> I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result. No. You didn't: > "The 'Occupy' movement is a sinking ship

> I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result. No. You didn't: > "The 'Occupy' movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage." You said the movement is literally an incoherent expression of rage. And not only did you claim OWS was run by someone, which is wrong, you said it was anarchists, which is a contradiction. > If anything you're the one guilty of baseless slander, as if every member of the military was a racist war criminal. Not at all. That's accurate. Well, they may not all be racists - some may merely be okay supporting racists. But they're all war criminals, except maybe Bradley Manning. Soldiers aren't just allowed to protest and refuse to follow illegal orders, they're required to do so. The war against Afghanistan was clearly under false pretenses as there wasn't a good reason to believe Osama was doing anything other than passing through Afghanistan if he was there at all, and the war against Iraq was under false pretenses as there obviously (even in the beginning) were no WMDs and the USA had been forgiving of Saddam's murderous purges in the past. Now suddenly Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet and they want to attack someone. Anyone who knew anything, which is a moral prerequisite for picking up a gun and killing someone, knew the wars were a sham. All good soldiers deserted, refused to fight, leaked documents, or otherwise sabotaged the war effort. Everyone else involved, from cook to gunner, is guilty of aiding and abetting wholesale murder. It's the standard we applied to the Nazis and we were right to do so. > If anything, you're only demonstrating my point about OWS not being the kind of people to make a political coalition with. Absolutely. An non-organization like OWS can't be bribed into supporting anything odious. They'd never support a coalition because nobody could guarantee they wouldn't attack their "partner" if that organization acted contrary to any given OWS-member's interests. You'd want a more "politically savvy" group, and a strict organization which would kick out misbehaving members so that they'd toe the party line, to partner with.