@gavemehope

I am off to bed shortly, 4:30AM is early. As I said I work a lot.

I am talking about the framework of the fix, not framing the message; that is different. I can and will help if I can with framing and wording the message but the framework for the fix is what I am working towards. What the actual fix is, shrug, I will leave that up to others once the framework is in place.

--
Nobody Important

I understand I believe that fix solves message. Will brainstorm, not sure if I can say it any better than what you did though. I like it

@gavemehope
@skoalbite

We do not seek to deprive another the benefits of their hard work nor do we seek to escape the responsibility of our actions, we seek the benefits of our own hard work and others be held responsible for their own actions.

We strive only to create the framework for the changes needed to resolve these inequities; so iniquity is no longer based upon one's station in life and that we may be responsible for our own lives so we may feed our families and provide a home for our children.

Thoughts and comments?

--
Nobody Important

@whitefeather

Sorry, it is a work in progress :-) I am using the edit option to much :-) I hope you still agree with what I posted.

--
Nobody Important

@Nobody_Important. I do agree with what you are saying. Sorry a haven't contributed much to the conversation, sometimes it is just as important to sit back and listen. This is where I am at; I'm doing alot of listening. The flow of the converstion is still right where I think it shoud be so I don't have much else to contribute at the moment.
I agree with the responsibility of 'one's own action' and I also think we need to remember not all will understand what we are trying to say due to a lack of education of the words we choose. I always try to put my thoughts in a simple form for all to understand; even if it does make me seem uneducated. (I think I started this years ago because I am around alot of very young children) What I have to say when I say it I want everyone to understand it. That is just who I am. Even though you edited your post I still support it. I just wanted to add my support to using a language all can understand. :-)

@whitefeather

You cannot have a meaningful discussion with somebody if you use words they do not fully understand. This is called talking over somebody instead of talking with the individual. I tried to use words that have essentially a single meaning and words where the meaning was clearly defined.

In this way, the meaning cannot be misconstrued or bastardized by those that would seek to mislead the public into believing we are nut jobs.

I hope I accomplished this.

--
Nobody Important

@whitefeather

I apologize, I handled your post badly. I should never have said anything other than, please, post your comments because I want to hear what you have to say.

--
Nobody Important

@Nobody_Important. You are fine. In the original post you mentioned the importance of talking in terms others would understand and I was just agreeing with you and giving my reason why. You do talk with and not over people; one of the reasons I like reading your posts. Most of the participants on this thread do. I was giving my personal opinion as to why I write/talk in simple terms. I don't think you handled my post badly. Thats all. :-)

I managed to make his a single paragraph. Here it is for your critique:

We do not seek to deprive others the benefits of their hard work nor do we seek to escape the responsibility of our own actions when we strive to create framework to resolve gross inequities that are based soley upon one’s privilege or station in life. Instead, we seek only the benefit of our own hard work and that others be held responsible for their actions; so that we may be responsible for our lives and provide food and a home for our children.

--
Nobody Important

@very professionally done, and it says it in a very nice way. I have a not so nice approach drafted up, I have refrained from posting right now. Kinda like that article but much more simple words and a bit more colorful. The cold truth. I believe you have worded this correctly, as condensed as it can be.
You could add at the end something about securing the future of, due to corruption of our gov leading to the unjust laws and practices that got us here, and continue today. Or something like that unless that makes the paragraph to long or something. I think that is where much of the concern lies. If you want to read what I had to say about that I can message you it. I know you are busy thanks for the work it is very nicely done.

I might offer a different approach to the same idea:

We have no interest in taking anything rightfully earned, but they have a profound interest in causing you to believe we do. We are not overwhelmed by our own problems. We are overwhelmed by the problems of this nation. Again, they have a profound interest in causing you to believe the reverse is true. We are not merely standing about, we are standing up to those who made it legal to buy the Government and then bought it. We are legion, and we are against all odds.

@skoalbite you bring up an important point. Maybe nobody could make that his second paragraph. It is good to point these things out. What do you guys think ?

Should we say anything about not wanting to overthrow capitalism or promote discredited revolutionary social changes? There's that guy in the article who thinks we're protesting against banks and money.

Greetings,

My thoughts would be to keep this non-confrontational. Speak without offending. This is also something that even the 1% cannot fault and want for themselves.

A slight variation.

We seek not to deprive others the benefits of their work nor do we seek to escape the responsibility of our actions while we strive to construct the framework that resolves gross inequities that are based solely upon one’s privilege or station in life. Instead, we seek only the benefit of our own hard work and that others be held responsible for their acts; so we may be responsible for our lives and provide food and homes for our children.

--
Nobody Important

I agree with Nobody's approach, but I would suggest "reconstruct" or "restore" the framework, rather than "construct". We already have a framework in place- the American economy. This isnt a nitpick- I just think it's important to address the perception that we're a bunch of radical anarchists. Meanwhile leave open the extent to which the framework needs restoration- some of us do in fact support radical new models.

@ demarquis I think that is covered there in the first sentence. I don't think we see nitpicking your opinion is needed

@nobody important. Ya that's what I had in mind for this non confrontational statement. Responsible or accountable.

As far as them not faulting or wanting for themselves. Reality forces me to question if that is possible, non the less it may be the correct approach.

@DeMarquis

Let's give a shot and see what message it conveys to the readers. I try to use terms that are non-specific to a point because I figure everybody can determine what is meant by construct and framework.

We seek not to deprive others the benefits of their work nor do we seek to escape the responsibility of our actions while we strive to construct the reconstruct/restore the American economy and resolves the gross inequities that are based solely upon one’s privilege or station in life. Instead, we seek only the benefit of our own hard work and that others be held accountable/responsible for their acts; so we may be responsible for our lives and provide food and homes for our children.

@gavemehope

accountable seems confrontational in that it accuses the individual(s) of wrong doing.

I truly believe that .9999999999 of people want want is best for their children and want them to eat and have a home. The use of this includes the homeless as well because there are starving children in this country and homeless children.

--
Nobody Important

@skoalbite

I might offer this up a bit more palatable so that it too is non-confrontational yet conveys the message you wish to convey.

We have no interest in taking that which was rightfully earned, yet others seem to have an agenda to create the mis-perception that we are attempting to take that which rightfully belongs to those that have earned it; this is a fallacy that flies in the very face of our struggle. Our country's economic woes are overwhelming; not day to day problems, still we do not merely stand about whining about our country's problems but instead, we are demanding to those who purchased our rights through monetary and judiciary means to return to us our rights and our country.

--
Nobody Important

I rewrote it for readability: The point of my revisions is to maintain a mathematically logical structure--the least impeachable form of communication.

We do not seek to deprive others of what they've earned. We do not seek to escape responsibility for our actions. We strive to resolve the injustice of inequality, and to hold responsible those who perpetrate injustices. We seek the benefits of our labor, responsibility for our own lives, food and homes for our children.

We have no interest in taking what we do not rightfully earn, yet others have incentive to create that perception. Our country's economic woes overwhelm our lives, not merely day-to-day problems or laziness. We do not stand idly whining, but instead demand return of our rights to democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly from those who have purchased them.

That we may speak our minds does not constitute freedom of speech if our voices are drowned out by those who own the air. That we may gather under time and place restrictions do not constitute freedom of assembly if we may not gather meaningfully where this country needs us to gather. That we may vote does not constitute democracy when our candidates serve the interests of the highest bidder.

Then this might need some work, or would serve better in a different piece:

This economy arose by groups all to willing to violate the human rights of citizens in other nations, and because we would not and will not allow them to violate ours. This economy arose by consumerism: social status defined exclusively by how much one can acquire and consume. This economy creates only opportunities to serve those who consume and acquire the most. For so long as this is true we will never be free.

@Nobody important. I see your point, but there are facts much undisputed evidence, even so by them, and our government. Billions in securities fraud has occurred , that is still taking it's toll on the world . That is nothing but truth.
That being said, you are correct in the approach, but in my mind the distraction of those things in hopes we forget is still one of the most dangerous problems we face. Not that I expect a paragraph to solve that though.
I am in agreement with both, you and skoalbite now. I like the passive approach that leaves less to attack, but I also like the more straight forward approach, and they have shown they will attack anything.
@nobody's is harder to attack, and is the truth, but they will have to work at it, because it's less confrontational @skoal's way makes it easier to see they are attacking the truth, and has simpler language. Excellent work by both, need some feedback here from everyone, what does everyone think ?
Need to weigh many things here. Is there a way to mold both ? Or do we keep both? Or pick one ? Would like to hear from everyone before I say either way.

This is the sort of project where a wiki-architecture would help.

We have the tools here if everyone is involved, just need constructive opinions from as many possible that have followed this conversation silently or not.

New CBO income inequality report:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america

Hey!

I am glad to see you all take what I wrote and making it your own. If you have to stand behind a statement it is best it be a statement you are invested in. Make this fight yours and own it.

IMHO, if you truly wish to include everybody then you have to make it so everybody can feel invested in the movement. It is no longer an us and them fight, it is a fight to bring about change.

Those people that are honest and have no issue with honest competition should be included in this fight by default and proxy. Those that cannot compete openly or honestly will never get behind any effort to change the system that favors them.

This is your margin, this is your dividing line. Include all those that are honest and you will find some of the 1% are honest. Alienate people by divisive comments and you do a disservice to the rest of those that are fighting for change.

Always keep this in mind when drafting your points.

This is just my opinion.

--
Nobody Important

Was my last draft too divisive?

@skoalbite

It is not up to me to decide, it is what you believe that is important.

An after thought.

This is self-governance, i.e., governing ourselves and our actions.

My post was not a critique of anybody it was merely something I govern myself by.

--
Nobody Important

To all,

There is a lag time from when I am responding to a post to when the post is submitted. At times it may appear I am responding to a post but I am actually responding to another post or respond to a thread or an idea.

It is not my intent to give any the impression that I am in any way or fashion any leader in any group. I am a leader of one, myself. I am glad some might find something useful in what I post but I am not trying to lead anything or any one.

Each of you should trust in yourself that you are doing what you think is right. Those that are not doing the "right" thing know it.

I hope my intentions are understood that I am just helping with this effort and not trying to co-opt it for my own agenda; something I try very hard to keep out of the discussions.

--
Nobody Important

There is also another rule I use. If I can either turn my opponent's weapon against him or remove the weapon I do so.

What weapon does the media use? That we are not a coherent force, we have no message, we are violent, we want to take everything from everybody else....

Take this away from them. Show we are non-violent, non-envious, have a singular message even if that message is non-specific and lastly, show there is a "we".

--
Nobody Important

@nobody important. I understand your position fully. Having a strong opinion on anything is good and it is impossible to feel like it doesn't lead too much in a conversation, when clearly there is no intention of leading. I just think your views bring balance to others and is needed. I posed a question to you in the message area, that deal with some divisive issues, If you have time.

@skoalbite I don't think so, but this is the discussion that needs to occur, no Skoal I think he may have been some unrelated comments of mine he was referring to, I will include you too if you want

Point in case. Look at the lengths some will go
http://www.politicususa.com/en/right-smear-scott-olsen

But your right maybe not confronting it will work. Instead of letting them lead with pure BS, keep the attention focused on what we talk about. Too bad we didn't have our own media outlet. Not intended to be sarcastic, intended to be literal.