Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Occupy letter threatens to storm Wall Street with guns

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 23, 2012, 12:57 a.m. EST by Jflynn1964 (-206)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

From the USA Today "Letters to the Editor"

'Occupy' achieved main goal

Anyone who claims the "Occupy" movement has no clear message is either trying to discredit it or simply isn't paying attention. This protest always has been about economic injustice and the fact that a small handful of people have corrupted our system in their favor ("Editorial: 'Occupy' movement fading out in a whimper").

The fact that so many elites were alarmed and frightened by the initial outcry (including members of Congress, who are supposed to represent all the people — shame on them!) goes to show that they are in fact living in a house of cards.

USA TODAY's editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation's capitals. If our country doesn't change, it could very well come to that one day.

Rich Latta; Austin

57 Comments

57 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Where is there any threat of violence in the letter? It is a criticism of an attack on OWS for essentially being non-violent, and predicts that "one day" the patience of the public might possibly come to an end. It does not threaten violence: it warns about the potential consequences of long term fundamental injustice. And it exposes the USA piece as agitating for violence.

What's more, this was a lone individual in Austin who wrote the letter. It is not a official stance by OWS. The official stance is, and always has been, non-violent civil disobedience and resistance, despite all the baiting by organizations like USA Today, Faux Spews, and Republitard officials, and has so far nobly and courageously resisted violence as a preferred response against the violence it has repeatedly endured at other's hands.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I personally have witnessed OWS campers tearing down bank signs, breaking windows, and spray painting buildings. I have seen the damage they did to the Oakland city hall. I did not witness any noble and courageous activity. And I didn't even touch on the drugs, sex, and public defecation!!!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Oakland was a debacle, for sure. But then again, I think that reflects Oakland more than it does OWS.

I certainly don;t condone breaking windows or public defecation, nor am I sympathetic to drug use or public sex. (Private sex is a different matter!) Tearing down bank signs, however, is something I think is perfectly OK.

That said, guns are an entirely different matter, and for the right wing echo chamber to make hay by distorting this single letter both in terms of painting all of OWS as blood thirsty or the very meaning of the letter itself, is just another example of the right's shameless demagoguery.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

"Shameless demagoguery" - can you be more dramatic. In my opinion, vandalism and breaking the law to get your message across is wrong.You can be critical of the Tea Party's message but they went through the voting system to effect change.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Shameless demagoguery is accurate. And nice try attempting to change the subject, which is an implied threat from a letter, not local vandalism. There is no threat of armed civil war or terrorism coming from OWS, and the spin that one is implied is demagoguery, pure and simple. Attaching the word "shameless" to it may be redundant, but not dramatic.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

This was a letter to the USA Today which is hardly partisan.

You are the one saying it is okay to destroy personal property. Just pick and choose which laws you want to obey.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The characterization of it is pure distortion and demagoguery. The letter itself was straightforward, and did NOT advocate destruction of personal property.

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

Characterization?

It's quoted in its entirety.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The ARTICLE'S characterization of the letter, dunderhead.

[-] -1 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

Could do without the name calling.

Jflynn quoted the entire letter. Nothing mischaracterized or taken out of context.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You need to learn how to read, troll. The headline very clearly says that and OWS letter "threatens" gun violence. Despite your distortion and the the article's, and the headline's It does no such thing. Period.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Your movement, by its actions, advocates destruction of personal property. Are you going to pay to fix the Oakland City Hall. Who pays Bank of America for the destruction of their property?

[-] 1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

You'll never convince EPA that he doesn't understand what's happening to our country, and that he's chosen the wrong side.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Oh I know, he just so easy to get flusterred. It's to much fun. There used to be a guy here named Puffy who was just as condescending and obnoxious and boy was it ever fun to get him going. I miss him.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, it doesn't. Oakland was an anomaly, and had more to do with the pent up rage there than anything else. There have been literally HUNDREDS of other OWS events both here and abroad, and NONE of them were marred by violence except for that of the police.

But keep up the distortions. Your agenda couldn't live without them.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

San Francisco, Philadlephia?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Golly, maybe you can find two or three more examples of isolated acts. That would certainly prove that among HUNDREDS of protests, a tiny handful saw a broken window or two. Yeah, that makes OWS SOOOO violent.

Keep up the bullshit. Your psychosis depends on it.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Yeah, you folks are just a bunch of nice people who ransack buildings because you were forced to.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And the 1% are just a bunch of nice people who ransacked the economy because they were forced to.

But, in terms of OWS, its restraint has been proven during HUNDREDS of events, where no ransacking has occurred at all.

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

For right-wingers, this is par for the course. They have nothing to stand on besides distortions and outright lies. It's amazing that they bow to the elites that are screwing them over as much as they screw the rest of us. I can only attribute it to their "us against them" mentality. Instead of working with others to improve our lives, they treat politics like a football game. How else to explain their behavior?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"How else to explain their behavior?"

Collective psychosis.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You are saying that the current recession is due to the 1%? What? This I have to hear.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yuo. And if you don't know that by now, you are even more of an idiot than everyone takes you for.

Oh, no. My mistake. Everyone already took you for the idiot you are.

[-] -1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

My family lives in San Leandro. My brother said that during the Oakland camps height, local news shot video with rivers of urine flowing down the gutters, leaving the camps. Rivers of urine. Close-ups of porta-potties showed feces piled so high inside the toilet bowl, you couldn't even stand on the seat to take a dump. Your ass would be smooshed into shit.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

This is complete fabrication. I don't live far from Oakland myself. Your brother is either a liar or a propagandist.

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

LOLOL! That is HI-larious. No reasonable person would believe it. Would YOU crap in a toilet that was stacked up and over the seat? Don't be so gullible.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

Ha ha, I thought it was hilarious too!

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

I am not anti Gun.I shower often and will gladly take your money sap.

[-] 3 points by FartBottom (8) 2 years ago

You shouldn't be on this forum then!

[-] -1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Another conservative always trying to tell people what they should and should not be doing.

[-] 1 points by FartBottom (8) 2 years ago

Nope, just an independent using verbal irony ;)

[-] 1 points by bobjr508atyahoocom (22) from Nantucket, MA 2 years ago

hey when you have been camping out as long as OWS has..... because you were lied to by a sub-prime mortgage broking lying turd and foreclosed on......ya you might smell just as bad.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I didn't send that letter

nor do I endorse it

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I believe that has been taken out of context. There was an earlier thread on this.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

I've been paying attention.

There is no clear message.

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

The summery on the home page of this site pretty much covers it. Sure, the movement has branched out into various causes but the root mission is still there. I suspect you are a mole spreading disinformation.

[-] 1 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

Mole? That's a bit paranoid, but not surprising.

I have encountered the movement daily since it began. I was handed every edition of the Occupy Wall Street Journal as it was ditributed in the park from which I read the declaration of occupation. As walked down Wall Street this evening to make my way home, I encountered the metrocard distribution at 60 Wall. I've followed the forum discussions here and the NYCGA threads.

There is no clear message. There is no 'one demand' as had been the catch phrase so early on. There never has been, other than envy. Every grievance of OWS can be boiled down to the following: some people have more than I do and I don't like it.

Now I understand even the original founders have issued a call to move this to Chicago on May 1. Has Adbusters decided the new enemy is the G20 and not Wall Street? Or is all the money gone from the OWS bank accounts and a new far left cause is needed to empty the pockets of the soft headed?

Moles, if there were any, are no threat to OWS. It's been on a collision course with itself from the start.

[-] 1 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

rock on

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

"Every grievance of OWS can be boiled down to the following: some people have more than I do and I don't like it."

A-ha, so there IS one clear message! LOL Didn't realize what you were even saying did you brightness? LOL That statement tells me everything I need to know about you. Bye!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bankrun2011 (89) 2 years ago

This represents an interesting intersection between the hyper-urbanized OWS base and the rural population. Yee haw! People do not all feel the same way about guns. People in the city tend to feel superior b/c they do not have guns due to high population density. SO much the worse for them i they take that feeling o superiority seriously.

[-] 0 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I flatly say "NO" to the threat of the use of violence.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26024) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Author of post content above (?) Rich Latta; Austin

Can have his own opinion.

Do not try to present it as an article of faith for OWS, Occupy, 99% or anyone else.

Poor rhetoric to support or spread : Jflynn1964

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined Jan. 28, 2012

We do not and will not support violence or the incitement of violence or accept the intended smear.

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

I think it's legitimate to point out that if things continue to get worse, we may indeed have a REAL revolution on our hands one day. Don't forget, there would be no USA if our Founding Fathers did not lead a violent revolution. They would've been hanged for treason if the Brits ever got ahold on them. How about the French Revolution? Still, I was only making a point, not instigating anything. It's on you if you want to misinterpret and get ticked off. But I do agree the best way to go is through nonviolent civil disobedience. On the other hand, even Martin Luther King Jr. was starting to rethink things by the end of his life, coming around to what Malcolm X had been saying...

[-] 0 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

With no chosen representatives or leaders, anyone can claim to represent OWS and make it look worse than it already does. This is the price you pay for not having an agenda and letting the unions step in to direct the message.

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

Hi, Rich Latta here. Hello? Please show me, exactly where did I say I was a representative of OWS?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

What? The unions are now at fault? For what?

OWS is, by definition, a leaderless protest movement that claims to represent the 99%. If you want it to be something else, you should either found or join a different organization.

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

touche!

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I have said the same thing repeatedly to many of the regulars here but they refuse to believe it.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by sencha (39) 2 years ago

Embarrassing. I think Occupy needs official, democratically chosen spokespeople to correct these kind of statements and communicate with the press.

[-] 1 points by RichLatta (4) 2 years ago

Why exactly is this embarrassing? It is a warning intended to send chills down the spines of the 1% and their right-wing lackys. But it clearly isn't a call to arms. People who claim I am speaking for OWS are just being absurd.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

A warning? You mean a threat of violence don't you? Beware of who you threaten,some may not take it well.

[-] 1 points by Bighead1883 (285) 2 years ago

I agree,sencha.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

violence and extreme civil unrest is the goal of the backers ( soros ) of ows.

[-] -1 points by pavonianewport (11) 2 years ago

Peaceful tactics are good, but look at all of these new laws being passed. Is standing around watching your fellow activists getting pepper sprayed and arrested then preaching that you love your fellow man make any sense? There are people gathering to have a voice and then people get trampled on and now you guys do nothing about it.......I mean how does that prove anything? How does that change anything? That's embarrassing that's not peaceful protest, that's just sad. It's just gathering people up to get arrested and play martyr. I mean imagine if you were bringing your mother to a protest and she got beat up by a cop...spat on and told shes a worthless scum...how do you look at her in the eyes and explain to her why you didn't defend her by saying "im following martin luther king" that's not love that's cowardice

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

What??? Are you kidding. It is not okay to go plop down in the middle of the street, lock yourself to the doors of business establishments, defecate on the streets and vandalize businesses. Not only is this illegal but it disrupts civil society.

If you have a complalint against the political system then you do it via the ballot box.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I would be willing to bet that the majority of OWS are anti gun. The only thing they would use to storm anything is their body odor.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'm not anti gun

I'm just allergic to bullets