Nothing like promoting group think.

Just like the Tea Party, there's things about the Occupy movement I like and things I detest.

I don't know (I don't know) how people can participate (how people can participate) in this bullshit (in this bullshit) with a straight face, but damn, if they aren't dead serious about their finger wiggling and religious repetitions of inanities. It's as though Consensus, as they understand it, is Lord.

Don't consent to their consensus.

"There is no we, without I."

LOL if any non-left group had silenced him like that, the media would be in a frenzy ove it being proof positive of them being extreme racists.

It is also hypocritical how the main argument stopping him from speaking is "we need to have open dialog where everyone is allowed to be heard"
Also good is the end where a person starts to speak and then is stopped by the controller and croud drowning him out with "mike check".

Reminds me of this, about thirty seconds in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Oj_-HPEnk&feature=related

Howard, what do you like about them? I've seen nothing thus far but absurdity myself, but if there's anything worthwhile in there I'm willing to listen.

I've been to a number of Tea Party rallies, and while we cheered at what various speakers said, there was not this horrible, group-thinking, sheep-like crowd repetition of every little thing the speakers said. There was no Direct or Indirect Consensus, just a general resolve to try and get government off our backs.

"It is also hypocritical how the main argument stopping him from speaking is 'we need to have open dialog where everyone is allowed to be heard'"

Well, they need to debate whether or not they are going to allow debate before they debate. The whole thing reminds me of the bit from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker books about the spaceship with the telephone sanitizers and the hairdressers. In a few weeks, they'll vote to make tree leaves legal tender.

Up until I read this entry, I was always of the notion that the Occupy (Your City Here) crowd practiced at least a modicum of "tolerance" and "diversity."

This group is interested in neither, unless you're fully into their dogma. I could be wrong, but that dogma is "we're rich, guilty, jealous, and self-hating, and we want more from the rich who don't feel the way we do." And I wouldn't be surprised if there are some groups (Soros, ANSWER) and certain politicians and organizations who are bankrolling these activities.

As for Mr. Lewis: it wasn't "hierarchy" that killed his speech - it was a bunch of control freaks shoving the next kookburger to the microphone to chant slogans for the crowd - and for the crowd to parrot back.

So, if this is an Occupation, can we shoot back?

So, if this is an Occupation, can we shoot back? -- Kat at October 9, 2011 7:00 PM

As much as I would like to advocate for it, I have to say no. We don't need the Left having another Kent State to point to.

Just like the Tea Party, there's things about the Occupy movement I like and things I detest.

Howard, this is wrong, wrong, WRONG! What kind of an American are you? You're supposed to pick a side and then demonize people on the other side.

@Clearly Squared - "Up until I read this entry, I was always of the notion that the Occupy (Your City Here) crowd practiced at least a modicum of 'tolerance' and 'diversity.' "

What on earth gave you that idea?

@Howard Owens - "Just like the Tea Party, there's things about the Occupy movement I like and things I detest."

Like momof4, I'd love to hear what aspects of the Occupy movement you "like."

@ JD Thompson: I was being sarcastic, with tongue planted firmly in cheek...hence the quotes around 'tolerance' (there seems to be none unless you're willing to parrot the party line) and 'diversity' (a lot of white, rich kids).

It almost seems like a mass version of National Lampoon's European Vacation, with Clark deciding everything until the kids and the wife nearly mutiny.

Since this, "civil rights hero" John Lewis participated in a sit-in in the Capitol building because he couldn't add people to the "no-fly" list for owning a firearm.

That's right. The so-called "leader" wanted to put Americans on a list with no redress, no authority, and with no sense of irony -- because this sort of thing is exactly how he was denied countless things other American citizens take for granted.