It is more like protesting a military defeat at the Pentagon, if the people doing it had also lost friends and family in the "ripples" from selfish, misguided, delusional and irresponsible policies created there, and justifiably demanded accountability for it no longer be denied. MacArthur claimed the Bonus Army were communists trying to overthrow the government, too (despite many of them having fought and bled for it in the Great War;) that was how he "justified" driving tanks over their children. Sorry, no sale, and my expectation you will defend MacArthur on the grounds he WAS driving tanks over communist children, and therefore justified, just illustrates how pointless this conversation is.

Wow; "the victor is never asked if he told the truth" followed by an indictment of the Selma march. Your Grand Dragon must be very proud.

By most accounts it was very much like the National Guard marched in and started randomly gunning down hippies. There had been a case of arson on previous days, and some instances of protestors throwing rocks at Guardsmen and police (assuming they were actual protestors and not an armed FBI infiltrator like the one who testified at the official inquiry,) but on there was not even mild violence against police or Guardsmen on the day of the shooting. The Guardsmen were well out of thrown-rock range when they knelt down as a group and opened fire, but the protesters were unfortunately not out of rifle range. History remembers them as wrongdoers for the simple fact that they were, but the biased will never ask his partisans if they told the truth either, nor deign to acknowledge facts well documented by witnesses on both sides of the actual events.

Well, thank God Richard Daleys draconian tactics spared Chicago violence and bloodshed in the '60s (and we will just pretend the '68 DNC never happened. )

This nation was founded by a bunch of malcontents whose secret societies convened to declare treason against their lawful government, a founding their militant secret society gave action by shooting their way through the army to seize a government munitions depot.

It is good to see though that you "remember" all the times I have cited Adams' passionate, eloquent and well reasoned arguments against capital punishment in his Boston Massacre defence; pity you remembered the point so poorly. In this case, the most relevant part is the extensive time Adams devoted to Boston demonstrators throwing rocks and snowballs at the soldiers, whether that reasonably constituted a threat, whether that threat was mortal and whether the soldiers responded reasonably. In the end, six of the soldiers were acquitted because it could not be proven they fired into the crowd, but the two proven to have fired into the crowd were convicted, avoiding death only by invoking the already archaic benefit of clergy that exempted priests from execution and treated demonstration of literacy as proof one was a clergyman. In other words, the soldiers who fired, despite having had rocks thrown at them, were judged guilty of a crime deserving death, which penalty they escaped only through an antiquated legal loophole. That corresponds to Henry Knox (later Washingtons Secy. of War and the man for whom the famous fort is named) earnestly told the British commander on the scene: "For God's sake, take care of your men. If they fire, you must die." Of the demonstration itself, Adams is widely quoted to have said three years later, "On the night of March 5, 1770, the foundation of American independence was laid." Thus Adams himself explicitly disputes your statement that the US was not founded by those demonstrators and, as with the death penalty, I trust his objectivity and judgement far more than yours.

This is another of those cases where dismissing one group of demonstrators for no more reason than that they demonstrate is rank hypocrisy when accompanied by admiration for a different group of demonstrators that founded ones nation. OWS is not even plotting treason (so far as I know; frankly, I would not put it past many of them, but that is a separate issue from their right to protest itself) so I hardly see how their behavior is any more despicable than that of Hancock or Washington at the Continental Congress. Ones personal feelings about one group versus the other should have no bearing on ones feelings about the right of both to demonstrate; one is as legitimate (or not) as the other.