When will OWS/left wing movments become violent like Europe?

[The Rabbi]

History shows left wing movements always end up becoming violent when they don't work.....or especially when they DO. So...the OWS is only the first phase of the global left wing movement, like Greece, France, England, etc, where violent riots have all resulted. Violence from the left has already been sprinkled about the past 4-5 years. But OWS has the potential to become a violent Greece-like movement and probably will.

Question is...when will this next step occur, and how will we react to it? "We" meaning America and law enforcement, not "we" right wingers.

I think if they were going to get violent they would have done so already. I think they're just a bunch of very confused college kids. They certainly don't know that TARP one bailouts--(banking have already been paid back with interest to the treasury.) IOW they're 3 years too late!

Obviously they don't understand that Wall Street is not their enemy--but it is the direct responsibility of the Federal Government that has crashed this economy.

IOW--they need a lot more political education as to what has happened to bring this economy to it's knees. They haven't been paying attention to anything over the last 3-4 years.

I'll bet every jack one of them voted for Obama.

And back to the OP, yes once we start seeing them co opted by the unions then violence cannot be far away.

 

[hortysir]

Images of Clinton-Era Marshall Law come to mind....

 

[bripat9643]

History shows left wing movements always end up becoming violent when they don't work.....or especially when they DO. So...the OWS is only the first phase of the global left wing movement, like Greece, France, England, etc, where violent riots have all resulted. Violence from the left has already been sprinkled about the past 4-5 years. But OWS has the potential to become a violent Greece-like movement and probably will.

Question is...when will this next step occur, and how will we react to it? "We" meaning America and law enforcement, not "we" right wingers.

The violence will start when the government cuts off their welfare checks.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll bet every jack one of them voted for Obama.

And back to the OP, yes once we start seeing them co opted by the unions then violence cannot be far away.

I just got an email from SEIU.org asking me to support these OWS goons. There won't be any waiting for them to get co-opted. They are a union creation.

Imagine SEIU asking me for money? How would I ever get on that email list?

 

[editec]

When will OWS/left wing movments become violent like Europe?

When enough Americans think they have nothing left to lose.

As to that becoming violent?

I'd expect under that circumstance that we'd probably see violence coming at us from the extremes of the political spectrum.

 

[ba1614]

History shows left wing movements always end up becoming violent when they don't work.....or especially when they DO. So...the OWS is only the first phase of the global left wing movement, like Greece, France, England, etc, where violent riots have all resulted. Violence from the left has already been sprinkled about the past 4-5 years. But OWS has the potential to become a violent Greece-like movement and probably will.

Question is...when will this next step occur, and how will we react to it? "We" meaning America and law enforcement, not "we" right wingers.

I think if they were going to get violent they would have done so already. I think they're just a bunch of very confused college kids. They certainly don't know that TARP one bailouts--(banking have already been paid back with interest to the treasury.) IOW they're 3 years too late!

Obviously they don't understand that Wall Street is not their enemy--but it is the direct responsibility of the Federal Government that has crashed this economy.

IOW--they need a lot more political education as to what has happened to bring this economy to it's knees. They haven't been paying attention to anything over the last 3-4 years.

I'll bet every jack one of them voted for Obama.

And back to the OP, yes once we start seeing them co opted by the unions then violence cannot be far away.

Or the ones that didn't vote for him were too busy to bother voting.

 

[jillian]

The Tea Party will protect us from these young terrorists.

i kinda love these kinds of threads from idiots who said people need to "pursue their second amendment remedies".

 

[L.K.Eder]

you seem to be afraid of a real grass root movement.

there will be 2 million marching on washington soon.

or on downtown manhattan.

the number will be 2 million, at least.

Maybe in your dreams....

2 million is a conservative estimate.

be afraid.

 

[Valerie]

you seem to be afraid of a real grass root movement.

there will be 2 million marching on washington soon.

or on downtown manhattan.

the number will be 2 million, at least.

Maybe in your dreams....

2 million is a conservative estimate.

be afraid.

What's to be afraid of?

 

[Full-Auto]

you seem to be afraid of a real grass root movement.

there will be 2 million marching on washington soon.

or on downtown manhattan.

the number will be 2 million, at least.

Maybe in your dreams....

2 million is a conservative estimate.

be afraid.

What is the unified purpose? The lists have been pathetic. In your words please.

 

[Seawytch]

When will OWS/left wing movments become violent like Europe?

What makes you think the OWS movement is ‘left wing’? They have more in common with the TPM.

Yeah, the original Boston Tea Party...not the one that was paid for by the Health Insurance Lobby...

1.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was A Civil Disobedience Action Against A Private Corporation. In 1773, agitators blocked the importation of tea by East India Trading Company ships across the country. In Boston harbor, a band of protesters led by Samuel Adams boarded the corporation’s ships and dumped the tea into the harbor. No East India Trading Company employees were harmed, but the destruction of the company’s tea is estimated to be worth up to $2 million in today’s money. The Occupy Wall Street protests have targeted big banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, as well as multinational corporations like GE with sit-ins and peaceful rallies.

2.) The Original Boston Tea Party Feared That Corporate Greed Would Destroy America. As Professor Benjamin Carp has argued, colonists perceived the East India Trading Company as a “fearsome monopolistic company that was going to rob them blind and pave the way maybe for their enslavement.” A popular pamphlet called The Alarm agitated for a revolt against the East India Trading Company by warning that the British corporation would devastate America just as it had devastated South Asian colonies: “Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. [...] And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.”

3.) The Original Boston Tea Party Believed Government Necessary To Protect Against Corporate Excess. Smithsonian historian Barbara Smith has noted that Samuel Adams believed that oppression could occur when governments are too weak. As Adams explained in a Boston newspaper, government should exist “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” Patriots behind the Tea Party revolt believed “rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty,” says Smith. Occupy Wall Street protesters demand a country that invests in education, infrastructure, and jobs.

4.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was Sparked By A Corporate Tax Cut For A British Corporation. The Tea Act, a law by the British Parliament exempting tea imported by the East India Trading Company from taxes and allowing the corporation to directly ship its tea to the colonies for sale, is credited with setting off the Boston Tea Party. The law was perceived as an effort by the British to bailout the East India Trading Company by shutting off competition from American shippers. George R.T. Hewes, one of the patriots who boarded the East India Trading Company ships and dumped the tea, told a biographer that the East India Trading Company had twisted the laws so “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity.” Occupy Wall Street demands the end of corporate tax loopholes as well as the enactment of higher taxes on billionaires and millionaires.

5.) The Original Boston Tea Party Wanted A Stronger Democracy. There is a common misconception that the Boston Tea Party was simply a revolt against taxation. The truth is much more nuanced, and there were many factors behind the opposition to the East India Company and the British government. Although the colonists resented taxes levied by a distant British Parliament, in the years preceding the Tea Party, the Massachusetts colony had levied taxes several times to pay for local services. The issue at hand was representation and government accountable to the needs of the American people. Patrick Henry and other patriots organized the revolutionary effort by claiming that legitimate laws and taxes could only be passed by legislatures elected by Americans. According to historian Benjamin Carp, the protesters in Boston perceived that the British government’s actions were set by the East India Trading Company. “As Americans learned more about the provisions of the new East India Company laws, they realized that Parliament would sooner lend a hand to the Company than the colonies,” wrote Carp.​

OWS and Boston Tea Party

 

[The Rabbi]

^^^^^^^^
Pure political hackery. The Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with these loafers. Hell, they can't even explain what they are protesting for. Why should anyone take them seriously? And now with the unions co-opting them they will become a mob, precisely what the Founders feared would happen to the US.
"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

 

[Seawytch]

^^^^^^^^
Pure political hackery. The Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with these loafers. Hell, they can't even explain what they are protesting for. Why should anyone take them seriously? And now with the unions co-opting them they will become a mob, precisely what the Founders feared would happen to the US.
"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Their message is quite clear...if you get it from somewhere other than Fox news who don't air the videos from people that make sense, only from the naked people...although that might just be on Bill O'Reilly's show.

 

[Full-Auto]

^^^^^^^^
Pure political hackery. The Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with these loafers. Hell, they can't even explain what they are protesting for. Why should anyone take them seriously? And now with the unions co-opting them they will become a mob, precisely what the Founders feared would happen to the US.
"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Their message is quite clear...if you get it from somewhere other than Fox news who don't air the videos from people that make sense, only from the naked people...although that might just be on Bill O'Reilly's show.

If the message is clear, please explain it. Ive seen the lists that are not very coherent.

What is the unifying purpose?

 

[editec]

The Tea Party will protect us from these young terrorists.

i kinda love these kinds of threads from idiots who said people need to "pursue their second amendment remedies".

When all ya' got is a hammer, every problem is nail.

 

[Valerie]

When will OWS/left wing movments become violent like Europe?

What makes you think the OWS movement is ‘left wing’? They have more in common with the TPM.

Yeah, the original Boston Tea Party...not the one that was paid for by the Health Insurance Lobby...

1.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was A Civil Disobedience Action Against A Private Corporation. In 1773, agitators blocked the importation of tea by East India Trading Company ships across the country. In Boston harbor, a band of protesters led by Samuel Adams boarded the corporation’s ships and dumped the tea into the harbor. No East India Trading Company employees were harmed, but the destruction of the company’s tea is estimated to be worth up to $2 million in today’s money. The Occupy Wall Street protests have targeted big banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, as well as multinational corporations like GE with sit-ins and peaceful rallies.

2.) The Original Boston Tea Party Feared That Corporate Greed Would Destroy America. As Professor Benjamin Carp has argued, colonists perceived the East India Trading Company as a “fearsome monopolistic company that was going to rob them blind and pave the way maybe for their enslavement.” A popular pamphlet called The Alarm agitated for a revolt against the East India Trading Company by warning that the British corporation would devastate America just as it had devastated South Asian colonies: “Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. [...] And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.”

3.) The Original Boston Tea Party Believed Government Necessary To Protect Against Corporate Excess. Smithsonian historian Barbara Smith has noted that Samuel Adams believed that oppression could occur when governments are too weak. As Adams explained in a Boston newspaper, government should exist “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” Patriots behind the Tea Party revolt believed “rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty,” says Smith. Occupy Wall Street protesters demand a country that invests in education, infrastructure, and jobs.

4.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was Sparked By A Corporate Tax Cut For A British Corporation. The Tea Act, a law by the British Parliament exempting tea imported by the East India Trading Company from taxes and allowing the corporation to directly ship its tea to the colonies for sale, is credited with setting off the Boston Tea Party. The law was perceived as an effort by the British to bailout the East India Trading Company by shutting off competition from American shippers. George R.T. Hewes, one of the patriots who boarded the East India Trading Company ships and dumped the tea, told a biographer that the East India Trading Company had twisted the laws so “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity.” Occupy Wall Street demands the end of corporate tax loopholes as well as the enactment of higher taxes on billionaires and millionaires.

5.) The Original Boston Tea Party Wanted A Stronger Democracy. There is a common misconception that the Boston Tea Party was simply a revolt against taxation. The truth is much more nuanced, and there were many factors behind the opposition to the East India Company and the British government. Although the colonists resented taxes levied by a distant British Parliament, in the years preceding the Tea Party, the Massachusetts colony had levied taxes several times to pay for local services. The issue at hand was representation and government accountable to the needs of the American people. Patrick Henry and other patriots organized the revolutionary effort by claiming that legitimate laws and taxes could only be passed by legislatures elected by Americans. According to historian Benjamin Carp, the protesters in Boston perceived that the British government’s actions were set by the East India Trading Company. “As Americans learned more about the provisions of the new East India Company laws, they realized that Parliament would sooner lend a hand to the Company than the colonies,” wrote Carp.​

OWS and Boston Tea Party

Except the British Parliament was not a democratic constitutional Republic...

There is no RIGHT to violent revolution here!






There is a powerful image in our collective consciousness: the Minutemen, armed with their own muskets, rushing to Concord Green and the North Bridge in Lexington to prevent British troops from seizing a militia arsenal at Concord. We assume the Founders enshrined this tradition -- a right of armed citizens to resist governmental oppression -- in our Constitution with the Second Amendment.

That assumption is wrong.

First, it overlooks a critical distinction. The Minutemen were not going to war with their own government. They were going to war with British forces. Yes, of course, the American colonies were part of the British Empire. But Americans increasingly had come to see British forces as a foreign army of occupation.



How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN


The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

The militia the Founders envisioned was not an adversary of government but an instrument of government, organized by Congress and subject to governmental authority. It was not a tool for insurrection but, as the Constitution itself states, a tool to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

 

[Seawytch]

^^^^^^^^
Pure political hackery. The Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with these loafers. Hell, they can't even explain what they are protesting for. Why should anyone take them seriously? And now with the unions co-opting them they will become a mob, precisely what the Founders feared would happen to the US.
"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Their message is quite clear...if you get it from somewhere other than Fox news who don't air the videos from people that make sense, only from the naked people...although that might just be on Bill O'Reilly's show.

If the message is clear, please explain it. Ive seen the lists that are not very coherent.

What is the unifying purpose?

Out of control corporate greed and a growing income inequality that rivals countries like Egypt.

 

[The Rabbi]

^^^^^^^^
Pure political hackery. The Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with these loafers. Hell, they can't even explain what they are protesting for. Why should anyone take them seriously? And now with the unions co-opting them they will become a mob, precisely what the Founders feared would happen to the US.
"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Their message is quite clear...if you get it from somewhere other than Fox news who don't air the videos from people that make sense, only from the naked people...although that might just be on Bill O'Reilly's show.

If the message is clear, please explain it. Ive seen the lists that are not very coherent.

What is the unifying purpose?

Their purpose is to protest that "Da Man" is keeping them down.

They are against corporations. and they are against unemployment. They are in favor of doing away with corporations and increasing employment. Yeah, I know.
THey are against making money, except if they can do it. They are against greed, wanting someone else to support them in the style they'd like to become accustomed to.
They don't want globalization. and they want justice for foreign workers.

Does that make sense now?

 

[Seawytch]

What makes you think the OWS movement is ‘left wing’? They have more in common with the TPM.

Yeah, the original Boston Tea Party...not the one that was paid for by the Health Insurance Lobby...

1.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was A Civil Disobedience Action Against A Private Corporation. In 1773, agitators blocked the importation of tea by East India Trading Company ships across the country. In Boston harbor, a band of protesters led by Samuel Adams boarded the corporation’s ships and dumped the tea into the harbor. No East India Trading Company employees were harmed, but the destruction of the company’s tea is estimated to be worth up to $2 million in today’s money. The Occupy Wall Street protests have targeted big banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, as well as multinational corporations like GE with sit-ins and peaceful rallies.

2.) The Original Boston Tea Party Feared That Corporate Greed Would Destroy America. As Professor Benjamin Carp has argued, colonists perceived the East India Trading Company as a “fearsome monopolistic company that was going to rob them blind and pave the way maybe for their enslavement.” A popular pamphlet called The Alarm agitated for a revolt against the East India Trading Company by warning that the British corporation would devastate America just as it had devastated South Asian colonies: “Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. [...] And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.”

3.) The Original Boston Tea Party Believed Government Necessary To Protect Against Corporate Excess. Smithsonian historian Barbara Smith has noted that Samuel Adams believed that oppression could occur when governments are too weak. As Adams explained in a Boston newspaper, government should exist “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” Patriots behind the Tea Party revolt believed “rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty,” says Smith. Occupy Wall Street protesters demand a country that invests in education, infrastructure, and jobs.

4.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was Sparked By A Corporate Tax Cut For A British Corporation. The Tea Act, a law by the British Parliament exempting tea imported by the East India Trading Company from taxes and allowing the corporation to directly ship its tea to the colonies for sale, is credited with setting off the Boston Tea Party. The law was perceived as an effort by the British to bailout the East India Trading Company by shutting off competition from American shippers. George R.T. Hewes, one of the patriots who boarded the East India Trading Company ships and dumped the tea, told a biographer that the East India Trading Company had twisted the laws so “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity.” Occupy Wall Street demands the end of corporate tax loopholes as well as the enactment of higher taxes on billionaires and millionaires.

5.) The Original Boston Tea Party Wanted A Stronger Democracy. There is a common misconception that the Boston Tea Party was simply a revolt against taxation. The truth is much more nuanced, and there were many factors behind the opposition to the East India Company and the British government. Although the colonists resented taxes levied by a distant British Parliament, in the years preceding the Tea Party, the Massachusetts colony had levied taxes several times to pay for local services. The issue at hand was representation and government accountable to the needs of the American people. Patrick Henry and other patriots organized the revolutionary effort by claiming that legitimate laws and taxes could only be passed by legislatures elected by Americans. According to historian Benjamin Carp, the protesters in Boston perceived that the British government’s actions were set by the East India Trading Company. “As Americans learned more about the provisions of the new East India Company laws, they realized that Parliament would sooner lend a hand to the Company than the colonies,” wrote Carp.​

OWS and Boston Tea Party

Except the British Parliament was not a democratic constitutional Republic...

There is no RIGHT to violent revolution here!






There is a powerful image in our collective consciousness: the Minutemen, armed with their own muskets, rushing to Concord Green and the North Bridge in Lexington to prevent British troops from seizing a militia arsenal at Concord. We assume the Founders enshrined this tradition -- a right of armed citizens to resist governmental oppression -- in our Constitution with the Second Amendment.

That assumption is wrong.

First, it overlooks a critical distinction. The Minutemen were not going to war with their own government. They were going to war with British forces. Yes, of course, the American colonies were part of the British Empire. But Americans increasingly had come to see British forces as a foreign army of occupation.

At the center of their thinking was the fact that the American colonies were unrepresented in Parliament. Whig ideology of the day -- widely accepted on both sides of the Atlantic -- was that no democratic government could become tyrannical over the people it represented. Americans believed that it was because they were unrepresented that Parliament had few qualms about imposing oppressive taxation on them. Their cry was, "No taxation without representation."

Second, the assumption overlooks history.

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN


The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

The militia the Founders envisioned was not an adversary of government but an instrument of government, organized by Congress and subject to governmental authority. It was not a tool for insurrection but, as the Constitution itself states, a tool to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

The OWS protesters aren't armed and they aren't mounting an insurrection against the government. They are protesting corporate greed and income inequality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Their message is quite clear...if you get it from somewhere other than Fox news who don't air the videos from people that make sense, only from the naked people...although that might just be on Bill O'Reilly's show.

If the message is clear, please explain it. Ive seen the lists that are not very coherent.

What is the unifying purpose?

Out of control corporate greed and a growing income inequality that rivals countries like Egypt.

I think I said it better in my post above yours.
Pure incoherence and ignorance. No wonder you support it.