Some OWS Protestor Tries To Crash Ron Paul's Salute to Veterans Iowa Campaign Rally

Started out with a former Michele Bachman aide now endorsing Ron Paul
Then RP comes on stage, he speaks a little

Then some 99%er come and tries to crash the event
The protest was just so weird, then the OWS woman claimed to be a veteran????
Seemed too young to be a vet but I can't be sure



How did an OWS protestor get her hands on a Cspan microphone anyhow?

Other than that pretty good speech

Just a small but annoying question in my head. And yes, I know that nobody represents OWS, but I'm leaving that aside for now. If OWS doesn't like Ron Paul, then who do they like, Obama? Obama is going to oppose Government-Corporate corruption? Heck, I'll even use an emoticon:

I really don't understand.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I don't think it was the really young girl saying she was a veteran, It was the older lady with the reddish hair in a white coat. Regardless, it was dumb of them to do.


I think disruptions like this to official events and speeches are ridiculous and show immaturity on the part of the "protesters".

I think most people know I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul...but he has the right to have an event and talk to his supporters just like everyone else does. If you want to protest, protest outside...don't take away the opportunity of your fellow Americans to hear a candidate because you think what you have to say is more important.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Here are some things I heard them say: "You want to eliminate student aid Mr. Paul? Do you care about the children of the 99%?"......"servant of the 1%"

:shk:

Don't get me wrong, I support the occupy movement, because corruption is still here and thriving in our government, but really some of the actions that they take are just retarded. Calling the guy who gets his campaign donations from individuals rather than corporations/big banks a "servant of the 1%"? Whose idea was that?

He's much more of a threat to the establishment than the occupy movement. You know why? Because he has a set of goals that are easy to understand. Ending the wars, ending the Fed, following the Constitution, cutting $1 trillion year one and balancing the budget by year three. His principles and ideas are fixed, and they are a direct threat to many powerful entities.

With the occupy movement on the other hand, there are no fixed set of goals. Individuals who are upset with the government have their own reasons for going there. Since there isn't a unifying message that everybody adheres to, how can there be a goal? Is the goal to satisfy the requests of every single person?

That's why I've been saying from day one at occupykc that we need to focus on corruption within the government, because that's what allowed the financial collapse to occur, and that's the root cause of the majority of this nations problems.

But then people start talking about things like student aid, and it really has little relevance to my reason for being there. How can the group hope to accomplish anything if they don't know what they want to accomplish? The vague "look out for the 99%!" message really needs some principles to go with it, like "Get corporate money out of politics" and "Hold politicians and powerful people accountable for their actions".

That's why lately, my energy has been going towards Ron Pauls campaign rather than the occupy movement. I still love everyone there and it's great that people are willing to come together to protest a corrupt government, but it's been 3 months now, and the numbers have been stagnating. Nothing substantial has been accomplished in terms of cleansing the government and making things better for the American people as a whole.

With Ron Pauls campaign on the other hand, his poll numbers are increasing. He's leading in Iowa, and has a legitimate chance to become president. With him as president, things will change, and we know how they will because we can read about his positions on issues and what he plans to do about those things. Ending the wars, for example, that changes our foreign policy and we know how.

But with people sitting around a campsite with 15 different messages, and a vague principle of the "99%", there is no guarantee that things will change, because there has been no unifying effort to come together as a whole and decide exactly how things need to change.

So I wouldn't say I'm throwing in the towel and turning my back on the occupy movement, but I've just come to realize that the more effective way of making this country a better place would be to get Ron Paul elected, which is completely possible and can be done with the effort of people just like me.

Anyone should be able to ask questions of folks that are running for office, OWS, TP, anyone.

As for why she approached RP that way, most likely to get an candid response to his ideas. Anyone can read a script, or stay somewhat close to it (GWB and You Betcha Palin), but it is within the dynamics of true Q & A you see the mettle of a person.

Derek

reply to post by charles1952


OWS lurvs Obama, are you kidding me? Every OWS supporter that I know personally is either voting for Paul or Obama, the majority favoring the latter. IMO, it's the divide between the informed and uninformed OWS protester.

reply to post by Rockpuck

IMO, it's the divide between the informed and uninformed OWS protester.

Ain't that the truth! Coming from an occupy protester, you're absolutely correct. I've talked to some people there who think Obama is just a good man acting as president, but for the most part people seem to understand that he's a puppet.

I'd say there are at least 3X as many Ron Paul supporters there than Obama supporters, but they're still there. Hell one of our marches looked more like an Obama campaign activity or something like that. It was supposed to be focused on the supercommittee, but the signs used for the highway banner drop said things like "Jobs for all now".

We started out good, with the intention of bringing a petition to all elected officials in the state demanding that they oppose corporate money and legislation that endorses it, but that fell through pretty soon. So like I said, my energy is going towards Ron Pauls campaign, because there is a tangible set of goals that will benefit all Americans.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Dear Rockpuck,

If I've strayed too far off-topic, just give me a slap. I thought that with the bank bailouts, General Motors, General Electric, Solyndra, etc., everyone knew that the executive branch had become more beholden to corporations than ever before.

Are you telling me that OWS doesn't recognize that? If they don't, how can anyone take seriously their position on anything?

Thank you for solving one problem for me, but that just opens up another.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Actually Obama's HQ in Iowa is being protested more fully than the other candidates. I don't agree with what those two women did because the protesters plan, from what I had read of the action, was that all who chose to participate were supposed to remain outside.

Just FYI, I've got a thread that goes a little further from a CNN article about this:

Occupy Vs Ron Paul (????)

reply to post by Wookiep


I actually think Ron Paul's numbers have steadily gone up since Occupy started not that I'm happy about that side effect, if related.

Please educate these misguided Ron Paul attackers where Rons donations come from:

If anyone questions the source please direct them to this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TupacShakur


I think it depends on the OWS protest. I'm from an extremely Liberal State in one of the most Liberal cities in the country. Here, Obama is a Demi-God .. mere mortals should count it a blessing to catch site of him, let alone kiss the ground he once stood upon. OWS protests here literally are Obama marches, especially when the Unions step up and march (often times with supportive Obama posters). That's why I say most of the OWS supporters I personally know support Obama over Paul. Paul, for as "real" as he is, literally is the anti-Liberal in the sense of being against most welfare programs. I'm sure they'd love someone "real" on the left like the right has Paul .. but no one exists.

reply to post by charles1952

Are you telling me that OWS doesn't recognize that? If they don't, how can anyone take seriously their position on anything?

OWS is different across the country and it has no stance on anything. It also has no opinion or official position on anything or anyone (except that Republicans suck). IMO, for the most part, OWS recognizes the corruption of Government in general .. but only as a symptom, they cannot yet grasp the cause of the corruption. The CAUSE of the corruption is voters. As long as voters continue electing the likes of Boehner, Pelosi, Bachmann and various other corrupt morons we will continue to have corruption. Then there is the lack of term limits which means corrupt politicians become rooted in their position and impossible to move. Even Ron Paul, as much as I like him, should never have been allowed to serve as many terms as he has.

Politicians are corrupt, the executive branch as well, but also the Judicial branch too .. but who's fault is it.. the corrupt politicians, or the people who vote for corrupt politicians?

Occupy protested every single office including Obama.
Is this exciting because it was Paul or the MO?

reply to post by Rockpuck

I think it depends on the OWS protest. I'm from an extremely Liberal State in one of the most Liberal cities in the country. Here, Obama is a Demi-God .. mere mortals should count it a blessing to catch site of him, let alone kiss the ground he once stood upon. OWS protests here literally are Obama marches, especially when the Unions step up and march (often times with supportive Obama posters).

Oh I completely forgot about this, but you just reminded me of it. There are a few college aged kids up there, maybe early/mid twenties, who I've suspected to be huge Obama supporters just based off of what they say about certain issues.

Well they were the main organizers behind an event which consisted of picketing with Union members for an afternoon. The argument was basically "They are working class people who are trying to fight for safer working conditions", so we figured what the hell, let's show that we support average Americans who are just trying to work and support themselves. It turns out this organization was "Honeywell", which was one of the top contributors to the Democratic party in the last election. I just about exploded when I heard that.

Then like I said earlier, one of the banner-drops we had which was supposed to be about the unconstitutional supercomittee had signs saying things like "Jobs for all now", but not a single thing about the supercommittee.

Then another thing just popped into my mind, at a GA a few weeks ago, when discussing the current "Occupy The Iowa Caucus" campaign, it somehow turned into a debate about which candidates we should and shouldn't target. Obviously I was saying we shouldn't go after Ron Paul, because he stands for the people and the Constitution

After discussing that briefly, somehow Obama got tied into it, and this guy is like "Now hold on! Obama has been trying his hardest to make this country a better place, but it's the Republicans fault because they won't let him do anything!" My jaw just about hit the floor. If some people there can't even understand that the president is a banker puppet, then I can't even imagine how clueless the general population is.

The same protesters tried the same thing at a Romney rally



Hahahaha

reply to post by TupacShakur


That's the problem with leaderless movements like this. The same thing happened in a more organized take over of the Tea Party.. the movement went from striving to fire Republicans for breaking promises to the Tea Party Express as a Republican movement to vote in Republicans .. a complete 360.

We need a movement.. with a leader.. set against the two parties for the crimes they've committed against our country. Not hoping they reform. Not hoping they listen to us. Not hoping they just stop doing what they do.. Because they won't. Regardless of who we put in office, the system will not change .. I understand why movements like OWS are hesitant to have a leader.. leaders in this country do nothing but abandon us as soon as their position is secure and sacrifice our wishes to corporate greed.

But sadly, without solid direction .. movements collapse.

reply to post by buni11687


WOW, what an epic fail. She not only attracts little attention, but in the process of arbitrarily chanting, she accidentally runs into something and bonks her head. :shk:

Is that the best the occupy movement can produce? How about going up on stage, and tar and feathering Mitt Romney in front of an audience? How about throwing rotten tomatoes at him and calling him the scumbag he is? Yelling "You are the 1%", then running into something and making yourself look like an idiot? That's the climactic finale of the "Occupy The Iowa Caucus"? :shk:

I mean damn, if people are getting arrested there for little things like this, why not go all out and throw water balloons filled with urine at him? The pathetic futileness of these Occupy The Iowa Caucus "protests" are laughable. I really don't like to badmouth them for at least trying, but seriously, this is weak.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yeah dude, it's been three months now, and as far as I know nothing big has happpened as a result of the protests. I was thinking about making a proposal at the next GA that we come up with a list of the most important issues, and select maybe three main problems with the government/country that we want to fix. Then we can contact other movements, and tell them to do the same, and have some sort of nationwide conference where everybody agrees on what's the most important.

This would fit into the whole leadless aspect, but would still give us a sense of direction. That way, we can say "This is what we are against, and we want these things to change." Otherwise, it's just going to go nowhere, since as far as I know there is not a universal set of grievances that the occupy movement is trying to fix.