young white men who are fighting for civil rights and economic justice for all peoples no matter their race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation, then they will surely deserve to lose the White House in 2016.

And it does happen

BY NINA MANDELL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, October 10, 2011, 8:50 PM

He may have been a leader in the Civil Rights movement, but Georgia Congressman John Lewis was not welcome to speak at the Occupy Atlanta protest ... In the video, the crowd is seen voting not to let Lewis speak because he is a government figure ... He is seen respectfully leaving the protest after they denied him a chance to speak. "I was going to say, I stand with you," Lewis told CBS Atlanta after the incident ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/occupy-atlanta-offshoot-wall-street-protest-denies-rep-john-lewis-chance-speak-gathering-article-1.960844

That guy is a civil rights hero.

When the speaking order was explained, he said he didn't wish to cut in line and didn't have a lot of time. He was well received, and his visit appreciated.

This is just a smear that's been explained to this poster before, but propaganda is all about repetition.

It is very clear that the poster is attempting to use half-truths and deceit as propaganda tactics in order to try to paint OWS as racist.

Honest people with an honest agenda don't need to use negative propaganda that is fully intended to deceive the reader.

If someone's agenda, and intentions, are sincere and forthright, they can clearly state their position and facts, and have no need to uses lies and deceit in order to try to promote their agenda.

The Third Way: "To Deflect, and Deceive."

He asked to speak. They said hang on we have a bunch of people in line so you can talk later.

congregated; and he took time to come down and offer a statement of support

Lewis, of course, came from one of the most important and successful political mass-protest movements in living memory

Any politically savvy group would have said, He has to leave soon, so let's make time now for him to address us! Occupy Atlanta said, After we get through all our agenda items, we have a public speaking time, so if you get in line maybe you can talk then

The natural guess is that they had no idea who he was

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 06:44 AM - Edit history (1)

They most likely felt that, if they let Rep. Lewis jump ahead of others who had signed up to speak on the assumption that their words mattered as much as anyone else, it would fatally compromise their commitment to equality-for-all-speakers and mean they were now nothing but another generic, mundane liberal pressure group

They didn't let ANYONE cut through the line to speak before others who were already waiting their turn to speak(some of whom, this being Atlanta, were no doubt African-American themselves).

They would have treated HRC or Bernie Sanders or any white politician exactly the same way, so there was no disrespect involved. Occupy had taken this position regarding speakers throughout the country-even to the mayor of Oakland.

It wasn't about saying Rep. Lewis didn't deserve to be heard-it was about saying that the voices from below, the voices of the current struggle, deserved an equal hearing-that it was about the people, not just officeholders(even legendary ones like Rep. Lewis.

And, as another poster here pointed out, Rep. Lewis said he understood this and went away with no hard feelings.

When the speaking order was explained, he said he didn't wish to cut in line and didn't have a lot of time. He was well received, and his visit appreciated.

This is just a smear that's been explained to this poster before, but propaganda is all about repetition.

3rd way tactic

I've noticed that a lot of minorities distrust white males when it comes to politics. While the majority of white males who vote will vote GOP and support politicians like Ted Cruz, there are many that believe in equality.

We need to work through the distrust.

It's true that white males will always receive a certain amount of privilege that minorities will never see in their lifetimes, but that doesn't mean all white males are to be distrusted.

They really are in a hopeless situation. A Catch-22.

*They can embrace and run on their candidates' predatory, corporate, warmongering, antidemocratic policy agenda. But if they do that, they alienate the 99 percent, who are sick of looting, murderous, predatory corporate exploitation.

*Or they can LIE about and deny their candidates' true agenda, and pretend to be populists. But if they do that, they alienate the 99 percent, who are sick of obvious manipulative lies from corrupt, corporate politicians.

*Or they can focus on trying to slime the opposition, in which case they alienate the 99 percent, who are sick of dirty, diversionary, dishonest politics.

They can't win, because they are corrupt. And now that we have a genuinely honest candidate in the race, their corruption is glaring by contrast. It's good to see the Third Way finally exposed for what they really are.

What exactly is "The Third Way"? I got a long drawn out wiki article from googling it, but can someone just break it down to me?

that pushes fiscally conservative domestic programs, notoriously including chained CPI, aimed at trimming SS benefits. Democratic as far as I can tell. Emeritus co-chairs are ex-ConservaDem congress members like Jane Harman, Kathleen Sebelius, Ken Salazar and Blanche Lincoln:

http://www.thirdway.org/about


In Nov. 2014 Third Way backed several anti-Obama candidates who went down in flames, some spectacularly, for example Mark Udall, a big wikileaks backer, and Allison Lundergan Grimes, who issued this famous flop:

I think I have a handle on what the "third way" actually means now.

"Third Way." Unless, of course, they are spectacularly unpleasant in a way you agree with., and I could give examples. If someone persistently writes things you think are wrong, it's probably because they are "Turd Way." And of course, if they are a Hillary supporter, ipso facto they are Third Way.

The person who claimed to be concerned that too many privileged young white males were at OWS was just being stupidly divisive, not cleverly Third Way, and had nothing to do with supporting Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat.

You're all welcome.

and say bigoted shit and attack others for their skin color but then spout progressive stuff from the same mouth. As a blatino POC, I definitely don't see young white males as "suspect" unless they're Republican of course.

This will continue until the next meme comes along.
Or this meme is ridiculed enough.

They mean it!!!

go after his supporters. Classy.

If we watch a baseball game, we're enabling the 1%.

Then you can be suspected of being some sort of old perv instead.

They came to prominence in 2011. Didn't get us a liberal Congress in 2012.

They are irrelevant. Just use of the term 1% is not enough to have any real effect.

Gee, I knew there was some reason, but Occupy was not even among my first ten guesses.

fault when Dems lose. Always.

And the answer is always to move more to the right.

that doesn't stop endless repetition of it, does it?

Just for the record (as I know you know), Occupy never pretended to be an arm of the Democratic Party or part of its GOTV operation, or its DCCC or SNCC.

It's ludicrous to blame Occupy and not the Party or New Democrat/Third Way politicians for how people vote, but ludicrousness does not stop anyone, either.

Truth is the MOST disposable thing on this board sometimes.

Because that was the only way to have an effect. You're changing the issue, which was the allegation that they are somehow important. And making victims out of them. Poor them, with me blaming them for not advocating voting to get a Congress that would give us useful laws. They are irrelevant victims of mean old me now!

President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

"Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients.

that doesn't make liberal laws.

Who cares about the national conversation? Media, government, the 1%, people who pay trillions a year for advertising--almost everyone with a brain to think with and/or a dollar to spend on messaging, propaganda, whatever.

Oh, and the banksters cared A LOT.

http://www.rawstory.com/2011/12/banks-leaked-email-admits-occupy-movement-could-impact-our-industry/

Oh none. There was a Republican Congress. The "conversation" led to that.

So, Occupy was responsible for Obama and Congress?

There was a Republican Congress. The "conversation" led to that.

The movement became a parody of itself in the end, and was, as you said, basically irrelevant mostly because there was never anything resembling a coherent message.

I'd say it was an extremely poor execution of ideas that were not without merit.

Well, it's advocating for economic justice, and we keep getting told that advocating for economic justice means we don't care about social justice, so obviously OWS'ers somehow were making life crappier for minorities in some way.

It burns.

Such a boatload of bullshit is rare even on DU. Triple Majority Members have a hard time seeing reality.

It's straight out of the republican/1%'er playbook - Divide and conquer.

They've love nothing more then the paint the movement as overly privileged or racist because they know it will lead to infighting that will weaken it.

Ah well. With Berie announcing his run, they are coming out of the woodwork.

I think it will get much worse if Bernie 's campaign catches on.

We will just have to move forward despite them.

Hopefully someday they will get it.

or just the ones saying any demurral to war and undermining of wages is racist? saying the Gulf was too oily was labeled racist once

reminds me of a sign some nut put up at a Michael Brown protest ordering whites to not let themselves be interviewed by the cameras--I mean, sure, the media always flocks to the lightest face in the room, but who gets up every morning with that much bile? Robert Rozier?

Robert Earnest Rozier (born July 28, 1955) is a former American football defensive end and convicted serial killer who played in the National Football League and Canadian Football League. After leaving football, he became involved with "The Brotherhood", a Black Supremacist cult led by Yahweh ben Yahweh. He is currently serving 25 years to life on a conviction for check kiting under a third strike law.

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

He is a serial killer, but he's doing 25 years for check kiting? In what world does that make sense?

economic populist candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026607967


why are people saying sanders is an economic populist candidate? social issues are just as important. be QUIET or you do not support sanders. (do you not get the irony telling me how much i am welcome, while also telling me stating sanders is being run as an economic populist candidate is only addressing whites and men?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026606842

it really does not hurt us to look at this logically and pragmatically and leaving the emotions out of it.

we know what this infighting is. the intent. the goal. some of us are still struggling to ensure it does not happen. and others do not like that.

Please explain.

Therefore, it apparently occurs to some that OWS must be retroactively rendered not credible to somehow "help" Hillary?

I know, it's so infantile a mindset that it's hard to believe, but this is how people who think they "win" things by frantically attacking anything connected to whomever they feel threatened by operate for whatever reason.

Silly, and transparently panicky, but it seems the likely basis for the sudden rash of "OWS was pointless / racist / bad for business" threads springing up like greasy little mushrooms.

all the while professing to be "oh, so liberal" and spouting the "99% rhetoric".

Don't lump Democratic 'white males' in with Republican 'white males' and we won't react with disgust. Stop attacking us and we will stop defending ourselves?

When you attack, "White Males", be specific as to which white males you are attacking, thus the good white males won't be offended.

Blanket attacks against gender or race are bigotry, and will always elicit a backlash, and rightfully so.