Obama adviser urges ‘militancy’ in nationwide Occupy protests

[luckytxn 2,265]

Three days before an Occupy Oakland protest turned violent, United Steelworkers international president Leo Gerard, an adviser to President Obama, called for “more militancy” in Occupy movements across the U.S.

Gerard serves on the board of a number of groups funded by billionaire George Soros, including organizations that reportedly helped to craft Obama’s “stimulus” and health-care laws.

In an interview with progressive radio host Ed Schultz on Monday, Gerard stated, “I think what we need is, we need more militancy.”

[dalegg 143]

Three days before an Occupy Oakland protest turned violent, United Steelworkers international president Leo Gerard, an adviser to President Obama, called for “more militancy” in Occupy movements across the U.S.

Gerard serves on the board of a number of groups funded by billionaire George Soros, including organizations that reportedly helped to craft Obama’s “stimulus” and health-care laws.

In an interview with progressive radio host Ed Schultz on Monday, Gerard stated, “I think what we need is, we need more militancy.”

It was bound to happen. The peaceful protests were dumb. Nobody is going to change anything because a few thousand people chant stupid slogans and hold up funny signs if at the end of the day you can just walk around them. As long as they can be ignored they will be.

You have to go Berkeley on them. Let em know you mean business.

[luckytxn 2,265]

It was bound to happen. The peaceful protests were dumb. Nobody is going to change anything because a few thousand people chant stupid slogans and hold up funny signs if at the end of the day you can just walk around them. As long as they can be ignored they will be.

You have to go Berkeley on them. Let em know you mean business.

Yet the largest and most lasting changes were by peaceful disobedience.

[dalegg 143]

Yet the largest and most lasting changes were by peaceful disobedience.

That's because they had something the other side wanted. That isn't the case here.

[luckytxn 2,265]

That's because they had something the other side wanted. That isn't the case here.

Britain wanted India pretty badly. The Jim crows wanted the status quo pretty badly. Violence was tried and quelled. It wasn't until a Gandhi or King came along and showed the way. Violence begats violence and most people will understand and expect that violence be dealt with mercilessly and swift. These two great men brought down a huge injustice by being peaceful. The war in Vietnam was also dealt with by using peace. Please show me by links where your way has brought lasting positive change.

[dalegg 143]

Britain wanted India pretty badly. The Jim crows wanted the status quo pretty badly. Violence was tried and quelled. It wasn't until a Gandhi or King came along and showed the way. Violence begats violence and most people will understand and expect that violence be dealt with mercilessly and swift. These two great men brought down a huge injustice by being peaceful. The war in Vietnam was also dealt with by using peace. Please show me by links where your way has brought lasting positive change.

Britain wanted India's sugar badly. A peaceful strike was all that was necessary. Martin Luther King organized strikes that caused financial hardship - such as the Montgomery Bus transit boycott. If Vietnam protesters had any influence it was because they affected the political careers and swayed the focus of the Vote to someone promising to get out of Vietnam (and they were mostly duped).

Violence causing lasting positive change- How about the American Revolutionary war.. or the Vietnam war (if you were in the North it was positive any way).