe some silly things sometimes.
The idea that the general public is behind OWS is laughable; it's already been pointed out that some of their grievances are general and are shared by Tea Partiers and regular citizens alike and this has been reflected in the polls. Liberals are always mystified by the disconnect between their polls and reality.
This week Dana Milbank was the most recent in a long line of liberal opinion-makers wondering why liberals just have such a hard time getting done what they want done, when the polls (allegedly) show they have majority support! Eugene Robinson was all excited too, and Paul Krugman is nearly jumping out of his shorts.
I advance no thinking of my own as to why what actually happens fails to conform to the conclusions liberals want you to draw when they talk about polls showing the people supporting them. Sorry, the polls are either bullshit heavily biased in the samples, or you're just engaged in wishful thinking.
There hasn't been a progressive-minded president since 1968 except Barack Obama who is in a bit of trouble you might have noticed with almost all his domestic policy decisions generally disliked. The United States has been ruled by conservatives, center-rightists, and center-leftists. True Left candidates like McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis have gotten absolutely destroyed.
And yet still we have to hear about how the public is really with the Occupiers, or really with progressive ideas, based on "polls." This story has been told for a long, long time. The people do not support vindictive anti-capitalist policies and vindictive wealth redistribution.
OWS is the 1972 McGovern campaign all over again, all the excitement and arrogance that will amount to spectacular failure.
You can tell how badly a movement is going to fail by how sure it is of success before anything has even been accomplished. Judging by what the Occupiers are saying and what people here are, the hard work needed and powerful challenges that must be overcome in order to effect real political change in a country are hardly of concern.
It's like,
1. We want things to change. 2. (We claim) "the people" are behind us 3. We're so fired up and so many people are behind us we can't lose! 4. ???????????? 5. We get what we want (saying profit would be a faux pas)
The Occupiers' eternal foe. Also the foe of the crazier parts of the Tea Party.
It's still around. It re-elected Bush in 2004. It elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It elected Republicans in 2010. It will do so again next year. It is the rock upon which liberal and Tea Party daydreams dash themselves again and again. The Tea Party thought it was the evolution of the Silent Majority, becoming Loud; but the Silent Majority reminded them that was not the case by voting for Dems against crazy Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. It was the Silent Majority that took a chance on Obama and gave him a big win in 2008 instead of a close one.
The Silent Majority doesn't get in the saddle much, but when things really count (election day), it makes its power felt.
Sure, that's a fair assessment of the situation that OWS is in. I disagree on the subject of direct, participatory democracy, but I'm under no illusions that the Occupy movements represent a substantial change from existing conditions for the moment.
He was asked to speak (he wasn't there intending to speak) and they didn't silence him, the only told him that he would have to wait until their GA meeting was done (which includes things like figuring out how to keep their space clean, feed themselves, or plan marches).
Despite all that the initial vote was something like 400-2 in favor of him speaking, but they were operating under a consensus model so they obeyed that.
Their process seems exhausting and probably frustrating, but the whole video didn't seem like a big deal. It was simply "should we interrupt the general assembly to allow Lewis to speak?" "okay, no consensus, let's finish what we were doing and have him speak later."
WHEEEEEEEEEEEE big story!
It seems to me that there should be an easier way to decide things, but with what they're trying to accomplish I can understand why they're doing it that way.
On October 14 2011 07:33 Senorcuidado wrote: It seems to me that there should be an easier way to decide things, but with what they're trying to accomplish I can understand why they're doing it that way.
A few things jump out from that video:
1) The spirit fingers and echoing the speaker make them look like mindless hippies, whether it is accurate or not.
2) Their decision-making process on whether to allow John Lewis to speak most likely took longer than whatever Mr. Lewis planned to say.
3.) Related to 2, their silly "democratic" process just shows why we elect people to represent us instead of wasting so much time to make a decision.
4) A previous post mentioned the initial vote being like 400-2 to let John Lewis speak. The fact is, EVERY vote they took, everybody gave their spirit fingers, even when the votes completely contradicted each other.
And this is the model this group is supporting for the government of the strongest country in the world ?
I am not promoting violence. All I am saying is that if anything is going to change right now, it is going to be through a violent revolution. Why? Because the protesters are violent? No, Because the elite and their supporters are too entrenched and will not give way to peaceful protesters. Exibit A is xDaunt. Exibit B is DeepElemBlues
And their argument "Change it so impossible. It can only happen through a violent revolution, therefore no change can or should happen. Therefore I stick my head into the sand." Is a silly argument. I am warning literally these two people so they understand the consequences of their actions. Instead, they feel more entrenched into their positions.
Cops are already using a lot of violence and this has only just started. When violence is used by cops, this gets a response from the people at some point. It's not like violent riots are something amazing and unique. Every protest in Greece ends in violence. Why? Because the police infiltrate the protesters and have these infiltrators start the riots so the police can respond with excessive violence. This tactic will be used soon. It was already obvious that the police got orders from above to use violence because it were the serious policemen who were leading the violence. Not some rogue violently inclined grunts.
When the people realize the ruling class will stop even peaceful protesters, what will they try next?
Again I ask, what is the alternative? With the media how it is today it becomes harder and harder to trick people to vote against their own economic interests, which they have done for so long, now that the economy is at the state that it is. One more alternative I have thought about is if Ron Paul runs with Nader as running mate and they are able to unite on some core points. You think that is a realistic scenario? Please give me the realistic scenario about how the economic policies can be reversed from how they were the last 30 years.
But see, you both don't believe there is a problem. You are either part of the top 5%, you think you are, you think you will be soon, or you are in some even more deluded position. But that changes nothing. At some point a very large majority will be on the other side of the argument. And they will be very desperate. This may be 30 years down the road. But at some point this is going to have to be reversed or it is going to explode. I don't see how it is going to be reserved in the next 5 years. I can see it explode in the next 5 years.
What is also possible is that the current regime can keep their grip on power and they can keep the country peaceful for some years and then 10 years down the road an opportunity for reform from inside out does emerge for some reason or another..
On October 14 2011 09:33 Suisen wrote: Cops are already using a lot of violence and this has only just started. When violence is used by cops, this gets a response from the people at some point. It's not like violent riots are something amazing and unique. Every protest in Greece ends in violence. Why? Because the police infiltrate the protesters and have these infiltrators start the riots so the police can respond with excessive violence. This tactic will be used soon. It was already obvious that the police got orders from above to use violence because it were the serious policemen who were leading the violence. Not some rogue violently inclined grunts.
You cannot claim "excessive violence" without citing your basis for what the appropriate usage of force should have been. Since I'm fairly certain you have no clue how law enforcement officers are trained about the usage of force, I don't expect you to have anything to back it up.
If the OWS crowd narrowed their focus to one single issue: getting campaign contributions completely out of politics, they would have broad support. But since they clutter it up with a bunch of liberal bullshit, they will accomplish nothing.
Posting criticisms is fine, but if you are serious enough about your position then why not get out there on the streets and voice them? Complaining that the OWS movement doesn't represent your view is stupid, the whole point of the movement is to come to a consensus about what the American population actually wants without having to rely on political games. If you dont care enough to do that then you're just wasting your time.
I'm always irritated by people who complain about non-violent protesters.
EPT
