Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: New age hippies?

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 11, 2011, 10:11 p.m. EST by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A lot of the stuff i hear the OWS people spouting sounds like a reverberation of the hippy movement in the 60's and 70's. I'm not trolling btw

70 Comments

70 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 11 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Yea those damn hippies ruined everything back then. Stopping a war. Fighting for equal rights. What were they thinking. I heard some of them smoked some pot even.

[-] 4 points by deGrene (199) 7 years ago

It was all a pinko-commie plot to overthrow the Dear Ol' Red White and Blue, donchaknow. No True American could ever want silly things like Peace and Love and Equality -- Hell, those are Bolshi ideas!

(I was even almost suspended from school my senior year for wearing a Peace Shirt -- a shirt that was marked up with subversive sayings like "Make Love Not War" and "All You Need Is Love"

A true disgrace I was.

. . . I mean, am.)

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Eeek! Such dreadful propaganda! haha

[-] -2 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

along with spitting on the troops and starting riots, that was real nice of them. in my post I'm referring to the whole anti corporation aspect that is the CORNERSTONE of the OWS movement. But your satirical useless comments are greatly appreciated.

[-] 6 points by deGrene (199) 7 years ago

Every time I hear of Anti-Vietnam protestors spitting on soldiers I bristle. I was there, and I served in the military during Vietnam and I also became an antiwar protestor. Would you like to know who the first people were to spit on a soldier coming home from Vietnam?

In 1967 Ron Kovic served his country by going to Vietnam and coming home not only wounded but paralyzed from the chest down. Because of the deplorable care he and other veterans received -- or did not receive, actually -- from the Veteran's Administration, he became active in GI Rights and the anti-war movement. At the 1972 Republican Convention (Yes! The REPUBLICAN Convention), Ron Kovic and other disabled American Veterans were spat on by members of the Young Republicans joined by members of the VFW -- the same organization who refused membership to Vietnam Veterans (until decades later) because -- to quote the national president at the time -- "You sons-a-bitches lost a war." (This is why you have, today, Am-Vets -- it was formed by returning veterans from Vietnam and their families because the VFW and the American Legion would not support them.)

The incident with Ron Kovic and the other verterans at the '72 Republican National Convention was the first, and to my knowledge the ONLY irrefutably documented case of Vietnam veterans being spat on -- and it was done by the very people who now want to pin it on the Anti-War protestors.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

A riot is the language of the unheard. Your original comment was vague and especially useless.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

whatchya say whatchya say whatchya say what! Calm like a bomb!

[-] 0 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

what? riots are the language of the people who are so small in number that no one listens to them until they do something extreme

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Nah I think Martin King said it better.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

i believe king supported non-violent protest, not riots. that is an egregious misuse of his name. if you guys wanna march and protest and complain then go for it but if you riot and try to break into my shop then me and mister colt are gonna have a problem with that haha

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

You are an idiot. It is possible to make a comment about riots without saying they are a good idea. The police started the riots in the 60s asshole.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

you sir are ignorant. the police didn't go around burning cars did they? did they loot? is looting part of a protest? i think not. riots are for morons who can't get their radical ideas recognized. non-violent protests are for people with a valid point who want the world to be changed for the better. in short-violence gets you no where and gives you a bad name. you definitely implied that riots were a good idea. anyone who riots to get a point across should be shot with bean bags, pepper sprayed, tear gassed, water cannoned, and arrested. they serve no purpose and don't help anyone.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

I didn't imply shit. I stated why riots happen according to Martin King. Idiot. Using tear gas on people is illegal. It is chemical warfare and it can kill people. It is not targeted at rioters but entire crowds of people and has been used on peaceful protesters. You are a sick person.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

tear gas is perfectly legal. its not a chemical weapon. its rarely lethal. cars kill thousands of people per year, so do pools. it isn't chemical warfare. its a crowd dispersal tool. I've been tear gassed. give it an hour and wash your eyes out and your fine. no lasting effects. it just makes your nose runny and your eyes burn and you cough a lot. highly unpleasant but not at all in the realm of mustard gas and nerve agents. riots should never happen and when they do they should be dispersed as quickly as possible. all they do is damage property and hurt people.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Tear gas is for cowards. It is a chemical weapon. It is illegal to use in war so it should most definitely be illegal to use on citizens.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

it is perfectly legal to use in war. its either tear gas or the water cannon. crowds cannot run rampant or people take crowd control into their own hands, usually involving an AR 15 or something. tear gas it just an irritant. makes your nose runny and makes you cough a lot. how else do you propose they control riots?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago
[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

ok, you got me but as i read that, it was banned not because of its effects but because of the possible repercussions. like other nations using worse agents and things like that. CS is safe, its an irritant and that's it. its not overtly lethal. in RARE circumstances people with asthma can be killed, but hundreds of people drown in pools each year and you aren't complaining about the safety of those

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

TLydon007- I would not think it needs any ramifications. its not a criminal offense. resisting the police and trespassing is a criminal offense. the police are merely removing the people who are breaking the law. they can't just let people sit there and defy them. the police are there to provide peace to the community. the protestors are disrupting the police. they aren't impinging your first amendment right. in zucotti park specifically, all they said was you can't live here. they could protest all they wanted and if they had removed the tents and everything then the police would have not even had to get involved. but no, they chose to resist and cause problems. the cops will get you to move. its up to the protestors as to how much force is necessary. if you cooperate they will accommodate you. Ive been pepper sprayed, it sucks. if you chose to sit there then you know full well whats coming. you had your choice

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

" in RARE circumstances people with asthma can be killed, but hundreds of people drown in pools each year and you aren't complaining about the safety of those"

The distinction is intent.

I'm not calling for a complete ban of CS. I simply advocate a prudent standard of when it's used. If someone's behavior creates a reasonable apprehension of violence, and lethal weapons are not completely necessary, I'm all for the use of CS. If a group of protesters are sitting on the ground with their arms locked, I think the use of CS or pepper spray should lead to the user undergoing trial and imprisoned if found guilty.

If you think it's so harmless, would you advocate its legal use by protesters on police officers without any ramifications??

Or would you consider that a criminal offense??

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

No it is illegal to use in battle. There was an international ban on in over 10 years ago. Only legal for crowd control. I am done talking about this it is fucking stupid and pointless.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 7 years ago

Who started the riots in California after the Rodney King verdict?

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Your mom

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 7 years ago

Funny how when you can't argue a point you resort to that response. Seems to be the MO here. Read a book and educate yourself, then try to have an actual debate on the topic moron.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

The topic was hippies and the protests of the 60s and 70s. You were the one that was off topic and tried to turn into a black people are scary thing. Try to pay attention.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 7 years ago

I responded to a statment that was already posted to the thread so how was I off topic? If you look, my first post was in response to the previous posters assertion that beating and robbing innocent people was justified when you don't like a court decision. Make sure you read the thread before you post.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Your comment was a reply to my comment. We were talking about the 60s and 70s and you brought up the Rodney King riots out of nowhere. It was off topic and had racist connotations to it. Nobody was claiming that violence was a good thing in any way. Accepting that riots happen for a reason is not the same as condoning or encouraging them.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 7 years ago

It had no racist connotations. Don't try to make something out of nothing. The point was that people who were pissed about something felt it was ok to do and hurt whoever they wanted for personal satisfaction and gain that had nothing to do with the reason they were upset. Peacful demonstration is usually blown into riots because a sect with completely different motives takes advantage of the larger group and opportunity to make it there own.

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 7 years ago

Lots of people who were insulted by the lack of justice.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 7 years ago

So beating a man who had nothing to do with a Court decision was acceptable? Destroying places of buisness and robbing them was acceptable because of a court decision they had nothing to do with? Is that what's next for OWS, you don't get your way so you attack the very 99% you claim to represent?

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 7 years ago

Mania is a perfectly reasonable defense. A psychotic event could happen in such a way that mania is the result. Don't want such reactions to court cases? Ask for for proper justice.

What would happen if it was clear that the Republican nominee won the 2012 PresidentiaL BID, BUT THE dEMOCRATS FILED IN COURT AND THE LIBERAL JUDGES GAVE THE ELECTION TO oBAMA?

oBAMA SUBSEQUENTLY RAISES TAxes on everyone who makes over $75,000 a year to 90%.

What would happen then?

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 7 years ago

I still don't see your point of how beating and potentially killing innocent people who has absolutly nothing to do with what was going on is a justified means to an end? Just so I'm clear in what you are saying, the way I understand your post is that it is ok to destroy or beat or kill whatever you want to make your point?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

there are a lot of people that still to this day do not understand what corporation means and the lack of dealings with things leave them with no clarity of what the problems are. the tea party did the same with pointing fingers at the government. it's a general ignorance on both sides.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 7 years ago

FALSE Spitting on troops has long been debunked and the riots started when police attacked protesters. Of course you probably weren't even born yet.

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 7 years ago

Thank you -- I replied in detail to this above. It's time the truth about who spat on troops and where it happened came out.

[-] 3 points by DiMiTri (134) 7 years ago

lsd <3

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 7 years ago

Having lived through the 60s, I don't think OWS is anything like the hippy movement which was very consciously nonpolitical and even antipolitical, though OWS does bear some relationship to the New Left of the 1960s, which was a movement quite distinct from that of the hippies. However the American New Left of the 1960s, especially in its later stages was considerably more anti-intellectual than is the case with OWS which is much more conscious of the past, including the history of social movements that preceeded it.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 7 years ago

these are the kinds of comments that i like. intelligent. thank you for the information. i appreciate your input

[-] 2 points by starSparrow (23) 7 years ago

Butter flies flutter by... never forget! Their wings reverbereate the air and caused the hurricane.

[-] 1 points by SkepticismAndWonder (29) from Imperial, CA 7 years ago

No such thing these days. All the hippies are either dead or, as Bill Maher was keen to point out; "Traded in their brown acid for the blue viagra."

[-] 1 points by GOP99PERCENY (6) 7 years ago

At least they had a concrete reason behind thier movement.

[-] 1 points by rhelmin (1) 7 years ago

Here is why -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmhP1RgbrrY Put Your own lyrics the way You feel p.ex. ->

People are poor, out of a job,

waiting for the times to change...

Monk and his men, in the salooon, playing for the Hi an Mi

playing for the Hi an Mi

there is something to do...

playing for the Hi an Mi

what the fuck is going on

nobody cares

I'm asking questions...

duuba diiba etc.

American jazz musicians have reacted to social ínjustices...

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 7 years ago

"Hippie Movement?" Does that include civil rights, womens lib, gay lib, the ecology movement, etc. as well as the peace movement? By and large socio-political issues.

Occupiers and the 99%ers seek changes in the way big business and governments interact.

I think there's a great difference between the 60s movements and OWS. ~ Thunderclap

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 7 years ago

"and those hippies keep criticizing the military when the military keeps them living free from tyranny, terrorists , and nuclear bomb threats. Yea they seem to have a military industrial complex!"

: )

http://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia#p/u/3/NXbCwq4ewBU

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

and here:

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

These aren't exactly 60's and 70's issues -

here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/nytimes-summary-of-corzines-risk-adeiction/

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 7 years ago

We've never really died out, you know. Just been moving through the shaodws ;-)

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 7 years ago

The New Age Hippies are nothing more than aged hippies... this is not a rebirth; 40 years later and the airheads are now, HERE.

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 7 years ago

Those damn hippies started Apple, Microsoft and thousands of other multi-million & billion dollar companies.

[-] 0 points by FriendIyobserver (-28) 7 years ago

I am the leader of the movement and no we are not a bunch of hippies from the 60's. Look up my message.

Chest Rockwell.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 7 years ago

They are using 60's tactics in 2011. They need to evolve with the times if they want to be taken seriously. You can't relive a time you weren't even close to being born from. Some groups hold meetings, and I applaud them. Others want to just act like asses because a piece of paper says so.

[-] 2 points by deGrene (199) 7 years ago

Not all of us were, as you say, not even close to being born in the 60s. To think that the Occupy Movement is merely a youth movement would be greatly mistaken.

And the tactics we used in the 60s were used in the 1850s and in the 1700s and as far back as the 14th Century -- so, I wouldn't be so quick to discount them now.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 7 years ago

Do the groups that sit down with city leaders and the police and talk out what they are going to do and go through with it in a peaceful way and clean up after themselves get pepper sprayed?? A lot of these groups think that stuff still works, it does not. Site one sit in at any point in history before the 30's(probably being generous going that far). Name one park in the from 1850 to the 1300's where people sat on their asses or yelled in the street at people they couldn't even name. Hell, name one park period from the 1850's and I might give you some credit. And the majority of the Occupy are in their late teens to mid 20's

[-] 2 points by deGrene (199) 7 years ago

I truly have no idea what you are trying to say. What do you mean "name one park"? What is your point about things not working. Of course they do not work -- that's why people are protesting.

As far as the tactics, From the Peasant's revolt of the 14th Century -- Wat Tyler's Revolt -- and probably before, people have used tactics like marches, public deomstrations, and even sit-ins to drive home a point. In the Women's Suffrage Movement, women picketed outside the White House from January to July, 1917. The only reason it ended then was because they were illegally arrested. The Civil Rights Movement were staging sit-in as early asw the 1940s. The most famous, of course, is the one 1958 sit-in at the Dockum Drug Store lunch counter in Witchita, KS. The Kent State protest that ended in tragedy began as a sit-in, as did many others in places like Berkley, Harvard and other universities.

As far as people yelling AT people in the street, I have no direct knowlege that anyone in the Occupy Movement is doing this, but if they are, what of it? As long as they are not yelling hateful and violent threats at people I have no objection to that. Supposedly that's what freedom of speech is all about.

As far as you giving me credit, I thank you for the thought, but I neither need nor desire to have validation from you or anyone else. I know the history and events of my life and I do not feel the need to have those acepted or validated by anyone. I am proud of the life I have lived and if it does not suit another, then it is their right to feel as they do; I will not ask them to change their opinion nor will I change mine because of their attitude.

The Occupy Movement began as a youth movement and, certainly, the majority of people involved in it are yunger; however that does not preclude the fact that more and more older people are becoming involved with it nor does it negate the fact that, as many of the posts on this site prove, many others are interested in it.

Thank you for your comments. UNless you wish to discuss the merits and elements of the Occupy mission, I shall not reply further.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

There is probably very little lsd around and nobody is circling the pentagon doing magic on it.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 7 years ago

you know what I mean

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Maybe. But it takes all kinds doesn't it?

[-] -1 points by stuartchase (861) 7 years ago

I think this will be more to your liking.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 7 years ago

OCD

Somebody buy this guy a Toshiba 8-track player so he can get on with his life.

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 7 years ago

I don't need to be lectured by someone far too stupid to run a bath, much less, find a job. You need to get bent, loser.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 7 years ago

I suggest you seek mental health treatment.

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 7 years ago

No one cares what you think. That's why you're here.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 7 years ago

Which is why you responded, AGAIN? LOL

I've got a Toshiba DVD player you can have for free. Will that solve your problem?

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 7 years ago

No, I respond because it gets this attention:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 7 years ago

You mean the Troll Infected thread!!!?

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 7 years ago

It's not troll infected. It points how stupid a lot of these corporations really are and the only reason they keep succeeding in screwing people over is that they are far too stupid and lazy to fight back. It takes years to bring down these companies.

Look what this family had to go through.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/enterprise-rent-a-car-murders-children/

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Through my investigation on Toshiba, I know the ins and outs of the company. I put them in a bad spot with UPS who was providing cover for Toshiba.

Maybe you like it when corrupt companies attack people who can't defend themselves.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 7 years ago

Ha, both of you are being ridiculous here. Throwing insults around accomplishes nothing

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 7 years ago

Follow his link http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

Then pay attention to his posts, they ALL refer to killing Toshiba.