Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:"Pieces of filth".

"Vermin."

Some interesting choices and views here.

And rightly so. Don't claim to represent me.

God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down. Finally we might be able to get something done around here. I mean the greatest generation gave us a whole new generation of money grubbers set to bleed the system dry. All in an effort to willfully vote against their own self intrest cause someday they too may be "rich".

As always class act frazmataz

God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down

Are we not a product from those generations?

Dakkadan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:"Pieces of filth".

"Vermin."

Some interesting choices and views here.

And rightly so. Don't claim to represent me.

God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down. Finally we might be able to get something done around here. I mean the greatest generation gave us a whole new generation of money grubbers set to bleed the system dry. All in an effort to willfully vote against their own self intrest cause someday they too may be "rich".

As always class act frazmataz

You think I'm a baby boomer?

CptJake wrote:

dsteingass wrote:I wonder about these so-called scientific approval rating numbers. In order to use the Scientific Method you need to have a sample from the population to poll, where do they get their samples? Who are the samples?

Did you just skip the link provided? A link to the results from that link gives http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_11161023.pdf and has some of the info, and their website has more info on their methods.

No I read it, An automated telephone ballot system, in 2011. How can you possibly know that and still consider this study to be factual?

Jihadin wrote:

God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down

Are we not a product from those generations?

Nope I was raised by my grandparents. My baby Boomer parents were too busy seeking out the American dream to be parents. As so many other baby boomers chose to do as well judging by the choked Foster kid programs all over when I was a kid. My theory is baby boomers are most of what's wrong with this country. I could be wrong but since frazzled was generalizing a whole group of people I thought I'd give it a go as well.

@Frazzled no I don't think you're a baby Boomer (actually I hadn't considered it). I don't wish you would die of old age really. I was trying to find the silliest comparison generalization that I could. Not to say that I think you should die of old age.

Frazzled wrote:
You think I'm a baby boomer?

Actually I could kind of see that too. To be fair, you do perpetuate the belief that you were old.

Prior to this comment, I kind of just pictured you being some infirm guy in nursing home somewhere, convinced that "the War" never ended.

Dakkadan wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down

Are we not a product from those generations?

Nope I was raised by my grandparents. My baby Boomer parents were too busy seeking out the American dream to be parents. As so many other baby boomers chose to do as well judging by the choked Foster kid programs all over when I was a kid. My theory is baby boomers are most of what's wrong with this country. I could be wrong but since frazzled was generalizing a whole group of poeple I thought I'd give it a go as well.

Baby boomers are mostly what's wrong with this country because the baby boomers are in charge now. The hippies and riot police are leading the country now, too bad its mostly the hippies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You think I'm a baby boomer?

Actually I could kind of see that too. To be fair, you do perpetuate the belief that you were old.

Prior to this comment, I kind of just pictured you being some infirm guy in nursing home somewhere, convinced that "the War" never ended.

Frazzled fights his own war, The War of Dachshund Oppression is a constant war that Frazzled bravely faces so that we don't have to.

halonachos wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down

Are we not a product from those generations?

Nope I was raised by my grandparents. My baby Boomer parents were too busy seeking out the American dream to be parents. As so many other baby boomers chose to do as well judging by the choked Foster kid programs all over when I was a kid. My theory is baby boomers are most of what's wrong with this country. I could be wrong but since frazzled was generalizing a whole group of poeple I thought I'd give it a go as well.

Baby boomers are mostly what's wrong with this country because the baby boomers are in charge now. The hippies and riot police are leading the country now, too bad its mostly the hippies.

I actually believe money leads our country and that generally if you've somehow attained the millions upon millions in corporate donations required to run for and win office...you've already b een bought be you R or D.

We haven't had any crazy news out of our local Occupy Oklahoma City protest. But of course this being Oklahoma we don't protest as "hardcore" as others.

Every march and protest has permits, and activities are coordinated with OKC PD to make sure everyone involved is safe.

I also highly credit the Oklahoma City Police with being a decent group of folks.

The Oklahoman wrote:It is against city ordinances to stay overnight in the park and use tents, but the city and local Occupy leadership reached an agreement to let the protesters stay there around the clock as long as they pay permit fees, keep the park clean and follow other rules, Assistant Oklahoma City Manager M.T. Berry said Wednesday.
.........
Oklahoma City police Master Sgt. Gary Knight said officers have no plans to move protesters out of the park.

An 18-year-old man was found dead in the park on Oct. 31. His cause of death remains under investigation, but no foul play is suspected. A friend of his was arrested on drug possession charges.

“It's important to note that the Occupy OKC movement has been a peaceful one,” Knight said.

“We have maintained an open avenue of communication with the group, and they have done a good job ensuring that their demonstration has remained peaceful. And to their credit, they have kept the park clean.”

Wait the OKC protest follows the law? Is there no shanty town? mellisa told us that the shanty town is essential to protest! HOW CAN IT BE SO?!

AustonT wrote:Wait the OKC protest follows the law? Is there no shanty town? mellisa told us that the shanty town is essential to protest! HOW CAN IT BE SO?!

Well, I guess there technically could be, unless being there 'illegally" is an integral part of being a shanty town. But they have set up a permanent campsite in the park, porta-poties were delivered, and so forth.

AustonT wrote:Wait the OKC protest follows the law? Is there no shanty town? mellisa told us that the shanty town is essential to protest! HOW CAN IT BE SO?!

They negotiated a special exception to the tent rule with the city in advance. So it's as good as legal.

Street Peot died there....I'm....depress.....oh well.."uses water cannon to wash away the body"

I think "dude with a water cannon" would be a good feature to add to most waterparks.

"Water cannon Tritium"....repeatedly

In all fairness, I think operating a water cannon against rioters would be pretty fun too.

Here's the problem with picking three key issues and sticking with them. Then, you are no longer a cipher, a big tent with all things for all people. You lose a base of support because you just narrowed your own focus.

Secondly, once you have 3 key points, everybody has an easy ability to attack you. By simply having an anti-corruption theme, you keep a wide tent and keep the focus on corruption instead of constantly defending your position. Is anyone really out there Pro-corruption?

You see, if OWS goes mainstream and creates their own party, etc. they are just buying into the same-old-same old status quo process. If you believe that system is corrupted by the top 1% why would you use the system your opponent created to attack them? You are playing to their strenghts and not yours. That is never a good idea. If the playing field you are on is not level, you have to change the playing field.

That's what OWS effectively did. Notice, the media is actually giving a bit of lip service to income inequality and the hourglass economy, and the focus isn't all ont he super comittee and deficits anymore. The SuperComittee itself is just a hang-over from the summer of deficeit talk, before OWS came about. The narratives in Washington and the Media are beginning to change.

The narratives in Washington and the Media are beginning to change.

Think so. Quite a few politician verbaly support the move at the beginning before it self inflected itself. Good idea, good move, and good enthausiasm. Piss poor planning, lack of organization, lack of maturity, lack of common F'ing sense....woops...um....Was a good protest at first..now a majority of everyone waiting for the hammer to drop. Like watching a NASCAR race. Waiting to see a good accident

Easy E wrote:
Here's the problem with picking three key issues and sticking with them. Then, you are no longer a cipher, a big tent with all things for all people.

Problem?

No dude, that's the GOAL. NOTHING hurts a protest more than being a vague conglomerate of random anger. You DO NOT WANT to be a big tent.

Easy E wrote:
Secondly, once you have 3 key points, everybody has an easy ability to attack you. By simply having an anti-corruption theme, you keep a wide tent and keep the focus on corruption instead of constantly defending your position. Is anyone really out there Pro-corruption?

What? No that's ridiculous. You need to stand your ground and talk about your position. What you are basically saying is "but when we choose one thing, we can't be evasive about our positions anymore :( "

Complaining that you don't want to actually have a public position because people will attack it makes it sound like you KNOW your position is wrong.

This stuff is like protesting 101.

daedalus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You think I'm a baby boomer?

Actually I could kind of see that too. To be fair, you do perpetuate the belief that you were old.

Prior to this comment, I kind of just pictured you being some infirm guy in nursing home somewhere, convinced that "the War" never ended.

You're making it worse when you think baby boomers are old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Here's the problem with picking three key issues and sticking with them. Then, you are no longer a cipher, a big tent with all things for all people.

Problem?

No dude, that's the GOAL. NOTHING hurts a protest more than being a vague conglomerate of random anger. You DO NOT WANT to be a big tent.

Easy E wrote:
Secondly, once you have 3 key points, everybody has an easy ability to attack you. By simply having an anti-corruption theme, you keep a wide tent and keep the focus on corruption instead of constantly defending your position. Is anyone really out there Pro-corruption?

What? No that's ridiculous. You need to stand your ground and talk about your position. What you are basically saying is "but when we choose one thing, we can't be evasive about our positions anymore :( "

Complaining that you don't want to actually have a public position because people will attack it makes it sound like you KNOW your position is wrong.

This stuff is like protesting 101.

Indeed, if you can't pick a few key points, then you're just a street festival. An angry, smelly street festival.

It's like oh wah wah wah, people will attack and nitpick my position if I actually stand up and express it, oh woe is me.

No dude, that's called the big leagues. Welcome to them.

Frazzled wrote:

You're making it worse when you think baby boomers are old.

On the assumption that I was likely wrong, I looked it up:

Wikipedia wrote:A baby boomer is a person who was born during the demographic Post-World War II baby boom and who grew up during the period between 1946 and 1964.

So between the age of 47-65? Maybe not THAT old at the lower end of the band, but the upper, certainly.

no boomer I!!!

I got misty eye after that...I was a kid then to

Protest 101... thanks for enlightening me guys.

Let's see, the TEA party just didn't want their taxes spent to bail out other homeowners. That's what the CNBC guy (who's name escapes me) was ranting about, the rant heard around the world. Now let's look at the Tea Parties positions. Huh, I guess they didn't stick with their core issues either and broadened out to be a big tent too.

If you don't know what OWS stands for now, you are willfully being ignorant or stupid. I think you all know exactly what the issue is, but you are actually okay with the current system because it benefits you. Fine, and I can understand that. You have a vested interest in things staying the way they are now. Cool. I should too, but I'm just stupid and empathetic.

The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in. They have provided insight to people who follow political issues, now they have to inspire commitment from large numbers of largely non-political people. Building a plan is still a long way off. If you jump past providing insight and gaining commitment too early, you will fail to make change.

If you don't know what OWS stands for now, you are willfully being ignorant or stupid.
***Enlighten us progs, what do they stand for?

think you all know exactly what the issue is, but you are actually okay with the current system because it benefits you.
***Its just that angry college kids who don't bathe don't inspire me to do anything except demand they shut up or get a job.

Fine, and I can understand that. You have a vested interest in things staying the way they are now. Cool. I should too, but I'm just stupid and empathetic.
***No, OWS just never expressed a clear point other than Bankers ...EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! and something about tents.


The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in.
***Good luck with that. Ancient Buddha say if you don't bathe they won't follow you.

They have provided insight to people who follow political issues,
***No they haven't. They're aq polyglot of causes. Its like going to a combination of mazi/commie/militia/hippy free love convention. That aint inspiring. that aint .

Frazzled wrote:If you don't know what OWS stands for now, you are willfully being ignorant or stupid.
***Enlighten us progs, what do they stand for?

That main street is hurting and the current system isn't doing much to help. When Wall Street was hurting, the current system did a LOT to help. The current system is not working for them, so they want to change it.

Frazzled wrote:think you all know exactly what the issue is, but you are actually okay with the current system because it benefits you.
***Its just that angry college kids who don't bathe don't inspire me to do anything except demand they shut up or get a job.

Fine. To bad they aren't all college kids, just like the TEA party isn't all old white guys.

Frazzled wrote:Fine, and I can understand that. You have a vested interest in things staying the way they are now. Cool. I should too, but I'm just stupid and empathetic.
***No, OWS just never expressed a clear point other than Bankers ...EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! and something about tents.

They expressed the idea that somethign isn't right in the system. Therefore, they want to change the system.

Frazzled wrote:The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in.
***Good luck with that. Ancient Buddha say if you don't bathe they won't follow you.

If you are concerned about their welfare and hygiene there are plenty of places you can go to donate water, food, toothbrushes, etc to the cause. I appreciate your concern for the protesters welfare.

Frazzled wrote:They have provided insight to people who follow political issues,
***No they haven't. They're aq polyglot of causes. Its like going to a combination of mazi/commie/militia/hippy free love convention. That aint inspiring. that aint .

Yes they are a polygot, because they are a group of people, not cloned idealogues. However, what one thing unites them all? The system is not working for them, so they want to change it.

Easy E wrote:
The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in.

That's not strictly true. Effective initiatives for political change (protests, revolutions, whatever) generally start with a core group of people who have a specific agenda in mind. There people then work to communicate their agenda to more people, hopefully motivating them to action. You don't simply stir up resentment with respect to the system without first presenting a coherent, alternative vision. If you do you run the risk having your work co-opted by political opportunists (this happened, to some extent, with the Tea Party, and is happening to OWS), which ultimately leads to, at best, a broken political movement and at worst an especially messy transition.

Easy E wrote:
They have provided insight to people who follow political issues, now they have to inspire commitment from large numbers of largely non-political people.

I've not seen much insight in anything done by any member of OWS. Its anti-corporatist, which is nice, but no more insightful (or important) than the Adbusters magazine that initially inspired the movement. In fact, I would argue that OWS has largely failed to communicate a message of any significance to people that follow political issues, and has instead skipped straight to what you call the "inspire commitment" phase; which is largely why its such a mess.

Frazzled wrote:Enlighten us progs, what do they stand for?

Its pretty clearly anti-corporatist.

daedalus wrote:

Prior to this comment, I kind of just pictured you being some infirm guy in nursing home somewhere, convinced that "the War" never ended.

This is progress though. This time last year he was disputing the result of the Battle of Bosworth field.

Baby steps and all that.

Easy E wrote:
That main street is hurting and the current system isn't doing much to help. When Wall Street was hurting, the current system did a LOT to help. The current system is not working for them, so they want to change it.

Actually, and herein lies part of the problem, it seems that the current system is working for the majority of people in OWS; it simply isn't working as well as it is for the especially wealthy. The people that really get screwed by the system, the working poor, don't seem to be a major component of the movement.

To some extent that's alright, as the majority of political movements are predicated on disenfranchisement among the less wealthy, as opposed to the poor. But its a difficult sell in the United States, for a number of reasons.

dogma wrote:
Its pretty clearly anti-corporatist.

Yea but are talking cool, beret wearing cigarette smoking anti corporatist, or more of the ragey Chavista type?