Occupy leaders arrested for plot to blow up bridge

[Cow Poke]

You're saying that the rapes and assaults were OWS-sanctioned?

OWS perpetrated. It certainly wasn't the 1%!!!! Remember, they don't have official leadership to "sanction" anything. (***cough sputter***)

[Nathan Poe]

OWS perpetrated. It certainly wasn't the 1%!!!!

So anyone not in the 1% is now a member of OWS?

Remember, they don't have official leadership to "sanction" anything. (***cough sputter***)

I remember that -- I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had.

[Cow Poke]

So anyone not in the 1% is now a member of OWS?

What I've noticed, Nathan, is when you are caught being wrong about something, you descend into this silly kind of nonsense.

I remember that -- I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had.

It's crap. And we all know it. I love the story of Texas Ranger (law enforcement, not Baseball ) Rodriguez who would show up all by himself at a riot, and just watch the crowd to see who seemed to be the main instigator. He would then wade into the crowd, pull out his trusty Colt Peacemaker, holding it by the barrel, and conk the guy in the head with the butt end. Then he'd reach down and pull that guy up by his collar and drag him out of the crowd.

[Nathan Poe]

What I've noticed, Nathan, is when you are caught being wrong about something, you descend into this silly kind of nonsense.

I'm not wrong about trying to denounce an entire movement for the actions of a few individuals.

The acts were perpetrated at OWS activities, by people looking to prey on the protestors -- now, whether or not the assailants themselves were actual OWS members, well, maybe some of them were -- why don't we catch them and find out?

It's crap. And we all know it. I love the story of Texas Ranger (law enforcement, not Baseball ) Rodriguez who would show up all by himself at a riot, and just watch the crowd to see who seemed to be the main instigator. He would then wade into the crowd, pull out his trusty Colt Peacemaker, holding it by the barrel, and conk the guy in the head with the butt end. Then he'd reach down and pull that guy up by his collar and drag him out of the crowd.

Charming -- but also irrelevant.

[Cow Poke]

Charming -- but also irrelevant.

Well, yeah, but it popped into my head!

[JimL]

Organizer's aren't leaders.

They are just people that help get the details hashed out. Decisions are made by direct democracy at the GA's. Things that get brought to the GA are often the work of other committee's where anyone can join or leave at any time. Other stuff at the GA is just whatever someone wants to get voted on. You just find the guy whose currently holding the megaphone and ask to use it. There is usually a line of some sort. They can get kinda large sometimes. Even if people are doing a task, they aren't leaders, but people serving the group. When I started the info desk at Occupy Portland I wasn't a leader, not in any real sense of the word, but just some guy getting people to draw maps of the park in sharpie while I fielded questions from people who wanted to know where stuff was or where they could volunteer or donate stuff at.

I gotta say Jim, I wish these people would have just gone to the occupations and seen them for themselves. The energy, the creativity, the crowdsourced way of making a better future, it was nifty

Yes it is nifty Jaecp, its democratic, and it is leaderless, but I don't think that seeing it for themselves would even convince these people. If you read the new book, "The Republican Brain" I think you might understand what I mean by that. Facts and empirical data has little effect upon them, what they do is spin it and try to fit it into a confirmation of what it is they already believe. We all do this to a certain extent, but liberals, according to the experiments, have a larger capacity to look at and accept facts and to change their opinions. I guess thats why they're, i.e. Republicans, are called conservatives. But its fun tryiing to convince them anyway. This should be fun watching the reaction to this post.

[rogue06]

Organizer's aren't leaders.

As exemplified by a certain community organizer?

[Cow Poke]

As exemplified by a certain community organizer?

PREACH IT, Brother!

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes it is nifty Jaecp, its democratic, and it is leaderless,

So a democratic assembly can not choose people to lead projects it votes for and to implement it's decisions with? Many community groups run that way because it would be impossible to hold a vote for every little decisions that has to be made whenever an idea is voted upon.

...but I don't think that seeing it for themselves would even convince these people. If you read the new book, "The Republican Brain" I think you might understand what I mean by that. Facts and empirical data has little effect upon them, what they do is spin it and try to fit it into a confirmation of what it is they already believe.

Every irony meter in tWeb has just broke, but it is cute that you think I'm a Republican. I'm not and I find those like Mitt Romney to be about as bad or as bad as any democrat is. It is cute though that you are blissfully unaware of facts of life an history and simply ignore evidence you dislike; IE claiming that OWS is 'leaderless' despite the fact that having a general assembly where people vote doesn't magically mean they are not leaderless since many many groups run the same way, like school boards often do? That and basic logic would make such a system where you vote for every decisions impratical and thus every group I've been a part of tends to vote for one person to lead the idea presented and voted for by the group as a whole. Or your other one about how AdBusters had nothing to do with starting OWS, despite the fact prominent leaders of AdBusters, started up the OWS web site and presented the original ideas that lead to the OWS movement. Keeps those fingers in your ears while screaming, "LALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" I've been part of groups with general assemblies Jimmy and guess what is one of the first things we vote on? Who will lead the project decided by the group, you know, like the community organizers or treasures that OWS has...

We all do this to a certain extent, but liberals, according to the experiments, have a larger capacity to look at and accept facts and to change their opinions. I guess thats why they're, i.e. Republicans, are called conservatives. But its fun tryiing to convince them anyway. This should be fun watching the reaction to this post.

Again, every irony meter on tWeb explodes while you ignored evidence that I and rogue presented that destroyed your myths and yet, you keep propping them up and just IGNORING anything and everything that you disagree with. I think I found your flame warrior type here. Keep ignoring evidence and arguments you dislike Jimmy, I'll be sure to point it out to those that will listen how much of an ignorant dolt you truly are.

[Jaecp]

So you're saying that organizers do not:

- make decisions about where things will be placed or how they will be placed?
- get permits, look into local laws, look into any other requirements for the group?
- help to find transportation if required?
- sign anything that needs to be signed?
- make decisions for the group as a whole?
- do interviews for news groups such as CNN, Fox, or MSNBC?

Funny, that is the same thing that leaders in a business or the military does. Yet for some magical reason, when applied to OWS it means there is no leaders even though they make decisions for the group, sign things for the group, and speak on behalf of the group. Keep up with the entertainment and ignoring evidence that you dislike.

Your list is a thing that could have a leader or things that could not have a leader. Whichever idea is the best at any given time tends to gain traction.

We had a one where I lived, went to it, and didn't find it that impressive. I know group dynmacis, psychology, basic logic, and sociology Jaecp and I know that it is impossible for there to be any sort of movement without any sort of leadership. Sure you can deny that an organizer is not a leader, but it is too bad that when somebody calls the shots, makes decisions, looks into local laws, determines were protest will be held, etc that makes them a leader by any definition of the word by the one that OWSers seem to use.

Anyway, you still seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding how Occupy is organized. It's very flat.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your list is a thing that could have a leader or things that could not have a leader. Whichever idea is the best at any given time tends to gain traction.

So you're telling me that the OWS movement has to vote for every minor decisions made instead of voting for somebody to be put in charge of different elements of a protest and simply vote on the major decisions instead? You also seem to be blissfully unaware that leaders can either be those directly put in charge (like an officer in the military, the president of the US, somebody voted by a majority lead, or a manager of a store in the civilian world) or they could be somebody that wasn't put into charge, but takes charge (such as how a group usually has an informal structure or how peer groups tend to have somebody that directs the group into a direction by how they act) often due simply due to having that sort of personality and/or experience that makes them lead others. I learned how to find those people within the junior ranks that are 'natural leaders' because if I can make them mind, others will fall in right behind them. That is basic group dynamics, does the Navy not have an equivalent of Airmen Leadership School for its junior NCO's?

Anyway, you still seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding how Occupy is organized. It's very flat.

No Jaecp, I understand just fine, you're just blissfully unaware of how groups tend to work. Let me give you an experiment, next time you are hanging out with your friends, see who brings up the most suggestions or who can do something and get others to following along with them. It's a perfectly nature tendency of humans to both be leaders and followers, either directly (like being a manager) or indirectly (such as those that do something and others following along with them). Is there a reason you don't understand this basic fact?

[Nathan Poe]

No Jaecp, I understand just fine, you're just blissfully unaware of how groups tend to work. Let me give you an experiment, next time you are hanging out with your friends, see who brings up the most suggestions or who can do something and get others to following along with them. It's a perfectly nature tendency of humans to both be leaders and followers, either directly (like being a manager) or indirectly (such as those that do something and others following along with them). Is there a reason you don't understand this basic fact?

Question: in the experiment you mentioned, would one expect the same person to be the leader every time? If so, is that by conscious decision of the group or simply by the force of the individual's personality?

[JimL]

So a democratic assembly can not choose people to lead projects it votes for and to implement it's decisions with? Many community groups run that way because it would be impossible to hold a vote for every little decisions that has to be made whenever an idea is voted upon.



Every irony meter in tWeb has just broke, but it is cute that you think I'm a Republican. I'm not and I find those like Mitt Romney to be about as bad or as bad as any democrat is. It is cute though that you are blissfully unaware of facts of life an history and simply ignore evidence you dislike; IE claiming that OWS is 'leaderless' despite the fact that having a general assembly where people vote doesn't magically mean they are not leaderless since many many groups run the same way, like school boards often do? That and basic logic would make such a system where you vote for every decisions impratical and thus every group I've been a part of tends to vote for one person to lead the idea presented and voted for by the group as a whole. Or your other one about how AdBusters had nothing to do with starting OWS, despite the fact prominent leaders of AdBusters, started up the OWS web site and presented the original ideas that lead to the OWS movement. Keeps those fingers in your ears while screaming, "LALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" I've been part of groups with general assemblies Jimmy and guess what is one of the first things we vote on? Who will lead the project decided by the group, you know, like the community organizers or treasures that OWS has...



Again, every irony meter on tWeb explodes while you ignored evidence that I and rogue presented that destroyed your myths and yet, you keep propping them up and just IGNORING anything and everything that you disagree with. I think I found your flame warrior type here. Keep ignoring evidence and arguments you dislike Jimmy, I'll be sure to point it out to those that will listen how much of an ignorant dolt you truly are.

Right, you're not a Republican lilpix, LOL, you just happen to defend them and their policies at every turn. You're not a Republican, just like the Tea Party is not Republican. Anyway, I gave you an assignment which you have yet to carry out. Where are those names of the leaders, the orchestraters and the funders of the Occupiers. Whats wrong, were you not able to find them? Also, have you found the leaders of the Tea Party movements yet, and who funds and orchestrates them? As for Adbusters, they are a magazine, they provided a spark, they didn't organize anybody, nor do they have role to play within the occupy movement. They don't fund them, they don't orchestrate them, they have no control over them. If you are going to continue to insist that they do, then prove it, name names, and tell us in what way they affiliate with occupy other than ideologically.

[Nathan Poe]

As for Adbusters, they are a magazine, they provided a spark, they didn't organize anybody, nor do they have role to play within the occupy movement. They don't fund them, they don't orchestrate them, they have no control over them. If you are going to continue to insist that they do, then prove it, name names, and tell us in what way they affiliate with occupy other than ideologically.

And of course, the problem with providing a spark is that you never know when it's going to turn into a fire. Whatever Adbusters intended OWS to do or stand for, it's clearly grown out of control.

[Jaecp]

So you're telling me that the OWS movement has to vote for every minor decisions made instead of voting for somebody to be put in charge of different elements of a protest and simply vote on the major decisions instead? You also seem to be blissfully unaware that leaders can either be those directly put in charge (like an officer in the military, the president of the US, somebody voted by a majority lead, or a manager of a store in the civilian world) or they could be somebody that wasn't put into charge, but takes charge (such as how a group usually has an informal structure or how peer groups tend to have somebody that directs the group into a direction by how they act) often due simply due to having that sort of personality and/or experience that makes them lead others. I learned how to find those people within the junior ranks that are 'natural leaders' because if I can make them mind, others will fall in right behind them. That is basic group dynamics, does the Navy not have an equivalent of Airmen Leadership School for its junior NCO's?

People can make plans, but then the plans are brought to vote.

And those people aren't leaders. They have no authority, its just their idea's.

The Navy has the basic leadership class I went through when I made Petty Officer. The kinds of leadership you see in the military is nothing like what goes on in Occupy. Structure vs No Structure. It's completely dissimilar.

No Jaecp, I understand just fine, you're just blissfully unaware of how groups tend to work. Let me give you an experiment, next time you are hanging out with your friends, see who brings up the most suggestions or who can do something and get others to following along with them. It's a perfectly nature tendency of humans to both be leaders and followers, either directly (like being a manager) or indirectly (such as those that do something and others following along with them). Is there a reason you don't understand this basic fact?

You might be completely right about how groups tend to work and still be wrong here.