Their message: "They all suck so I don't wanna play."

Yeah, that's meaningful. Not.

They can put their little black bandannas and stupid halloween masks where the sun don't shine. They're IRRELEVANT.

"He named corporations that he said are “foreclosing on our homes, destroying our environment.”

A terrible thing that should be marginalized. At least according to right wingers.

Then turn on your TV and tell me who is speaking tonight.

This is DU, not Fuck You.

and corporations destroying the environment hurts Democrats? Weird, I thought that was kind of our thing.

Which Democrats are you listening to?

Edited to add: I do note you didn't actually address the point: Those are good things to be passionate about. You might not agree with their tactics, of course. I'm not a huge fan either. But the general point is well meaning.

That's their message--that they are the COMPLAINERS and Debbie Downers who have NO ROLE in the solutions.

I did address the point--that these people are fucking idiot-losers whose failure to participate in the process of electing people to Congress and the Presidency, in order to CHANGE BAD LAW, makes them whinging, whining, crybaby, attention-sex-worker scolds who can take their stupid little masks and stupid little black bloc bandannas and stick 'em where the sun don't shine--they are useless tools whose "Look at MEEEEEE" street theater changes nothing except perhaps the bank balance of a few cops' kids' college funds. That overtime pay helps the public servants in blue, no question.

It's not about tactics. It's about stupidity and pointlessness. They've chosen to prance around self-importantly telling us that they won't do a damn thing to get involved in the political process--well, whoop-de-doo; who gives a shit about them, then. The people supporting the second term of Obama are the ones making a difference, not those seventy unwashed losers making a pointless spectacle in the streets.

What I hate is that these dumbass tools are associated with the left, when they are, in actual fact and philosophy, more like the Tea Party than the Tea Party.

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2012, 04:39 AM - Edit history (1)

The way you refer to them as unwashed losers reminds me of the way people refered to the protesters at the 1968 DNC. Would you have called the 1968 protesters a bunch of unwashed hippies who need to cut their hair and fall in for Hubert Humphrey volunteer duty?

Or the way Fox "news" refered to the Occupy people... same exact talking point..."unwashed". By the way, how do you know if they are unwashed, and what in God's good name does that have to do with whatever point they are trying to make?

You might be jumping to conclusions to assume they are all non-voters, or even that some won't vote for Obama. Maybe the whole black bloc ninja suit is just something they just do once in a while for special occasions, and then they blend back into "normal" society.

You say they have no role in solutions, but I think there is a legitmate role for street protest to draw attention to issues excluded from the Democratic Party.

Thank you and God bless you. And God bless America.

Al Gore 2016
Ban Fracking Now

You plainly aren't looking at 68 with ANY clarity at all. I am though--I lived through those times and put my ass out there at more than a few protests.

How in hell do you think a prominent member of VVAW managed to find his way into the Senate? And eventually to run for President....and speak at this year's convention? Because the protesters of 68 DIDN'T VOTE? I don't think so.

This nosepicking anhedonia crew is nothing like the antiwar protesters in the sixties/early seventies, who were intelligent, organized and focused on goals. These idiots can't muster anything even approaching a group, never mind a crowd and are not political at all--they're like gum stuck to your shoe. They are the opposite of political. They're a club of lame ass mask wearing losers with no organization, no focus, no goals, and nothing but complaints without solutions.

"Fuck it all" is neither a tactic nor a strategy. It does seem to be the calling card of tent-dwelling children who grew up accustomed to getting a prize for simply "attending," though.

You might try actually reading what those losers were saying and doing at their little protest before you start lecturing me. See, I read the material, I am not making that shit up. I am not "jumping to conclusions" -- I am summarizing their (lack of) goals, as they themselves eagerly reported.

Don't vote--that was their "message."

Piss Off, Losers--I will vote and encourage others to do so as well.--that's MY message.

And if you can't go along with MY message, you're in the wrong place.

The name of the game here to elect Democrats to office, not suppress the vote like those clueless nitwits.

Your manner of calling them unwashed was very similar to things that were said in all the historic protest movements.

I looked at the article posted in the OP. I don't see anything in there about them telling people not to vote. I'm reading on a cell phone and sometimes pieces of articles seem to get lost. Or where are you getting that from? I searched the whole article for the word "vote" but my web browser reported no matches. So what in God's good name are you talking about?

They aren't making their point. That's the bottom line.

If they aren't making their point, they're wasting their time--unless, of course, their GOAL is to waste time and involve themselves in a little closed "anhedonia clubhouse."

It's stupid, it's affected, it's pointless. They aren't doing anything but changing the overtime pay of a few cops--so I suppose you might call them GOP "job creators."

Your cell phone is failing you. From the photos at the link (get a load of the signage in the 2nd photo):


Occupy DNC at Trade and Tryon streets say they won't vote for either party. -Ely Portillo
Order News Tribune reprints | Order Associated Press reprints | close


People holding signs supporting the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police as they watch the Occupy protest at The Square Thursday night September 6, 2012 during the Democratic National Convention final night. DIEDRA LAIRD - dlaird@charlotteobserver. (DIEDRA LAIRD/dlaird@charlotteobserver.com)
Order News Tribune reprints | Order Associated Press reprints | close

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/09/06/2284839/protesters-again-take-to-uptown.html#storylink=cpy

ummm... maybe it's just me, but it doesn't look like those folks are holding signs supporting the police.

That's how we got here.

Judging the manner in which something was said...can't that mean judging the way it is being used? Somebody said around here they could discern the "demeanor" of a police officer based on a quote from the newspaper.

Anyhoo, my cell phone is limiting me. I see those pictures and captions when you paste them, but not in the article. I could take your word for it that some of those demonstrators are against voting. You're right that not voting is stupid. I've been to occupy assemblies and events in 3 different cities and never once did anybody suggest I should not vote or even express anything related to not voting.

That said, I could easily see myself standing there with a "stop fracking" sign or "Stop TPP" or "Stop Keystone" or something like that, and some idiot could walk up next to me with a "stop voting" sign. It doesn't mean everybody there agrees with it.

Nextly, even if they do stupidly advocate not voting, they have a right to protest. So as long as they are non-violent, I think the criticism about them costing money for police overtime is spurious. It's fair for you to raise the issue (unlike the body odor issue). But I think we need to expect that some people are going to protest and it's nothing unusual, considering that our government has largely been bought by big money special interests.

Nobody in those photos has their face covered. They look like fairly clean-cut, good smelling, patriotic Americans. Why use the body odor of a few demonstrators to discredit the views of all demonstrators?

I believe you are refering to the sign in the photo which reads "There is no ballot we can cast to set us free?" What's wrong with that? I just interpret that to mean that if we want major systemic changes, it will take more than voting. Don't delude ourselves into thinking that voting means more than it actually does. Voting is important, but all the really big positive changes in American history have started with movements which never achieved formal political power, if they participated in politics at all.

So the need for fundamental systemic changes seems to be one of their points. I noted some good points that they made, based on these quotes:

Good points. Why hasn't the government done more on these issues? Why hasn't the political party taken more of a lead on these issues?

Another good point:
Somebody has to say this outside the convention, because you can't say it inside.

So it's really unfair I think to lump all the demonstrators together, or to paint a picture of the whole thing as anti-voting, or to play the body odor card, or to say that they don't have any good points.

I don't get the "anhedonia" reference. Looked it up in the dictionary but still don't get it.


They should be glued to their TV's crying tears of ecstacy while the "leaders" speak? That's not for everybody. Non-violent protest on these issues is a worthwhile activity, in addition to voting.

We were scuffy AND clean, most of us.

Urban camping wasn't needed because we had organization, leadership and focus--not a thousand different issues with no cogent message. We didn't have to struggle to get a few dozen people to show up; we showed up by the thousands, with a unified message that was HEARD, and then we went home. And then we showed up by the thousands again. And we did this without twitter, cellphones, computers or any of that shit. Bulletin boards (the real ones--not the virtual ones) in laundromats and coffee shops, phone trees, tell-a-friend. If you have focus on your cause you can get critical mass.

This effort was lame, a few dilettantes. BYOG--bring your own gripe. They couldn't even get a hundred people to turn out for an event of this significance--that should tell you how poorly organized they are, and how un-motivating they are making their message meaningful to anyone but themselvves.

I am lumping all the protesters together because they lumped themselves together. Two of them were the press-talkers and permit getters, according to most of the media I have seen/read.


As for the corporate protesters, why are they at the DNC convention to "send a message to Obama and ROMNEY?" Mitt sure as hell wasn't in Charlotte. Why don't they get their asses down to Tampa, or up to one of his rallies? I'll tell you why--because the GOP doesn't put up with that shit, and they don't have courage to go with their weak convictions. It's all fun and games with the Democratic Party, AKA tolerant ones, but they're not going to put their well fed asses on the line and get clubbed down in Tampa or at one of Mitt's less friendly venues. Too Much WORK.

I don't see any point in telling people that "No ballot will set you free" and to not vote for anyone. And that was the focus during their little march. If you see a point to that, and I am not saying that you do, it's a good idea to just stow that thought during election season, because I don't think it will be well received here.


I don't know how many times I have to say that they have every right to behave like stupid asses--after all, they had a permit. I am getting a bit sick of this false characterization that I--or anyone here--is saying that they don't.

That said, I have every right to mock their stupid performance.

The "anhedonia" has to do with their inability to find pleasure or anything good in ANYTHING. Everything sucks. Corporations will win--so give up. Don't vote. You're all gonna die. Fuck that kind of whining--I know people who are within a decade of their hundredth birthday who don't gripe like that.

The whole exercise was just dumb. It was a very small fail, as the kids say, because they didn't even have enough people there to make it a major fail.

And it is very appropriate for some who seem to enjoy casting themselves as eternal victims.

Life is worth living and not EVERYTHING sucks! HOPE and FORWARD aren't just slogans!

It was one of MANY that eventually ended the war, but not straight away. Three years later John Kerry was testifying before Congress. Later, he started working there as the JR Senator from MA.

And the difference between 68 and these few dozen gripers at the DNC is that the 68 crew had focus. They didn't sit around camping and taking turns to opine about this issue and that. They organized, they chose leaders, they spoke with one voice and they got off their asses and targeted their ire. The protests in 68 did screw the Dems decisively, certainly, but there were other issues at play with the D Team, and the party was doing what it always does--being Democrats who don't always do the lockstep thing.

I don't see any focus or effort with Occupy--it's a big urban camping party and a lot of hot rhetoric and no action. In 68, everyone knew that "those hippies" were out there "protesting the war." With the tent crowd, you have to ask--it's a different gripe every day. They have no leadership, no direction, no discipline, no focus.

a good liberal, but didn't have a snow balls chance in hell of getting elected. And guess what? We got Nixon in a republican landslide...the rest is history

What they should have done in '68 is get behind Humphrey and back him to the hilt and Nixon would not been elected and the war, I'm sure, would have been over much sooner and probably have saved 15-20 thousand American lives.

the poorer unions.

He split labor along pro-War and anti-War lines and that resulted in McGovern's defeat.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Stayin_Alive.html?id=xz-EINoBGNcC

I was the youngest person there and in my hippie phase, so when my husband's boss "playfully" goaded me into a political exchange, several of the young men at our table gleefully guffawed at my weak defense of McGovern because he was a peace candidate. I had been surprised by the fact that he hadn't even won his own state and didn't really know what to say.

If HHH had just two more weeks of campaigning and maybe a little more scratch to buy ads, he could have turned it. He was a very decent man.

efforts to end the war. Those 7 more years cost several 10s of thousands of American lives and probably about 100 thousand more Vietnamese.

Thom Hartmann plays a recording of Johnson and EVERT DIRKSON talking on the phone about what Nixon was doing and Dirkson calls it treason.

Those years are also mentioned in this book: http://books.google.com/books/about/Stayin_Alive.html?id=xz-EINoBGNcC

This is the kind of non-story trying to stir things up. Tens of thousands already celebrating in the streets.

Ignore it.

They just have a need to shit in the punch, even when the punchbowl belongs to the team who are trying to do anything FOR We, the People.

I thought they had a good point when they started out--now I think they're even stupider than the Tea Party....and that's pretty damn stupid.

Why don't they protest Romney?

The RMoney cops wouldn't smile at 'em, they'd give 'em a beat down.

They even had the idiot bandannas and masks.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/09/06/2284839/protesters-again-take-to-uptown.html#storylink=cpy

Maybe there are some fringe occupiers there but I don't think that particular protest is backed by Occupy.

Occupy protest at The Square Thursday night September 6, 2012 during the Democratic National Convention final night. DIEDRA LAIRD - dlaird@charlotteobserver. (DIEDRA LAIRD/dlaird@charlotteobserver.com)
Order News Tribune reprints | Order Associated Press reprints | close

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/09/06/2284839/protesters-again-take-to-uptown.html#storylink=cpy

They are wearing those idiot Warner Brothers Anonymous-Occupy Guy Fawkes masks that are so popular at these ever-shrinking dustups.

They are the vestiges of Occupy, which is shrinking and failing for want of leadership and direction. Aimless troublemakers with a few talking points of complaint, and ZERO solutions. A great idea squandered by failure to follow through.

More cops than protesters. Pointless little drama.

Occupy the DNC is what they called it--and all they could get was a few dozen people.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/near-the-convention-site-occupy-takes-root/


A protester holds a flag reading “Occupy The DNC” at the encampment in Marshall Park in Charlotte, N.C.

People who complain will only be heard for so long, particularly when they continue to be uninterested in offering any solutions save fist waving and mask wearing.

I'm not saying they don't populate the Occupy camps too, but this isn't really Occupy. But even so. So what. If anti-war protesters hadn't shown up at the 1968 Democratic convention, there still would be a draft today. We'd probably still be in Viet Nam. Oh, they weren't welcome there either, those dirty hippies, and our clean cut Democrats were so upset that they were upstaging them.

No one noticed them, in any event. Their efforts failed because they had no critical mass. Their numbers keep shrinking because they aren't DOING anything, except complaining. Do they have a right to do that? Sure. Anyone has a right to look like a pointless scold in this country--it's one of the great things about the place. But are they doing any good? No. They're patting themselves on the back, but the people making a difference are INSIDE the Convention Center.

On the one hand, you are complaining about media accuracy, and then when the media covers even this pathetic little Occupy-permitted march and encampment (to include the few dozens tents and the Occupy the DNC sign) you say it's not Occupy.

It is Occupy. And it was a flop. They are tone deaf, are always in the wrong place at the wrong time, the only attention they can get is either negative or pathetic, and they blew their chance.

They had a moment when they first fired up, they attracted a lot of good initial attention, they got millions of dollars donated to their cause... and they wasted it. They have nothing to show for all their drama except a few memories of pungent campsites in urban settings. If they had a Ghandi, they'd be in a different situation, but their leaderless structure and their failure to engage in the political process in a meaningful way has doomed them to failure. That organic shit never lasts for long. And if you don't vote, you don't count.

They have a right to protest. They are only a failure in your eyes. What do you want that they get maced, kicked and arrested? Is that success to you? And really are the people inside the Convention center making a difference? I didn't hear one word in there about the homeless and the mentally and physically disabled, people that the Occupy movement has tried to help because no one else will.

and NO ONE in this thread is saying that. NO ONE. Yet you keep repeating it. That kind of propagandizing is just not working because you're not even subtle and can't point to a single person doing anything but ridiculing these morons. Which they have every right to do.

One more time--they have every right to make unmitigated asses of themselves. And we have every right to mock their stupid asses.

You're angry that a bunch of idiots who burned the presidential oath of office, who are urging people to NOT vote (depressing turnout), who are claiming--quite falsely--that both parties are the same (bashing/trashing)--are getting their asses deservedly handed to them on a site called DEMOCRATIC Underground.

You really need to re-read the TOS. You're in the wrong place if you think that kind of shit is "cool" -- particularly during election season.

their right to do it. Besides that, you are assuming the protesters are all Democrats. If in fact they are Occupy as you believe, they are not all Democrats any more than Democratic Underground is all Democrats. DU has its share of Greenies, Libertarians, Independents and some Republicans as long as they don't disrupt. Occupy, because it's about the 99% encompasses an even wider spectrum of political thinking. Walking in lockstep behind authority has never been how the Democratic Party operated or Democratic Underground. In the early days of DU we joked about our party being about herding cats because the Bushies were so obedient to authority.

However, if you find out what political persuasion the person was who did the offensive burning, and if they were in fact card carrying Democrats, then you have something to bitch about, not before.

either. What's up with that?

Further, I am not "assuming the protesters are all Democrats." I simply don't want their stupid stink on our team. This isn't about whether the people at the protest were Democrats. They quite obviously weren't--they're too fucking stupid to be Democrats, plainly.


They are Occupy--that's been proven--even though you tried to deny that, too.


The TOS here says very clearly "Vote for Democrats." It doesn't say "Cheerlead assholes who don't like Democrats and who encourage people to not vote."

I have plenty to "b-word" about--and the conduct of these morons and your tortured justification of their shitty, vote suppressing protest are just two items on my "b wording" agenda.

I have been here at DU since the very early days. I lost my first account when I left my job, but I have been here since the beginning and remember the shock of the Bush theft of Gore's presidency. The "rules" that evolved during those days and DU2 are GONE. We have a TOS now and it's pretty simple but it's pretty plain, too--if you're bashing, trashing, undermining, etc., you're assumed to be working for the other team.

That's not my verbiage, either--that's just what the TOS says.

an uncaring administration. I don't see them on DU defying the TOS. It was another DUer that dragged their stuff onto this board. Regardless, DU's TOS has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. You are really off base. btw the oath burners aren't part of either political party. They had signs saying Fuck the RNC and Fuck the DNC. They don't like anybody and most of the protesters had come up from Tampa after protesting the Republicans. I didn't see any cries of outrage here then. They don't like either party. So frankly you don't have a dog in this fight.

More to the point, though, you're defending their tactics and strategies of voter suppression. That's what is troubling to me.

I'm not worried about them--I'm more concerned about you.

That's a little out there. It's elected officials and courts that are doing voter suppression. They are putting up the ID rules, not the protesters, who have no political clout except to protest and you would deny them that?

with their OCCUPY tee shirts and "anti-voting" sign, and discern the caption that says the Occupy protesters have said that they will not vote for either party, then I cannot help you.

What's "out there" is that you keep denying what is right in front of you at the link.

Again, with the completely untrue assertion: "....and you would deny them that?" Where were you educated? Why is it that you can't understand a straightforward comment? How many times do I--and others--have to deny this bullshit claim you continue to falsely insist is ANYONE's attitude, here?

They have every right to their stupid protest. That has been said OVER AND OVER and you keep ignoring it.

What is NOT cool is touting their anti-Democratic Party, anti-voting, anti-Obama POV at DU--which is where you dance close to the line.

to homeless and physically disabled people through Labor than anarchists will, though it appears that poor people's organizers tend to hang out more with anarchists and Libertarians than they do Democrats, neither group of which, with a few exceptions, cultivates "members" who know very damned much about anything, in my experience.

Poor advocates who do hang out with Democrats tend to be social/economic-justice ecumenical types with strong representation amongst liberal Catholics and you don't have to look very far to see how both of those groups are becoming targets amongst "the Left", so, being churchy types, they'll recede to the Right again, with its "Libertarian" and "anarchist" neighbors, who'll co-opt that front for cheap labor, and we'll lose that human rights ground again.

Last edited Tue Oct 30, 2012, 04:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Disabled and what is helping millions were the focus, with rousing cheers to protect their current and future housing and medical care. Bill Clinton and others were clear about what would happen to the mentally disabled under a Romney and Ryan plan. Which is the Libertarian plan:

I read a thread where someone saying Occupy runs soup kitchens and are the only ones who care about the homeless, disabled, etc. That is the Libertarian Party platform, that they can survive on charity, and the government must go away. Not only that, but Social Security must go away, which is what is keeping millions of people right now from being hungry and homeless.

Instead, the people inside the convention center know and work with these folks daily. These are the people doing the work, and not tearing down what works. The numbers I quote with links below show the many millions they serve and how they are helped by Democratic policies, which have been hampered by Republicans for decades. I want to point out for those who are not familiar with these programs, that some overlap and some do not.

We are talking about well over a hundred million people getting the essentials of life right now. Not everyone needs these. How many millions of people is Occupy serving at the soup kitchen?

I wanted to see the similarities and contrasts with the Occupy movement, Libertarian and Democratic Parties. Here is some info:

In 2012, over 56 million Americans will receive $778 billion in Social Security benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm

Medicaid is the nation’s largest health program in terms of number of recipients, serving 56 million to Medicare’s 48 million.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html

More than a third of Americans lived in households receiving government assistance in 2010.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/07/news/economy/government_assistance/index.htm

More than 46.6 Million Americans Participated in SNAP in June 2012

http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-monthly-participation-data/

The Libertarian Party Platform on Welfare:

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare

The Libertarian Party Platform on Health care:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Health_Care.htm

More Libertarian, Ron Paul, Tea Bagger ideas that Democrats do not believe in:

Libertarians believe that taxes should be abolished along with all the programs and departments that taxes fund. Libertarians don’t believe in Medicare. Libertarians don’t believe in Social Security. Libertarians don’t believe that there should be fire departments, police departments, public transportation, grants for education, unemployment, disability, food stamps, and every other type of government system and assistance that you can think of.

Libertarians wish to eliminate taxes in order to eliminate all of the above programs and more. Libertarians believe that without these taxes, individuals will have more money in their pockets and will be able to afford all of these things. If someone is unable to provide themselves or their family with school, health care, or food, people need to rely on family members, church, or a private charity.

Libertarians believe that government’s role in the market should be to protect property owner’s rights. There should be no FDA, equal employment opportunities, unions, minimum wage, payroll taxes, safe food handling requirements, consumer protections, regulations that protect against financial conflicts of interest and fraud, and business licenses.

Libertarians believe that business owners should have the right to deny entry to minorities and/or women and/or people with disabilities, if that is how business owners wish to run their businesses.

http://deni-edwards.hubpages.com/hub/Defining-a-Libertarian-Ron-Pauls-Political-Platform

Which is essentially what the Occupy social program being touted here is, so they can make a soup kitchen for those they find on the streets, then go home when they feel like it, because at the end of the day. they do have homes and food, and can stop camping out. That there are those who are not getting services, is not the fault of the Democrats, but Republicans.

It is they who cut the funding, because like Libertarians, they do not believe in taxing and paying for those who fall through the cracks, just let them line up for the soup kitchen. The people who get the experience of feeding someone who is homeless, go home afterward.

Those who are determined to change the basis of society, which Occupy says it wants to do, are not in waiting for the future, but involved right now as the needs of the people cannot wait. People die when the government shuts down these services, while others argue.

Social Security and Medicaid keeps millions of people Occupiers will never meet, and have no idea exist, off the streets. Yet they disapprove of those who are doing the work to keep them alive and well, because it's a 'statist' thing. Because it's not ideologically pure enough. Compromises are made, too, which those who know people in the system know keep people alive now. People in need of a place to live, medical care and food to eat don't deserve to have to wait for people to visit and serve them food, they need it everyday, they need a healthy living place and the security of knowing that it's going to keep coming. They need the government to do it, not individuals.

But those of us who are Democrats know that taking care of millions of people is not something should be dependent on private charitable acts. That a social infrastructure needs to be in place for people that the vast majority of people do not know, have never met and whose needs are not temporary and cannot be taken care of during a few days visiting them and some that most people do not want to spend any time with, period.

The solutions were inside the convention, and just by a show of the numbers I posted here prove that Democrats are and do and will continue to help many more people than Occupy ever will. Occupy refuses to accept the many thousands of public workers, unions, the Democratic Party and the concept working inside the evil government and voting.

So do Libertarians, as they have a plan to end all government so there will be no votes needed. All back to the good old boys and corporations to say how our lives will be led. The Libertarian conquest of Occupy is complete and their vision is just fine for those who can afford to stand tall and mock the people doing the work.

Ironic how Occupy telling people to not vote for Obama and Democrats reflects exactly and facilitates the goals of Romney and Ryan, the Libertarian party and the GOP/Koch brothers plans for the poor, elderly, disabled and homeless.

I know that from talking to homeless, and the poor and street-people around our Occupy, whenever there was a proposal afoot to do something that could bring the police down on us.

These are people who are quite familiar with the police, some are of the type who will cut their own nose off to spite the police's face, but by far most of them don't want to have anything to do with authoritarian legal powers. They're already quite familiar with what it can do to their lives and they don't want any more of that, if they can avoid it.

They were also quite a-political and almost completely un-informed about any of the social and economic issues and ideologies that focus so many of our lives. They were interested in one thing and one thing only: survival and, for many of them, I'm not at all certain at what price.

To the extent that they are involved in a movement of any kind, they are vulnerable to anyone who knows more about anything and who has even modest resources that they are willing to put at their disposal.

for Charlotte--and I've provided links and pics in this thread to prove that. The Occupy people even got permits and the police were very helpful. The police allowed them to camp and gave them porta potties. Still, only a few Professional Complainers showed up. Most people were all down with the HOPE train, not the Complain train.

The protest was a failure. Occupy is shitting the bed, because they don't have any solutions, just gripes. It's their own damn fault. They started out as THOUSANDS with a valid beef, and now they're just dozens. Why? Because all they do is whine. They have no leadership, they have no focus, they have no direction, they have no abiding motivation, and they allow assholes like those black bloc jerks and other assorted Pissers in the Punch to co-opt their spotlight and make them look like a bunch of moronic weasels.

I had high hopes for them at the outset. Now I see them as like the Tea Party, slightly less meanspirited, but every bit as dumb as a box of Tea Party rocks. They had such an opportunity to make a real difference, but they blew it totally.

People look to leaders with solutions, not malodorous whiners in masks.

It's not surprising to me considering the source, but it still doesn't make it wrong for them to exercise their democratic right to protest. Just because it's our side that is being protested doesn't make it wrong or illegal. I applaud them. It may be the last hope they have. If you want to vent that vitriol do it to the Tea Party, not a bunch of disenfranchised poor people who are trying to get their President's attention.

They have every right to make fools of themselves if they'd like.

This is a free society, though, and we're ALSO free to comment on the quality of the protest, too.

come and call their fellow progressive fools. I stand corrected.

I can see why so many real liberal Democrats have left here.

is an absolute fool. Anyone who advocates not voting or claiming that both candidates are the same is a screaming nitwit. Particularly when they're engaging in these moronic activities outside the Democratic Convention.


The idea here at DU is to support Democrats for political office--not protest that elections suck, no one should vote, or burn oaths as a nitwitty protest--like these Occupy DNC idiots are doing.

Or maybe you're unclear on the concept?

Here's a refresher link for you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

The money quote is under the whole "Vote for Democrats" paragraph: Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.


This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, you know. Not Dumbass Idiots who burn the Presidential Oath of Office and Tell Everyone to Not Vote Underground.

If you think that sort of forum would get a lot of participants, you're free to go find some servers, hire a few admins, and fire it up. You wouldn't have to worry about me applying for membership, certainly.

Your children or grandchildren might be doing just those things some day and you won't be able to do anything about it. Maybe you might even want to ask them what they are trying to prove, but would you call them fools, morons, etc.?

I have every RIGHT to point it out. Don't you dare tell me that I must be silent in the face of abject lunacy on the part of these morons.

And what the fuck do children or grandchildren have to do with anything? That's as silly a discussion point as your claim that people are saying these buffoons have no right to protest (when no one has said that).

You need to learn to argue cogently if you want to engage people on the internet. I KNOW that my family members have been well-educated, and wouldn't do such a stupid, pointless, dumbass and moronic thing as tell people "Fuck it, burn the oath of office, give up, don't vote."

Smart people engage in the political process and become part of the solution. Stupid people stand on the sidelines and whine. These protesters are in the "stupid" group.

I know what they're trying to do--they are making it very clear (reading is fundamental).

They want people to NOT VOTE.

They think all parties are the same.

They are opposed to the entire poltical process--they are pointless gripers and nothing more.

They weren't burning the Presidential oath of office to keep warm, you know.

Maybe not in Charlotte today, but sometime.

for the drooling RW knuckle draggers to know, that ....
hey we got our own "crazies" on the far Left you know.

Who occupied Wall St. and changed the national
conversation about the economy to a more sane frequency.

What's not "fair and balanced" about that?

And stinky, too.

I don't know why the OP is trying to make it look like that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=220975

See post #25. And even if they are Occupy. They have the same right to protest as anyone else.

you are entitled to think they are stupid.

spaming and trying to get DUers to fight among themselves. C'mon admit it. That's what you like to do. Hmmmm?

is to fight to get Mr Obama re-elected, because another Republican president now would be a disaster for all of us

So for a while, I wouldn't be seen dead singing Kumbaya with various political nitwits -- including, but not limited to, those who don't vote or those who say Obama's as bad as Bush

Spam, of course, is a ToS violation here, so if you think someone is spamming the board, you should alert -- though in my experience, outraged cries of "Spam! Spam!" generally signify nothing more than someone disliking what they hear

Then why aren't you using your time to go after the Romney/Ryan camp instead of criticizing some poor and disenfranchised Americans who are trying to get their President's attention? And you do know that all your posts are archived for all to see?

Harriet Tubman would realize that.

here is you sign line.

I spent a lot of Labor Day around a friend's husband who was like some are here.

If anyone mention anything at all that the Dem Leadership should seriously think about, to improve the lot of the poor and the increasingly disappearing middle class, and it was this outpouring of hostility. "You want Romney to win. You want to demolish the Movement." And on and on.

No I just want to be able to vote my conscience. And to have my conscience and the conscience of the Dem Leadership be on the same page.

What was really antagonizing about all this is the guy doesn't have a job, and his wife supports him. It's not like anything that is happening affects him - he has been mooching for the last six years of his life. She gets up at 5:30 Am in the morning so she can keep a paycheck coming into the household, and so they have insurance.

If his life has been all that great up to now, it is only because of her. Not Obama, not Bill Clinton, his prosperity, slim as it is, is because of his wife. If she dies before she reaches 66 years of age, he's going to have to face the reality that many of us are facing. Little in the way of job prospects; yet somehow we're expected to find work and survive until the Social Security kicks in at 66.

defending their right to protest?

They have a right to their voice. We don't have to listen. When I do object is when they start to take over our rights like the Tea Party backed voter suppression going on in our government that I object. The voter suppression, incidentally isn't being done by protestors, but by Governors, legislators and courts in those states involved.

I think the Occupiers have as much a right to protest as the silly geezers with Earl Grey bags dangling off their hatbrims.

And I consider both groups to be equally impotent and feckless.

What I don't care for is when either group veers off into vandalism or lawbreaking.

disruptors who aren't part of the group, but infiltrate it to deliberately cause trouble, or often when the police start it, like macing those girls in NYC for no reason at all.

Occupy manifested brilliantly to save this planet,
and any number of species, including our own,
from utterly destroying ourselves.

They changed the whole freaking conversation,
in the USA and abroad, about economic justice and
basic financial principles of not shitting on your own
dinner plate.

Think of a butterfly's wing beating in China, and
you're likely to get my drift.

So did 'Star Wars'. BFD.

Zuccotti Park is where people meet to go to lunch, nowadays.

It was a great idea. It was shittily executed.

I'd go so far as to say that they have altered the conversation, yes. Now, however, they seem intent to "shit in the punch" as another poster put it.

There was momentum, there was global empathy and almost a global revolution of thought which I had some faint hope might lead to greater enlightenment. Most of them though, decided to go home and work within the system for change. The problem is that while the problems they protest are huge and the challenges many... as far as I am aware the only logical solutions require working within the system, by voting or running for office.

If this group is part of the current Occupy movement, then I no longer have anything in common with occupy.

People have a right to protest even a President that we like.

Thank you for posting that, Cleita. I was beginning to despair about the other postings here. It is the other side that seeks to close debate and sees other opionions as dangerous and illigitimate.

identified many times by our sloppy media. However, no matter who they are, they still have that right.

Personally I think if any protest needs to be done it should be done more towards congress as there is a large majority in congress who deserve it far more.

authentic horizontalism, or of a horizontalism that was capable of producing only one type of collaboration, i.e. anti-authoritarianism, which would also explain their failures in developing their own leaders, which process could still be in the works, I suppose, so that we might eventually see somekind of anti-authoritarian authority, I guess. This is one of the reasons their masks have never worked for me either. If you define the oppression as dishonesty, and apparently that's a mighty big IF amongst this group, how does refusal to put your name and identity on what you're doing solve for dishonesty? It DOESN'T. It works AGAINST honesty.

None of that works for me, because it doesn't recognize the potentiality of its own slavery to anything but a single monolithic concept destruction of power by acquisition of power, i.e. fascism. I think that drive is latent in "lower" economic class persons, but because of their economic need, it tends to be suppressed, so it is vulnerable to the support of those who have the material luxury of indulging the same tendencies and are driven by similar motivations, anger and frustration from other sources, who have the use of more exotic tools like computers and the internet, but are driven also by more purely political motivations, such as the legalization of cannabis and/or LGBTQ rights, which have roots also in the Libertarian & anarchist spectrum.

Authentic freedom is capable of choosing to do something really new or choosing to conform to chosen aspects of the status quo.

I don't think we are looking at a group that is capable of that kind of freedom . . .

. . . yet, I hope.

About 70 protesters? Should I be concerned.



Would she?

a relay.

I am an African American in the mist of this "struggle" and I am fired up and I am ready to go!

70 people didn't bother Harriet Tubman, and it sure as hell won't bother me!

Seventy people in protest? Now if we compare that with how many watched the President and Vice President speak tonight...

While I won't go so far as to say the protesting is irrelevant (they do, after all, point out and protest important issues) I will say that they could have chosen a better time or strategy. Perhaps a little advertising or even word of mouth would help them gain enough people to get the attention that any such movement needs to accomplish anything meaningful.

We'll see, I'm not prepared to write off such movements as I think they may very well play a vital role in our future.

That said... President Obama did something tonight he also did four years ago. He inspired me and gave me hope. That man represents, in so many ways, the kind of America I want to live in and want my children to live in.

They want a President that will confront the corporate oligarchy? One that will try to maintain and improve environmental standards? Well, we already have one. I'm looking forward to four more years of Obama and Biden.

Protests are done to get the attention of authorities you don't agree with. You do it when they are in town. May I refer you to the anti-war protests at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968. They weren't welcome there either but it was the opening salvo that eventually ended that war and the draft. I mean should protesters serve tea and crumpets instead when its convenient? You may not agree with the protesters but they have a right to show up when the time is better for them, not you.

I did not - and will not dispute that they have that right, of course they do.

If that was the best time that they could find for everyone (except for whatever potential people may have joined them had they not been watching the convention...) then that was the best time for them, fair enough. I would not ask them to choose a time more convenient for me.

Instead, I would suggest that a protest of 70 people - at any time - is unlikely to garner significant support or sympathy from politicians, the public or the media. It may well have earned this report precisely because of the staging time, but with such few members, no one from the President to a young punk like me is going to take them very seriously. Are they really trying to get him to come out and speak? For a million people, perhaps he would have. For seventy... he's the President, there were millions of people watching the Convention live.. I believe his priorities are in proper order.

1968 is well before my time, but from what I do know of that history, there was passion... logic... and a large number of people prepared to challenge and sacrifice for their goals. This strikes me as something very different.

If they are actually hoping to accomplish something... there are better methods for doing so. If I gathered a small group of fellow students and protested outside a government or corporate building, they would sneer and laugh up their sleeves. If I gathered a large number, they'd start getting nervous, enough, perhaps, to confront us or at least acknowledge the issue.

It's not a matter of being unwelcome, it's a matter of being, ultimately, insignificant.

insignificant when exercising your right to democracy. One person protesting is not insignificant. Remember Ghandi. He started out as one person.

Gandhi is not there to lead *them*. Their rights are not insignificant - their actions are. The (very) few people that care about this particular group - other than themselves are unlikely to have much impact. Most will see this as an annoying publicity stunt, rather than an honest attempt to make a difference.

If I punch a nail with my fist, it's not going into the board, all I accomplish is hurting my hand. I need to use something heavier, harder - like a hammer.

Frankly, if I'm going to exercise my rights, I will do so in a manner that I believe may actually accomplish something other than annoying a few people on the internet. Regardless of my personal views, I would not join a protest against Romney on convention night if I had only sixty nine people to stand with me. I would wait until I had thousands, which could perhaps in time grow into millions. Then I would have a hammer.

It is true that you have to start somewhere... but first impressions make a huge difference.

You go ahead and do what you have to do to actually accomplish something and leave the protesters to actually put themselves and often their futures on the line so you can have a better one.

are putting themselves and their future on the line? Please. If I kick a bull in the ass, I'm putting myself on the line - if I shout at people, most of whom either don't care or can't hear me anyway.. then all I'm doing is shouting - worse, I'm shouting ineffectively.

Of course if you are white you won't care. Protestors made sure you never had to go fight in a war you didn't want to fight in. Many of them were arrested and it affected their futures, but you don't have to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Protestors went on strike, often were beaten and sometimes killed so you could have better wages and job benefits. Protesters helped break the glass ceiling so women could get better jobs with better pay, or they would still be working in offices for half of what men make. But if you aren't a woman you won't care, but I bet the women in your life do.

Many of the the privileges your little entitled ass enjoys today is because protesters shouted, were often ineffective, were often beaten, arrested and sometimes killed because some other entitled asshole didn't like it.