Forum Post: OWS Protestors Vandalize Obama Campaign Office
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 6, 2012, 2:43 a.m. EST by freakyfriday
(179)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Without mentioning Occupy Wall Street, the Associated Press reported that "protestors" vandalized an Obama campaign office in Oakland, California, Friday evening. Other Big Media outlets, such as the Washington Post, ran the AP version of the story. That's excusable, since the AP made it look like a small story, and it happened on the opposite side of the continent from most WaPo readers. But the local CBS affiliate ran its own version of the story without revealing that the protestors were part of the Democrat-supported OWS movement.
By the time you click those links, the stories might have been updated, but as of 3pm Eastern Time -- fourteen and a half hours after the incident -- they still suppressed the truth about the protestors' affiliation. Unsurprisingly, some reader comments indicted the TEA Party for the vandalism, and cynics might suspect that the AP wanted its readers to jump to that conclusion.
However, in random acts of journalistic integrity, at least two other local TV stations did report the whole story. ABC affiliate KGO wrote, "A group of 100-200 Occupy Oakland protesters began marching down Telegraph Avenue after being denied a permit to protest near the First Friday event at Art Murmur." And Fox affiliate KTVU reported, "Around 9:30 p.m. Friday night, some demonstrators broke away from an Occupy Oakland protest march and smashed the windows of the campaign office on Telegraph Avenue."
Yes, every activist group has its lunatic fringe, but the Democrat sponsored, endorsed, and lauded Occupy movement appears to be comprised of nothing but lunatics. And just months ago, OWS was hailed as the face of the 21st century Democrat Party. Perhaps it is.
Say it aint so, VQ,BD.Shooz. et al
"Democrat sponsored, endorsed, and lauded Occupy movement appears to be comprised of nothing but lunatics."
The Dem Party has not attempted to endorse this stuff, to my knowledge. Co-opting OWS is tougher than co-opting Tea simply because they are much younger- therefore have a lot less to lose, and are much more unpredictable.
A Obama compaign member was very dissapointed in Tampa for doing the promo on NDAA, right down the street from their office. He tried to tell me that it didnt concern us, and I told him he's just dissaponted because he was probably frothing at the mouth for motivated campaigners come September. Needless to say, he left.
You have to remember that these two parties have one goal- maintaining power. Its why they swooped in on the Tea Party, regardless of how many of them hated the R party. And its why the Dems are using the 99% catch phrase so much.
The minute an alternative option becomes mainstream, its game over for the power structure in DC, and many of the corporations with it.
Thats why many think that the R and D both created these movements themselves, to keep control of it. I dont think that is the case, but the arguement holds some water.
The future of the D party is the same as the R- trying to maintain control and power in an increasingly hostile environment as the standard of living goes down.
the rest is just PR fluff.
I would put my money on the TP coopting the Republican party. Something OWS should aspire to with the dems. Or the TP will emerge as the first viable 3rd party since the 19th century.
The Tea will never be able to coopt the R party, because they are about less spending, and the establishment is in full blown "extract the USA" mode right now.
The only way they get their wish is after the currency collapse.
I have heard many Dem Pols supporting OWS. We've had Dem pols at rallies (not always welcomed) but certainly in NYC many dem candidates have embraced OWS, and the issues OWS have taken a stand on. (money out of politics, halt foreclusures, LGBT rights, Union support). So I don't think your commenst are accurate.
I disagree.
The only ones attacking OWS. Are republicans and their PR firm Fauxnews.
Repubs certainly created TP. Dems did not create OWS. That is ridiculous. Some OWS founders/anarchists refuse to support Dems on principle. I respect that. But most OWS supporters are dem leaning progressives.
Republicans ARE the problem. Elect progressives
I would put my money on the TP coopting the Republican party. Something OWS should aspire to with the dems. Or the TP will emerge as the first viable 3rd party since the 19th century.
And you are wrong to say the Reps created the TP. Boehner sure can;t control those tea partiers!!!!
Boehner can't but has made great efforts in trying to control TP. I mean the only thing TP was able to do was create the 1st credit downgrade for the country and water down, obstruct all dem efforts to improve the Obama recovery.
So Boehner didn't create but Dick Armey was their at the beginning. TP was clearly a repub created effort at expanding repub base, exciting repub base, moving the repubs even further right, and an attempt to stop the dem effort to implement the progressive policies we need to correct the tinkle down economic theory that screwed everything up.
And we could only hope that the TP becomes the 1st viable 3rd party. Repubs are desperate to co opt the tp and prevent that. If TP becomes a significant 3rd party, then conservative votes would be split.
Any non-fox confirmation ? Where is ABC transctipt?
Occupy movement appears to be comprised of nothing but lunatics. And just months ago, OWS was hailed as the face of the 21st century Democrat Party
Instant lie detector: there is no Democrat Party
You will not see any ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC or any of the other garbage media outlets "besides Fox" Because all the rest of them are Obama's little lap dogs
are yor paychecks made out to "stooge" or "troll" ? signed by david? or charlie?
http://arrestmittromney.blogspot.com/2012/07/massive-romney-ira-still-sparks.html Just for the hell of it...
"Occupy movement appears to be comprised of nothing but lunatics. " The moderators who must think what you're saying is funny. It isn't. It sets up frameups and worse.
Oakland appears to be the most violent of the occupy groups around the country.
Yup..check out the NYT Sunday (8/5) magazine article about Oakland
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/magazine/oakland-occupy-movement.html?_r=1&hpw
On my Occupynews.net site I put up a twitter feed and during some of the protests last year there were apparenty on location twitter reports of willful escalation of protest marches in Oakland into vandalism by just a few of the protestors.
However the escalation actually made the rest of the protestors have to choose between continuing their march, or not.
Keep up the good work Occupy Oakland - tyranny takes the form of every politician who has stood by and allowed it to flourish or turned a cheek. Those in power bare the account; whatever their so-called party, if they bow down to corporate greed. The friend of my enemy is also my enemy.
[Removed]
OWS Protestors Vandalize Obama Campaign Office
If I were a real scumbag//////////////////////////////////you are a real scumbag and a dumb lib at that
[Removed]
You get all the compliments. Sheesh. I especially like the part about dumb lib. The must make me a f&*@%^# commie.
actually below normal temps here
[Removed]
In other related news!!!!!! 70 Facts That Barack Obama Does Not Want You To See http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-u-s-economy-by-the-numbers-70-facts-that-barack-obama-does-not-want-you-to-see
Oy, this forum just get's weirder by the day. Oh no, a red t-shirt, it's the ghost of Marx (smoke some more crack Mr. Beck). It's a democratic conspiracy (conspiracy pronounced in Elmer Fudd dialect), Obama is an alien from the Mormon planet of Kenya, oh shit; that purple acid was awesome!
Your entire post is a non sequitur. Put it together: Democratic sponsored vandals wreck a Democratic office. Does that make sense to you?
Geeze I wonder if this could be a mistake(?) um . . . I am tending to think that the Protesters were just that - Protestors . . . . you know ordinary citizens of no certain distinction but that they are pissed off with government - and who could blame em(?) the government totally sucks right now.
I think it likely that someone (s) would like to smear the incredibly peaceful Occupy movements by attributing this action to them.
Maybe OWS Oakland hasn't gotten your msg? From the NYT 8/5
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/magazine/oakland-occupy-movement.html?_r=1&hpw
I can't and I won't speak for Oakland Occupy - I don't live there - but consider this - the cops out there are none to nice to the public at large so I can't say that I would not be doing the same if I was there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/magazine/oakland-occupy-movement.html?_r=1&hpw
Occupy Oakland does not represent all of Occupy. Their diversity of tactics which includes property destruction is favored by a minority. You might ask the members here how many favor those type of tactics. I do not.
Now if you want to report something newsworthy, why was Romney campaigning in Israel for an office that is located in the United States? Obama did the same in 2008.
[Removed]
The answer must be in the form of a question.
[Removed]
Buzzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry time has run out.
Giggle, giggle.......americanthinker...........libe(R)tarian blog.........giggle.
FLAKESnews??.............Oh, come now....(R)epelican't multi-media propaganda outlet, that admittedly has no integrity..
As if you didn't know.........
Neither one of these sources is exactly a paragon truth.
FLAKES, being a legally admitted liar.
The bottom line, is as stated........."some" broke away.
So what's your point?